Eh?
Are you saying that even addressing this issue is morally redundant or even inappropriate? Um... no. There's no moral claim here. It's simply to point out that the question won't admit of a satisfactory answer.

Deeming it a non-question is an insult to the many remarkable minds, Hume included, who have poured their energies into addressing it - regardless of the conclusions they ultimately drew. No it isn't - and, anyway, there's no rule that says that remarkable minds can't make mistakes and oughtn't to have those mistakes pointed out.

you have to entertain is that there is a God whose existence is unfettered by space and time and thus never began, never sprang "ex nihilo" but rather has always been and will always continue to be. But that won't tell us anything about the universe; and, as I (and Hume) said, if one thing can be eternal and without beginning, why not the universe. (Also, I'd dispute on Kantian grounds the coherence of an entity that never began but still is.)

and read Michio Kaku and perhaps a bit of Meister Eckhart instead. Well, Kaku is without doubt an interesting physicist; but unless you think that metaphysics is reducible to physics, it's unclear why that's important. As for Eckhart: why? What would medievalism add to the debate?

My claim here, incidentally, has not been that there is no god: it's that there's no reason to believe in any such thing. Maybe you missed that blindingly obvious distinction.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:55, 1 reply)

Re: 'Eh?'
Girlfriend, by using the phrase “a matter of principle,” you imply a moral framework from which that principle was derived. Sounds like a moral claim to me. Hope you’re OK with the whole girlfriend thing btw. I’m experimenting with more intimate forms of address. You may reciprocate if you wish.

To brand any question a "non-question" simply because you believe it will not “admit of a satisfactory answer” is just weak, weak, weak, honey. Satisfaction is in the heart, mind and eye of the beholder. Unless of course by satisfactory you mean accurate to the point of standing up to remorseless scientific scrutiny, in which case you might as well write off all but the most simplistic and utilitarian philosophic enquiry as pointless navel-gazing. There’ll never be consensus on the matter. For every Aquinas who finds meaning in a search for God there’s a Sartre who doesn’t.

I mentioned Kaku because he’s an example of an individual at the cutting edge of scientific enquiry, which you cite as doing a good job of explaining the universe, who would absolutely refute your/Hume’s argument. He finds reason to believe in a creator; it inspires and informs his work. And, treasure, I don’t think metaphysics is reducible to physics but you know as well as I do that, at the quantum level at least, the two have unavoidably overlapped for the best part of a century.

As for Meister Eckhart, he’s only a mediaevalist in the sense that he happened to be born in the middle ages. He also happens to be a personal hero of mine. I suggested you read him because I wanted to give you another dose of nauseating hippy crap. Here, try this: “All God wants of man is a peaceful heart.”

I read your posts and I wonder whether they stem from sheer intellectual vanity or from a genuine desire to engage and enlighten. I mean, what’s behind all the posturing? Your heart seems far from peaceful. Can we put you on the couch, sweetie?
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 13:04, closed)