Hey Ham, > [Platt, previously]: > > Your uncreated Creator is self-contradictory and > > therefore illogical. So it cannot be the basis of a > > rational argument. Strike One. > > [Ham]: > > What is "self-contradictory" about an uncreated creator? > > Surely it makes more sense than unrealized Quality or > > an evolving universe with nothing to create it. (Foul ball.) > > [Platt]: > > It's an assertion created by Ham that denies creation -- > > like the multiculturist who asserts all views are equal > > except those that contradict his multiculturist view. > > Strike One as called.
[Ham] > First of all, the concept of an uncreated creator was not "created by Ham" > but has figured prominently in philosophical thinking since the prophet > Zoroaster (5th century BC) who taught that there is one universal and > transcendental God, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is > ultimately directed. The Judeo-Christian God is also described as > "eternal", which means having neither a beginning nor an end, hence > "uncreated". [Platt] That others have engaged in the same self-contradictory assertions doesn't change the fact that the assertions are self-contradictory. An uncreated Creator is by definition a creation. [Ham] > You might find Phillip Johnson's review of a recent book by Del Ratzsch of > interest. (The book is titled "A review of The Battle of the Beginnings: > Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", and I quote > from > Johnson's review posted at http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm > .) > > "Unless we have a priori knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot > rule out the possibility that supernatural action may have affected the > history of life, and that evidence of that action may exist. Ratzsch > similarly rejects Richard Dawkins' argument that reference to a creator in > science as the source of biological complexity is logically pernicious > because it leaves the creator unexplained. Every explanation has an > unexplained starting point. A theistic science starts with an uncreated > creator; a naturalistic science starts with something like particles and > natural laws, and goes on from there. If living organisms -- up to and > including human minds -- can be created by unintelligent material > processes, > then the need for a creator (at least after the ultimate beginning) is > greatly lessened if not eliminated. But the "if" that begins that > sentence > can be satisfied only by evidence, not by defining "science" to exclude > any > other possibility." [Platt] No doubt science comes a cropper when it tries to explain beginnings. It latches onto determinism with a vengeance, but becomes all wimpy when asked to explain what caused the Big Bang or how life emerged from swamp mud. Logic too melts at beginnings, tumbling into infinite regress without even trying. So I'm led to believe, "Something else is going on, I know not what." [Platt] > > From your book "Seizing the Essence, page 35. "In truth, > > nothing can be said to exist that is not capable of being > > experienced." -- emphasized by italics. Your uncreated > > Creator is transcendent, i.e., incapable of being experienced. > > Therefore, by your own assertion, it cannot exist. > > Strike Two as called. [Ham] > There is nothing contradictory here. In the context you refer to, I was > talking about the physical universe --"our image of the world" and the > nature of IT's > reality. Like Bodvar, you fail to distinguish Essence from Existence > which > is defined in my Glossary as "...the pluralistic physical world that is > localized in time and space by intellectualized experience." Conversely, > Essence is defined as "the ultimate, unconditional source and/or > 'whatness' > of reality," Essentialism is "the philosophy that Essence is the > necessary > _a priori_ source and ultimate end of all existence". [Platt] So does Essence exist or not? To quote a familiar philanderer, I guess, "It depends on what your definition of is, is." :-) [Platt] > > What phenomenon in your subjective consciousness > > led you to believe in the existence of a transcendent > > (non-phenomenal) uncreated Creator? Knuckle ball > > for Strike Three. [Ham] > No phenomenon but metaphysical insight and the realization that nothing > comes from nothing (Parmenides' "Ex nihilo nihil fit"). Incidentally, I > would have to assume that Pirsig regarded his Quality as "uncreated" > inasmuch as it gives rise to the emerging patterns of existence. [Platt} Well my logic tells me there must be nothing for there to be something. Pirsig's Quality is undefined so it remains neither created or uncreated. In that respect it's like Beauty. We know it exists because it is an experience, but be damned if we can define it. All we can do is say, "See for yourself." [Platt] > > A biologist's "Shazam" is his exclamation at witnessing > > a miracle, the same sort of reaction your may have had > > when you created the notion of an uncreated Creator. > > It's equivalent to "Eureka" and "Oops." [Ham} > Unless the biologist is referring to the "miracle of Life", as a scientist > he/she has but one unexplained mystery to solve: How did the universe > begin? > The Big Bang was not produced by nothingness, so either the universe is > eternal or its creator is. [Platt] Yes indeed -- the "miracle of life" is an apt description of the phenomenon that elicits the biologist's "Shazam." And, as indicated above, the cause of the Big Bang is a mystery to science. For me the answer falls into the category of, "Something else is going on." I like Wittgenstein's statement: "Whereof one of cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Or as aptly summed up by my late father, "I love a tree." But since I enjoy our conversations so much, silence becomes impossible. . Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
