Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and linguistic style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't even in my vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves in different phraseology and use different words and that not everyone expresses themselves in YOUR style of expression.
Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an argument has been around for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum ad antiquitatem]. There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies, and etc. Doesn't mean a thing. Your reasons - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such discussions belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is no empirical or logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain amount of speculation'. WHAT????? It is ALL speculation and it remains a 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466. And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis]. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Helmut Raulien ; [email protected] ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing? ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as almost impossible, rather than just plain impossible? ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I have reasons for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have reasons for believing that God is not real. We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position is more rationally justified. ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. I don't. The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of the pre-univese. Edwina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
