Jon, Edwina, list,
I guess that the question whether there is God or not leads to the assumtion that there is God: Given that there is no God, everything has evolved by itself, but this self-creation requires a mechanism, which is intelligent, i.e. may be called "person", and the term "self" too implies a person, so what more do we need to assume a personal God? But the problem whith the assumption of nothing is, that if at the beginning there was nothing, then either there was not only nothing, but nothing and God, or the nothing has the capability to evolve into something, but then there was not nothing alone, but nothing and its capability, which may be called God. So, either way you look at it, a sole nothing at the beginning is not possible. So, if we want to stick with a beginning, this beginning state cannot be nothing, but eg. Tohu Va Bohu, which in the german edition of the bible is falsely translated with "oed und leer" (barren and empty), but more likely means some creative chaos. But why should, at any time, there have been only this Tohu Va Bohu, and not only at some places, while at other places something regular has yet evolved? I do not see a necessity to suggest a temporally singular beginning everywhere. And why should God have started with nothing? That would mean, that He has a curriculum vitae, finished His apprenticeship and works on His journeyman piece of art. But if God has a currivulum vitae, he has a vita, a life, is mortal, and not God. So I guess, that there is no beginning, and no nothing. But Tohu Va Bohu ok. My mother has detected it in my room when I was young. That is where I know the term from.
Best,
Helmut
Edwina, List:
ET: ... if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' ...
It was not an objection, it was a sincere question, purely out of curiosity. I tried to make that clear, but apparently failed. "Almost impossible" implies that there is some way "to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality"; so I was simply asking what that might be, in your view.
ET: 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.
I neither said nor implied that this history is "proof or evidence for [God's] existence/reality," which would indeed be fallacious; rather, I suggested that it indicates that such reasoning is not merely "pure rhetoric," as you alleged. Surely Peirce did not view it as such.
ET: Your reasons - are beliefs.
Is this supposed to be some kind of knock-down argument against theism? Can you identify any reasons for believing something that are not beliefs, as well?
ET: There is no empirical or logical evidence.
On the contrary--I think that there is abundant empirical and logical evidence for the reality of God, and Peirce discussed some of both kinds in "A Neglected Argument." Like him, I observe the beauty and order of nature, as well as humanity's instinctive disposition to "guess" viable hypotheses about it, and sometimes wonder how anyone can deny the reality of God. Ultimately, it is not a matter of the evidence itself, but of how one interprets it. Of course, you and I have experienced this firsthand in our very different "readings" of Peirce.
ET: 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].
Indeed. Then he went on further ...
CSP: Otherwise, why venture beyond direct observation? Illustrations of this principle abound in physical science. Since, then, it is certain that man is able to understand the laws and the causes of some phenomena, it is reasonable to assume, in regard to any given problem, that it would get rightly solved by man, if a sufficiency of time and attention were devoted to it. Moreover, those problems that at first blush appear utterly insoluble receive, in that very circumstance, as Edgar Poe remarked in his "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," their smoothly-fitting keys. This particularly adapts them to the Play of Musement. (CP 6.460, emphasis added)
Peirce refused to rule out the solution of any given problem by human beings, including the origin of "this physico-chemical existentiality." After all, doing so would amount to blocking the way of inquiry. He added that the Play of Musement is especially well-suited to tackling such problems, the kind "that at first blush appear utterly insoluble"; and what did he subsequently say is the result in this particular case?
CSP: ... in the Pure Play of Musement the idea of God's Reality will be sure sooner or later to be found an attractive fancy, which the Muser will develop in various ways. The more he ponders it, the more it will find response in every part of his mind, for its beauty, for its supplying an ideal of life, and for its thoroughly satisfactory explanation of his whole threefold environment. (CP 6.465)
Regards,
Jon
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
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 SchmidtTo: Edwina TaborskySent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PMSubject: 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn 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 .
