UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 2 on Talk Back 7
Comments on the Good Reverend's "Ontological Truth." Is there such a thing?

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

First comment is always the same comment, ad tedium ad infinitum.

The general argument for agnosticism seems to be that we cannot infer the existence or non-existence of God from observable effects. (First assumption = Semi true).

Agnosticism infers a “we don’t infer,” a choice not to infer; or to suggest either way to someone; not an imperative “one cannot.” For me the answer is still out there; do you understand the difference? While I am willing to argue the point; your (God) answer is (most likely always) inherently incorrect considering the nature of a transcendent question. Actually an Atheist is an Imperative Agnostic who identifies himself in opposition to Theism. Based upon the Atheists worldview, the amount of negative the Atheist sees in religion: war, freedom of speech, education, its opposition to truth (science), antiquated sexual morays, self-hate (of the flesh, dualism you know); antiquated and unsophisticated philosophy; etc.   

 There is a difference. Point two of first assumption: even if God was conceded in theory or concept; though it is not. Equating an absentee landlord; this invisible father in the sky to something that concerns a day to day life is lost on me (we don’t’ care about the absentee landlord; or; the invisible father). A Jesus sermon and Bible thump is utterly unnecessary. And I do mock, simply because, the authors of Bible were mocked, so they put the ridiculous “don’t mock me” credo therein.

 This invisible-father-love scenario to me is an emotional need; more so than a spiritual one; it is alike; akin; to the definition of empathy. This mystery of externally moving compassion and emotion; that is transferred from one to another; this is more likely a projection from within; than from without. This invisible-father-love scenario and the so-called feeling; this presence of love; is based upon an imagined empathetic projection of emotion, you think it comes from without; I think it comes from within. And if I were willing to go to jail I could prove to you. If I were willing to mutilate myself I could prove it to myself; but why the do either; I already know. The emotional connections you feel to the world are based upon centers in your fore-brain, and with pin-prick precision, disturb or damage them, and your emotional connections, even the spiritual ones which are based upon emotion can become permanently impaired; even completely damaged; and even; can they be lost; in their entirety.

However, there seems to me to be no reason why we can't deduce the necessity of an infinite, transcendent ontological truth from existence per se and not from any particular observable effects. (Monster assumption – WOW, with these assumptions you can simply imagine anything non-pink and gigantic and it is real.)

Let’s overanalyze this - ;-) 

However, there seems to me to be no reason why = the converse is equally true; why should one assume a reason in the absence of one; therefore it is irrelevant = assumption; not true.

Why we can't deduce the necessity . . . not from any particular observable effects = based on non-reasons and non-facts, I am going assume it is and say it; exists; and that it is a: necessity = assumption; not true.

Ontological truth (oxymoron) = I deduced it from no real world meaning or fact and ended up with a TRUTH = assumption, not true. 

Transcendent ontological truth (unknowable oxymoron) = From NOT knowing; I deduced it from nothing and ended up with a TRUTH = assumption, not true.

Infinite transcendent ontological truth (Infinite unknowable oxymoron) = From infinity of NOT knowing; I deduced it from the nothing and ended up with a TRUTH. = assumption, not true.

There is world of hurt you put on peoples brains with this non-reasoning and assumption based thinking. Mere suggestion might be all that is required to a suggestible mind; but I would say that is a PROBLEM, with all POWER that is transferred from the individual (who should be taught to be skeptical, critical thinking is a cure, not a disease); and to those to whom the trust is transferred - ANY INSTITUTION and any man therein.

Is there any way that the Universe can exist without being self-contingent? That is, can the Universe be contingent upon something external to it? Obviously not,  . . .

You have already assumed the point; and negated it.

. . . because by "the Universe" I am referring to everything that is, and if there were something external to it, it would be part of the Universe as well. If we take the entirety of things, as a whole, it cannot be contingent upon any external principle simply because there is nothing external to it. It doesn't matter whether the Universe is finite or infinite - either way; it is not contingent upon anything else. (This whole paragraph is meaningless, considering the pre-negation of it? Prenegation = birth of a NOT J).

So, whatever the ontological reality underlying our world is, it is not contingent upon anything else. (There is no ontological reality, it is an unknown, an unreality, meaningless in this realty; as of yet.) . . .

This is important, because things in our everyday experience have specific, finite properties precisely because they are contingent upon other things. If we eliminate the contingencies affecting the qualities and properties of a given thing, we are left with something that is completely unqualified and undefined. (EXACTLY! Listen to yourself, and believe it!) . . .

Thus ontological truth possesses no definite nature whatsoever, (EXACTLY! J NONE!)

. . . and cannot be limited by any confinement or hindrance. (EXACTLY! Again, there is no limit to the imagination.  . . . Imagined worlds; these unqualified and undefined not contingent upon Universe(s), external(?) of this Universe, un-limited by any confinement or hindrance; is not a place without; it is within you; non-external a mustard seed inside you! It is your imagined universe within.

There can be no limiting principles governing the Universe because there is nothing that can limit it. (False on the REAL one; true on the IMAGINED one.)

It is not really that much of a stretch from an unqualified (non-real) ontological reality to the traditional notion of God per se. (Actually you think your right, if you assume you’re right, then why present reasons.  . . .  And it is a major STRETCH!).

It would be a God that does not possess some of the more traditional aspects of the Mosaic God, such as human-like personality and the capacity for emotional thought. But it would still be a Supreme Being, infinitely capable and omnipresent, and many of the philosophical implications are the same. (First it is not a stretch to a traditional notion of God; then it doesn’t posses those; or some; traditional aspects? Either way, no reasons, equals no reason to agree.)

But on this I do agree! On the inference of any God concept to a tradition: this is the biggest boffo blunder assumption of all time, and it is all too common. As I stated before even if the God concept is conceded in theory though it is not, equating a possible Universal truth to a parochial tradition is absurd.  . . . A God concept might exist beyond reality; therefore; Bible. . . . This is ludicrous (beyond “belief”; to one who has reasons); to anyone who thinks; and conversely; it is a truth to any one who doesn’t think (simply “believes”; who needs not reasons).

(Q-God? It’s a question not an answer ->) God (1) is the sole cause (2) of all principles that give order (3) and meaning (4) to the Universe, and as such it cannot be considered to possess a specific place within any cosmological order. (I will suggest otherwise to all these pre-assumed (non-real) ontological oxymoronic truths: at the end.)

God, as the source of all quantity and substance, cannot be divorced from the Universe. The implication of this is that everything in the Universe is literally God, and every divisible constituent entity in the Universe is the entirety of God made manifest. (If it’s all the same stuff, what’s the big deal over?)

It may be unnecessary to assume this dualism even exists. If it doesn’t as suggested then it doesn’t exist. Why re-label a part of nature or unseen nature to super-nature. Why re-label a part of the Universe or unseen Universe to God? It is utterly unnecessary.   

That is, God cannot be substantially divided into its manifestations, because God itself is pre-substantial and possesses no constitutive substance of its own. (Now your back to the ontological oxymoron; your original assumption; it cannot be detected; and it might not even be there; at all).

A particular thing in the Universe does not constitute a certain portion of God, but must contain within it the entirety of God.

The oxymoronic truths; an otherwise approach:

1.   Q-God?: Is it really worth knowing the answer - why can’t it remain a mystery? If according to the notions of ontology; that this is something always transcendent then it remains a question; an eternal question. And further there is no reason (or reasons) to transfer a possible unknown transcendent Universal truth (the Q-God?) to a parochial tradition. And this does not ever transfer to any parochial tradition: Hinduism, Christianity, Muslimism, or any other religious tradition.

2.   Sole cause - first cause: What is it? Was there one? This inception called singularity and Big-Bang expansion; does not infer a first cause, but a specific event; an event; not a first cause. Time outside of time and real outside the real; are just measures we cannot make. This universe could expand and contract ad infinitum. This universe could be the collision of quantum natural events. This universe could exist in an infinity; of universes. Sole cause; first cause; is simply another mere assumption.

3.   Order: How did order come about? Quite simply possibly and without the benefit of any God. Just like evolution, all things evolve – why not the universe. Keep it simple. Nothing is the first non-cause. No first cause; anything is a state of reality in comparison to nothing. Nothing has no first cause. A linear mind might have trouble with this. This seems paradoxical but consider no matter; and how long this nothing was the state of the all-universe(s). During nothing and no time: there was no chaos; there was no death; it was perfect; nothing went wrong. Scientist have inferred from quantum theory and observance of the quantum interaction with space time. That matter might spontaneously erupt from nothing (or the void; or ether). Given this scenario a simple path though weird in conception seems plausible, and more of a reason than a non-reason (ontology). There is an equilibrium between the nothing and the something. To detect the edge of an apple I compare its edge to an end. It is something’s edge to its nothing counterpart that makes the comparison possible. Infinity is quite easy to consider when you compare anything to nothing; as well. Everything is infinitely more; or greater; when measured against nothing. So from the perfect nothing chaos sprang, and how much something would that have to be equal to equal infinity? I would say; anything greater than a non-zero amount; thus something akin to being infinitely small. What rules would bind it? Nothing. How many eruptions into nothing would there be? Enough until crowding occurred? Then there would no universe; just some weird crowding and a chaotic otherworld. But it is from chaos that order develops simply by its constant and continual interaction. How long would that occur - this chaotic state? Long enough for there to be a meaningful void; one where a quantum occurrences could exist or take effect; or be effected upon. Then singularity then chaos and the beginning of our universe; this big bang; then a cooling down and physical rule-properties of matter and order appear – and thus a universe that exists where obviously (at least in this aberration) that life had a greater than zero chance of being (since it does exist). First cause is not necessary, but an unnecessary first cause does not mean that Q-God? is an answered question. No. It still remains possible as consciousness of; or in; the void; or even as consciousness in another order underneath. From this possible perspective Q-God? would seem to me an utterly impersonal concept; and devoid from giving my life any further meaning. Another possibility is that things continue to evolve and this universe will give rise; to a Q-God? answer. A God born of this universe. Quick scenario - evolution of the universe: beyond events; singularity-even; expansion; cooling; order; planets and stars; no life; a bacteria; an eukaryote; a jellyfish-like animal; a fish-like animal; a boney-fish; an amphibian-like animal; a reptile-like; mammal-like; shrew-like; monkey-like; primate-like; ape-like; man-like; man; something and a lot more  time; God-like; God.      

4.   Meaning: Does the universe have no meaning without a Q-God? answer? I say so what; and I don’t care. It is the mystery that is the Universe’s charm and beauty. And there is only one choice, living in it, irregardless of evil perceived, and NOT. I make a meaningful choice in disregarding the NOT. . . . And further I think Q-God? is a question out of order; for it would seem to me that sophistication does not precede simplicity; just as order does not precede chaos; and most likely something does not precede nothing.