The most difficult term I need to state my view that there is no single manager of the whole is "causes directly." I say this because direct causation of events is what it seems many traditions embrace and what lends potency and status to any candidate for manager.
Features of the manager: directly causes events that are clearly physical and clearly in space and time. Thus, appealing to the manager would be a way of changing future events, assuming that the appeal was accepted.
What does it take to establish the non-existence of the manager? The idea of the manager is real and does exist and does have power. However, this does not prove that there is direct causation since the reality is generated by the mere thought processes; these thought processes can be made more concrete by writing and various forms of image-making: in particular, music where the manager is the object of the songs; art where the manager is indirectly the object of the art; poetry and prose that purpose to be ABOUT the manager.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This post led me to checking out a bunch of stuff on Wikipedia. The following seemed to be relevant to the underlying assumptions of the discussion:
Negative proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a logical fallacy. The term "negative proof" can also refer to a proof of impossibility.
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".
Thanks for the thoughtful comment on my worries about showing that anything beyond the IDEA of God exists. Almost everyone agrees that the idea of God exists AS an idea. The debate should center around whether we show that the idea corresponds to anything beyond itself.
Post a Comment