URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Classical Theism
  HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Philosophy
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 68--------------------------------------------------
       The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: February 8, 2020, 11:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The thomist is commited to the idea that God wills himself
       necessarily, and wills other things in willing himself. This
       essentially saves creation from existing necessarily in some
       strict sense; however, insofar as there is no counterfactual
       possibility in God, then things exist of necessity even if they
       are not strictly entailed by his being. Although, this might not
       be as bad as I may have first thought. Lets say that the big
       bang was the beginning of creation. So, God caused the big bang
       necessarily, but in a way that isn't entailed by his being.
       Given that indeterminacy is true and that conscious agents have
       freewill, then there is still an opprotunity for the "chips to
       fall where they may", so to speak, and in some weaker sense
       saving the usefulness or legitimacy of modality. We would then,
       however, be commited to the idea that there is no possible world
       in which the big bang is false, but also that there is a
       possible world where I didn't make this post.
       This seems to me to be a very odd conclusion, but nonetheless I
       think it is probably correct. Thoughts?
       p.s. Its pretty quiet around here, which sucks. I'll probably
       post more in the future with the hope of stemming more
       conversation.
       #Post#: 69--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Mackie Messer Date: February 9, 2020, 5:40 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]p.s. Its pretty quiet around here, which sucks. I'll
       probably post more in the future with the hope of stemming more
       conversation.[/quote]
       Unfortunately, I think a lot of people lost steam after the
       vBulletin forum got hacked.
       #Post#: 70--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Ouros Date: February 10, 2020, 3:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]Unfortunately, I think a lot of people lost steam after
       the vBulletin forum got hacked.[/quote]
       That, and I think that a lot of older members are busy (I
       remember that some had or are having changes in their lives.)
       Re OP, I'm not sure I'm following your reasonning. It seems you
       outright beg the question by thinking that's there no
       counterfactual possibility in God. Even if there's not strictly
       internal contingency to God, surely the object of His will and
       knowing can change.
       #Post#: 71--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: February 10, 2020, 9:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If the object of Gods will can change, then there is internal
       contingency in God (more precisely, Gods existence would be
       derivative), for if God's will willed for something other than
       God, then whatever God wills determines his will and therefore
       isn't actus purus. In other words, Gods will would be in potency
       towards whatever he wills. Nevertheless, counterfactual
       possibility only exists in temporal settings. Unless you are
       willing to reject that God is eternal, then God wills the world
       necessarily even if it is only a weaker notion of necessity. I
       suppose you could say that God exists tomporally but has existed
       for an infinite amount of time, but then you're left with a
       neo-theistic conception of God which is undesirable.
       #Post#: 72--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Mackie Messer Date: February 10, 2020, 1:38 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [Quote=Ouros]That, and I think that a lot of older members are
       busy (I remember that some had or are having changes in their
       lives.)[/Quote]
       I'm almost certainly one of the people you're thinking of, but
       actually I think that a lot of us were only holding on because
       of inertia long before the forum was hacked or things came up in
       our lives.
       I think this forum has long suffered from a crisis of identity.
       When we started it, Scott and I had in mind that it would be a
       sort of apologetics outpost where people from Feser's blog could
       come to ask questions without being harrassed by combox trolls.
       But, except for Scott and later Greg, none of the people doing
       the actual work of setting up or running the place (or paying
       for it) were Thomist or Catholic, so it lost this raison d'etre
       and became a sort of watery classical theism outpost. I also
       think that a lot of us got sick of answering and replying to the
       same people making the same arguments over and over and over
       without sign of give or growth on any side. But, anyway, a lot
       of us were more than happy to split once we were given a reason
       (whether it was the hack or other things in our lives). After we
       gave up on the apologetics outpost idea, I tried to make it into
       a sort of philosophical sand box for people of various classical
       theist positions—sort of like what Ed Feser thinks the
       world should be like—to debate on, but I got overwhelmed
       trying to handle all the advertising and technical
       administration (and life) myself.** The other issue I ran into
       (and I think that this is a problem with online outfits in
       general) is that everybody wanted to run their own site
       (everybody wants to "be the boss", so to speak), so unless the
       subject is reeealllllly popular none of those sites reach the
       critical mass of people needed to become thriving,
       self-sustaining communities. I tried to bring some of these
       smaller communities together (even offering the senior
       administrator position to someone else at one point) to reach
       that critical mass, but pride and avarice won out. I'm also just
       a bad person to be acting as spokesperson for a classical theist
       website—I lack the conviction in classical theism some of
       you guys have. (If only I could have gotten some of you, with
       your crusading fervor, to help out!) In any case, bottom line is
       that a lot more was going in to keeping the forum even at the
       point it was at than most people realized (I wasn't doing it for
       thanks, so never said anything), and that now it needs new blood
       and new energy to perform those tasks.
       **The technical administrator quit for personal reasons like two
       weeks before the hack.
       #Post#: 73--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Mackie Messer Date: February 10, 2020, 1:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       CLT: The problem at the root of this problem is the accidental
       property objection:
  HTML https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/04/divine-simplicity-is-god-identical-to-his-thoughts.html
       If you want to go over some new ground (in your research, or
       reading, I mean), you can try weaving your way around the
       indeterminacy stuff by applying a theory of probability that
       allows for necessitarianism to it, but this is another old
       objection in new garb situation (which, I think, is no less an
       objection for being old).
       #Post#: 74--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: RomanJoe Date: February 10, 2020, 9:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I absolutely adored the forum when I made an account years back
       on the original site. It helped cultivate in me a love for
       metaphysics and ethics that I still find myself enamored with
       during contemplative moments. So many questions I've had
       answered by this community. I truly am sad that it has fizzled
       out. I used to sift through the archives continuously, and would
       always refresh the page to see what new debates or questions are
       posted. Though I might not be active from time to time, I'll
       always stop in. I still glance over it weekly.
       #Post#: 75--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Ouros Date: February 11, 2020, 6:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       That's just a part of modern forums life cycle. Social medias
       drains people who could have used forums, here or not.
       Nowadays, there's not enough people who are into it to keep the
       website alive. Not sure if you could have done anything about
       it, honnestly.
       #Post#: 76--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Mackie Messer Date: February 11, 2020, 11:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I proposed moving to Facebook wayyy before anybody else had a
       similar outfit on Facebook, but others felt that it would stifle
       conservative commentors and lower the level of conversation too
       much (and, to be fair, Facebook posts do tend to be less
       substantial than forum posts).
       But there are successful forums for obscure, niche topics (e.g.
       Thomas Ligotti's work). They just take a lot of work to get to
       that critical mass of members.
       To be honest, I also think that the fact that we're a philosophy
       forum is part of the problem. Most people aren't actually that
       interested in philosophy, and even a lot of those who are are
       interested only derivatively (for defending their religion or
       some belief system or something, which, I suppose, is admirable
       in its own way). I've been involved with a few non-philosophical
       projects since September (I was invited on to the board of a
       language school just yesterday), and, I got to tell you, the
       difference in enthusiasm and energy is night and day. (Perhaps,
       for this reason, it would have been wise to try to root this
       forum's philosophy in a single religion more. There are still
       people who get worked up about religion. I think it was probably
       a mistake to both narrow the target audience and fail to do so
       in a way that channeled people's interest in something else,
       like a religion.)
       #Post#: 77--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
       By: Mackie Messer Date: February 11, 2020, 11:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It goes without saying, that if anybody wants to help out with
       the administration of the forum we're happy to make you
       administrators. I have too many other things on the go to take
       an active role, but I'm happy to pass on the mantle.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page