In the beginning of Being Hart eloquently describes the vast inquiries we possess about the origin of existence. He delivers various scenarios that may arise while reflecting on the mystery of reality. Hart seems to implicate a similar conclusion to Cleanthes' presumption based on the analogy of a house."The American philosopher Richard Taylor once illustrated this, mystery, famously and fetchingly, with the image of a man out for a stroll in the forest unaccountably coming upon a very large translucent sphere. Naturally, he would immediately be taken back by the sheer strangeness of the thing, and would wonder how it should happen to be there. More to the point, he would certainly never be able to believe that it just happened to be there without any cause,''(90-91). This quote further leads to the formulation of an ontological discussion about the existence of our reality. The peculiarity of the sphere is not drawn from its very nature but its existence according to Hart. In the same manner our curiosity of this reality or our existence on the expanded sphere ( Earth) is drawn not just by its nature but the utter existence. The physical manifestations on earth strike more mystery while and after an observation. I sometimes wonder would a sample of only a few physical observations of the world be sufficient enough to draw conclusions based on our reality. It seems that Hart implies that like the sphere in the forest the earth was made present by something. The irony from this text became even more evident to me when I recall a paraphrase from a christian who said,'' God's existence is evident through his creation. We all have the capacity to analyze and reflect upon this wonder,'' I presumed that the christian's overall point was that we cannot understand the fullness of existence without first admitting its origins from God. Then we could understand the awe and wonder of God's creation. Now of course further analysis should be conducted and by no means should anyone make this hasty generalization unless they already believe. Again as we discussed in class Hart's attempt to purport the existence of God with proofs serve to give believers a more intellectual confidence in their belief. The quote from the christian however, did compel my christian beliefs, but it seems insufficient to the unbeliever which is the problem. One prominent issue with the statement is that it causes an onset of regresses. One being that if the the existence of God is evident in creation how did God come to be? Many others can be drawn thus confusing anyone that would continue to convey more inquiries thrusting more regresses. It's a very touchy issue we would say, especially if you don't already believe in God. The dilemma for us believers are now, how do we provide proofs that don't lead up to these regresses. Hopefully we will certainly find out. However, many controversial questions still arise.One prominent discussion we'll be engaging in soon is The Problem of Evil.
Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
The concept of regresses combined with the argument of proof of God to believers seems to be a big issue. Since most people aren't able to philisophically analyze and define God the way Hart and other philosophers do, they ofter run into issues with validating their belief. It is a difficult issue to overcome, because regress is so easy to get to.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe trying to avoid infinite regress is impossible. I say this as a strong believer for 13 years now. Some questions we simply do not possess the capacity to understand or answer. Some things just are. God would be one of those things, He just is. If God does exist like I personally believe, His existence is so far from our understanding and ability to comprehend trying to do so is useless. It is this very reason these same questions have been asked for centuries with no definite answers. If God is everything, infinite, and non-contingent He would be impossible in our scope of understanding to explain because He is impossible to fully understand. Many unbelievers believe in evolution and the big bang theory. However, the same questions of "how" and "why" can be applied to them as well and we would still return to regress. They can no more trace the "beginning" of everything with absolute surety anymore than what they feel believers can. We have to accept we CAN'T know everything. Our experiences are what guide us.
ReplyDelete