this was a thread on my old message boards "Have Theology, Will Argue" (from 2004). I was reading through and found it interesting.I thought to re do it into an essay, but I think it's better with the original comments and responses to them left in.
Reity = the ultimate necessary state of affairs, ultimate reality).
Deicision Paradigm:
Modus Ponens
If p than q,
P, therefore, p.
If Riety, then God.
Riety, therefore, God.
There must be some ultimate state of affiars, and since nothingness as a Putative State of Affairs (PSA) is impossilbe, than the there must be a state of reity such that "something" is the ultimate state of affiars.Since the most basic defintion of God is "the ground of understanding" (Flew)whatever is at the top of the metaphycial hierarchy, than whatever is the ultimate state of affiars is by deftion in a position to function as God in that methaphysical ecnonomy in which it exists.
.
Argument:
1) God is Synonimous with the State of Riety.
The Concept of God functions as Riety in any metaphysical system: God is the Transendental Signifer, the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks,the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs, ultimate reality
2) Nothingness as a putative state of affairs is impossible.
a)Marked by its own contradiction (Reity is something so it can't be total nothingness).
b)Nothingness would be a timless state, thus no change, no cause, no becoming.
c) Contradicts everything in our experience and no reason to think it would be.
3) Some Eternal state of Affiars has to have always been.
a) If nothingness as PSA is impossible, than some state eternal state of affairs had to always exist.(law of excluded middle).
b) Being cannot, therefore, be merely possible but must be ontologically necessary.
4) Since The concept of God and the reality of Riety fit the same defitions we should asssume they share the same identity.
5) Therefore, God is the state of Riety, and must therefore exist.
Asiety:
(Latin: a, from; se, self)
The property by which a being exists of and from self, a property belonging to God alone, who exists without other cause than Himself, who is independent and self-sufficient; regarded by many Fathers and theologians as the best way of expressing the very essence of God.
New Catholic Dictionary - Catholic Encyclopedia; Pohle.Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, Saint Louis, 1921 (ed.)
www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetic...OfGod.html
from
From the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (ISBN 0-8010-2151-0)
Aseity (Self-Existence). Most classical theists see God's Aseity or Pure Existence as a key attribute. The early church fathers, as well as Augustine (354-430), Anselm (1033-1109), and Aquinas, continually cite the Bible in support of this position. In defending God's self-existence (aseity) classical theists such as Aquinas are fond of citing Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." This they understand to refer to God as Pure Being or Existence.
Now of course one might ask:What do you mean "ultimate state of affairs", and where have you established it "must be"?
The skeptic might charge that God is a loaded term: If the definition of "God" is "whatever is the ultimate state of affairs", then perhaps we are not even arguing for that which we believe "God" to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the argument doesn't depend upon any particular PSA (putative state of affiars), other than the fact that it can't be nothingness. It works just as well if a singularity or no bounded condition. The problem, therefore, works itself out to be that we haven't really said anything. God is just "whatever there is." That would just produce a fairly tautologial statment. Whatever is the case is the case. Why say that? You can't disagree with it, but that's what I'm saying. The first state of the uinverse whatever that is. But let's be clear about one thing. I am not saying that the state of affairs would be God. I am saying only that such a state of something rather than nothing is indicative of God.
Nevertheless, the fact reamains that we can only discuss whether this is a valid argument if there is some intelligible conclusion that we are arguing for. To have an argument, one needs to have sentences which express propositions. If there is just a meaningless jumble of words, then there is no argument to address and no conclusion who truth can actually be debated. But there is a difference in providing a meaningful conclusion and having to spell out matters which are beyond the basic scope of the arugment. Many sketpics have compalined about not understanding my rguments without really having a valid objection to them other than their own lack of knolwedge. such is the case with the transcendental signifier argument.
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me. How about others here? Do you have any notion of what any of those terms might possibly mean?
These terms mean something to Derrida, and Rorty, and Heidegger, and Husseral and half the academic world, so you are just going to have to come up to speed.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.
I know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.
see my TS argument.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.
SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 149
(4/8/04 8:58 am)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?
Meta
I know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.
see my TS argument.
[/quote]
Can you give a definition of any of those terms here?
SRB
Metacrock
Posts: 135
(4/10/04 3:11 am)
64.12.116.132
Edit Del
ezSupporter
Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which terms?
But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right? So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier? What is hard about that? The Uber Mench,the world soul, the zeit geuist, God, the dialectic, the Atmon, those are all exampels. What's hard about that?
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.
Edited by: Metacrock at: 4/10/04 3:14 am
SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 152
(4/10/04 5:26 pm)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?
Meta
which terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and yes.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?
SRB
Edited by: SRB7 at: 4/11/04 3:05 am
Metacrock
Posts: 140
(4/11/04 1:06 pm)
205.188.116.199
Edit Del
ezSupporter
Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?
Meta
which terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.
Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.
like God.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and yes.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?
then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.
SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 154
(4/11/04 2:52 pm)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.
Meta
Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly lean towards the view that those four terms are all meaningless gibberish. According to you, are they supposed to each mean the same thing, or are they supposed to mean different things?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?
SRB
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?
Meta
then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?
What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?
As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."
SRB
Edited by: SRB7 at: 4/11/04 2:54 pm
Metacrock
Posts: 141
(4/13/04 4:12 pm)
64.12.116.73
Edit Del
ezSupporter
Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.
Meta
Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB: I strongly lean towards the view that those four terms are all meaningless gibberish. According to you, are they supposed to each mean the same thing, or are they supposed to mean different things?[/quote]
[fon color=lightskyblue]you are alone in that opinon. Those are all excepted terms. The whole Derrridan project of the 80s and 90s was based upon using the term Tanscendental sgnifier. I think that is a sig of ingorance, not to know the major terms and not to be able to accept them as valid terms.[/font]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?
SRB
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?
Meta
then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EzCode Parsing Error: color=lightskyblue]would you waste your time discussing auto mechanics with some one said thigs like "well I dont' accept 'exhuast pipe' as a valid term. I accept that an inatek manifold might be a car part, but where does an inatek manifold go? Does it go in the trunck so you can take things into the trunk? That's about the level on which you are dealing here.
anyone's metaphyscal hieararchy as to have a frst principle watever that may be.An any suh 1st princpel is a Transcendental signifier. I can tell you where put your hedge hogs. and in[/font]
What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?
As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."
SRB
[fon color=lightskyblue]if that' what you want to call it. I have another term for it.[
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.
No comments:
Post a Comment