That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? I usually think of "is" and "ought" as being separate, so there wouldn't seem to be a contradiction in this case for existence to be evil. However, if "objective" as you're talking about it means that there is an "ought" which is necessarily also an "is", then I suppose there can be an inherent contradiction. If I'm understanding it right, then maybe you have to more clearly define what "objective" means for the proof to hold.

Like if there were a mathematical proof "A" that proof "A" does not exist, then I agree that would be a contradiction. But if there isn't necessarily any correlation between existence and goodness, then I don't think it follows that if a mathematical proof of goodness could exist, that that proof would necessarily be good.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean because you throw out all these terms and I don't know what the terms mean. I had to look up, "Res ipsa loquitur", for instance. And throwing out those terms isn't really an argument unless the person you're speaking to already understands exactly what you mean by those terms, and they understand how you mean to apply them.

The member to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean.

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Because it is presupposed. And a good and useful presupposition it is, too. And of course because presupposed, logically necessary for any system in which it is presupposed. But is that the way the world works? And it seems to be for our local ordinary world. But if we stretch into into areas governed by either quantum mechanics or gen. relativity, it's all not quite so simple. — tim wood

Feel free to make your comment in that post so we don't distract from the OP. Long story short, yes, its still logically necessary.

A first cause is logically necessary
— Philosophim
Maybe in metaphyasics but not for modern fundamental physics — 180 Proof

If you are noting that no first cause has been discovered or proven in physics, I agree 100%

That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? — Brendan Golledge

No, because the initial point is that existence vs nothing is good. So inherently there is some good to existence. When breaking existence down into 'parts' or existences, we can find that some existences are better than others in their interactions. Whatever interaction creates more existence is better, while interactions that lower overall existence are worse.

As a very basic example, a small explosive to open up a mine allows access to ore for commerce and improved human life. A large explosive that destroys the entire Earth is evil as is erases all the potential and actual existence of life. But its best if we discuss the specifics in the article itself so you get the full idea and don't distract from the other conversations here.

Therefore, there are only 3 choices:
1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

Deism is a philosophical axiom, not a religion. However, probably due to its religious associations and implications, several posters take issue with your first choice : an uncaused, hence eternally existing, general power of causation or generator of change*1. For them, a space-time limit on philosophical Causation is not self-evident. But Entropy does place an ultimate limit on physical Causation.

Some philosophers are content with the First Cause/Prime Mover hypothesis of empirical astronomical Cosmology : an ex nihilo Big Bang with no known or knowable precedent. Others, like David Hume, don't take Causation for granted, but conclude that it is an artificial concept. And some don't consider Causation to be a concern : things just happen for no apparent reason. So, don't bother reasoning with them, since they don't accept your Axioms.

And don't bother reasoning with . As he said, "The member to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean." For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot". As you noted, he doesn't make rational arguments, just ridiculing accusations. Since he doesn't agree with your Axioms*2, anything you say will be absurd nonsense to him.

And don't assume that Common Sense has any special validity on this forum. Philosophers can logic chop*3 any concept into infinite bits of non-sense. For example, in Set Theory, the Axiom of Choice*4 says that you can take one element of an old Set and construct a new Set, "even if the collection is infinite". So, when a thread reaches a point where the points are near infinite, its time to bail out. Or to limit your responses to those who seem to be on the same page.

There are a few posters on TPF who are willing to civilly discuss plausible, but debatable philosophical concepts like "First Cause" or "Deity" without resorting to political (us vs them) debates and supercilious Troll taunts. Dialog but don't debate. :smile:


*1. What is the meaning of uncaused first cause?
But remember that in this argument, “first cause” just. means “uncaused cause” - or, “something which causes other things to exist but was not itself caused to exist.” And there appears to be no contradiction in the idea of there being more than one uncaused cause.
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Note___ The statement in bold does violate the principle of Occam's Razor. A single Cause of the Big Bang should be sufficient. "Uncaused" implies self-existent, and some assume as an axiom that the hypothetical Multiverse is self-existent.

*2. Plausibility of Infinity and Transcendence :
Anything outside the set of Space-Time is philosophically conceivable, but scientifically non-empirical.

*3. Logic Chopping :
(fallacy)
Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › logicalfallacies

*4. Axiom of Choice :
Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

As you noted, he doesn't make rational arguments — Gnomon

And once again, like Trump, your accusation is a confession, Gnomon. :eyes: :sweat:

I am a deist because I find cosmological arguments convincing. Someone replied that deism was a completely useless belief. — Brendan Golledge

Will you elaborate on your topic, to explain why you refer to it as "functional" Deism? Is functional merely the opposite of useless? Or do you mean that G*D has some specific function in the evolving space-time world that presumably began, for no apparent reason, with a cosmological Bang? :smile:

For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot". — Gnomon

The person who wrote that needs no defense from me - or anyone (and to anyone who tried he would likely just tell to get out of the way). But the plain bald fact of the matter is that if you do not know what it means, then your education is lacking. And not only just because you don't know what it means, but also because you don't seem to recognize that it's meaningful, or that you can easily look it up. It also means you're unfamiliar with books that commonly have comments in them in Latin, Greek, German and so forth. So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be.

Here FWIW, a definition of Deism
deism
noun: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

And it matters because the founders of the US, many of them, were Deists - not to be confused with being Christian. The informal schoolboy understanding of which being that some creator(s) - God if you like - made the world and then went off to other projects, never looking back. And this in turn an echo of wa-ay ancient pre-Biblical Middle-Eastern beliefs in which the Gods made the world and the people in it for amusement - and then decided to drown them all in a great flood because they were noisy and interfered with the gods' sleep.
(Source, and worthwhile on its own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi ).

[T]he plain bald fact of the matter is that if you [@Gnomon] do not know what it means, then your education is lacking. And not only just because you don't know what it means, but also because you don't seem to recognize that it's meaningful, or that you can easily look it up. It also means you're unfamiliar with books that commonly have comments in them in Latin, Greek, German and so forth. So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be. — tim wood

:clap: :sweat:

So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be. — tim wood

No, but I'm embarrassed. Like a parent looking in the back seat to see what the ruckus is all about, you caught me pinning the arms of little brother who has been punching me to get a rise out of the parents. :yikes:

You weren't supposed to see that "explanation" of 's hidden meanings in abstruse jargon. Like I looked up the foreign phrase, even though my high school Latin allowed me to guess that the implication was a disparagement of Deism, as belief in a worthless negligent deity. The "coming from him" interpretation was based on years of personal experience with 180's sarcasm, scorn & sneering. Since I am one of his favorite victims, I try to warn newbies not to engage him in a serious dialog --- if your worldview involves any violation of his Immanentism belief system : "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience".

Apparently, you didn't notice that the Latin phrase was "defined" with tongue in cheek. When I was a newbie on this forum, I found 180 to be very intelligent and well-educated in philosophy. And our philosophical worldviews seemed to be generally compatible --- from my perspective. Except that any implication of Transcendence from the material world seems to trigger some flashbacks of his childhood religion (nun or priest abuse?). Provoking him to lash-out at the provocateur.

180 proof and I have a long history of his trolling my posts with lots of over-my-head philosophical jargon ; often couched with supercilious implications of stupidity toward anyone who could believe in supernatural beings. So, I no longer engage him in dialog. He seems to think that only blathering idiots could take seriously anything that transcends space-time, and especially anything reminiscent of traditional gods. His typical insult is to label me a New Age nut, due to my frequent references to Holism. I don't take such affronts seriously, though. So, they don't hurt my feelings. But someone new to his veiled ad hominem attacks may think he's trying to make a legitimate philosophical argument. :cool:


Excerpt from my post above to Brendan :
"As he {180} said, "The member {gnomon] to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean." For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot".

Here FWIW, a definition of Deism
deism
noun: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. — tim wood

For me, Deism is not a religion of any kind. It is instead, a philosophical position that is an alternative to both biblical Religion and scientific Materialism. At this moment, I don't know a single Deist or Shaman in my area. And I have never joined with other worshipers of Nature*1 to dance around trees in the moonlight. However, if that is 's definition of Deism, I can understand why he likes to label me a "New Age nut". That common misunderstanding is why I don't normally identify myself as a practicing Deist ; just an amateur Philosopher.

I can't speak for , but my own definition of Deism is simply a philosophical worldview*2, not a worship of Nature or natural phenomena. Since I, long ago, realized that the Bible is not the Word of God, and lost faith in Revealed Religion, I discovered that Deism was a valid alternative, in which the Creation (Nature) is the revelation of the Creator (First Cause). Instead of studying the Bible, I now study secular Science. FWIW here's my own personal definition of Deism*3. :smile:


*1. What is an example of a natural religion?
What religions are based in nature? Many religions are based in nature, including pantheism, theism, panentheism, deism, polytheism,animism, totemism, shamanism, paganism, Saridharam, sarnaism,Kirat, and Wicca.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/nature-religion-overview-history-facts.html

*2. Philosophical Deism :
Aspects of Deism in Enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment Deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (1)reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (2) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

*3. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. Deist :
Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Note --- The "current scientific paradigm" is Materialism, which is useful for Chemistry, but not for Psychology or Cosmology. For example, cosmologists have been searching in vain since the 1990s for the Dark Matter particle. Hence, faith in Dark Matter is waning : "we have every reason to believe dark matter is everywhere. Yet we still don't know what it is." {Scientific American, Sept 2024}
Note ---Substitute "God" for "Dark Matter" and you may see a parallel to the "god is dead" notion in the 20th century.

However, if that is ↪180 Proof's definition of Deism ... — Gnomon

Another trollish non sequitur ...

(2022 – Gnomon is)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/783863

(2022 – as Gnomon does)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781656

@tim wood