Does the Universe Exist Because It Ought To? A Critique of Extreme Axiarchism

Dialogue ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-658
Author(s):  
Roland Puccetti
Keyword(s):  
The Sun ◽  
Traditional Theism ◽  
The World ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Universe

If axiarchism is the theory that the world is ruled by value, extreme axiarchism is the theory that some set of ethical needs is itself creatively powerful (Mackie 1982). Both views go back to Plato's claim in The Republic that the Form of the Good gives us knowledge and creative energy on analogy with the sun giving us vision without itself acting in the world. Insofar as this way of thinking obviates the need for a creative God, extreme axiarchism is a rival to traditional theism; if there is a God he was called into existence by virtue of his ethical requiredness.

scholarly journals III. On the nature and construction of the sun and fixed stars

1795 ◽  
Vol 85 ◽  
pp. 46-72 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Central Body ◽  
Planetary System ◽  
Considerable Progress ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Great Satisfaction ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The World ◽  
Celestial Bodies ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Made In

Among the celestial bodies the sun is certainly the first which should attract our notice. It is a fountain of light that illuminates the world! it is the cause of that heat which main­tains the productive power of nature, and makes the earth a fit habitation for man! it is the central body of the planetary system; and what renders a knowledge of its nature still more interesting to us is, that the numberless stars which compose the universe, appear, by the strictest analogy, to be similar bodies. Their innate light is so intense, that it reaches the eye of the observer from the remotest regions of space, and forcibly claims his notice. Now, if we are convinced that an inquiry into the nature and properties of the sun is highly worthy of our notice, we may also with great satisfaction reflect on the considerable progress that has already been made in our knowledge of this eminent body. It would require a long detail to enumerate all the various discoveries which have been made on this subject; I shall, therefore, content myself with giving only the most capital of them.

Does This Bring Us Back to God?

2021 ◽  
pp. 181-192
Author(s):  
Bruce Ledewitz
Keyword(s):  
Causal Structure ◽  
Public Life ◽  
Final Conclusion ◽  
Process Thought ◽  
Traditional Theism ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Ex Nihilo ◽  
The Universe

The book returns to the question of God within the world of the yes. The reader is given tools to continue the investigation, but no final conclusion is reached on the question of God. David Griffin’s process thought is naturalistic and panentheistic. This view of God shares attributes of traditional theism. But in process thought, God does not create ex nihilo, does not coerce, and remains within the causal structure of nature. Griffin argues that God is a necessary feature of process thought and its endorsement of enduring meaning. Donald Sherburne offers a different view, called “Whitehead Without God.” The book concludes that process thought without God can still renew public life. It remains for us in the future to investigate the mystery of holiness in the universe.

Machines

On Purpose ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 42-60
Author(s):  
Michael Ruse
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Natural Philosophy ◽  
The Sun ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The World ◽  
Real Change ◽  
The Universe ◽  
The Revolution

This chapter discusses the Scientific Revolution that is dated from the publication of Nicolaus Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543, the work that put the sun rather than the earth at the center of the universe to Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in 1687, the work that gave the causal underpinnings of the whole system as developed over the previous one hundred and fifty years. Historian Rupert Hall put his finger precisely on the real change that occurred in the revolution. It was not so much the physical theories, although these were massive and important. It was rather a change of metaphors or models—from that of an organism to that of a machine. By the sixteenth century, machines were becoming ever more common and ever more sophisticated. It was natural therefore for people to start thinking of the world—the universe—as a machine, especially since some of the most elaborate of the new machines were astronomical clocks that had the planets and the sun and moon moving through the heavens, not by human force but by predestined contraptions. In a word, by clockwork!

Models in physics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Frigg
Keyword(s):  
Elliptical Orbit ◽  
Target System ◽  
Newtonian Mechanics ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Fundamental Theory ◽  
Term Model ◽  
The World ◽  
The Universe

In its most common use, the term ‘model’ refers to a simplified and stylised version of the so-called target system, the part or aspect of the world that we are interested in. For instance, in order to determine the orbit of a planet moving around the sun we model the planet and the sun as perfect homogenous spheres that gravitationally interact with each other but nothing else in the universe, and then apply Newtonian mechanics to this system, which reveals that the planet moves on an elliptical orbit. Views diverge about what sort of entity such a model is. Those focusing on the formal aspects of models regard them either as equations or set-theoretical structures, while those opposed to such an approach take them to be descriptions or abstract (yet non-mathematical) entities. A further question concerns the relation of models and theories. In some cases models can be derived from theory simply by specifying the relevant determinables in a theory’s general equations. But many models cannot be obtained from theory in this straightforward way, and some even involve assumptions that contradict the fundamental theory. The relation of models to their respective target systems is equally complex and fraught with controversy. Two influential proposals take the relation between a model and its target to be isomorphism or similarity, respectively. This, however, has been criticised as too restrictive, since many models seem not to fit this mould.

Panbabylonianism

1910 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crawford H. Toy
Keyword(s):  
The Sun ◽  
The Moon ◽  
The West ◽  
The World ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Right ◽  
Heaven And Earth ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Plant Forms

In the year 1794 Charles François Dupuis brought out his Origine de tous les cultes, ou religion universelle, a work that made a great stir in its day. His object, he explains, was not to express his own religious views, but simply to describe the opinions of the ancients. The religion of antiquity he represents as the recognition of the divinity of the universe, the heavenly bodies playing the chief rôle; all ancient cosmogonies, with heaven and earth, all the apparatus of religion (ritual, processions, images), and all myths were derived from sun, moon, planets, and constellations. The beast-forms and plant-forms of the Egyptian deities, for example, were copied from the constellations into which men had divided the starry sky; the zodiac was associated with the sun as a cause of mundane phenomena, and the division of the sky into twelve parts gave vogue and sacredness to the number twelve among Egyptians, Hebrews, and Greeks; the sun was the chief god—it was called the right eye of the world, and the moon the left eye; from the victory of the sun over darkness and winter sprang the idea of a Restorer of the world, a Saviour. He remarks also that the ancient Chaldeans were distinguished for their achievements in astronomy, and that from them the knowledge of these sciences was carried to the West. They taught that the heavenly bodies controlled mundane destinies, and, according to Diodorus, that the planets were the interpreters of the will of the gods.

scholarly journals DEATH IN 2020 AND A COVID-19 GREAT EPIDEMIC: AN ISLAMIC ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-141
Author(s):  
Md. Kohinoor Hossain
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
The Sun ◽  
The Moon ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Religions ◽  
The World ◽  
Present World ◽  
The Universe ◽  
People Today

Only love to almighty Allah is the greatest love. From ages to ages, Allah has sent his messengers to preach only love to Him. Many destructions, disruptions, and explosions have occurred in this world. This paper tries to explore the causes of the great disasters in the world. The global people when they lead an invalid way, there occurs a terrible crisis. None of the worlds saves it. Only Allah can save global people. Today, the present world is full of share-ism, idolatry-ism, usury-ism, zakat-free-ism, killing-ism, injustice-ism, and inhumanity-ism. They practice about Gods and Goddesses. They believe that the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees, the stone, the angels, the jinn, and other animals can reach Allah. They are the dearest persons who are God, Gods, Goddess, and Goddesses related. Above eleven million people think and say that there is no creator of the universe. It is operating as automated. Marriages and sexism are human to animal. They practice as same-sex, polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry. Most of the global people pray to Materials, Death Guru, God, Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, Peer, Saai, Baba, Abba, Dihi Baba, Langta Baba, Khaja Baba, Joy Guru, Joy Chisty, Joy Baba Hydery, Joy Maa Kali, Maa Durga, Moorshid Kibla, Baba Haque Bhandary, Joy Ganesh Pagla, Joy Deawan Baggi, Joy Chandrapa, Joy Sureshwaree, Fooltali Kebla, Sharshina Kebla, Foorfoora Kebla, Joy Ganapati, Joy Krishnan, Joy Hari, Joy Bhagaban and Mazzarians. The new religions have preached in the world such as Baha’i, Kadyany, Khaljee, Din-E-Elahi, Brahma, and Humanism. The world is full of Shirkism, Moonafikism, Goboatism, Bohtanism, Mooshrikiaism, Oathlessism, and Khianotkariism. In the past, undetermined civilizations have vanished but none can save civilization. This Covid-19 great destruction is human-made. It is from climate change that comes to the global people as a great curse.

scholarly journals Speculations on Possible Physical and Cosmical Phenomena in Reference to the Past Conditions of Our Earth

The Geologist ◽  
1863 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 178-183
Author(s):  
S. J. Mackie
Keyword(s):  
Planetary System ◽  
The Sun ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Planetary Orbits ◽  
The World ◽  
Ancient Times ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Past Conditions

Whenever we begin to think about the formation of the universe we get at once into the realms of speculation, and the only value of our thoughts rests in their probability. In everything unknown we must first form an idea—that is, speculate; then, by partial gatherings of facts, or by positive reasoning, we may theorize. Ultimately, by the accumulation of evidence, we may prove that which, in the first place, we only imagined. When first men observed the sun, they regarded the earth as a flat plain, over which the sun passed in his heavenly course, and below which, at eve, he retired to rest. It was not until many ages had elapsed that the world came to be regarded as round, and even then it was long before the sun was considered as a fixed centre of the planetary system revolving round him.By no nation of ancient times has astronomy been more advanced than the Greeks. Not that the Greeks ever worked out much to a proved result, but they were an imaginative people, and they invented notions. If one theory or speculation was disproved, they invented another; and, hit or miss, they always seemed to have fresh ideas in reserve. In some things astronomical, as in many other things that the world believes in, we may be heretics, and we admit we do not adhere to all the cosmical, physical, geological, and spiritual tenets of the popular faiths. We may not entirely believe in the perfect stability of the universe; we may doubt the eternal endurance of the sun's bright rays; and we may not quite acquiesce in the unchangeable permanence of tne planetary orbits: in short, we do not believe in the permanence of anything whatever in creation. All ever has been change, and changeful all things ever will be. Diversity and change are visible in the first created things of which any relics have been left us.

Artists of the Republic of Moldova within modernity (on the example of works by artists Valeriu Jabinschi and Ion Jabinschi)

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Tatiana Komendant
Keyword(s):  
Native Land ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
The World ◽  
Artistic Vision ◽  
Modern Vision ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Archetypal Images

This paper examines the modern processes in the work of Moldovan artists, the new worldview of the artists of the Republic of Moldova. The conditions created highlight topical issues, expand the creative contacts of artists, form a new viewer. For example, the masters of painting V. Jabinschi and I. Jabinschi analyse the features of their artistic vision of the surrounding reality. Masters-painters in their canvases create an artistic reality filled with the depth of archetypal images of man and the poetic contemplation of the nature of his native land. The world of man and the world of nature are the main components of the modern vision of man in the Universe and in time.

Historical Antecedents of the Field

2018 ◽  
pp. 36-50
Author(s):  
Roland Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Development ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
The World ◽  
Ancient Times ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Historical Reflection ◽  
Historical Antecedents ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Universe ◽  
The Way

This chapter discusses some major historical antecedents of the field of global studies. It is argued that historical reflection requires a “way of thinking” that is sensitive to a holistic longue durée framework of social and intellectual development. The chapter provides a brief discussion of the place of planet Earth in the universe and connects this via the concept of relativization with the themes of globalization, glocalization, and globality. Attention is paid to the manner in which the world as a whole was discovered and mapped in various ways from ancient times onward. It stresses the inevitability of the impact of present concerns and events on the way in which the distant past is discussed. It concentrates on the period lasting from ancient societies and civilizations up to when the world was seen as a single place, mainly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

scholarly journals Mõningad märkused nelja ilmakaare kuninga ja jumal-kuninga kontseptsiooni kohta Sumeris ja Akkadis 3. at eKr

Mäetagused ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 173-184
Author(s):  
Vladimir Sazonov ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Sun ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Early Dynastic ◽  
Four Corners ◽  
The World ◽  
Ancient Mesopotamia ◽  
Universal Order ◽  
Universal Rule ◽  
The Universe

This article is dedicated to the issues related to the King of the Four Corners and the God-King in ancient Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millennium BCE. The author shows that the title King of the Four Corners has always deified the ruler, but the ruler who used the title King of the Universe never claimed divinity. What conclusions can we draw? Except in two cases – the case of Erri-dupizir and the case of Utu-ḫeĝal – all kings who used the title king of the four corners were deified. Erri-dupizir was a foreigner, more a warlord or tribal chief of the Gutians than a king, but he tried to legitimate his power by using Akkadian-Sumerian formulas, among them royal titles. Utu-ḫeĝal freed Sumer from the Gutians’ yoke and re-introduced old Sumero-Akkadian ideological elements, among them the king of the four corners, because he wanted to be as powerful and strong as the Akkadian king Narām-Su’en, who was an example for Utu-ḫeĝal. We do not have any proof regarding the deification of Utu-ḫeĝal, as he ruled only 6–7 years, and we have only a few texts from the time of his reign. More interesting is the fact that none of the Sumerian or Akkadian kings who used the title king of the universe in the 3rd millennium and even in the early 2nd millennium BCE (Isin-Larsa period) were deified (at least we do not have a firm proof). How to explain this phenomenon? Firstly, I think the title king of the four corners had a slightly different meaning than king of the universe; however, both are universalistic titles. The title king of the four corners was probably seen as a wider and more important universalistic title in the sense not only of universal rule, but also of ruling the divine universe and divine spheres (heaven, sun, stars, etc.). It seems that it included some kind of divine aspect, while at least the Sumerian version of the title lugal an-ubda-limmuba means “king of the heaven’s four corners”. The title king of the four corners was related to the universe order, to the sun and the cosmos, and to cosmic divine powers, and they were connected to the universal order. We can see that sometimes the title king of the four corners was used to refer to gods in Ancient Mesopotamia – for example in the case of the god Tišpak in Ešnunna – but never king of the universe. Secondly, early dynastic rulers (e.g. Lagash or Uruk), who never used universalistic titles for themselves, addressed universalistic expressions and epithets to the main gods – e.g., Enlil, Ningirsu, etc. For example, Lugal-kiğine-dudu of Uruk claimed: “Enlil, king of all lands, for Lugal-kiğine-dudu – when the god Enlil truly summoned him, and (Enlil) combined (both) lordship and kingship for him”. Thirdly, ruling over all the lands from east to west or over the corners of the universe – these epithets may be used for gods. LUGAL KIŠ (later Akkadian šar kiššati(m)) in its early original meaning was seen only as “ruler over Kiš (or ruler over (the northern part of) Sumer)”; it was an important though more regional and geographic title. Fourthly, only much later did it acquire the meaning king of the universe but I am not sure about that meaning at all. In that case, king of the four corners had a different meaning; the title designated not only ruling over the world but it probably included some kind of divine aspect as well (Michalowski 2010). In that case the title šar kibrāt arbaˀi(m) – king of the four corners could be seen as more universal than LUGAL KIŠ (šar kiššati(m)). There still remain several questions which need to be solved: * Was LUGAL KIŠ in its Akkadian form šar kiššati(m) a universalistic title at all? * Or was LUGAL KIŠ a hegemonic title showing certain hegemonic rule or lordship over (all) Sumer (and Akkad?) but not including the whole world (here: Mesopotamia)? * Could it be for this reason that the king who used the title king of the four corners had to be deified but the king who was LUGAL KIŠ had not?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document