List: GF: Peirce’s affirmations about God are statements of his *belief.* The Logic Notebook of August 28, 1908, shows that they have no basis in *logic*.
On the contrary, in that Logic Notebook entry written 116 years ago today, Peirce asserts that cosmology "*must *suppose *something *to be in that antecedent state" (emphases mine), which he describes as "a state of absolute absence of any" phenomena. In other words, it is *logically *necessary that there must be something that is *metaphysically *necessary, namely, "that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever, that is, an *Ens Necessarium*." It indeed follows deductively from this "that *Ens Necessarium* is *not a phenomenon*" (GF), but Peirce also asserts of the three universes that "their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are"; and from this, it follows deductively that God as *Ens necessarium* is distinct from the three universes, i.e., transcendent (not immanent). He makes a brief case for God as *Ens necessarium* also being immaterial (not embodied) and eternal (outside time) in CP 6.490, which he wrote at about the same time. The other traditional attributes of God can be inferred from these, as philosophical theists such as Anselm and Aquinas have demonstrated over the centuries. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 6:51 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, perhaps we should celebrate this August 28th as the 116th > anniversary of the text you have kindly quoted for us several times now. > I’d like to celebrate by looking closely into the logic of it. > > Peirce says “it must *suppose* something to be in that antecedent state,” > namely the state of *absolute absence of any phenomena*. Peirce then > asserts that “this must be that which would Really be in any possible state > of things whatever, that is, an *Ens Necessarium.*” But this is simply a > *definition*, true only as a tautology. If anything follows *logically* > (i.e. by deduction or necessary reasoning) from this, it is that *Ens > Necessarium* is *not a phenomenon*. And neither is God, if God is that > *Ens*. > > I don’t see how it follows from this that God is “distinct” in any > intelligible sense of that word, or that God has *any intelligible > attributes* such as those you enumerate in your post, or those anybody > else has affirmed — except those which people *suppose* that *Ens *to > have. Which is why its reality can never be more than a “hypothesis” — and > even calling it that is a stretch for any scientific logic, as it is wholly > untestable. > > Peirce’s affirmations about God are statements of his *belief.* The Logic > Notebook of August 28, 1908, shows that they have no basis in *logic*. > > Love, gary > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
