Gary F., List: I am sorry to keep repeating these quotations, but you do not seem to be taking that entire Logic Notebook entry into account.
CSP: I show that logic requires us to postulate of any given phenomenon, that it is capable of rational explanation. Now, I say that the co-reality of the three universes 1st of Ideas, 2nd of Occurrences (existent things and actual events), 3rd of powers to bring two substances into relation to each other, (and I will call powers of this sort *Reasons*) must, accordingly, be supposed capable of rational explanation. (R 339:[293r], 1908 Aug 28) According to Peirce, logic requires a rational explanation for *every *phenomenon, *including *the co-reality of the three universes as "all the phenomena there are." The only alternative to the hypothesis of God as *Ens necessarium*, something that is not *itself *a phenomenon but rather "the author and creator of all" observable phenomena, is treating the co-reality of the three universes as *inexplicable*, which for him is unacceptably blocking the way of inquiry. Moreover, precisely because *Ens necessarium* is not a phenomenon, it does not fall under Peirce's peculiar version of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). However, other versions of the PSR as employed in more conventional formulations of Leibnizian cosmological arguments include the explicit premiss that whatever is real must be explained by either a necessity of its own nature or an external cause, such that asking for the latter in the case of God as *Ens necessarium* is nonsensical. Thanks, Jon On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 1:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, there is no *reason why* there must have been any “state of things” > antecedent to the state of things in which the three universes “were > produced” or have their being, let alone that something *must have been > in* that state of things. That is a completely arbitrary supposition. > That’s what I meant by saying it isn’t based on logic. > > If cosmology has to explain how the universes came to be, why doesn’t it > have to explain how *Ens Necessarium* came to be? If we must ask what > produced the universe, why don’t ask what produced the Producer, and so on *ad > infinitum*? The buck stops at the inexplicable. > > Peirce made several attempts to rationalize his attachment to the > anthropomorphic Creator concept; the one Gary R just outlined is one of > them. I don’t consider any of them logical in the normative sense. Logic > has its limits. > > Love, gary > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Jon Alan Schmidt > *Sent:* 28-Aug-24 13:04 > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was > not anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium > > > > 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.
