In defence of Aquinas’ Argument From Degree for the existence of God
Thomas Aquinas’ argument from degree for the existence of God can be summarized as follows:
For this discussion, we will assume that morality is objective, so that P2 is assumed true. E.g., Mother Teresa is objectively morally better than Hitler.
Still, P1 seems wrong for some beings. For example, there exist beings with varying degrees of heat, size, and weight; and yet it is unreasonable to suppose that there exists a maximum degree of these properties, as we can always imagine a being with 1 more unit of heat, size, or weight. That said, P1 is true for some beings, like colours, for there exists for example a pure red to which there is no higher degree of red. So if it can be demonstrated that P1 is true when it comes to goodness, then the conclusion still follows.
Now what is goodness? Rather than seeing good and bad as two separate and opposite beings, it is more correct to see good/bad as how close/far a being gets to its perfect nature or function. To say the same thing using Aristotelian terminology, a being is good if its formal cause and final cause are very much in actuality, and bad if very much in potentiality. Let’s illustrate this with examples in the common language that use the terms good and bad in an objective way.
Now for all the above examples to be true, it is necessary that these perfect beings of the same nature exist; otherwise, the judgement of being objectively good or bad would be impossible. And these beings are called perfect because they have goodness of that nature to the maximum degree. The argument of degree thus becomes:
Objection: Yes, the perfect natures exist, but some are man-made, as is the case for a hammer or a unicorn, thereby making these perfect natures to exist in the mind only. How do we know this is not the case for morality as well?
Response: That is correct, but we have assumed in this discussion that morality is objective, and as such, a being with perfect morality must exist objectively.
- P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree.
- P2: There exist beings with varying degrees of moral goodness.
- C: The moral good to the maximum degree exists (which is what we call God).
For this discussion, we will assume that morality is objective, so that P2 is assumed true. E.g., Mother Teresa is objectively morally better than Hitler.
Still, P1 seems wrong for some beings. For example, there exist beings with varying degrees of heat, size, and weight; and yet it is unreasonable to suppose that there exists a maximum degree of these properties, as we can always imagine a being with 1 more unit of heat, size, or weight. That said, P1 is true for some beings, like colours, for there exists for example a pure red to which there is no higher degree of red. So if it can be demonstrated that P1 is true when it comes to goodness, then the conclusion still follows.
Now what is goodness? Rather than seeing good and bad as two separate and opposite beings, it is more correct to see good/bad as how close/far a being gets to its perfect nature or function. To say the same thing using Aristotelian terminology, a being is good if its formal cause and final cause are very much in actuality, and bad if very much in potentiality. Let’s illustrate this with examples in the common language that use the terms good and bad in an objective way.
- Eg 1: Take a circle: A hand-drawn circle is called a good circle if it gets close to a perfect circle, its nature, and called a bad circle if it gets far from it.
- Eg 2: Take a hammer: A tool is called a good hammer if it gets close to serve the function of a perfect hammer, “hitting objects into other materials”, and called a bad hammer if it gets far from it.
- Eg 3: Take a homework: A homework is graded as good if it gets close to the perfect homework graded as 100%, and graded as bad if it gets far from it.
- Eg 4: Take the health of a living organism: an organism is in good health if it gets close to the perfect health state of the species, and in bad health if it gets far from it.
Now for all the above examples to be true, it is necessary that these perfect beings of the same nature exist; otherwise, the judgement of being objectively good or bad would be impossible. And these beings are called perfect because they have goodness of that nature to the maximum degree. The argument of degree thus becomes:
- P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of goodness of a certain nature, then there must exist a being with goodness of that nature to the maximum degree.
- P2: There exist beings with varying degrees of moral goodness.
- C: A being with moral goodness to the maximum degree exists (which is what we call God).
Objection: Yes, the perfect natures exist, but some are man-made, as is the case for a hammer or a unicorn, thereby making these perfect natures to exist in the mind only. How do we know this is not the case for morality as well?
Response: That is correct, but we have assumed in this discussion that morality is objective, and as such, a being with perfect morality must exist objectively.
Comments (104)
This argument is reminiscent of the Ontological Argument isn't it? It seems to put in clearer terms the intuition that the Ontological Argument tries to express in a more muddled way.
The only problem with this line of reasoning isn't with the reasoning itself, which is lucid, rather with the fact that the "technical" metaphysical concepts involved (like actuality and potentiality, formal cause, final cause, increments towards perfection, etc.) are quite alien to thinkers raised on "modern" and "Postmodern" philosophy and require extensive explication - "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." :)
The added wrinkle is that objective morality, in the Aristotelian/Thomist system, is itself related to degrees of perfection (the moral person seeks to actualize their potential, the form of them, as best they can).
I don't think the argument from gradation is properly represented here, P1 seems a little simplistic. The argument is that in order for things to be graded, by degree, there must be an "ideal". The "ideal' defines the maximum. So for example if "heat" is graded by degree, then there must be an ideal which defines the maximum possible heat. Likewise with "good", if good is graded by degree, then there must be a maximum good, provided by the ideal.
The argument may not be sound though because in the case of quantities, the ideal is "infinite". So with quantities the ideal escapes the maximum. What is required to make the argument sound, is to establish an acceptable distinction, a categorical division, between quality and quantity, such that a quality cannot be reduced to a quantity. If qualities are really quantities, then the ideal is infinite, there is no maximum, and the argument is unsound.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
My objection to P1 can be illustrated by objecting to this part of your argument. There are no perfect circles in the world. Every circle is slightly elliptical, they never have a perfectly uniform radius. The point being is that the existence of imperfection does not entail that perfection must exist.
This argument reminds me of the ontological arguments of Anselm and Descartes.
Quoting gurugeorge
Quoting darthbarracuda
It is different in that the Ontological Argument aims to prove the existence of Perfection (a being perfect in every way) based on the essence of Perfection (which fails because we have not apprehended the essence of Perfection). It starts with the essence of Perfection and ends with its existence.
In contrast, the Argument from Degree starts with the existence of imperfection and ends with the existence of perfection, and specifically for morality.
You are correct, when it comes to the aim of persuasion rather than to seek truth. This is why I used the terms nature and function rather than formal and final causes (only added in one line for the fans of Aristotle); but there is always room for more clarity.
Quoting gurugeorge
Maybe I misunderstand your point here; because as I understand it, that is also my point in the argument; that the potential of moral goodness in persons is the potential to achieve moral perfection.
That's a valid point. Slight correction: The existence of imperfection does entail the existence of perfection, though sometimes only from our minds rather than from reality outside the mind. I accept the possibility that perfect circles are man-made (I am not certain about this but this would be off-topic). Now a man-made being entails that we know its essence. E.g., we must conceive the essence of a hammer before we build one.
In the case of moral goodness, we have not fully apprehended the essence of perfect morality, and therefore this being cannot be man-made. Instead, we deduce its existence from the existence of imperfect moral goodness.
How do we do this? Could it be that perfect moral goodness cannot exist?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with your representation of the argument. This is essentially what I was attempting to describe too, though it may not have come out that way.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think you are on to something when making the distinction between qualities and quantities, and I also agree that when it comes to quantities, there cannot be an ideal because there is no maximum. However, it is not necessary to prove that qualities cannot be reduced to quantities. What is necessary is to prove the existence of the ideal for goodness. Your way is indeed a means to that end, but not the only one. I use a different approach in the OP by showing that the judgement of goodness is possible only if an ideal exists.
I admit I have trouble reading your post. Are you saying that a real proof requires a physical observation of the thing inferred?
If perfect moral goodness could not or did not exist, then it would not be possible to rightly judge a being to be morally good; because, as described in the OP, a being is called good insofar as it gets close to its perfect nature.
Or did I misunderstand your last post?
Yes, to prove that the ideal for goodness exists is to prove that God exists. Your approach is the same as Aquinas', it is based in the assumption that to judge for goodness requires the existence of the ideal (maximum) for goodness.
I don't think that this assumption is sound because we can judge for quantity without the ideal (maximum) for quantity. Judgement for quantity requires the assumption of a fundamental unit, or unity, as a particular, an individual. So the soundness of this judgement, the judgement of quantity, is based in the reality of the assumed unit. The assumed unit allows for a first, the one, then the other numbers of the quantity may follow.
I believe that this is why the cosmological argument, which is based in the necessity of a first unit, the One, is a stronger argument than the ontological argument, which is based in the claim that the ideal must be real. That the ideal must be real can only be known intuitively and cannot be proven with logic, but that the unit, the individual or particular must be real, in order that there is a quantity, can be proven with logic.
So with respect to the argument from gradation, there is a real need to distinguish quality from quantity. If what is counted as a degree of goodness, is a real individual unit, a particular or individual unit of goodness, then there is no need for the ideal (maximum) goodness in order to count the degrees of goodness. But if goodness is a quality which cannot be reduced to a quantity (i.e. there are no real discernible units of goodness), then the units of measurement, the degrees, are arbitrary, and as such, to have any real value they must be based in an ideal which has real grounding. So with heat, we can have degrees of temperature which are completely arbitrary, either F or C for example, but the whole system of measurement is grounded in real principles such as the boiling and freezing point of water.
But notice that the reality of the ideal is not necessarily based in a maximum, as Aquinas describes. The reality of the ideal is the grounding principles for the system of gradation. When Aquinas talks about a "maximum" for goodness, this implies the character of a quantity, and this gives the argument an unsound premise to begin with.
Interesting. I am not familiar with this notion of "fundamental unit". Can you give examples to illustrate that the unit must be real in order to have a quantity?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But we know it is the case for goodness, straight from the definition of goodness: the measure of how close a being gets to its perfect nature or ideal. Under such a definition, an ideal must exist for the judgement of goodness to apply. This definition is backed up by the examples given in the OP. Do you disagree with it?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What he means about maximum is not a maximum absolute quantity but a maximum in actuality from potentiality; or to say the same thing in a different way, a grade of 100%, which can be seen as a relative quantity, relative to the perfect nature or ideal.
He can only mean it this way, since we have already established that absolute quantities do not have a maximum.
Understood. But I don't think the Argument from Degree presupposes the theory of universals (although they are not incompatible). All we need to agree on is the definition of goodness, which is: the measure of how close a being gets to its perfect nature or ideal.
Unless you are saying that this ideal is the same as the universal? Regardless, do you disagree with the definition? It is backed up by the examples given in the OP.
Quite right. And the principle factor that has changed or been forgotten, is the idea of 'degrees of perfection' in any qualitative sense, which again, goes back to the hierarchical cosmology of the ancient world. In Platonism (broadly defined) the universe is conceived as an ascent from less to the more real. The highest Form is the Form of the Good, the ens perfectissimum. In the Republic, Plato explains four levels of existence: (1) shadows, reflections, dreams, (2) perceptions, sensations, images, (3) lower forms of science, and (4) higher forms of mathematics and the intelligible form of the good. Levels (1) and (2) are the changing, impermanent, visible realm, and Levels (3) and (4) are the real, permanent, intelligible realm. Similarly, Plato's metaphor of the sun explains the Form of the Good (representing God or ultimate reality) as illuminating the sensory domain of becoming and passing away. In Aristotle's scala naturae or ladder of nature, objects in the world range from inanimate matter to plants, invertebrates, and finally human beings according to their formal factor. Whilst interpretations of these ideas vary considerably, many of the ontological arguments can only be understood against this background, which is now very remote from our own.
I suppose it's a matter of definition here. A "quantity" is always a number of units. If the units are not real, then neither is the quantity. If you have a quantity which consists of unreal, or false units, then this is not a real quantity.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Again, this is a matter of definition. You are defining "goodness" in a way so as to support your position. But if you define it in a utilitarian way, you judge goodness by a quantity not by comparison to an ideal of a perfect nature, because quantity is infinite, allowing for no perfect or ideal 'good".
So if we follow your definition, we would have to assume that there is a purpose for human beings, in order that a human being could be judged as good. How would we define this purpose, the reason why human beings exist? In order to judge the goodness of any human being, or any human act, we'd need to know this purpose of human existence, and position the person, or act, relative to it. But clearly we do not know this purpose, and we do not judge goodness in this way. So I think that your definition does not reflect "goodness" as we commonly use the word.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I think that you, as well as Aquinas, are headed toward contradiction here. "Maximum" is a term which applies to things which are measurable, as is "quantity". To say that there is a "maximum" is to say that there is a "quantity", and this is to say that the thing is measurable. But you define "goodness" as a quality. So by talking about a maximum goodness you talk about goodness as a quantity, when you have defined it as a quality. If it's not leading toward contradiction, it's clearly a category mistake.
It's unfair to the original argument, because presented in the way @Samuel Lacrampe did, it fails miserably. His version of the argument simply says that there must be an maximum of actually realized goodness, and that is what we call God, which is wrong for several quite obvious reasons.
If I understand your post correctly, you are saying all the examples in the OP include degrees of goodness and a defined maximum, where as the moral good only includes degrees of goodness and no defined maximum, is that right?
That is correct that the maximum moral goodness is not defined, and the OP merely attempts to prove its existence. This is done by using inductive reasoning from the examples to the definition of good in general, and then using deductive reasoning from the definition of good to the existence of maximum moral goodness. Thus it is possible to prove the existence of a being without fully knowing its essence.
I see. Real quantities imply real units. Although real, some can be man-made or arbitrary, such as 1 m in length, 1 kg in weight, etc. Anyways, I suggest dropping this side topic to focus on the main one.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of course it supports my position, but it is not done arbitrarily for that aim; rather, the definition comes from the Socratic Method using the examples in the OP. To refute it, we would have to find an example that does not fit the definition. And you have attempted to do that with the example on human purpose. See below for the response on this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And what unit of measure would the utilitarian use? Note that the definition is for goodness in general, and not merely for moral goodness.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that follows.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A valid point. And now let me blow your mind :cheer: .
Through inductive reasoning, we can find the human purpose based on what we observe to be a good human being: A large majority considers Mother Teresa to be a better human being than Hitler. This is based on their moral behaviour and nothing else. So the human purpose would coincide with the moral ideal, which is God as per the argument from degree. As such, the christian argument from degree and the above corollary agree perfectly with the christian view on the human purpose, which is based on the Great Commandments in the bible: (1) Love God with all your mind, heart and soul; and (2) Love your neighbours as yourself. In other words, aim all your acts for the end of the moral good, which is done in practice by following the Golden Rule.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I suspect a misunderstanding either from me or from you; because as I understand your comments, I have already addressed these objections in my previous post. I'll try again, and maybe you can clarify. A maximum cannot imply an absolute quantity because absolute quantities are theoretically infinite, and so no maximum is theoretically possible. It can only imply a relative quantity, a percentage, where the maximum is 100%. I suppose you could also call it a quality insofar that relative quantities don't have any units. But as a relative quantity, I see not contradiction.
"P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree."
P1 seems to make an assumption which is that there can only be ONE being with the maximum degree of a property (which Aquinas equates with God). I offer the idea that whatever property one focusses on, it is surely feasible for many beings to display/acquire that maximum property, even moral goodness.
I guess also that if all the beings in the universe are constantly striving to improve and better themselves and/or are being gradually perfected then the end point would surely be that all beings will eventually display the given property to the maximum degree.
The second point I would like to throw in for consideration is that the universe as we know it, is constantly changing. Nothing stays the same even though to our short-lived existence it may seem static. Is it not possible then that the perceived "maximum" of a given property itself, moves and changes over time? Even moral goodness? Is it really a sound argument to suggest that moral goodness must have a maximum attribute? Could it actually be the case that every attribute is constantly changing over time.
The 2 points above lead me to consider that:
- There could be many beings who have attained the perceived maximum attribute of moral goodness or indeed any other property and thus in Aquinas's terms, we might conclude that there may be many Gods.
- Our concept of this "maximum" or "perfect" state is possibly flawed and the reality instead is that this state is constantly changing and evolving over time which would by definition mean that "God" is also changing and evolving.
This is just a vicious circle, using goodness in human beings to determine the human purpose, in order to use the human purpose to identify goodness. To say that so and so is a good person would require already that one has an idea of the human purpose, if goodness is determined relative to the human purpose. So we can't look for good human beings to determine what the human purpose is because we wouldn't know how to identify a good human being without already knowing what the human purpose is.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. I agree that something with a maximum cannot be infinite. But no quantity can be infinite because "quantity" implies measured or measurable, which nothing infinite is. So "absolute quantity" as "infinite" doesn't make sense, "quantity" is always relative to measurement and never infinite. However, my point is that qualities such as goodness, cannot be measured as a definite quantity. And, it is the attempt to measure that which cannot be measured, that which is indefinite, which gives rise to the notion of infinite.
Now, when we say that a quality such as goodness has a maximum, it is implied that this quality is measurable through the use of that term, "maximum". So to measure the quality, we set up a scale, based in an ideal, and determine the degrees of that quality relative to the ideal. The ideal is something completely distinct from the quality, which the quality is related to for the purpose of measurement, it is not the "maximum" of the quality. For example, to measure heat, we set up a scale of temperature, and this scale is the ideal. We measure degrees of temperature relative to this ideal. The ideal is not the maximum, it is the scale. It is only when we try to limit the scale, to put a cap of maximum or minimum on it, that we attempt to turn the measurements into absolutes, as "absolute zero" does. If this limiting of the scale is accomplished, then the quality being measured, "heat", becomes a true measurable "quantity", in an absolute sense. But if the limiting is not accomplished, the measurements of degree are relative to the scale and so are not true quantities, nor are the measurements absolute.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
We can't drop this, because this is the very point I am arguing. If the units are arbitrary, then there is no real quantity. The quantity is relative to the arbitrary scale, there is a possible infinity, and no maximum. If the units are real, then there are real limits, no infinity, and a maximum, there is a quantity in an absolute sense. These two are incompatible. If we mix them together the result is confusion. So if we talk of goodness, we must determine whether we are talking about something which comes in real units, with limits, and therefore a maximum, or are we talking about something without limits, infinite, and without units.
I think you are all roughly bringing up the same topic, namely, that we may need to presuppose a platonic view of reality in order to buy into the argument from degree. I could be wrong but I suspect this is not as critical as you make it out to be. Rather, all we need to agree on is the definition of the term 'good' as used in the common language.
My hypothesis definition of good is: "the measure of how close a being gets to its perfect nature or ideal".
Admittedly, the terms 'being' and 'nature' need to be defined too:
Being: literally a thing; such that whatever is not a being is nothing. E.g. a rock, a dog, jumping, red.
Nature: Identity; the kind of thing that it is. E.g. A hand-drawn circle, insofar that we intended to draw a circle, has the nature of a circle, although it is not a perfect one. A cat with three legs still has the nature of a cat, although a perfect cat has four legs.
Once the definition of the term 'good' has been accepted or rejected, the rest of the argument becomes straightforward. With that, can you falsify the hypothesis definition of 'good'? To do so, we just need to find a example of the term 'good' used in the common language where we know no ideal exists. A Socratic Dialogue around the term good, if you will.
You bring up valid points.
Regarding the possibility of many beings with the maximum degree of a property, rather than just one: It is indeed possible for many beings to fully actualize a property, thereby reaching the maximum degree. But two counterpoints:
(1) If we don't know this, then it is more reasonable to infer a single being rather than many, due to the Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor, stating that the simplest hypothesis that explains all the data is the most reasonable one.
(2) If the ideal is essentially made of that one property only, (e.g. the ideal red), then there can only be one ideal being with that property, as per the principle of Identity of Indiscernibles. Other beings with that property may also reach the maximum degree, but they have it only 'in participation', where as the ideal being would have it 'essentially', and would be the source of that property in others. (This is admittedly getting quite technical).
Regarding the possibility of everything constantly changing: This is impossible, for the statement "nothing is eternal" cannot be eternally true, and is therefore a self-contradiction. As such, some things must be eternal, that is, do not change. But can maximum goodness change? No, by definition of the term 'maximum'; that is to say, a "changing maximum" is a contradiction.
Platonic Christianity naturally assumes that there is a real good, a summum bonum, towards which one’s efforts ought to be guided. If you’re Catholic, for example, then acceptance of that is part of your faith. But there is no generally-agreed concept in modern ethical philosophy that corresponds with that. Sure, there are schools of thought that defend various forms of ethical theory. But the assumption from a scientific point of view can only be that ethical theories are socially constructed and/or matters of individual conscience. It’s finding a basis for them in reality, that presents the difficulty, outside a basic kind of common-sense utilitarianism.
And also take into account
[quote=Wikipedia]The ‘is–ought problem’, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76), which states that many writers make claims about what ought to be, based on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law, or Hume's guillotine.[/quote]
Rubbish.
Numbers are names of quantities. Numbers are existentially dependent upon language. Quantities are not. Quantities exist prior to numbers. Thus, there were quantities prior to numbers.
A quantity is not always a number of units.
Except for the important point that Aquinas was a monotheist.
There might be many angels - indeed, the medievals famously debated how many of them could occupy the same space - but 'many Gods' is definitely heresy from a Christian P.O.V.
In point of fact, the Bible itself mentions multiple Gods in many places. E.g.
Deuteronomy 10:17
"17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"
There are numerous other examples but this gets us off topic. Point being that according to teh OT there were many Gods but one in particular wanted people to deem him "THE God", the boss, top dog. If there had been a democratic election for that position back then one is left to wonder if that particular God would have won. Seems pretty unlikely imho.
I confess I find that reasoning difficult to take on board. If there exists a maximum value for a quality or attribute and if the beings in the universe are moving in the direction of that maximum, i.e. actively trying to attain that maximum position (in Christian terms, to be more like Jesus/God) then it stands to reason that eventually over time, that maximum position will become flooded. This is common sense to me. The being who is already at the maximum position has nowhere to go, he can not improve, whereas all other beings are gradually getting better and better and will ultimately attain the same maximum attribute. That is unless the supreme being(s) make some form of limitation to actively prevent that from happening, which I actually think is the case.
Hmmm. I'm not sure there whether you are now redefining the "maximum quality" and creating 2 separate categories of it. That a being could have the quality "essentially" and another being have the quality "in participation" kind of implies that there are still 2 different levels of "maximum". It almost belittles the quality of the lesser being as being nearly but not quite the true maximum.
If this were the case then what motive or value is there in other beings striving to reach the "maximum quality" if in truth it is impossible to achieve on the basis that they don't have the quality inherently or "essentially"?
Your ideas there do lead to an interesting point though. Your word source is the key term there. If one being is the given source of an attribute/property like moral goodness then any moral goodness in any other being must by definition, be a part of that one being. This gels with the ideals of some religions which hold that God is in us and we are in God. We are part of that cosmic attribute or "oneness". In Christian terms, "God IS love" meaning not that god is a loving person or "full of love" but rather that he IS love itself, he is what love is, he is the source of love, the pure unequalled stream of love. Thus any love that is within other beings must by definition be a part of God, not an attribute or a participatory mimic of love, but an actual piece of God.
If I think this through it leads to some interesting conclusions. Primarily that no matter how hard a being might try or desire to be like God or his attributes, it is simply impossible because God IS the source of the desired attributes and thus to reach that ideal one has to actually become God. Even if a being sheds every single attribute it has and is left with nothing but that single attribute, love, moral goodness, ideal red whatever, that being remains "second fiddle" because the being is not the source of the attribute. The being is merely a receiver of donations from the source. Why then do beinbgs strive to be like God when it is clearly impossible?
P1: If there exists beings who are flatulent, there must exist a being who is flatulent to the maximum degree.
P2: There exists beings who are flatulent.
P3: Flatulence to the maximum degree exists (which we call something...say "Thomas Aquinas").
It seems less than persuasive to me.
Flatulence is probably more a property than moral goodness, though. A person may be moral, but I don't know if a person possesses "moral goodness."
I see your point; but we need here to introduce another notion to show that the reasoning is not circular: Conscience or Moral Compass. When we observe a person as being morally good or bad, this is information that comes to us, not from us. This makes sense because if the moral judgement of men came strictly from men, then the whole exercise would be circular and pointless, like a prisoner being its own judge.
The reasoning thus goes like this: Through conscience, we acquire information that some persons are better than others; and from this, we induce the human purpose; which coincides with the moral ideal.
Regarding the quantity-quality-ideal topic: I now see there was indeed a misunderstanding, mainly in these terms. It is odd to define 'ideal' as the scale rather than as the maximum degree of a property. In common language, the ideal grade for a homework is clearly 100%, not the percentage scale. You define 'quantity' as "that which can be measured", and thus cannot be infinite; but a length can be measured, and the length property can go to infinity. In common language, 'quantity' simply means that we can put numbers to it, and numbers go to infinity. You define 'quality' as "that which cannot be measured as a definite quantity", and therefore can go to infinity; but 'red' is a quality, not a quantity, and we know that there is a pure red, and red to the maximum degree.
Let's take your example of heat. It has a relative scale, K, a minimum, 0 K, and is measurable and quantifiable. Yet, we know that there is no such thing as a maximum heat in K, for we can always add one more K to the previous measurement. On the other hand, nothing can be more red than the pure red.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Can you give examples of what you call real units vs arbitrary units? As I understand it, it doesn't make sense: Say I am counting spoons. A spoon is a real unit. Yet there is no possible maximum number of spoons.
You seem to have confused "number" with "numeral". There's a difference between these two, and that's why there are two distinct words with two distinct meanings. And so the "rubbish" is what you have written.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I'm not sure of your use of "conscience" here. Conscience is an inner feeling, an intuition, so how can you say that it does not come from us? If it came "to us", it would not have that inner source, which it clearly does have. So you appear to have a contradiction here. Conscience is clearly an inner thing, within, yet you say that it comes to us, as if it comes from outside.
To resolve this, let's suppose it comes from within, like any inherited thing, genetic features, etc.. It appears to us to be the deepest within us, yet it really comes to us through inheritance, so it comes from outside the person. So inner things like intuition and conscience come to us from a seemingly "external" source, but it is not really external in the normal use of the word, because it comes to the individual from the internal, evidently having a source which is other than the individual, so it appears to be external. It comes from "outside" of the person, but that "outside" is really through the "inside". So we have two distinct boundaries which separate what is "me", from what is "not me". One boundary separates me from what is outside, and the other boundary separates me from what is inside.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
By considering this "internal" source of conscience, I can avoid the circle, but infinite regress looms. We can trace our heredity through humanity, and even follow genetics back through evolution, but where does it end? It may end at the beginning of life, but if life is just a random occurrence as some suggest, there is no real beginning here. Unless we know the reason why life began, we cannot find the human purpose here. So as much as "conscience" may lead us in specific directions, we cannot validate that it is leading us in the right direction, toward the real human purpose, because conscience itself may just be a chance occurrence, directed by random environmental events, like an evolutionist might argue. We need something to assure us that conscience is leading us in the right direction, and this can only come from knowing the purpose of life. So once again we're back to the circle.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
An ideal exists only as an idea. Further, it is the best idea, the most perfect conception. So when you say "the ideal grade for a homework is clearly 100%", you really distort the meaning of "ideal". On this use of "ideal" you might say "I got 100% therefore my paper is the ideal paper". But that doesn't really make sense because others might have 100% and you cannot all have the ideal paper. That's because you give "ideal" a different meaning here, it is not the highest idea, or most perfect conception, it is a work on a paper with a mark on it.
When you see the ideal as an idea, a conception, you'll apprehend the ideal as the scale by which things are graded (the conception), rather than as a particular grade. The "perfect grade", the ideal, is neither the minimum nor the maximum, but perfection is to be found in the scale which gives us the most veridical, or objective, measurement of gradation. Consider the example of heat. The ideal is not the maximum heat, nor is it the minimum heat, the ideal is the scale which gives us perfect veridical measurements. Think about all the different qualities which come in degrees, the ideal, the most perfect, is never the highest quantity, or maximum. That's why Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, when discussing virtue, is so important. Virtue is not found at either extreme, he says it is in the mean.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
It is impossible that something has an infinite length. This would not be "a length". A length is something definite and infinite is not definite.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
That's what I said, "quantity" means that it is measurable, that we can put numbers to it. The problem, and where we disagree, is that we cannot put numbers to infinity, this is impossible because the process of putting numbers to it would never end. Therefore we could never put numbers to it. All we could do is try, but it would be a futile effort. By definition, infinity is that which we cannot put numbers to, it is indefinite, unlimited. Therefore it is impossible by way of contradiction, to have an infinite quantity.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
There is no such thing as "red to the maximum degree". There is a range of light wavelengths which are said to be red. Further, there are many different combinations of light wavelengths which are said to be red. There is not one single wavelength, or combination of wavelengths, which can be said to be "red to the maximum degree".
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
At any given time, there is a quantity, i.e. a countable number, of spoons that exist. This is the maximum number of spoons which you can count. You cannot count more spoons than the number of spoons which exist, so clearly there is always a maximum number of spoons which you can count. But let's say you arbitrarily make up something not real, like unicorns, and start counting unicorns in your mind. There is no limit to the number of unicorns you can count, you can keep counting them forever.
.
Both are existentially dependent upon language. So the difference doesn't make a difference here.
Have fun.
We need first to establish what good is in general. My definition of good refers to any type of good that is objective, not merely moral good. Thus it applies to circles, hammers, homework, health, morality, or really anything that has a nature, an identity. People may not all agree about the moral system, but all can agree that this circle is a better circle than this circle. Thus I believe that the definition of good is fitting. Once established, then we can move on to the next objections.
Yep, I now agree with you. The Law of Parsimony made me lean towards the hypothesis of a single being, until a better reason is provided, and you provided a good one. Furthermore, I forgot about the principle that "ought implies can", and as such, if we ought to be morally perfect, then it implies that the moral good to the maximum degree can be reached.
Regarding being with essential quality vs being with accidental quality: I confess I got ahead of myself on that last post, where I made assertions without much explanations. I should backtrack and explain my reasoning.
Quoting Pilgrim
Why be morally good? As morality is about "what we ought to do", the question is self-explanatory. Because we ought to do what we ought to do. To return the question, why not be satisfied in becoming like God as opposed to becoming God? If it not part of our nature to have the ability to become God, then this desire is literally unnatural.
To clarify the position in the OP, opposing Aquinas, I do not believe that there must exist a being with maximum property for all beings with degrees of a property. I only claim that it must be the case for some properties, like colours and objective goodness.
[QUOTE="Samuel Lacrampe"] I forgot about the principle that "ought implies can", and as such, if we ought to be morally perfect, then it implies that the moral good to the maximum degree can be reached.
[/quote]
I don't quite agree with that statement. The "ought to" part simply implies that the benchmark maximum exists albeit notionally (as the 'ought to' could just be an ideal or concept). It doesn't for me imply that the benchmark can be reached. For example, we "ought to" figure out a way to ignore the effects of gravity so that our bodies can rise above the ground, levitate and ultimate fly like Superman. There would be multiple benefits of doing this so we really ought to do it. We thus create the notional benchmark that it is possible to be like Superman though it is pure ideal, thought and idea not science, not fact. It may be that one day it turns out to be possible but at this stage it is purely an ideal.
The problem in that example however is that Superman is Superman, he is not human and thus he has different qualities to humans. A human might strive to be like Superman but he strives in vein because ultimately Superman and humans are distinctly different things, different beings on every front. Hence it is simply not possible for humans to reach that ideal benchmark.
Humans are not God. The Bible tells that humans are built in the image of God and that pretty much says all you need to know. We are mere constructs mimicking something else. Look at humans and what we do. We build robots, some very sophisticated. Many are factory machines with pneumatic arms and grabbers which build vehicles. Others like those in Japan, are built to mimic humans. They look like humans, their "skin" is as close to human skin as it can be without actually being skin, Eventually the "image" of the robot vs the true human will blend into one as to be indistinguishable, yet the robot will remain a robot and a human a human. Two extremely distinct and different "beings", the one shall never ever become the other or attain its attributes. The robot will always be an image, it will always mimic, it will never be a human.
In the same way then God is God (assuming he exists) and humans are humans. Distinctly different beings. Having his image is of little benefit. We don't have God's abilities or attributes. We are weak, vulnerable, perishable, imperfect, fickle and essentially little more than robots. We act and do according to the programming that has been put into us. Hence one human can appear kind and benevolent and another cruel and evil. Both are humans, they are simply programmed/conditioned in different ways. Windows vs Linux, Xbox vs Playstation etc
We stray now into tangential territory from the OP, the pathways that seek to determine who and what we actually are and why there is a need for any kind of ideal or "god" to treat as a benchmark for life behaviours. I will thus leave these particular thoughts here until and unless you wish to explore that pathway.
[QUOTE="Samuel Lacrampe"]the being with moral perfection cannot remove its moral goodness without ceasing to be.[/quote]
Yes here we agree. The being with the maximum property must by definition actually be that property itself, essentially, innately, completely. Hence when the Bible says "God is Love" it doesn't mean he is a loving entity, or a being filled with love, it means he literally IS love itself, the very personification of love. As such all love in the universe is a part of that source, a part of god.
. . . I pause here to ask whether the actual source property itself, love, goodness, life-energy, whatever, must in any sense be an actual being rather than just being that simple thing/property itself. In this respect Aquinas's statement needs another read:
"P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree."
After our exchanges I no longer believe that Aquinas's proposition holds true or rather I suggest that the proposition can only be talking about beings with an "amount" of the property rather than the being which is the actual property itself. As we have agreed, the being with the maximum of the property that it can possibly have is still lesser than the being that has the property innately, essentially. The being with the maximum amount of love is still lesser to the source of love itself (which Christians would call God).
For myself, I don't subscribe to the notion that the source of a property HAS to be an actual being.
If there is say a "life energy" which pervades everything and which is the true source of all life, then there is no need or universal requirement for it to be a person or a being. It is simply a form of energy, perhaps THE ultimate form of energy, the true singular source. To call it "God" would therefore seem somewhat odd to me, but as a name, I guess it doesn't matter.
My ideas in this respect are somewhat underpinned by the problems we have with the accounts of "God" in the OT. If God is deemed the actual personification and true source of love or goodness then by definition God can not be evil or produce evil. If the source is true and pure there can be no evil within it.
That being the case the entire set of books in the OT would seem to be in gross error for they describe a God who is, at least to our minds and set of values, inherently evil. A God whose anger leads to violence, a God who engages in murder, ethnic cleansing, child killing, mauling of children by bears, genocide and much more. To try to envisage such actions as "love" would appear impossible and thus the God spoken of in the OT can not by any reasonable deduction be the God that most people imagine or conceive of today. This is one of the foremost dilemmas in the Christian faith, how to explain away and tuck under the carpet the OT accounts of God. This in itself brings us back to the notion of there being many Gods (which as I posted earlier the Bible confirms in numerous places), and thus what we seem to have (or rather to have had back then) was a set of Gods all competing for the loyalty and favours of human beings. There is something about that situation which doesn't sit easy with me. It speaks of hierarchy, dictatorship, the desire for one being to dominate and rule over others and the use of force to achieve it.
Now once again I worry that I stray off topic and I have no desire whatsoever to derail the thread so forgive me if this is the case. I do find the journey of such thinking extremely interesting and productive nonetheless.
Seems you do not know the meaning of "number".
The mistake is in referring to the one which is better than the other, (the circles for example), in terms of quantity, "the maximum". The "best" is the nearest to the ideal (the perfect conception), it is not the "maximum", which implies a quantity.
I accept the clarification.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
While your argument is valid, its conclusion unreasonable, as it fails the Law of Parsimony. It is like saying that although we all perceive the same boat at the horizon, we should not conclude that it is real because there is always the possibility of collective hallucination. Yes, it is possible, but the former hypothesis is simpler than the latter.
More importantly however, let's recall why conscience was brought up. The argument from degree is based on the hypothesis definition that good is the measure of how close a being gets to its perfect nature or function. You attempted to falsify it by pointing out that we perceive persons as being more or less good despite not knowing the human purpose. Thus conscience was brought up to explain how we are able to perceive goodness in persons without the need to know human purpose. Whether or not conscience is a reliable source of data, its existence is sufficient to counter the objection.
Regarding the terms ideal, quantity, quality: I don't mind trying to adjust the terms to apply to your meanings. As for me, I can find other terms to fit my meanings as intended in the OP. Thus what I meant by 'ideal' or 'maximum degree' can become 'perfection' or 'best'.
'Ought' is different than 'should'. 'Ought' means 'should' specifically in the moral sense, in the sense of duty, obligation; in the sense that we are labelled as good if we do, and bad if we don't. Your superman example is an example of should, but not an example of ought, because as you said, it is not currently possible to ignore the effects of gravity, despite the benefits it could bring.
Example: The rich ought to donate to the poor, because it would be in accordance with the Golden Rule, and they can. On the other hand, the poor ought not to donate to the poor or the rich, because they cannot. See the story of Rich man and Lazarus for support from the Bible on this.
Quoting Pilgrim
Another clarification on definitions. In Aristotelian language, a 'being' is not necessarily a living organism (which would be a living being) or person, but simply a thing in the sense that that which is not a being is nothing. So the being with the maximum property as its essence can be just that, the maximum property.
Quoting Pilgrim
Yes, that follows.
Quoting Pilgrim
The conventional interpretation of the Bible in Christianity is that the New Testament should be interpreted literally, and the Old Testament should be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that agrees with the NT. Thus the OT is like the section with riddles, and the NT is like the section with the answers. It sounds like a cop out, but Jesus says himself in the NT: "Don't suppose I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning." Pascal gives a good explanation for this in his book The Pensées.
When this occurs, that the argument is valid, but the conclusion unreasonable, then we must verify the premises. This is how we may test premises. If certain premises can produce unreasonable conclusions, then we know that there is a problem somewhere with the premises. The premise which appears like it could be faulty is the idea that conscience may be a chance occurrence. If we dismiss this premise, then there is a reason for conscience, let's say it serves a purpose.
Further, for the sake of argument, let's associate purpose with good, as you suggested. To judge a being's goodness, we need to know that being's purpose. The obvious question is how do we get from knowing that there is "a purpose", to knowing "the purpose". See, judging goodness requires knowing the purpose of something, and I have admitted that conscience serves "a purpose", so now we need to know "the purpose" of conscience in order to know that what conscience determines as good, is really good.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
The simple existence of conscience does not suffice to validate judgement of the degree of goodness. As the definition dictates, the degree of goodness is judged according to the designated purpose. This requires knowing the purpose. Conscience tells us that there is "a purpose", and free will allows us to choose "the purpose", so we have a number of possible purposes to choose from. The degree of goodness is therefore dependent on the choice of purpose. This is why a person's act may be judged by one person as good, but by another as not good, or even judged this way by the same person, in relation to different purposes. Therefore conscience cannot be used to validate our judgements of goodness. We still need to determine "the purpose", as knowing that there is "a purpose" does not suffice.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
OK, that was my main objection with the argument by degree, "maximum" implies quantity. So let's remove this term and see what happens to the argument.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Notice how "maximum degree" implies more in quantity. Any time we compare quantities, there is a distinct judgement of more or less. And, if a number of different quantities are compared, there is always one which is the most, "the maximum". So if a property is numbered, graded by quantity, we can make a judgement as to which quantity is the maximum.
Now, instead of "maximum", let's assume that we judge a property by "best", or "ideal". We cannot say that the highest quantity is "the best". Further, what is best for me is not necessarily the same as what is best for you. So there is my judgement of "best", your judgement of "best", and all the other judgements of "best". Why would you assume that there must be a being with the best of any particular property, when "the best of that property" is a number of varying degrees of that property, depending on who is making the judgement. Doesn't it seem more logical that it is actually impossible that there is a being with the best of that property, because this would mean that the being would have to have a number of different degrees of that property at the very same time, to satisfy what every different person considers as "the best" of that property?
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Now let's continue, and analyze your conception of goodness. What is a being's perfect nature? Any being is the being which it is. If it were something other than the being which it is, it would not be the being which it is. This "otherness" would be an imperfection to that being's nature. So every being, by its very nature of being the being which it is, is perfect in goodness because if it had any otherness, this would be an imperfection to the nature of that being.
That is to judge goodness by the being's "perfect nature". Every being is that particular being's own perfect nature because to have a different nature would make it other than the being which it is, and it's perfect nature would then not be the nature of the being which it is. So it's impossible that a being's perfect nature could be other than what the being actually is.
If you want to judge goodness by the being's function, then this is something completely different. To judge the being's function is to place it in relation to something else, give it context in relation to a larger being for example. Now we are not judging goodness according to the being's perfect nature, rather we are judging it according to another being's nature.
Having learned some astonishing secrets hidden cryptically, allegorically and in code in the OT, that part of your statement holds true, however I have never seen the NT confirm or explain the secrets hidden in the OT. Thus for me, we still have the situation where the masses (Sheeple) are being hoodwinked about what the Bible is saying and they are not being given the truth. It's a sorry state.
That being the case the Conclusion in the OP, seems slightly off:
•C: The moral good to the maximum degree exists (which is what we call God).
So, yes, the moral good to the maximum degree exists but to equate that as God is questionable unless we are simply using the term God as an arbitrary name. I haven't studied Aquinas but I feel sure that when he refers to God he is talking about a living person, being, personification rather than just the property or source itself. I don't believe he has proven or deduced that the maximum property is this being, he has only proved that the maximum property exists.
We are still not quite on the same page. First, I think we can both agree that this conscience, this moral compass, is real (not necessarily truthful but we do perceive something). Next, the assumption is that it is also truthful; its info is correct. As such, its purpose is clear: to inform us on which behaviour is morally good and morally bad. Next, based on particular data from conscience, we induce general moral laws like the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Finally, based on the common language that what we call a "good person" is a morally good person, we deduce that the human purpose is to abide to the general moral rules.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If a being is able to choose its own purpose, then that purpose is merely subjective, which means it has no objective purpose; and by extension, the degree of goodness, relative to that subjective purpose, would also be subjective. Furthermore, if conscience judges our behaviour, then we do not get to choose our purpose over what our conscience tells us.
Instead, with the assumption that our conscience is truthful, we are able to determine if a person is truly morally good. It is also able to tell us if a person is a good person, for to be a good person is to be morally good. From this, we can deduce the human purpose which is to be morally perfect. Yes, free will gives us the freedom to choose, not our purpose because it is objective, but rather choose to accept or decline our purpose of moral perfection; which itself is not changeable.
I will respond to the rest of the post at a later time.
Did somebody read Dan Brown :wink: ? Jokes aside, do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? I myself am not all that familiar with the OT so I could learn something too.
Quoting Pilgrim
You are correct that the argument only proves merely a slice of the christian God. In fact, christians believe that a complete picture of the true God is only possible through Jesus, not through reason alone. That said, we can associate this source of moral goodness with the christian God based on the Bible:
Well now, here we risk totally derailing the thread. I will proceed with caution.
Whenever I talk to anyone in matters concerning the Bible, esp the OT, I tend to ask a simple question to immediately ascertain whether or not they are clueless and have swallowed the literal/religious interpretation (which is flawed, makes zero sense and is full of contradiction) or whether they have some appreciation of what the verses are really saying, what secrets are hidden there allegorically, cryptically and in code.
My question is this:
"What do you understand the opening passages of Genesis to be speaking about?"
If the answer comes back "It is a recount of how God created the universe in 7 days" then I know they are ignorant of the truths displayed there, hidden in plain sight.
Here is a passage from Genesis:
KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
This passage is not talking about the creation of the universe or Earth. It is talking about a process, a physical process to make something. The passage contains key terms, key words that are not literal. Those terms leap off the page to me as if they were in large bold red text but that is only because my eyes have been opened to their meaning. Prior to this I was as ignorant as everyone else.
Here is another important passage:
KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."
Once again this passage is dripping with key terminology and is referring to the same thing as the Genesis passage. Note the last 2 sentences and how they repeat what was stated in Genesis. This passage is NOT talking about "wisdom" despite the opening line, but the wise most assuredly know what it [i]is[/I] talking about and the great value of it.
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus come out and explain the truths in these passages nor does he explain the process I spoke of or its end product anywhere in the NT. In fact Jesus simply perpetuated the cryptic approach, leaving "ordinary" people clueless.
For example he said:
John 12:23-24:
[i]"Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."[/I]
He's not talking about how to grow wheat, he is being allegorical. He is outlining an important, in fact absolutely vital part of the overall process that was referred to in the Genesis and Proverbs passages. He's explaining that in order to create the end product of that process, there must along the way be the process of "death" or putrefaction/decomposition. It is a process of Nature herself by she makes all things, taking one thing, disassembling it to its fundamental components (Prima Materia) and then building something new from those universal parts.
Staying with the NT, the book of Revelation also makes a cryptic mention of our secret:
KJV, Revelation 2:17:
[I]"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."[/I]
I could provide you with lots of Bible passages that repeat these same hidden truths and I could point out where many key terms have been embedded in the texts using letter spacings.
Do not think however that the secrets here are unique to Christianity or to the Bible. The very same "thing" is written about in the same allegorical way in the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism and many other places. The understanding of this serves to highlight that all these religions are not enemies of each other and that essentially they have the same founding source, the same underpinning set of truths which have sadly, over the years been manipulated and massaged and presented in a way that keeps the truth hidden from the masses. The secret is huge, and those who have it keep it jealously guarded, to the detriment of the rest of mankind.
Well now, here we risk totally derailing the thread. I will proceed with caution.
Whenever I talk to anyone in matters concerning the Bible, esp the OT, I tend to ask a simple question to immediately ascertain whether or not they are clueless and have swallowed the literal/religious interpretation (which is flawed, makes zero sense and is full of contradiction) or whether they have some appreciation of what the verses are really saying, what secrets are hidden there allegorically, cryptically and in code.
My question is this:
"What do you understand the opening passages of Genesis to be speaking about?"
If the answer comes back "It is a recount of how God created the universe in 7 days" then I know they are ignorant of the truths displayed there, hidden in plain sight.
Here is a passage from Genesis:
KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
This passage is not talking about the creation of the universe or Earth. It is talking about a process, a physical process to make something. The passage contains key terms, key words that are not literal. Those terms leap off the page to me as if they were in large bold red text but that is only because my eyes have been opened to their meaning. Prior to this I was as ignorant as everyone else.
Here is another important passage:
KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."
Once again this passage is dripping with key terminology and is referring to the same thing as the Genesis passage. Note the last 2 sentences and how they repeat what was stated in Genesis. This passage is NOT talking about "wisdom" despite the opening line, but the wise most assuredly know what it [i]is[/I] talking about and the great value of it.
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus come out and explain the truths in these passages nor does he explain the process I spoke of or its end product anywhere in the NT. In fact Jesus simply perpetuated the cryptic approach, leaving "ordinary" people clueless.
For example he said:
John 12:23-24:
[i]"Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."[/I]
He's not talking about how to grow wheat, he is being allegorical. He is outlining an important, in fact absolutely vital part of the overall process that was referred to in the Genesis and Proverbs passages. He's explaining that in order to create the end product of that process, there must along the way be the process of "death" or putrefaction/decomposition. It is a process of Nature herself by she makes all things, taking one thing, disassembling it to its fundamental components (Prima Materia) and then building something new from those universal parts.
Staying with the NT, the book of Revelation also makes a cryptic mention of our secret:
KJV, Revelation 2:17:
[I]"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."[/I]
I could provide you with lots of Bible passages that repeat these same hidden truths and I could point out where many key terms have been embedded in the texts using letter spacings.
Do not think however that the secrets here are unique to Christianity or to the Bible. The very same "thing" is written about in the same allegorical way in the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism and many other places. The understanding of this serves to highlight that all these religions are not enemies of each other and that essentially they have the same founding source, the same underpinning set of truths which have sadly, over the years been manipulated and massaged and presented in a way that keeps the truth hidden from the masses. The secret is huge, and those who have it keep it jealously guarded, to the detriment of the rest of mankind.
This is where we disagree. There is a disconnect, a gap of incompatibility between "goodness is judged according to purpose", and "goodness is judged by conscience". "Judged by purpose" allows for many possible purposes, so goodness is relative, what is good for one purpose is not good for another. "Judged by conscience" is different from "judged by purpose".. If "conscience" is adapted to allow for many possible purposes, it becomes completely useless because it looses the capacity to say that one purpose is better than another purpose, and conscience cannot judge goodness, as goodness is relative to purpose. If "conscience" is supposed to determine which purpose is better than another, then we judge goodness by conscience, and not by purpose at all. "Good" according to conscience and "good" according to purpose are distinct and have not been made compatible.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
So you proceed here to say that goodness is judged by conscience. This means that goodness is not judged relative to purpose, these two are distinct. So we must dismiss the premise of good according to purpose. We had two incompatible "goods" which have not been made to agree with each other, so if we choose one we must dismiss the other. Since purpose has been dismissed, we cannot "deduce that the human purpose is to abide to the general moral rules". That would be equivocation.
When we talk about the good, I mean specifically the objective good. I agree with you when it comes to subjective goods like best song or best flavour of ice cream. But when it comes to objective goods, like best circle, hammer, math homework or health, that best is objective, and hence not a matter of opinion. Surely you must agree that the best circle is something like this, and not this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This type of belief forces you to forfeit terms like change, good, and potentiality; which is absurd.
Change: For you, a being could not change because the changed being is no longer that original being. Yes, in actuality, a being is the being which it is. But all (or most?) beings belong to species which make them in potential to change.
Good: You would need to forfeit terms like good, bad, better, worse, etc; because for you, all beings are perfect beings as you said. This means there is no such thing as a bad health state, but only "the health state which currently is".
Potentiality: Surely you understand the metaphysical difference between the terms actual, potential, and non-potential. When I close my eyes, I actually cannot see, but I potentially can see. In contrast, a tree actually and potentially cannot see. Furthermore, a human that is blind or deaf is a bad thing because it is part of human nature to have the ability to see and hear. In contrast, a tree that cannot see or hear is not a bad thing because it is not part of its nature to see or hear.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with everything you have said up to that point. The distinction is between metaphysics and epistemology. As per the definition of good, if there is a real degree of good, then there is a real purpose, regardless if we know it or not. Indeed, if we don't know the purpose, then we cannot know or judge what is good; unless the judgement comes to us by another which knows the purpose.
So, at first we don't know our purpose so we cannot judge of what is good. But we are told what is good by another which we call conscience. Assuming that our conscience speaks the truth, then what is judged to be good is a real good. This therefore implies a real purpose, which the conscience must know. We then can find our purpose through inductive reasoning based on data from conscience. Once we know our purpose, then we can judge of what is good, which should coincide with the judgement from conscience because it all comes from there in the first place.
If good is associated with purpose, how can there be an objective good? Good would be determined relative to one's intention, and intentions vary. Your example, "best circle", is not an example of purpose. I think if we are talking about a supposed objective good, we must remove the idea of purpose.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
That's not necessarily true. A thing's perfect nature, could be a changing nature. All I am saying is that a thing's perfect nature cannot be other than what the thing is, or else that is not that thing's perfect nature it is something else's perfect nature.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
No, it just means we'd have to define "good" in another way. That's an objective good, good is in the object, by virtue of being the object which it is, it is good. Now we might relate one object to another, and say that one is better according to some principle like a "purpose", and come up with a relative, or subjective good. We could do this with human beings for example and compare them in terms of "health", and say that one is better than the other.
All that it means is that we recognize two distinct meanings of "good". One, the objective good, is what is proper to the object, by virtue of existing as an object, any object is good. It is said that is why God created existence in general, He saw that it was good. So every object according to the fact that it has existence, is good. Existence is good, and that is the objective good. But there is also a more common, subjective meaning of "good", and that is a relative good. When we compare things, we use a principle of comparison, or measurement, and that is the subjective good, because we are free to choose which principle to use.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
The point is that if you want a true "objective good" you must dismiss the notion of purpose, because "purpose" is inherently subjective. Therefore we cannot know "objectively" the purpose whereby we would judge degrees of good, because this is inherently subjective. That is why theologians turn to the other sense of "good", the one I outlined above, the good of existence, the good which is inherent within every being by virtue of it being, to find an objective good. This does not mean that the subjective good is rendered as "useless", but we must be careful to maintain the separation, and not represent the subjective good as if it were objective.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
You are just repeating the same mistake. Conscience apprehends "good" which comes to us from the source of "other". It doesn't apprehend the purpose because the purpose inheres within the other. It only apprehends that this or that is good. We can relate "good" within our own intentional minds, to purpose, and assume that the good which comes to us from "other" is also associated to some purpose, but we cannot conclude that the conscience must know this purpose.
Genesis 2:4-7: This passage seems to me to be not fully literal but partially literal, where the human body comes from evolution (dust of the ground) and the human soul comes from God (the breath of life).
Proverbs 3:13-20: Why not interpret this passage literally? Wisdom, the ability to judge things rightly, is surely a good thing to obtain and grow.
John 12:23-24: Jesus tends to speak in parables but then also tends to explain them right away. In this case, he explains it in John 12:25 "Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity." In other words, one ought to treat things according to their proper value, and so to value eternal things more than temporary things. And letting go of worldly obsessions requires a sacrifice, a small death.
In this instance I would disagree. The sheer number of Bible references to this secret serve to underpin it's credibility imho. What all these passages are referring to is the alchemical process for creating the Philosopher's Stone, Elixir of Life or whatever name you choose to call it. The same kind of references are found all over, in the Quran, Bhagavad Gita and elsewhere. One universal truth, spanning world religions but hidden in plain sight, allegorically, cryptically and in code.
In order to understand the references one must first understand something of the processes involved and also something of the Nature of the "Stone" itself. Since we have limited space I will provide a brief run through.
The Stone is actually twofold. There is a White Stone and there is a Red Stone. The White Stone bestows perfect health on the person that imbibes it. The Red Stone bestows longevity, extremely long life of the order of Biblical characters like Noah and so on who lived 900+ years.
You will also be aware of the alchemical goals to turn base metals into gold. Well, the White Stone reputedly turns base metals to Silver. The Red Stone turns base metals into gold.
Ok so far so good. So . . .
White Stone = health and is associated with Silver.
Red Stone = longevity and is associated with Gold
By the same alchemical processes lesser crystals could be perfected into valuable gems too.
Now here's what you need to understand about the process for making it. There are multiple processes (as explained in the Emerald Tablet) but the 2nd part of the "Great Work" as it is called involves putting a pure white salt in the bottom of a flask, adding some special liquid, sealing the flask and then putting the whole thing in a warm sand or water bath at body temperature. Thereby it incubates and undergoes a number of changes.
Here is an image of the flask. Note the allegorical names given to it.
[IMG]https://www.thefreshloaf.com/files/u58638/Stone.png[/IMG]
The top of the flask is referred to as the "Heavens"
The salt or earthy substance in the bottom is called the "Earth"
The gentle heat causes the liquid and damp salt in the flask to vaporise creating a "mist", often also referred to as spirit.
The mist is a form of water so we have 2 types of water in the flask, the lower dampness and the rising vapour/mist. The separation of waters.
The mist rises to the top, the Heavens, and then condenses into little water droplets.
The droplets then fall back down to the bottom, like rain
This whole thing is a microcosm which cycles in a continual loop much like our weather systems. Mist rises, rains back down, waters the ground, then the mist rises again and so on.
This process goes on for 1-2 years.
Along the way the substance in the flask goes through changes. The first major change is it's total decomposition. It essentially rots in the flask as the cycle reduces it to its prima material, its fundamental matter. At this stage the previously white damp salt turns a jet BLACK. The stage is allegorically often referred to as the Crow or Raven.
Once this stage is complete the substance goes through other colours but eventually turns a brilliant WHITE again, which is the White Stone and if it is left to cycle further it turns a deep crimson RED.
So, the important point to note here is that the colour changes of the overall process start WHITE, then go BLACK, then WHITE then RED.
I pause at this stage to allow you to digest the above and to tell you that I am not asking you to believe in the Philosopher's Stone as real, but rather I'm asking you to understand the processes by which it is made, the colours it goes through and the benefits the White and Red stones bestow to humans.
With all that in mind we can now revisit those Bible passages. I will place in bold the relevant allegorical terms which refer to the alchemists flask and it's contents and processes.
KJV, Genesis 2:4-7:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground
You should be able to see here how this refers to the cycle in the flask, the heavens and earth, the mist and condensing to water the earth like rain.
KJV, Proverbs 3:13-20:
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."
No question that this passage refers to the Stone, not "wisdom". It could not be more obvious now that you know what I have told you. Length of Days (longevity) in one hand and Riches in the other hand, the very things that the White and Red Stones bestow and the passage is telling us how much more valuable the properties of healing and long life are compared to the ability to create riches. Again look at the last 2 lines and how they iterate the processes in the flask. The heavens, earth, the depths being broken up is the decomposition stage, the clouds dropping down the dew is the mist condensing at the top of the flask. Pretty easy stuff to understand but only once someone explains the Stone to you.
The passage in Revelation again. . . . says:
[I]"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone"[/I]
There it is in plain sight. A White Stone which is the hidden manna. Manna being that "magical" substance that sustained the people in the desert in the OT. The "Tree Of Life".
Here's another Bible quote for you, the terminology should leap off the page to you now:
KJV, Song of Solomon 5:10-16:
[i]My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. [/I]
Remember the colour changes of the Stone creation. The BLACK (raven) stage, then white and then red (ruddy).
One more . . .
KJV, John 6:53-58:
[I]"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."[/I]
The Christian faith taking a literal interpretation believes that the actual flesh and blood of Christ is what bestows eternal life, though they partake in an allegorical communion act using WHITE bread and RED wine.
Do you not see now that Jesus is actually referring to the Stone here. The White Stone and the Red Stone. And he is giving a very stark warning. He is saying that if you don't have this Stone, you have no life in you. This makes perfect sense. Our "Life force" or life energy is a finite amount which started running out around age 30yrs. We all feel it when our strength and vigour first begin to wane. From that point we are just using up what remains of our life energy and eventually we age and die. If we have the Stone, we have an abundance of life energy and so our bodies heal very quickly indeed and we do not age. The Stone IS the real truth here.
We can happily say that Jesus is the allegorical name for the Stone if you like but the truth is the Stone is a product of Nature, produced in the alchemist's flask, not some mumbo jumbo magical belief system.
I could go on as there are many more Bible quotes and a whole host of key terms associated with the Stone that are encoded in Genesis. Space alas does not permit.
I hope I have done enough here to explain :
1. What the Stone is
2. What it does for humans
3. How it is referred to in allegorical terms
4. How the Bible should NOT be taken literally
5. How the Bible is seen to contain this important secret right throughout
ATB
But if God is not a member of the genus, the just, then "just" does not have the same value when predicated of God as it has when predicated of creatures. It's as though we have grades of J and then argue to that which is Jg. But Jg is not identical to J because it is not in the genus J.
So how does this argument go through? It seems to involve a vicious equivocation.
One might reply, well, 'just' is predicated of God analogously. Analogical predication of names of God is a major piece of Thomist analysis of religious language. But then we get into problems with analogical predication, such as:
Thomistic analogical predication is not either of Aristotle's two kinds of analogy
Aristotle says that terms have to be predicated univocally for a demonstration to go through
We do not have access to the sense of terms that are allegedly predicated analogously, so we can't know what it means to say that God is Jg
In a proof for God's existence, it will beg the question to import the doctrine of analogical predications of names of God, since God's existence and attributes have not been established
I have much to learn, but the above seem to me to be problems with the Fourth Way, in addition to those that some of the others have pointed out already. I'm happy to be shown where I may be wrong.
That sounds ad hoc. Why is purpose subjective? The purpose of the eye is to see, and that of the nose is to smell. It would be objectively wrong to believe that the purpose of the eye is to smell, and that of the nose is to see.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
How do you reconcile this idea with the idea that there is a worse, better, and best circle?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This definition of 'good' effectively makes the term superfluous: any thing is by definition a good thing, and a bad thing would be a contradiction.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This almost sounds like what I am saying in the OP, with the exception that you make all purposes subjective, and I make them objective. We should therefore clarify this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No sir. If the "other" can judge a person as being good or bad, it follows that the purpose known is the human purpose; not the other's purpose. Here is an analogy: The purpose of a tugboat is to tow larger boats. Say the tugboat does not know its purpose, but we do. We can judge the tugboat by its action, relative to its purpose. Note that it is its purpose and not ours, even though we know it and it does not. The same goes for the conscience and the "other" when judging humans.
To see what, to smell what? There is no objectivity here, just a general principle produced by inductive reasoning. The eyes sees things therefore it's purpose is to see. The nose smells things therefore its purpose is to smell. But not everything can be seen, nor can everything be smelled, so these senses are selective and not objective.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I already explained this, the judgement of a worse or better circle is made relative to some principle or principles. We have an idea of what a circle ought to be, and we judge things accordingly, as a better circle or worse circle, This is a relative good. it is subjective because the principle by which the thing is judged to be good or bad, "circleness", is chosen. The same thing which is good relative to this principle, is bad relative to the principle of "squareness". So the same thing is both good and bad, depending on the principle it is related to.
The good which an object has, by it's very existence, is an absolute, objective good. This good inheres within the object simply by being an object, so it is objective. It is not a particular property of the object so it requires no relation to a principle for judgement of that property, the object is just said to be good, by virtue of being an object.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
It only appears to be superfluous if you do not recognize the possibility of not-being. If to be is good, then not-being is bad. How is this superfluous? It is, by definition, good to be a thing, and to be nothing is bad.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Go ahead then, and explain to me how purpose is objective, I'll explain why this is impossible. "Objective", means of the object, adhering within the object. "Purpose" is to have a function. So if an object has a purpose, this means that it has a function relative to something else. This "something else" may itself be an object, so that the original thing is a part of that larger object, but the purpose of the original object is always external to that object, determined by its relation to some larger object. So the purpose of any object can never be property of that object, it is not "of the object", nor does it inhere within the object, it is dependent on that object's relation to something else.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
You left out one critical premise required for your conclusion. How does judging good or bad determine a thing's objective purpose? The tugboat tows boats and is judged to be good because of this. The "purpose" is in the one who judges, this is the desired end, to have boats pulled. The judgement is subjective. How does this put the purpose into the tugboat so that you can say objectively, that the tugboat's purpose is to tow boats. Consider this. I dig in the ground with the claws of my hammer. We can say that the hammer's purpose is to dig in the ground. But that is a subjective purpose, dependent on my desired end. How can we say objectively that the hammer's purpose is to dig in the ground?
(1) From a christian standpoint, the primary purpose of the bible is to inform man's life of its meaning, purpose, its goal and how to achieve it; and secondarily to give the good news that there is eternal life after this one. Your hypothesis covers the second point but not the first (at least not in your last post). It is only secondary because the meaning of life is like quality where as the length is like quantity. Following the existentialists, a meaningless life leads to despair. What is the point of having an infinite supply of something if it has no value? Note that this point does not refute your hypothesis, but shows that it is in fact less ambitious than the christian hypothesis.
(2) The good news about your hypothesis is that it is by nature fully empirical, and thus it is scientifically provable. I may not fully comprehend your recipe to produce these stones or how you extracted it from the bible and other books, but all you need to do to demonstrate its truth is to produce some stones and use them on people. If this results in the removal of physical pains and long life, as your hypothesis predicts, then you have proven your case, and the world will be persuaded. Now, what is the status on this experiment?
I would argue that while ever mankind is massively constrained through the need to acquire resources (i.e. constant work/slavery) that no-one can reasonably live life as it was intended. Whatever purpose there was originally, whatever beauty in just existing has either been hugely damaged or eradicated by the fact that mankind no longer has access to the Stone. The Bible recounts the allegorical tale of the Garden Of Eden. It is a clear indication of a time when mankind DID have the Stone. if one understands the benefits the Stone bestows this makes sense. The Stone:
1. Provides all the energy the body needs to survive and maintain itself
2. Therefore means you don't need food or drink to exist
3. Protects you from the effects of extreme cold or heat, hence you can walk around naked
4. Keeps you in perfect health, not because it is a medicine but because its energy is the real fuel the body needs and with it the body heals itself and does so rapidly
For me, the accounts of Jesus's activities clearly indicate the he had the Stone. He used it to heal other people, to make the blind see again, to raise the dead, to transform one thing into another and of course to save himself from his own wounds during crucifixion and to get him through that death.
I assume that he also gave it to his close disciples who he sent out into the world to do good with.
They lived in a time when such secrets were guarded because ruthless emperors and kings would have seized the Stone and kept it for themselves and ruled with great power. Problem is in keeping this secret hidden from everyone else, we all suffer as we don't have the Stone and I suspect the number of genuine good people that have it are not enough to secretly use it to heal others.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Yes I totally agree and to that end there is some interesting evidence. There did exist in 2010 a website forum dedicated to this whole issue. It was a place for actual people who were engaged in the processes of making this Stone to record their findings, discuss their methods, talk about problems encountered along the way and so on. There were numerous photos put up on that site of people's distillation equipment and of the results of their progress.
Note that these people were not following the Bible but rather the many 100s (if not 1000s) of tracts, scripts and treatises of the sages and philosophers of the 1600s to 1900s. I have 100s of those works myself and have read them. They are hugely cryptic, sound like total gibberish to the uninformed but all recount the same processes for creating the Stone.
These works said that if you distil a particular liquid at gentle heat you will get a clear liquid with a particular aroma and set of qualities.
They also said that the detritus left behind from the distillation could be calcinated which would eventually reveal a white salt that had been hidden within it.
The people engaged in these experiments put up numerous photos of this and showed that , yes, there was a hidden white salt.
And so it went on.
None of that proves the Stone's existence but it did prove that the 100s of treatises and works were being truthful about what things would be seen and witnessed during the processes and that for me, lends serious credibility to their content.
The fact that I found that the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita and other sources all referenced the same processes and all hinted at the Stone and the same set of benefits it bestows, just adds more and more credibility to the entire thing.
Somewhat mysteriously that forum was taken down somewhere in 2011/2012. Why I do not know but for me that just added more credibility to the idea that the Stone is a real thing and certain parties didn't want it broadcast over the internet. I guess I should expect men in suits to come knocking on my door any time now !
If the entire idea of the Stone is one huge hoax, then it is by far the Hoax of the Millennia involving as it does 1000s of works spanning 100s of years and a hoax that managed to get itself embedded in the primary tomes underpinning all main world religions. I find that rather incredulous.
As for your question regarding the status of the experiments/processes you'll understand if I don't comment. Anyone discovered to have achieved the Stone would likely be murdered for it for it is a prize more valuable than anything else. If our real world rulers already have it and keep it jealously guarded then they will of course take action if they discover anyone else has achieved it or is engaged in trying to achieve it. I am being deadly serious here. You could put yourself and your family and friends in huge danger. Therefore I make no comment in regards to any practical experimentation.
I simply highlight to people the 100s of works that describe this Stone and the way it is clearly referred to in the Bible and other religious tomes. I do it to make people think, and to wake them up from social/religious conditioning which would otherwise have them take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
My hope is that they will then begin their own journeys into research and acquisition of knowledge.
In conclusion let me say that I am no expert in this field. I do know a lot, I have studied 100s of treatises and documents regarding the Stone, I understand the 2 main parts of the Great Work but I don't believe I have the full knowledge to be able to undertake it. I'm very much open to help and advice from anyone with more knowledge.
ATB
I first want to point out that this objection seems to be against the inconsistency between Aquinas' argument from degree and his claim that God is not a member of any genus; not against the argument from degree by itself. That said, I can try to refute the objection anyways.
When it comes to moral goodness, us creatures have the potential for it to be fully actualized, thereby becoming maximally good. Still, this maximum degree of goodness would not equal that of God's. The reason is that God has it essentially, where as we have it accidentally, or by participation. I.e., even when fully actualized, we have moral goodness, where as God is Moral Goodness. Thus God does not belong to the genus of "moral goodness by participation" which applies to creatures, for he is Moral Goodness by essence. And the same can be said about other divine attributes like existence, power, wisdom, etc.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Most of our principles are arrived at by inductive reasoning. Are you saying it is not right to say the purpose of the eye is to see, and not wrong to say that the purpose of the eye is to smell? Even if you believe only in evolution and not also God as part of the human design, evolution would not retain a body part which served no purpose.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of course good is relative to best. That is pretty much the point in the OP. But relative does not imply subjective. Yes, we pick a type of goodness in the judgement, but once picked, the type of goodness is objective. If we mean 'good' as is 'a good circle', then this type of goodness is objective.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is getting technical :blush: . If good is always linked to being, and not-good is always linked to not-being, then good=being, and not-good=not-being. But we already have words for these: being and not-being. Thus good is superfluous.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Take a man-made thing like a paper-cutter. It is by definition "a device whose purpose is to cut paper". Its purpose is inherent in its essence, for a paper-cutter that cannot cut paper is not really a paper-cutter. Since the essence of things is objective, then the purpose inherent in the essence is also objective. That is not to say that everything has a purpose inherent in their essence (although I happen to think that), but this is an example of objective function nonetheless.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I agree that objective means a property of the object; however the objet need not be a single substance, and can also be a system of substances. Thus if I say "Person A is taller than person B", 'taller' is relative to A and B, but is objective to the system which is A and B. We know it is objective because objectivity implies a right and wrong; and the statement is either right or wrong, not a matter of opinion.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It is the opposite way around. A thing's objective purpose determines the judgement of good or bad. In the case of the tugboat or hammer, the purpose is inherent in the thing's essence. For a tugboat is by definition "a tool whose purpose is to tug boats", and the hammer is by definition "a tool whose purpose is to hit objects into other materials". In those cases, the thing's function is in its identity, which is objective. Thus a hammer that is capable of digging dirt is good at digging dirt, but that does not make it a good hammer. Similarly for persons. If a person is good at driving, we can say "this person is good at driving", but this does not make them "a good person", which has a specific meaning.
I'm saying that inductive reasoning does not determine purpose. For example, every day that we see the sky, it is blue, so we conclude by inductive reasoning that the sky is blue. This does not imply that the purpose of the sky is to be blue. Also, we observe that water flows down hill, but we cannot conclude that the purpose of water is to flow down hill. So when we see that the nose smells, and the eyes see, we cannot conclude that the purpose of the nose is to smell, and the purpose of the eyes is to see. To claim purpose we must look at the action of the thing as a part, with a function, in a larger context. So in relation to the human being, the eyes have a function, a purpose, and that is to see. The eyes, as a part of the human being, see for the human being, and that's why we can say that they have a purpose.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
How does choosing something change it from subjective to objective? I do not understand your argument. Take your example of a circle. We decide to judge a shape for circularity rather than squareness. What, in your mind makes this type of goodness objective? We have some principles by which we determine circularity, but these exist in, and were created by, the minds of subjects, therefore they are subjective.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
The "essence" of a thing is how it is described by human beings. If a paper cutter's purpose is by definition to cut paper, then this is how human beings define "paper cutter". Definitions are produced by subjects, they are subjective.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
The "system" here is produced by human minds therefore it is subjective. The judgement of something as right or wrong is carried out by subjects, so such a judgement is necessarily subjective. How do you get to the point of concluding that such a judgement could be subjective?
Let's talk epistemology. We really have two questions here. (1) Should the bible be interpreted the way you claim? and (2) is the stone real?
To answer question (1): I invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor. The christian hypothesis of interpreting the bible literally is a simpler one than your hypothesis of interpreting it figuratively. Sure christians interpret the OT figuratively too, but this is directly from the authority of Jesus in the same bible. It is therefore more reasonable to believe in the christian interpretation, until it has been debunked. The same would go for the other books that mention the stone in a figurative way.
To answer question (2): The fact that your hypothesis is purely empirical is both a good and a bad thing. The good thing is, as previously stated, that it can be scientifically proven to be true, by showing the real stone. The bad thing is that it can only be proven to be true by showing the real stone, because empirical claims necessitate observations. And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
To be clear, my intention is not to be a downer, but merely to find the reasonable belief.
a point of clarity - the Catholic view on this is, the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, and its purpose is for our salvation.
I too invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.
Objectively which is the more likely truth:
1. That the book of Genesis truly recounts the universe being created in 6 days by a God no-one has ever seen, who millions believe to be omnipotent and benevolent and yet seemingly stands by whilst millions suffer every day?
2. That the book of Genesis actually recounts the process for creating a product of Nature through simple laboratory processes which can be tested scientifically ?
on your 2nd issue "is the Stone real?"
I again invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.
There are 1000s of documents, works, tracts and treatises written over a huge time period from 1200s to 1900s all of which recount the existence of the Stone and the processes for creating it.
The Stone is referenced in the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism, Buddhism, and in fact just about every mainstream religion.
Objectively which is the more likely truth:
1. That the myriad of references to the Stone and it's processes for creation are the hoax of all time having been perpetuated for 100s of years by 100s of different people who even managed to get the hoax into the Bible ?
2. That the Stone is in fact real, that the documents do all sing the same song, describe the same processes and the same benefits the Stone provides?
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Let's step back slightly here. The primary claim I am making at this point is not that the Stone is real (tho I do think it is) but rather that the various passages in the Bible DO talk about the Stone and it's associated processes rather than the literal interpretation. The number of references is significant and they are consistent with the 1000s of other documents which specifically explain the Stone.
I accept that distinction, that the purpose of the human parts are relative to the human being. That said, that kind of purpose is nevertheless objective. It would be wrong to say that the purpose of the eyes relative to the human being is not to see. ... Now it makes me wonder if all beings with a purpose must be a purpose towards another being ...
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It does not change from subjective to objective. It was never subjective in the first place; only relative to the perfect nature. The fact that these perfect natures of circle and square are not real outside the mind does not entail that the predicates about the shape must be subjective. Again, objectivity implies the possibility for either right or wrong, where as subjectivity cannot be neither right nor wrong. And for a given shape, it is either right or wrong that it is closer to a circle or a square.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The only thing I can agree with you on, is that just because a paper-cutter is unable to cut paper, it does not follow that it is a bad being objectively; but it does follow that it is a bad paper-cutter objectively, by definition of paper-cutter. How's that?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You cannot mean that, can you? Since only subjects can judge, all judgements are carried out by subjects, including the judgement that "2+2=3 is wrong". Are you saying that this judgement is therefore subjective?
How the bible should be interpreted: With regards to interpretation, not truth, the literal interpretation is always the simplest. Now regarding creation specifically, granted, the 6-day period is not to be taken literally, because it has been disproved by science. But the statement that God created the world out of nothing is supported by metaphysical arguments.
Quoting Pilgrim
Unfortunately, the same argument can be used to support the christian interpretation of the bible. In christianity, one of the two Great Commandments is the Golden Rule: Love you neighbour as yourself. And the Golden Rule is found in some form in almost every ethical tradition. Source
I think you miss the point TBH.
You're taking there about plainly written things, the commandments for example.
It's a very different thing when huge life secrets are HIDDEN deliberately using allegorical terms or cryptic prose or outright coding.
The same secret of the Stone is hidden using the same allegorical terminology in the primary tomes of mainstream religions. That can not be co-incidence.
There is absolutely no doubt that the Stone is being referred to in all these works but it requires that people understand the Stone and the processes for making it before the hidden meaning becomes blatantly clear.
Maybe not, but my aim is merely to reconcile the conclusion in the argument from degree that perfect moral goodness exists which is what christians call God, and Aquinas' claim that God is not a member of any genus, by showing that the two are not incompatible.
Quoting pico
The Fourth Way, or argument from degree, is not dependant on the claim that God's essence is identical with His existence. The argument only depends on the definition of 'goodness' as defined in the OP, and the acceptance that moral goodness is objective.
Aquinas proves that God's essence is identical with His existence in his Second Way, which is an argument separate and independent from the Fourth Way.
Yes, that is what I mean. I define subjective as of the subject, and objective as of the objective. Judgement is something that subjects do therefore all judgements are subjective.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I don't see this as an acceptable definition of "objective". That a given shape is closer to a square or closer to a circle is a judgement, and therefore subjective. And that this judgement is a right or wrong judgement is a further judgement, and is therefore subjective.
Consider an octagon. It is not a square and it is not a circle. To say that it is either right or wrong that it is closer to being a square than to being a circle is nonsense, because to judge it as closer to one or the other, is also nonsensical. Judgements concern what is and is not, so we can judge it as being close to a square and also as being close to a circle. But each is a different scale of judgement so we would have to refer to a third scale to say whether it's closer to being a circle than it is to being a square. All such judgements are dependent on the scale which is chosen.
Let's recap the comparisons so far between the Stone hypothesis S and the Christian hypothesis C.
Conclusion: C is more reasonable and more ambitious than S. Following the Principle of Parsimony, in order to defend S, C needs to be refuted.
"The Fourth Way, or argument from degree, is not dependant on the claim that God's essence is identical with His existence. The argument only depends on the definition of 'goodness' as defined in the OP, and the acceptance that moral goodness is objective."
I brought up the Essence = Existence claim because your earlier defense of the Fourth Way appeals to some premise like it. If the "God's essence = God's existence" premise is excluded from those premises in the Fourth Way, then you are not authorized to defend the Fourth Way by saying that God "IS Moral Goodness" and the like, since claims "God is F-ness" depend on His essence's being identical with His existence.
In your terminology, is a judgement that same as a proposition, that is, a sentence that can be either true or false? If that is the case, then the proposition "all judgements are subjective" is also a judgement, and is also subjective, and so cannot be objectively true. As such, the proposition is a self-contradiction.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I admit that in this example, it is hard to judge if it is closer to a square or a circle. But the challenge here is due to the challenging example and not due to judgements always being subjective. Here is another easier example. In this drawing, is E closer to D or G? The objectively right answer is "E is closer to G than D". This statement is clearly objective.
No. a statement, sentence, or a proposition (as a type of statement), is a collection of words which needs to be interpreted. And then, what is taken as the meaning is judged as true or false. That judgement is subjective, attributable to the subject..
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
If agreement between us. concerning our judgements, makes our judgements "objective", then you are using a different meaning of "objective" than I, which I defined as "of the object". Agreement on judgements about the object doesn't make the agreement "of the object".
The Fourth Way argument goes as far as to prove that there must exist a being whose essence is moral goodness to the maximum degree. Then christians put on the label God as an afterthought, from passages in the bible like: "No one is good except God alone."
The very fact that hypothesis S can be found hidden allegorically, cryptically and in actual code WITHIN the literal text of hypothesis C lends huge credibility to S and very little to C.
If the sheeps clothing is pulled back to reveal a wolf then there is only pure folly in continuing to believe there is a sheep present. The revelation of the hidden thing within utterly destroys the concept of whatever was concealing it in the first place.
In truth, what you call hypothesis C is simply the misguided interpretation of the outer camoflage. It is the sheep's clothing put there to fool the unwise and uninformed who blindly continue to believe in the sheep (Sheeple ?!). Once the truth is understood, the camoflage disappears in a puff of smoke.
Therefore, in order to refute the whole hypothesis S, you must first refute what S is. You must refute that the texts that describe the Stone and which describe the processes for making it and its benefits . . . . are not in fact talking about the Stone and are not in agreement with 100s if not 1000s of other documents which all recount the same product,processes and benefits.
Again, you don't have to actually believe the Stone exists yourself. You only have to concern yourself with whether or not the hidden text DOES or DOES NOT describe the Stone, it's related processes and its benefits.
I have seen no such refutation from any quarter ever since I discovered all of this knowledge. In fact I deem it inconcievable that any sane and rational mind could, once dutifully and sufficiently informed of the Stone, not then see all the clear references to it in the Bible, hidden there in plain sight, written allegorically, cryptically and in code.
Anyway... The 'Christian' idea... That is just "platonism for the people".
If something is, then it CLEARLY ought to be. I dont find the existence of things to be by using consequences of thoughts themselves a priori. It must be able to be logically shown to have some measurable, qualitative or quantitative degree in the world.
Perfection? Good? Are these things even definable? Something that is described to be whatever way must already be known. If something is known in some way then it must have been ascertained in its wholeness, not some fracturedness of which reveals only slight portions of its essence. If this was the case then we would indeed only be able to say "Whatever Good is... I will absolutely never be able to be sure I know what it is I am even referring to."
To talk of these objective prototypes of human feelings...
Information regarding a moral compass does not come TO us, as if it came from something beyond us. This is due to a lack of further investigation. It comes from what we do not identify our egos to be... Which is indeed still a part of our existence. It is not something separate from us. It is a part of the is that is us.
You have the start of the OA there. Just in case for some.
By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
Freud said God is an exalted father.
Jung disagreed.
I cannot believe in a deity. There is no logic I have ever seen that could possibly make me believe it firmly.
The only solid justification for a faith in God or eternity or spirituality is through love--never wanting to be separated from those whom you love, or a person.
What gives me second thoughts is the painful painful idea of losing the person I love in death. It is painful to think of such a separation. That is what belief is god is based on often... Fear.
I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument that there is, or at least was a necessary being. I also believe that skeptical theism is a sufficient argument against the argument from evil, which is the most robust argument against the existence of God.
I'm still not sure I understand your meaning of the term 'judgement'. Could you perhaps give an example of judgement, and then in contrast, an example of proposition?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It is not the agreement that makes a judgement objective. I think we are on the same page that 'objective' means "a property of the object independent of subjects", where as 'subjective' means "a view on the object dependant on the subject". E.g. the Earth was round before earthling subjects existed. Thus the judgement "the Earth is round" is objective.
I will be very busy for the next couple of days, and will not be as responsive on this discussion as I would like to be. Sorry for the inconvenience. I hope to get back to it once my busy period is over, but I understand if you have moved on by then.
Keep it reasonable,
-Samuel
"The Fourth Way argument goes as far as to prove that there must exist a being whose essence is moral goodness to the maximum degree."
I agree that Christians attach the label "God" to the entities that Aquinas reaches at the end of his Ways. But the Fourth Way does not argue that God's essence is *goodness*. It argues that there is something that is maximally true, maximally good, maximally noble, maximally existing, and from the further premise from Aristotle that the maximally true are maximally existing, we are left to infer that the same X is maximally T, G, N and E. It goes on to conclude that this X is the cause of EG and "of any perfection whatsoever" [cuiuslibet perfectionis] for all entities. Nothing is said about X's essence's being identical with its existence. (That thesis, by the way, is not argued for in the Second Way, as you said above that it is. The Second Way is an argument about first efficient cause.) In your OP, after all, you wrote "And these beings are called perfect because they have goodness of that nature to the maximum degree ..." or there exists a being such.
More argumentation is needed to demonstrate that if X is maximally good, X is Goodness. I should think that the Fourth Way does not argue that X is goodness, but rather, that X is maximally Good and causes other, subordinate beings to be good. X has the property maximally but is not the property itself. The 4th Way concludes with this claim, that X is the cause of goodness for all entities. But if X just is good*ness*, then Aquinas would be concluding that X is the cause of X, i.e. of itself, for all entities. Given that X turns out to be God, I don't know how one could that God is the cause of God for all entities, since God is uncaused. God exists necessarily? But that's not the point of an argument from maximum degrees of properties.
I don't think the Fourth Way is that great. It's not demonstrated that maximal truth, maximal goodness, maximal nobility and maximal existence are distributed over the same x; we only get a citation from the Metaphysics that what are maximally true are also maximally existing. It's not clear whether properties that don't fall into Aquinas' list of transcendentals (nobility is generally not put on that list, BTW) also get distributed over the same X. One might think that they are not so; e.g. in the case of hot, which Aquinas uses twice as an example, the maximally true/good/noble/existing entity is not also the maximally hot entity. I think here of Parmenides' question about hair, mud and dirt, heh heh. So the "cuiuslibet perfectionis" premise would be false. Further, if "the maximally F is cause of F over all x's" thesis does not hold for all values of F, then the 4th Way seems to fail to establish a universal cause.
Finally, there is the old "existence is not a perfection" problem.
I think the argument in the De Ente et Essentia is stronger than the Fourth Way, though it too gets tangled up in making existence a perfection. In the ST, at any rate, it is only in 3.4 that God's essence and existence are argued to be identical. So one is not authorized to use "God's essence is identical to God's existence" as a premise in the Ways back in 2.3.
My thought is that the morality of cultures is different from the morality of a divine, holy entity. The morality of cultures must be anthropologically discerned or observed through the people's actions. Divine morality is given through the being's words to a people/peoples to affect their actions. So yes, divine revelation has cultural effects. This is why people get the two moralities confused.
Let's say "the earth is round" is a proposition. If I claim that what this proposition means, is that the planet we live on, is the shape of a circle, then this is my judgement of what "the earth is round" means. Once I have judged what "the earth is round" means, I can make a further judgement as to whether that proposition is true or false.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
As far as I know, only subjects make judgements. So a judgement cannot be objective (of the object), because a judgement is always the property of a subject. One makes a judgement concerning an object, but that judgement is not properly "of the object" because it is property of the subject, it is "of the subject". And this is evident from the fact that such judgements vary in accuracy.
Now the prime mover, I mostly buy...
Maximum here means more than all others. But who are all others? Humans? Other entities? You could take the most morally responsible / least ignorant human for a god, but it is a small world. The existence of infinite lifeforms / forms of consciousness might be required for this premise to work. This is unfortunately unprovable by scientific means.
Infinity is provably not part of the material world (discussed at length here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite).
The non-material, if it exists, is less constrained...