Edwina, List: ET: ... if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' ...
It was not an objection, it was a sincere question, purely out of curiosity. I tried to make that clear, but apparently failed. "Almost impossible" implies that there is *some *way "to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality"; so I was simply asking what that might be, in your view. ET: Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. I neither said nor implied that this history is "proof or evidence for [God's] existence/reality," which would indeed be fallacious; rather, I suggested that it indicates that such reasoning is not merely "pure rhetoric," as you alleged. Surely Peirce did not view it as such. ET: Your *reasons *- are beliefs. Is this supposed to be some kind of knock-down argument against theism? Can you identify *any *reasons for believing something that are *not *beliefs, as well? ET: There is no empirical or logical evidence. On the contrary--I think that there is *abundant *empirical *and *logical evidence for the reality of God, and Peirce discussed some of both kinds in "A Neglected Argument." Like him, I observe the beauty and order of nature, as well as humanity's instinctive disposition to "guess" viable hypotheses about it, and sometimes wonder how *anyone *can deny the reality of God. Ultimately, it is not a matter of the *evidence *itself, but of how one *interprets *it. Of course, you and I have experienced this firsthand in our very different "readings" of Peirce. ET: And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in *experience*, it is reasonable to *await positive evidence* before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis]. Indeed. Then he went on further ... CSP: Otherwise, why venture beyond direct observation? Illustrations of this principle abound in physical science. Since, then, it is certain that man is able to understand the laws and the causes of some phenomena, *it is reasonable to assume, in regard to any given problem, that it would get rightly solved by man, if a sufficiency of time and attention were devoted to it*. Moreover, those problems that at first blush appear utterly insoluble receive, in that very circumstance, as Edgar Poe remarked in his "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," their smoothly-fitting keys. This particularly adapts them to the Play of Musement. (CP 6.460, emphasis added) Peirce refused to rule out the solution of *any *given problem by human beings, including the origin of "this physico-chemical existentiality." After all, doing so would amount to blocking the way of inquiry. He added that the Play of Musement is especially well-suited to tackling such problems, the kind "that at first blush appear utterly insoluble"; and what did he subsequently say is the result in this particular case? CSP: ... in the Pure Play of Musement the idea of God's Reality will be sure sooner or later to be found an attractive fancy, which the Muser will develop in various ways. The more he ponders it, the more it will find response in every part of his mind, for its beauty, for its supplying an ideal of life, and for its thoroughly satisfactory explanation of his whole threefold environment. (CP 6.465) Regards, Jon On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if > you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus > 'just plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and > linguistic style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't > even in my vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves *in > different phraseology and use different words* and that not everyone > expresses themselves in YOUR style of expression. > > Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the > existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his > existence/reality. That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an > argument has been around for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum > ad antiquitatem]. > > There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, > purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies, and etc. Doesn't mean > a thing. > > Your *reasons* - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such > discussions belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is > no empirical or logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain > amount of speculation'. WHAT????? It is ALL speculation and it remains a > 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466. > > And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, > "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we > are forced to recognize a given element in *experience*, it is reasonable > to *await positive evidence* before we complicate our acknowledgment with > qualifications'. [my emphasis]. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L > <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as > Helmut points out. > > > And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls > for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) > nothing? > > ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this > physico-chemical existentiality. > > > I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as *almost* > impossible, rather than just plain impossible? > > ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator > [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is > no proof - logical or empirical. > > > The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of > God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" > convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor > that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of > the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I > have *reasons *for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you > presumably have *reasons *for believing that God is *not *real. We can > discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position > is more rationally justified. > > ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this > physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... > > > Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly > because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always > a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any > cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, > or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this > physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first > place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. > > CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding > intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not > the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a > masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would > dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his > breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into > what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite > word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460) > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the >> pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to >> remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. >> I don't. >> >> The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut >> points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this >> physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a >> metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either >> believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. >> >> We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this >> physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the >> brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology >> of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this >> physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that >> the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of >> the pre-univese. >> >> Edwina >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
