1) Avicenna is repeating much of what we read in Augustine and Aquinas, mostly that God is an uncaused cause, the unmovable mover. Because there is nothing created about God, ie there are no accidents in God, he could not be created but is the creator. Avicenna calls this the 'necessary of existence'. What really interested me about this section was his quote regarding the 'necessary of existence', "there is no demonstration of it, but it is the demonstration of all things". This seems to me argument for God as 'all of reality'.
2) Aquinas confused me in the second half of his section when he injected morality into the argument, at least I think that's what he's doing with term 'good'. However, It appears to me that if God's will is through divine goodness, that suggests that the divine goodness somehow precedes God's will. Wouldn't God's will and only God's will create this divine goodness?
1. The Avicenna reading was quite interesting. It seemed to me like the thinkers at the time had a very hard time dealing with the notion of infinite regression, so they believed a first cause to be completely necessary. I wonder if this is because the only versions they had were from antiquity and later subsequently debunked by later thinkers. My problem with this argument is on the grounds of necessity, it seems to me that notions of infinite regress, or needing some sort of first cause are both faith claims.
2. As for the Abelard reading, even though the reading has to do with creation I still cant shake the thought that he is inadvertently brushing against the problem of evil. Rather the piece seems to be attempting to explain away the imperfections of the world by essentially saying that even though it is possible that God could do anything doesn't necessarily mean that God himself would do those things by virtue of his nature.
On first impressions, I was interested to see more readings on whether creation was a necessary effect to the efficient cause that is God. This idea was never a problem I personally thought about so it seemed completely novel to me, however Augustine and Maimonides left me unsatisfied with their answers. I got the feeling they ruled out the necessity for creation because it would either constrain God, or be similar to an accident of God’s existence, which cannot be according to biblical canon. While I haven’t been convinced, as I have some concerns about his premises, I appreciate the logic Avicenna lays out regarding the possible and necessary as it pertains to God and creation.
Abelard’s piece caught me by surprise. It doesn’t strike me as the type of thing someone in favor of God would write. I can see why some contemporaries were unsettled by the attempt to apply logic to God, because it almost appears that Abelard is questioning, in addition to God’s omnipotence, His Goodness and his will, which intuitively feels more dangerous to me. While I don’t think his conclusion is al to different than Augustine and other’s we have read, Abelard is definitely more liberal with his hypothetical challenges to God.
Overall, I found this reading to be quite challenging and found difficulty gaining knowledge from the reading as a whole. However, one portion of the reading I thought somewhat opened my eyes at to what the reading was about was the part about necessary of existence and supposition. When the author explained it they used a math example which I feel made it easier to understand. The reading explained that 4 is necessary of existence on the supposition of 2+2. This means that 4 must be a number because 2+2=4. I feel like this example helped me understand the reading more.
A portion of the reading I found interesting was the part about four kinds of causes from which the existence of the thing arises. The four causes were the final perfecting cause, the material cause, the formal cause, and that from which the existence from the thing. I just found it interesting that they were able to breakdown the causes into four. In addition, I found it interesting that one of the causes is merely and sentence and couldn’t be broken down into a phrase.
1. I keep thinking about how hard scientists are working to try and find an answer to the 'fuzzy patch' at the earliest moments of the universe. As a group, they have done quite well explaining so many things we thought we would never understand, making things possible that seemed impossible. I imagine that they will eventually be able to clarify what happened during the origin of our universe but does that mean that Avicenna's arguments will be rendered invalid? I do not think so. It seems that, no matter how far back we go, the rabbit hole always goes deeper. It may be that they find the origin and there is no need for a god-like first cause but some theories, like the multiverse theory, suggest that there will always be more and that much of it will be beyond our reach. It may be that philosophical musing is all we will have beyond the limits of observation. In that case, Avicenna is an interesting read.
2. I can't help it. After reading Abelard, I have to talk about probability. "Actuality exhausts potentiality"? HA! Actually, it might. When I read about the double-slit experiment, I was very confused about the world I live in. I pondered the presence of probability waves almost non-stop. For days I wondered if I should or could take a different route home. I also wondered how it could be that a particle pops up here or there when 'measured' or interacted with. It seemed the universe could no longer be predicted with certainty, as Newton, Einstein and Abelard would have us believe. Probability now reigned supreme, at least on the smallest scales. One idea of the multiverse is that all of these possibilities, potentialities happen. At first the idea reminded me of the "Back to the Future" movies. After more careful thought (but probably not careful enough), I realized that probability could be another dimension and that all of probability could exist at once like some philosophers and physicists believe all of time exists at once. If such an idea were provable, it might rescue Abelard from the ravages of quantum physics.
Avicenna, much like the other readings up to this point, speaks of the existence of God and makes an argument for such a claim. As the previous philosophers in the readings aforementioned, he attempt to do this at a deductive angle but puts a different twist on things. For Avicenna all things fit into two categories: necessity of existence or possibility of existence. God falls into then necessity of existence, as He is devoid of causality and simply just is, whilst other things are possible of existence because of Him. As John had mentioned, I also feel as though the philosophers of the medieval era did little to ground their claims in anything but faith. The arguments for the existence of God, as viewed as perfection and supremacy itself, is largely argued by the refutation of the quiddity of tangible reality - the argument the metaphysical is only posed through faith claims on the origins of physical things. It's a "straw-man" argument that becomes hard to critique due to the fact that there is actually a lack of evidence for the existence of God other than denouncing all other elements.
1. How can something immaterial affect or create things that are material? This argument of necessity seems to me like a argument about physics. There has to a necessary existence that all possible contingent existences come from. That being said, that seems to me to be a very physical process. These rational arguments confuse me because they start from a rational place and then become irrational when it comes to proving that this necessary existence has to be God. God’s superpowers are just assumed. 2.Doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas argue for nihilism when he says God creates things purely out of own ‘goodness’? The act of creation seems to me like just God’s whim. If there was nothing outside of God that could affect him to create the world then why did he do it? ‘Goodness’ is a morally laden term, but morality can’t exist in a world with only one being.
1. The Avicenna reading was interesting in that it was a repetition of much of what we have read so far in this class regarding the existence of God and how it is that creation had come to be. What I liked about Avicenna's discussion is that it flowed with nicely with the other readings discussing how God existence was the first cause that thus caused all the other causes.
2. Im not actually sure whether I can designate both parts of my post to the same reading but I wanted to briefly touch on one thing that Avicenna seemed to be pointing out at the beginning of his discussion that particularly interested me which was how he seemed to be talking about God as all of reality and how God is "all of reality" meaning that God is all of things that have been caused. I wonder what that means for the evil that is in the world and whether that means that God would be the cause of evil and also mean that evil is in this sense a part of God?
1. I enjoyed this reading and how Avicenna tries to layout the differences in modality of existence. At times it was hard to follow the wording but overall I understood the distinction he was attempting to make between possible existence and necessary existence.
2.I also appreciated the way this argument uses Aristotelian causes and relates them to understand God's necessity. His argument about what he calls God's quiddity is a well put however I feel like there may be some circularity to his argument however I don't fully understand it so that could be false.
1. The first reading felt a lot like what ive already learned about how these era of philophy precives creation. That nothing was before god and god is what creates the motion that puts forth creation. I like this line of thinking because its easier for me to precive theoligy this way.
2. I got the feeling that this had alot to do with ulitimate good in the univers. That god is precieded by goodness making him good and his intentions good.
1) Avicenna is repeating much of what we read in Augustine and Aquinas, mostly that God is an uncaused cause, the unmovable mover. Because there is nothing created about God, ie there are no accidents in God, he could not be created but is the creator. Avicenna calls this the 'necessary of existence'. What really interested me about this section was his quote regarding the 'necessary of existence', "there is no demonstration of it, but it is the demonstration of all things". This seems to me argument for God as 'all of reality'.
ReplyDelete2) Aquinas confused me in the second half of his section when he injected morality into the argument, at least I think that's what he's doing with term 'good'. However, It appears to me that if God's will is through divine goodness, that suggests that the divine goodness somehow precedes God's will. Wouldn't God's will and only God's will create this divine goodness?
1. The Avicenna reading was quite interesting. It seemed to me like the thinkers at the time had a very hard time dealing with the notion of infinite regression, so they believed a first cause to be completely necessary. I wonder if this is because the only versions they had were from antiquity and later subsequently debunked by later thinkers. My problem with this argument is on the grounds of necessity, it seems to me that notions of infinite regress, or needing some sort of first cause are both faith claims.
ReplyDelete2. As for the Abelard reading, even though the reading has to do with creation I still cant shake the thought that he is inadvertently brushing against the problem of evil. Rather the piece seems to be attempting to explain away the imperfections of the world by essentially saying that even though it is possible that God could do anything doesn't necessarily mean that God himself would do those things by virtue of his nature.
On first impressions, I was interested to see more readings on whether creation was a necessary effect to the efficient cause that is God. This idea was never a problem I personally thought about so it seemed completely novel to me, however Augustine and Maimonides left me unsatisfied with their answers. I got the feeling they ruled out the necessity for creation because it would either constrain God, or be similar to an accident of God’s existence, which cannot be according to biblical canon. While I haven’t been convinced, as I have some concerns about his premises, I appreciate the logic Avicenna lays out regarding the possible and necessary as it pertains to God and creation.
ReplyDeleteAbelard’s piece caught me by surprise. It doesn’t strike me as the type of thing someone in favor of God would write. I can see why some contemporaries were unsettled by the attempt to apply logic to God, because it almost appears that Abelard is questioning, in addition to God’s omnipotence, His Goodness and his will, which intuitively feels more dangerous to me. While I don’t think his conclusion is al to different than Augustine and other’s we have read, Abelard is definitely more liberal with his hypothetical challenges to God.
Overall, I found this reading to be quite challenging and found difficulty gaining knowledge from the reading as a whole. However, one portion of the reading I thought somewhat opened my eyes at to what the reading was about was the part about necessary of existence and supposition. When the author explained it they used a math example which I feel made it easier to understand. The reading explained that 4 is necessary of existence on the supposition of 2+2. This means that 4 must be a number because 2+2=4. I feel like this example helped me understand the reading more.
ReplyDeleteA portion of the reading I found interesting was the part about four kinds of causes from which the existence of the thing arises. The four causes were the final perfecting cause, the material cause, the formal cause, and that from which the existence from the thing. I just found it interesting that they were able to breakdown the causes into four. In addition, I found it interesting that one of the causes is merely and sentence and couldn’t be broken down into a phrase.
1. I keep thinking about how hard scientists are working to try and find an answer to the 'fuzzy patch' at the earliest moments of the universe. As a group, they have done quite well explaining so many things we thought we would never understand, making things possible that seemed impossible. I imagine that they will eventually be able to clarify what happened during the origin of our universe but does that mean that Avicenna's arguments will be rendered invalid? I do not think so. It seems that, no matter how far back we go, the rabbit hole always goes deeper. It may be that they find the origin and there is no need for a god-like first cause but some theories, like the multiverse theory, suggest that there will always be more and that much of it will be beyond our reach. It may be that philosophical musing is all we will have beyond the limits of observation. In that case, Avicenna is an interesting read.
ReplyDelete2. I can't help it. After reading Abelard, I have to talk about probability. "Actuality exhausts potentiality"? HA! Actually, it might. When I read about the double-slit experiment, I was very confused about the world I live in. I pondered the presence of probability waves almost non-stop. For days I wondered if I should or could take a different route home. I also wondered how it could be that a particle pops up here or there when 'measured' or interacted with. It seemed the universe could no longer be predicted with certainty, as Newton, Einstein and Abelard would have us believe. Probability now reigned supreme, at least on the smallest scales. One idea of the multiverse is that all of these possibilities, potentialities happen. At first the idea reminded me of the "Back to the Future" movies. After more careful thought (but probably not careful enough), I realized that probability could be another dimension and that all of probability could exist at once like some philosophers and physicists believe all of time exists at once. If such an idea were provable, it might rescue Abelard from the ravages of quantum physics.
The 'probability sphere' would be a deterministic world, just one outside of our powers of observation.
DeleteAvicenna, much like the other readings up to this point, speaks of the existence of God and makes an argument for such a claim. As the previous philosophers in the readings aforementioned, he attempt to do this at a deductive angle but puts a different twist on things. For Avicenna all things fit into two categories: necessity of existence or possibility of existence. God falls into then necessity of existence, as He is devoid of causality and simply just is, whilst other things are possible of existence because of Him. As John had mentioned, I also feel as though the philosophers of the medieval era did little to ground their claims in anything but faith. The arguments for the existence of God, as viewed as perfection and supremacy itself, is largely argued by the refutation of the quiddity of tangible reality - the argument the metaphysical is only posed through faith claims on the origins of physical things. It's a "straw-man" argument that becomes hard to critique due to the fact that there is actually a lack of evidence for the existence of God other than denouncing all other elements.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete1. How can something immaterial affect or create things that are material? This argument of necessity seems to me like a argument about physics. There has to a necessary existence that all possible contingent existences come from. That being said, that seems to me to be a very physical process. These rational arguments confuse me because they start from a rational place and then become irrational when it comes to proving that this necessary existence has to be God. God’s superpowers are just assumed.
2.Doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas argue for nihilism when he says God creates things purely out of own ‘goodness’? The act of creation seems to me like just God’s whim. If there was nothing outside of God that could affect him to create the world then why did he do it? ‘Goodness’ is a morally laden term, but morality can’t exist in a world with only one being.
1. The Avicenna reading was interesting in that it was a repetition of much of what we have read so far in this class regarding the existence of God and how it is that creation had come to be. What I liked about Avicenna's discussion is that it flowed with nicely with the other readings discussing how God existence was the first cause that thus caused all the other causes.
ReplyDelete2. Im not actually sure whether I can designate both parts of my post to the same reading but I wanted to briefly touch on one thing that Avicenna seemed to be pointing out at the beginning of his discussion that particularly interested me which was how he seemed to be talking about God as all of reality and how God is "all of reality" meaning that God is all of things that have been caused. I wonder what that means for the evil that is in the world and whether that means that God would be the cause of evil and also mean that evil is in this sense a part of God?
1. I enjoyed this reading and how Avicenna tries to layout the differences in modality of existence. At times it was hard to follow the wording but overall I understood the distinction he was attempting to make between possible existence and necessary existence.
ReplyDelete2.I also appreciated the way this argument uses Aristotelian causes and relates them to understand God's necessity. His argument about what he calls God's quiddity is a well put however I feel like there may be some circularity to his argument however I don't fully understand it so that could be false.
1. The first reading felt a lot like what ive already learned about how these era of philophy precives creation. That nothing was before god and god is what creates the motion that puts forth creation. I like this line of thinking because its easier for me to precive theoligy this way.
ReplyDelete2. I got the feeling that this had alot to do with ulitimate good in the univers. That god is precieded by goodness making him good and his intentions good.