the morality of murder

[ScytheNoire]

here's a thought that came to me one day while working my boring job
probably had something to do with news media, police dramas, and the jamming of religion down peoples throats

sometimes murder is justified in the legal system

example:

woman A kills her husband because he's rich, she wants his money, and she wants to be able to spend her money and screw other guys

woman B kills her husband because he's abusive to her and her children

now, in a moral sense, the court system, or the jury, would be more likely to punish woman A more harshly, because her motive was greed, and be easier, if any punishment at all, on woman B, because she was doing it out of fear and to protect her children

this gives some moral justification to murder, even though both should be equally wrong, murder is murder

now, i think they need to take religion into consideration in a murder

person A is religious, believes in an afterlife, thus, even when they die, they have more to look forward to. in fact, in some cases, murder is a free pass into heaven, since you were done wrong. in other cases, some say murder traps the soul on earth. who knows.

person B is not religious and doesn't believe in an afterlife, they believe life is what you make it while alive, therefore, life is much more precious.

so in this case, i would argue that it's less wrong, or less morally objectionable, to murder someone who is religious, since they believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, another chance.

so murder against someone who does not believe in religion, someone who's only chance at life was taken away, deserves a much harsher punishment.

so that is my opinion, murdering a religious person should be weighed as less morally objectionable and be given a lighter sentence, if they continue to give exceptions such as the abused woman scenario.

just my opinion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

person B is not religious and doesn't believe in an afterlife, they believe life is what you make it while alive, therefore, life is much more precious.



A life of faith is not simply ordered to "the afterlife", but life "right now". In addition, I can't see what's precious about ignoring reality and going along with what one's own imagination offers.

[Xaf]

What if they think they are going to hell? Eternal nothingness is probably better than eternal torture.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What if they think they are going to hell? Eternal nothingness is probably better than eternal torture.

Eternal nothingness is hell... But I see what you're saying. It can be argued however that ceasing to be completely is impossible. I can elaborate more tommorow or something - I gotta run.

[Xaf]

Eternal nothingness is hell... But I see what you're saying. It can be argued however that ceasing to be completely is impossible. I can elaborate more tommorow or something - I gotta run.

Well that may be what you believe, but there are plenty of people that hell is full of maggots and fire.

[Oberon]

Well that may be what you believe, but there are plenty of people that hell is full of maggots and fire.

No, that's Alabama.

[Sage the Mage]

Well that may be what you believe, but there are plenty of people that hell is full of maggots and fire.
A product of the "fire and brimstone" preachers, correct?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well that may be what you believe, but there are plenty of people that hell is full of maggots and fire.

I would think that the "fire" and tortures of hell (for indeed they are tortures), are symbolic of the fire in one's being that takes place after being separated for eternity from that which we seek - union with God. It doesnt stand to reason that an elemental aspect like fire (or maggots) could dwell outside time and space, so I'd say that the torture would be one of being - which I'd say would be infintely worse. That's just my take on it, based on metaphysics.

[Cloud_Walker]

I would think that the "fire" and tortures of hell (for indeed they are tortures), are symbolic of the fire in one's being that takes place after being separated for eternity from that which we seek - union with God. It doesnt stand to reason that an elemental aspect like fire (or maggots) could dwell outside time and space, so I'd say that the torture would be one of being - which I'd say would be infintely worse. That's just my take on it, based on metaphysics.

It also doesn't stand to reason that being exists outside of time and space. What other kind of being would there be?

It can be argued however that ceasing to be completely is impossible.

An individual ceasing to be? Please tell me the argument.

[Oberon]

It also doesn't stand to reason that being exists outside of time and space. What other kind of being would there be?

An individual ceasing to be? Please tell me the argument.

I agree. If one ceases to exist, then that's it - no pain - no suffering - no desires or needs. There's simply nothing - how is this hell?

On the other hand even the Biblical verson of hell doesn't make sense. You're dead so how is fire and brimstone supposed to hurt you? Does sensory perception, including pain, continue after death? Wouldn't a person get used to pain eventually? As bad a fire is, after a while the mind becomes desensitized to anything.

If heaven is to merge or become one with God - what happens to you the individual? Is it destroyed? What is eternity like being in heaven? Is it one big eternal Bible camp? Is it akin to a morphine-induced stupor? What exactly do people who believe they will spend eternity with God expect that eternity to be like and why?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It also doesn't stand to reason that being exists outside of time and space. What other kind of being would there be?



The notion that being can be outside space and time is traced back to the origin of being, which by necessity must be outside space and time. This can be said to be so because space/time itself did not have an origin in its own dynamic - it must have been created, along with living things. As regards to human beings, concepts such as our need for love and fulfillment are beyond simple calculations of math (indeed, it is folly to measure these things by simple geometry), and refer us to a share we have beyond the mechanics of time and space. Simply put, the key to this is in the fact that one must first come to the conclusion that the origin of all things is prior to time and space.


An individual ceasing to be? Please tell me the argument.

The answer is contained above. We can move forward here when it is understood that the origin of "life" is prior to time and space.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I agree. If one ceases to exist, then that's it - no pain - no suffering - no desires or needs. There's simply nothing - how is this hell?


One cannot cease to exist.


On the other hand even the Biblical verson of hell doesn't make sense. You're dead so how is fire and brimstone supposed to hurt you? Does sensory perception, including pain, continue after death? Wouldn't a person get used to pain eventually? As bad a fire is, after a while the mind becomes desensitized to anything.


That's because you don't understand the biblical text properly. Hebrews thought differently than contemporaries. The bible does not assert one will physically suffer these things, but symbolically. Yet, the pain would be likened to a physical manifestation.



If heaven is to merge or become one with God - what happens to you the individual? Is it destroyed? What is eternity like being in heaven? Is it one big eternal Bible camp? Is it akin to a morphine-induced stupor? What exactly do people who believe they will spend eternity with God expect that eternity to be like and why?

Its the fulfillment and actualization of all you yearn for (not objects like a beer, a person, etc), but in terms of "desire", and "yearning" per se.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

O.o 2x post :p

[Sage the Mage]

Ok new rule: Is there a God? - religion thread. No need for two threads being argued simultaneously by the same people on the same subject.

Next: The Biblical version of hell is: being in a place that's absent from God. The fire and brimstone crap came much later. Ever heard of Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God?

And finally: capital punishment vs abortion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ever heard of Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God?


Never heard of it.. what does it say?


And finally: capital punishment vs abortion.

That would be an interesting one. We've been through the mill on abortion, but not yet in relation to the death penalty.

[Cloud_Walker]

The notion that being can be outside space and time is traced back to the origin of being, which by necessity must be outside space and time. This can be said to be so because space/time itself did not have an origin in its own dynamic - it must have been created, along with living things. As regards to human beings, concepts such as our need for love and fulfillment are beyond simple calculations of math (indeed, it is folly to measure these things by simple geometry), and refer us to a share we have beyond the mechanics of time and space. Simply put, the key to this is in the fact that one must first come to the conclusion that the origin of all things is prior to time and space.

Your assumptions:

1. Spacetime was created.
2. Because we do not understand something, it is beyond our understanding.
3. Math and science tell us directly about reality, instead of just explaining our experience according to our reason.

All of those are assumptions are wrong. Your explanation for love and fulfillment is nothing more than a twisted God of the Gaps argument.

The answer is contained above. We can move forward here when it is understood that the origin of "life" is prior to time and space.

Impossible. An origin cannot happen outside of time. Nothing can exist outside of our categorization of the dimensions of existence. It is impossible to deny this.

[Sage the Mage]

Never heard of it.. what does it say?
Basically, just an example of the fire and brimstone preachers. Google it.

[Dementor]

Impossible. An origin cannot happen outside of time. Nothing can exist outside of our categorization of the dimensions of existence. It is impossible to deny this.

I REALLY hope this is sarcasm, and that this is you making fun of agressive ignorance.

"Impossible. Things that I do not understand cannot be. Nothing I cannot observe can occur. My view of the world explains everything. It is impossible to deny this."

Sometimes I wonder, and sometimes I just don't know...

[SaroDarksbane]

Bah, I don't accept the argument that we cannot cease to exist. If we were created, we can be destroyed.

As an interesting tidbit, Jehovah's Witnesses (who study the same Bible) do not believe in either heaven or hell based on their readings of the text. In the end, those who are not with God cease to be, and those who choose God are given a transformed ("new") earth to inhabit.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your assumptions:


Just a FYI, I don't recall offering any of these points you bring up without due explanation. In addition, I'm not altogether sure of where you've gotten others.


1. Spacetime was created.


It has to be. The reason for this is because there cannot be an eternal space/time. If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects. I would think someone with a penchant for argumentation such as yourself would have grasped this relatively simple concept by now.


2. Because we do not understand something, it is beyond our understanding.


You take great liberty in this comment. There is a process we undergo whereby we understand something. That is the path of critical reasoning, and pure speculative reasoning. There comes a point however, when this method fails, and we have to take steps forward in faith.


3. Math and science tell us directly about reality, instead of just explaining our experience according to our reason.


I don't quite follow this, perhaps you can unpack it so I'll know exactly what you're saying. But I will say that the rationalists thought math taught us directly about reality, and they ended up with a plethora of a priori systems, so yes, empiricism is a necessary tool in one's journey.


Your explanation for love and fulfillment is nothing more than a twisted God of the Gaps argument.


Silly. Love and fulfillment are in and through all human activity, even the evil by means of privation. You can't simply dub that "filling in the blanks" and still be rational.


Impossible. An origin cannot happen outside of time. Nothing can exist outside of our categorization of the dimensions of existence. It is impossible to deny this.

What our new poster mentioned, and what I will tell you for the hundreth time, is that there MUST be a beginning to space/time. I have articulated this above.

[Oberon]

It has to be. The reason for this is because there cannot be an eternal space/time. If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects. I would think someone with a penchant for argumentation such as yourself would have grasped this relatively simple concept by now.

Who are we to define what eternity must be like? We haven't the capabilities of understanding such a concept as eternity much less placing restrictions on it. For the sake of arguement let's assume you're correct - wouldn't these restrictions also apply to God? Wouldn't God be unmoving and lacking definition? If so, how could God have created the universe?

You take great liberty in this comment. There is a process we undergo whereby we understand something. That is the path of critical reasoning, and pure speculative reasoning. There comes a point however, when this method fails, and we have to take steps forward in faith.

Or have the courage to admit we simply don't know. I say courage because admitting one's limitations can be unnerving.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Who are we to define what eternity must be like? We haven't the capabilities of understanding such a concept as eternity much less placing restrictions on it.


We can define what its not, which narrows our field of options.


For the sake of arguement let's assume you're correct - wouldn't these restrictions also apply to God? Wouldn't God be unmoving and lacking definition? If so, how could God have created the universe?


God would have to be unmoved and beyond definiton. Keep in mind that it is humans who work in terms of definitions - you're trying to conceptualize God. From what we do know however, God must be a dynaic being, in that the universe and all within it would be impossible if God were not capable of affecting its creation and sustainence. As such, God cannot be a "force" as in star wars, but a personal being. It's up to you to accept it or not, but to simply stand on simple empiricism as the be-all and end-all of method you use to gauge things that are of grave importance to your being is among the greatest of intellectual tragedies.




Or have the courage to admit we simply don't know. I say courage because admitting one's limitations can be unnerving.

Understanding - and abiding with one's limitations in understanding is what I've been preaching for the last few weeks. Its another thing however to take what's immediately knowable and turn it into a cosmology. That's scepticism turned to dogmatism.

[Cloud_Walker]

It has to be. The reason for this is because there cannot be an eternal space/time. If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects. I would think someone with a penchant for argumentation such as yourself would have grasped this relatively simple concept by now.

Movement exists because of time! It has nothing to do with whether time has a "beginning" or "end." I put those in quotes because it doesn't. We see movement because we experience 3 dimensions spatially while moving along the fourth. We exist across time while observing space, hence the illusion of motion.

And did you completely ignore that argument I posted in the other thread? It actually explains why spacetime is eternal.

How do you draw the conclusion that there would no motion anyhow?

You take great liberty in this comment. There is a process we undergo whereby we understand something. That is the path of critical reasoning, and pure speculative reasoning. There comes a point however, when this method fails, and we have to take steps forward in faith.

Right, so if we don't know, we make a guess and accept it on faith. Now, before we go any further, I want you to know that things are either known or not known. We know things through reason applied to experience and to itself. Anything beyond that is a guess, belief, or fantasy of something we do not know. At the end of reason is what we do not know. You say the end of reason is the beginning of faith. I agree. But this means objects of faith aren't known. They are hypothesised and believed without evidence or logic, because they are beyond reason, as you have said. This is why faith is useless. I might as well have faith that there's rainbow dragons playing poker outside our universe. I can never really know something outside our universe, I cannot prove they aren't there, this is all beyond reason. I have faith that they exist. Clearly you must think this is an absurd proposition. That is how faith is.

I don't quite follow this, perhaps you can unpack it so I'll know exactly what you're saying. But I will say that the rationalists thought math taught us directly about reality, and they ended up with a plethora of a priori systems, so yes, empiricism is a necessary tool in one's journey.

A priori merely means that it is a process of our understanding that is not learned. For example, we automatically categorize sense experience into a spacetime framework. Spacetime is an a priori category. Even Kant says we can't know what is outside of us, because the second we know something it is in our thoughts, filtered by a priori concepts.

This is why I said that you assumed math and reason apply to reality, when instead all we can say is that they help us understand our experiences.

Silly. Love and fulfillment are in and through all human activity, even the evil by means of privation. You can't simply dub that "filling in the blanks" and still be rational.

How can I not? Do you even know what the God of the Gaps argument is? You said that we don't understand love and fulfillment, therefore they exist outside of spacetime in.... where? Who knows. Anyways, you make some sort of leap to categorize these outside of spacetime (that is, outside of existence, meaning you're saying they don't exist) simply because you don't understand them. Tell me, do you understand Chinese? It is an everyday activity of human beings and you can't measure it. According to your logic, it now exists outside of spacetime.

Ancient civilizations classified natural phenomena (lightning, tornados, rain) as created by a God because they did not understand them. Drawing a conclusion about something you know nothing about is irrational.

What our new poster mentioned, and what I will tell you for the hundreth time, is that there MUST be a beginning to space/time. I have articulated this above.

It must have? Because otherwise there would be no motion? You have yet to explain how you came to that conclusion (that an eternal universe doesn't allow motion).

[Oberon]

We can define what its not, which narrows our field of options.

The problem is we don't know whether eternity stretches both ways or just one way.

It could be like this: <--------------------------------------------->

Or it could be like this: -------------------------------------------->

If time itself began with the Big Bang, then it would be the latter. If God made it, then who made God, where did he come from, how did he come to be, why did he make the universe, etc etc etc. Occam's Razor would indicate the latter.

God would have to be unmoved and beyond definiton. Keep in mind that it is humans who work in terms of definitions - you're trying to conceptualize God. From what we do know however, God must be a dynaic being, in that the universe and all within it would be impossible if God were not capable of affecting its creation and sustainence. As such, God cannot be a "force" as in star wars, but a personal being. It's up to you to accept it or not, but to simply stand on simple empiricism as the be-all and end-all of method you use to gauge things that are of grave importance to your being is among the greatest of intellectual tragedies.

How can you be so quick to define, and place limits on, eternity and not God? If God is dynamic and God is eternal, how come eternity itself cannot be dynamic too?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Movement exists because of time!


Yes, we agree that time and movement are necessary linked.


How do you draw the conclusion that there would no motion anyhow?


In a state of eternity, there would be no motion, as motion moves toward a purpose. In any movement, there is change. In eternity, there is no change. Eternity is a fixed state - beyond the composing and dividing action of reason, as well as the movement of objects.


At the end of reason is what we do not know. You say the end of reason is the beginning of faith. I agree. But this means objects of faith aren't known.


There would thus have to be a different kind of knowing, other than by the conclusions drawn from reason - which is why I brought into the affective life.


They are hypothesised and believed without evidence or logic, because they are beyond reason, as you have said. This is why faith is useless.


Than what you posit as faith is not faith. It's guesswork, but still based on a mastery of content as the consummation of faith. Reasoning got us to the point where there really is one alternative - God. Faith takes it the rest of the way, in the transferrance to an ethics.


A priori merely means that it is a process of our understanding that is not learned. For example, we automatically categorize sense experience into a spacetime framework. Spacetime is an a priori category. Even Kant says we can't know what is outside of us, because the second we know something it is in our thoughts, filtered by a priori concepts.

This is why I said that you assumed math and reason apply to reality, when instead all we can say is that they help us understand our experiences.


Fair enough, but they do apply insofar as they are surefire methods in their own right. What I'm trying to do is disspell scepticism.


How can I not? Do you even know what the God of the Gaps argument is?


Not by definition, no.


You said that we don't understand love and fulfillment, therefore they exist outside of spacetime in.... where?


No, I did not word my argument in that manner. I attempted to say that the source of love and fullfilment (the primordial source), must be outside space/time.



Tell me, do you understand Chinese? It is an everyday activity of human beings and you can't measure it. According to your logic, it now exists outside of spacetime.


Languages make use of structures we can learn and master. Not so with the notion of love and fulfillment.


Ancient civilizations classified natural phenomena (lightning, tornados, rain) as created by a God because they did not understand them. Drawing a conclusion about something you know nothing about is irrational.


Please take more time reading, and less time asserting.


It must have? Because otherwise there would be no motion? You have yet to explain how you came to that conclusion (that an eternal universe doesn't allow motion).

An eternal universe cannot exist ^^ - thats why there can be no motion. :). Again, plz dont skim my text.

[Cloud_Walker]

Yes, we agree that time and movement are necessary linked.

In a state of eternity, there would be no motion, as motion moves toward a purpose. In any movement, there is change. In eternity, there is no change. Eternity is a fixed state - beyond the composing and dividing action of reason, as well as the movement of objects.

I already explained in a previous post: movement along one dimension (time) while observing the others (space) is how we exist. Space and time are inextricably linked - spacetime. These are the four dimensions of the universe. They are all the same, but appear different to us because our conciousness exists along one - time (e.g. memories and records of experience), and that entity observes the others. Because of the movement along time, we see motion.

Recap: four dimensions exist, and move along one and observe the others. We observe motion in three dimensions because we only see "slices" of objects while moving from point to point along the fourth dimension.

Now, observe all four dimensions just as we observe the three. Is there motion? No, because we see all of time. Is there a beginning or end to time, i.e., is the span of the universe limited in one dimension? Maybe, but it is irrelevant to what we see as motion. An event, a change, a motion, is not a change in the entire four dimensional structure of the universe, but merely a point of it.

Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed <--even by examining the words you can tell that the "issue" is bogus.

There would thus have to be a different kind of knowing, other than by the conclusions drawn from reason - which is why I brought into the affective life.

There has to be? So you can claim to "know" the things that you just guess at? Pardon my tone but I am just responding to the message I got from that.

I would like to think there is another kind of knowing, but there is not. Please give me an example of something you know outside of reason or experience, and how you know it.

Reasoning got us to the point where there really is one alternative - God. Faith takes it the rest of the way, in the transferrance to an ethics.

I would agree, but reason actually eliminates the need for God, which is of course what I'm trying to argue with you...

Not by definition, no.

This dictionary really is quite handy:

God of the Gaps. The hostile phrase applied to theories appealing to the concept of God to explain anything science currently finds inexplicable, for instance, the origins of life or of consciousness. Theologians now generally regard such appeals as creating only an illusion of explanation, and providing no valid basis or support for theism.

No, I did not word my argument in that manner. I attempted to say that the source of love and fullfilment (the primordial source), must be outside space/time.

Outside of spacetime is outside of existence. In other words, there is no outside. To posit that there is would need a supporting argument. What's yours?

Languages make use of structures we can learn and master. Not so with the notion of love and fulfillment.

And so you think love and fulfillment are "unmasterable?" Make sure to read the "God of the Gaps" definition again - just because something is inexplicable, doesn't mean you can propose some otherworldly concept (existence outside of spacetime) to explain it.

Please take more time reading, and less time asserting.

Comments like that are unnecessary, as I could say the exact same thing to you.

An eternal universe cannot exist ^^ - thats why there can be no motion. :). Again, plz dont skim my text.

Uh huh. So, an eternal universe cannot exist because there would be no motion (as you have previously stated), and there can't be motion because an eternal universe cannot exist. Nice logic.

[Cloud_Walker]

I REALLY hope this is sarcasm, and that this is you making fun of agressive ignorance.

"Impossible. Things that I do not understand cannot be. Nothing I cannot observe can occur. My view of the world explains everything. It is impossible to deny this."

Sometimes I wonder, and sometimes I just don't know...

Ah, can't let you go by unnoticed.

If you are going to blame arrogance for my post, place the blame on logic. Just as it is impossible to deny that 2+2=4, it is also impossible to deny that something can exist outside of existence.

But if you have an argument, by all means let's hear it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You're starting to rush, and frankly I'm not too pleased with the tone you've been taking with me lately. If you want to slow down a bit, and lay off the "nice logic" remarks, we may be able to make something productive out of this. The ball's in your court. I'll treat of your post now.

I already explained in a previous post: movement along one dimension (time) while observing the others (space) is how we exist.


You've mentioned earlier that these two concepts are one. Now they are 2 dimensions?


Space and time are inextricably linked - spacetime. These are the four dimensions of the universe.


Ahh, now four dimensions. I've been trying to say that the universe is only one - with many consitutent parts.


They are all the same, but appear different to us because our conciousness exists along one - time (e.g. memories and records of experience), and that entity observes the others. Because of the movement along time, we see motion.


Agree.


Recap: four dimensions exist, and move along one and observe the others. We observe motion in three dimensions because we only see "slices" of objects while moving from point to point along the fourth dimension.


I'd say that it's a bit more than observation, since we partake of motion itself - part of that aesthetic education and phenomonology - but w/e.


Now, observe all four dimensions just as we observe the three. Is there motion? No, because we see all of time. Is there a beginning or end to time, i.e., is the span of the universe limited in one dimension? Maybe, but it is irrelevant to what we see as motion. An event, a change, a motion, is not a change in the entire four dimensional structure of the universe, but merely a point of it.


Ok.


Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed <--even by examining the words you can tell that the "issue" is bogus.


Agree.


There has to be? So you can claim to "know" the things that you just guess at? Pardon my tone but I am just responding to the message I got from that.


No. I explained several times - and I will now make it clear - that we cannot know by reasoning alone that which is beyond us, but we can know what it is NOT. From that, we have options for faith. That part, I believe, you agreed with. Your problematic came in the faith part.


I would like to think there is another kind of knowing, but there is not. Please give me an example of something you know outside of reason or experience, and how you know it.


Different kind of knowing, for lack of a better term, is not a differentation in the nature of knowing (as indeed there can only be one knowing), but is a differentation in method to knowledge. I should have been more clear.


I would agree, but reason actually eliminates the need for God, which is of course what I'm trying to argue with you...


Reason per se does not need God to support it, as it is complete in itself. However, reason, when applied to the inquiry into God, emphatically reccomends the existence of God as the only real option for belief.


Outside of spacetime is outside of existence. In other words, there is no outside. To posit that there is would need a supporting argument. What's yours?


I posted earlier that God (what could be outside - it is not technical language), could not be dubbed as existing, or not existing - as these terms are used to denote our own conception of reality. Semantics..


And so you think love and fulfillment are "unmasterable?" Make sure to read the "God of the Gaps" definition again - just because something is inexplicable, doesn't mean you can propose some otherworldly concept (existence outside of spacetime) to explain it.


Not to be mastered by the scientific method. I can only hope you would agree to at least that much.


Comments like that are unnecessary, as I could say the exact same thing to you.


I felt they were necessary in that case, and will repeat those comments if I am of that opinion in the future.


Uh huh. So, an eternal universe cannot exist because there would be no motion (as you have previously stated), and there can't be motion because an eternal universe cannot exist. Nice logic.

It is perfectly logical. Say aloud the phrase "A thing is what it is", and just let that sink in - its rather profound.. You made an allowance for a finite universe earlier on, which I was glad to see. There's hope yet.

[Cloud_Walker]

You've mentioned earlier that these two concepts are one. Now they are 2 dimensions?

I was only talking about how we experience the one.

[2nd] Agree.

Whoa! Ok, you just agreed with:

Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed <--even by examining the words you can tell that the "issue" is bogus.

which means that you no longer agree with your previous statement:

If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects.

(or at least find it irrelevant) which means you have yet to give a reason why the universe cannot be eternal.

No. I explained several times - and I will now make it clear - that we cannot know by reasoning alone that which is beyond us, but we can know what it is NOT.

So we can set boundaries for what is "beyond us" by use of reason, which means that which is "beyond us" is still governed by reason, which would make it not quite so "beyond us."

Anyways, this is where your God comes in. You state that God "could not be dubbed as existing, or not existing." I wonder, then, with the most basic categorization of things we encounter out the window, what God can not be (<---your using reason to define what is beyond reason, which doesn't make any sense - see above paragraph).

Different kind of knowing, for lack of a better term, is not a differentation in the nature of knowing (as indeed there can only be one knowing), but is a differentation in method to knowledge. I should have been more clear.

Whatever, but I still asked for an example.

I posted earlier that God (what could be outside - it is not technical language), could not be dubbed as existing, or not existing - as these terms are used to denote our own conception of reality. Semantics..

I think I'll go over this one again, in a different manner. So, if God is entirely outside our conception, how can you believe in him? What is the point of even trying to think about God?

Not to be mastered by the scientific method. I can only hope you would agree to at least that much.

We don't know.

I felt they were necessary in that case, and will repeat those comments if I am of that opinion in the future.

They will be ignored.

It is perfectly logical. Say aloud the phrase "A thing is what it is", and just let that sink in - its rather profound.

But you have done nothing to prove the thing.

I feel further explanation is required:

An eternal universe cannot exist ^^ - thats why there can be no motion.

A, therefore B. No motion exists in a nonexistent universe. That one is simple...

If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects.

"There would be no movement or definition of objects" - further implication - and obviously there is motion. Therefore spacetime is not eternal.

B, therefore A

Okay, great. But you're assuming A/B.

You made an allowance for a finite universe earlier on, which I was glad to see. There's hope yet.

I only said that finite or infinite, it does not matter when discussing motion. I was showing you that motion is irrelevant in every possible scenario, i.e., finite or infinite time. I made no allowance.

[ScytheNoire]

what the hell have you freaks done?!

this wasn't a thread about anything more than adding some validity to killing religious people and that it's a lesser crime than killing an non-religious person

jeesh, next thing you know, it's a damn discussion about existance and crap we can't even beging to fully understand.

does any one think that dogs or cats sit around all day wondering about their existance? no! why? because they can lick their own genitals.

damn, if only we could lick our own genitals.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Whoa! Ok, you just agreed with:
which means that you no longer agree with your previous statement:


Plz brush up on your reading skills. "Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed" - is not in conflict with "If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects". How could that possibly be you say? Think about it.. Motion PER SE need not be an indicator of HOW LONG the universe existed for.


(or at least find it irrelevant) which means you have yet to give a reason why the universe cannot be eternal.


Damn.. are you blind? How many times must I explain that to you? Eternity must be a state of PERFECT ACTUALITY. MOVEMENT = CHANGE from potentiality to actuality. THERE MUST BE A BEGINNING to a chain of motion.


So we can set boundaries for what is "beyond us" by use of reason, which means that which is "beyond us" is still governed by reason, which would make it not quite so "beyond us."


Dude.. Listen to me plz. A thing need not be governed to have some measure of knowledge of it. What is governed however is our relationship to the "beyond", which we do partake in - that what I've been telling you with reference to the affective life.


Anyways, this is where your God comes in. You state that God "could not be dubbed as existing, or not existing." I wonder, then, with the most basic categorization of things we encounter out the window, what God can not be (<---your using reason to define what is beyond reason, which doesn't make any sense - see above paragraph).


Apparently you haven't reached the point in your education where you've studied dialectics.


Whatever, but I still asked for an example.


Don't "whatever" me plz. I'm pretty clear about these things, and you should be able to conceptualize them without me holding your hand.


I think I'll go over this one again, in a different manner. So, if God is entirely outside our conception, how can you believe in him? What is the point of even trying to think about God?


I find it strange that you now jump to me saying "God is entirely outside our conception", after we've been over the point where he is an object necessary for belief. It's putting the pieces together. Why think about God? Because that's what our beings yearn for. What do you think about?


But you have done nothing to prove the thing.

I feel further explanation is required:



Can you prove 1+1 = 2? What kind of proof do you require for something that's self evident? I must have spelled out the simple argument 100 times so far. If you can't accept that, so be it, but I'm not going to waste anymore time attempting to educate those unwilling to learn.


A, therefore B. No motion exists in a nonexistent universe. That one is simple...

"There would be no movement or definition of objects" - further implication - and obviously there is motion. Therefore spacetime is not eternal.

B, therefore A

Okay, great. But you're assuming A/B.


Simply put - space/time = movement. Eternity = no movement. Movement = change and development of objects = generation and corruption = not eternal. Savvy?


I only said that finite or infinite, it does not matter when discussing motion. I was showing you that motion is irrelevant in every possible scenario, i.e., finite or infinite time. I made no allowance.

It IS relevant - that's what you're missing. Read the above. If something is eternal, it cannot change. Movement = change. There CAN NEVER BE an infinite chain of events. WTF is wrong that you can't grasp that?

[Oberon]

Eternity must be a state of PERFECT ACTUALITY.

Why?

MOVEMENT = CHANGE from potentiality to actuality.

So? Mass and energy are one and the same whether that energy is kenetic or potential overall nothing has changed.

Apparently you haven't reached the point in your education where you've studied dialectics.

What's the point of such a statement if not to flame? :mad:

Don't "whatever" me plz. I'm pretty clear about these things, and you should be able to conceptualize them without me holding your hand.

Unless he's someone who hasn't reached the point in his education where he's studied dialectics...

Simply put - space/time = movement. Eternity = no movement. Movement = change and development of objects = generation and corruption = not eternal. Savvy?

Why does eternity have to equal no movement? Couldn't it be eternal movement? Eternity could be an endless cycle of development, corruption and redevelopment for all we know. Perhaps an education in the beliefs of eastern cultures would behoove you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why?


*note* - Oberon needs to pay closer attention to posts in future.

The reason why is because if a thing is not in a state of perfect actuality, it is undergoing change from one aspect to another. In eternity, there are no point A's and point B's.


So? Mass and energy are one and the same whether that energy is kenetic or potential overall nothing has changed.


It is still a defined force or concept, which was the other part I mentioned besides motion.


What's the point of such a statement if not to flame? :mad:


... I won't even touch that one...


Unless he's someone who hasn't reached the point in his education where he's studied dialectics...


Well I hope he takes the time to do so.


Why does eternity have to equal no movement? Couldn't it be eternal movement? Eternity could be an endless cycle of development, corruption and redevelopment for all we know. Perhaps an education in the beliefs of eastern cultures would behoove you.

As I mentioned above, eternity can be no eternal movement, as it deals with change (impossible in eternity), and defined objects and powers (which are also impossible in eternity, as they would necessarily intermingle with each other). FYI, you can rest assured my knowledge of "eastern philosophy" is erudite enough for the likes of this forum, but that really isn't the point.

[Oberon]

*note* - Oberon needs to pay closer attention to posts in future.

Another flame.... :mad:

The reason why is because if a thing is not in a state of perfect actuality, it is undergoing change from one aspect to another. In eternity, there are no point A's and point B's.

As I mentioned above, eternity can be no eternal movement, as it deals with change (impossible in eternity), and defined objects and powers (which are also impossible in eternity, as they would necessarily intermingle with each other).

So if eternity is absolute stillness, and if God is dynamic as you claim, then how can God be eternal?

You still haven't adequately explained why eternity has to be motionless or perfect. Eternity could be simple chaos with movement, creation, destruction, recreation, redestruction for ever and ever. So what if objects in eternity mingle and effect each other? Maybe eternity is just a label for what transpires between the begining of time (the Big Bang) and the end of time (a Big Crunch)? The truth of the matter is we don't know so the say "eternity must be...." is to speak out of an orifice other than one's mouth.

FYI, you can rest assured my knowledge of "eastern philosophy" is erudite enough for the likes of this forum, but that really isn't the point.

Just out of curiosity, is there a subject you are not erudite in?

[Cloud_Walker]

Eternity must be a state of PERFECT ACTUALITY. MOVEMENT = CHANGE from potentiality to actuality.

Um, this is the 21st century, and Aristotelian physics is obsolete.

Dude.. Listen to me plz. A thing need not be governed to have some measure of knowledge of it.

I am. For us to have knowledge of something means it is governed by reason, because that is our path to knowledge: reason. This is very simple. But not for you, with your mysterious other path to knowledge that you refuse to give an example of... I wonder why?

Apparently you haven't reached the point in your education where you've studied dialectics.

This is called argument from authority, which is the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted. This is a logical fallacy. Your apparent expertise cannot be used for an argument until both sides acknowledge your expertise. I cannot do so until you show me that you are in expert in dialectics. You cannot do so by just saying that I don't know anything about it and leaving it at that.

So please, feel free to explain.

Don't "whatever" me plz.

I'm not sure why you were offended by my use of the word "whatever."

I'm pretty clear about these things, and you should be able to conceptualize them without me holding your hand.

Right, because saying that this path to knowledge is beyond reason, yet is supported by reason, and nothing else about it makes it perfectly clear.[/sarcasm]

I find it strange that you now jump to me saying "God is entirely outside our conception"

Because if God is neither existing nor not existing (as you have said), what is he? You're just making **** up.

Why think about God? Because that's what our beings yearn for. What do you think about?

Holy crap. Don't tell me that is your reason for believing in God. Why think about God? Because it is a subject of discussion brought up by people who believe that myths are true.

Oh, and don't say prime mover, either. You'll see....

What kind of proof do you require for something that's self evident?

Actually it is self evident that existence (all of what we call spacetime; all of existence) is eternal, because there is literally nothing outside of existence from which existence can be created. But hold your tongue...

**************************************************

Ok, then there's all this crap:

Plz brush up on your reading skills. "Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed" - is not in conflict with "If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects". How could that possibly be you say? Think about it.. Motion PER SE need not be an indicator of HOW LONG the universe existed for.

THERE MUST BE A BEGINNING to a chain of motion.

Simply put - space/time = movement. Eternity = no movement. Movement = change and development of objects = generation and corruption = not eternal. Savvy?

It IS relevant - that's what you're missing. Read the above. If something is eternal, it cannot change. Movement = change. There CAN NEVER BE an infinite chain of events. WTF is wrong that you can't grasp that?

All saying basically the same thing, about how an eternal universe can't exist because there would be no motion. Now, let's see if you can follow along. I'll even add post numbers for easy referencing:

Your assumptions:

1. Spacetime was created.

It has to be. The reason for this is because there cannot be an eternal space/time. If space/time were eternal, there would be no movement or definition of objects. I would think someone with a penchant for argumentation such as yourself would have grasped this relatively simple concept by now.

Movement exists because of time! It has nothing to do with whether time has a "beginning" or "end." I put those in quotes because it doesn't. We see movement because we experience 3 dimensions spatially while moving along the fourth. We exist across time while observing space, hence the illusion of motion.

And did you completely ignore that argument I posted in the other thread? It actually explains why spacetime is eternal.

How do you draw the conclusion that there would no motion anyhow?

In a state of eternity, there would be no motion, as motion moves toward a purpose. In any movement, there is change. In eternity, there is no change. Eternity is a fixed state - beyond the composing and dividing action of reason, as well as the movement of objects.

I already explained in a previous post: movement along one dimension (time) while observing the others (space) is how we exist. Space and time are inextricably linked - spacetime. These are the four dimensions of the universe. They are all the same, but appear different to us because our conciousness exists along one - time (e.g. memories and records of experience), and that entity observes the others. Because of the movement along time, we see motion.

Recap: four dimensions exist, and move along one and observe the others. We observe motion in three dimensions because we only see "slices" of objects while moving from point to point along the fourth dimension.

Now, observe all four dimensions just as we observe the three. Is there motion? No, because we see all of time. Is there a beginning or end to time, i.e., is the span of the universe limited in one dimension? Maybe, but it is irrelevant to what we see as motion. An event, a change, a motion, is not a change in the entire four dimensional structure of the universe, but merely a point of it.

Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed <--even by examining the words you can tell that the "issue" is bogus.

Now, here we have the source of much confusion. What is quoted from me is the conclusion to my argument directly above, the one in post #26.

Motion is irrelevant to the issue of how long existence has existed <--even by examining the words you can tell that the "issue" is bogus.

Agree.

So you agree that the existence of motion is insufficient to rebut the assertion that existence is eternal.

After you agreed to that, I pointed it out, then you went back to the same argument that I already defeated and got pissed. (the "went back" and "got pissed" happened in your latest one, post #31, all of which is quoted at the beginning of this little section of my response to it. The "defeat" happened in post #26, to which you agreed in post #28)

**************************************************

[Cloud_Walker]

Movement = change and development of objects = generation and corruption = not eternal.

I'll address this one separately, because it seems to be the crux of your argument. Yes, movement means things change and "die" within our experience. It is really just change, and you agree with that. Ex. My house burning to the ground is a change from the molecules that make up wood and a lot of energy to the molecules that make up ash and smoke. My house "dies," my house is not eternal, because things change.

But what we see of change is just local movement. There is no creating or destroying, just a rearrangement of things we find in our universe. Unfortunately for you, there is no connection between change within and the change or "death" of the whole. In other words, change cannot affect that which is the container of all change.

Leibniz and Aquinas argue for the existence of God in this way (that movement necessitates a first, unmoved mover), and I'm assuming that they are where you get your argument from. I shall use examples from a paper I wrote for a philosophy class in which I showed that their arguments are flawed.

For example, there is a table in front of me, and I am a human being. The table was created at one point, and will be destroyed in the future. I was born over twenty years ago, and will die sometime in the future. This is all because of change; movement. Moreover, the table is different from me. Since the table and I are different, and at one point were otherwise, we are contingents. Why are we the way we are? What is the sufficient reason? To avoid infinite regress, Leibniz supposes that there must be something outside of this series, which is the cause of this series. To avoid applying the principle of sufficient reason (Leibniz's own) to this cause, it must not be contingent; it is impossible for it to be otherwise. This "thing" has always existed, and it is sufficient reason for itself. Leibniz identifies this as a Supreme Substance, or God.

But Leibniz's reasoning fails fast. He calls the different instances of things (me, the table) that we see around us essences. Essences, however, are not existences. The essence of the table is certainly different from the essence of a human being. But what is an essence? The table and I are made up of chemical compounds; essences are certain arrangements of particles or atoms, caused by the previous motion of those particles and all other particles that affect and have affected them. What caused those other particles to move? We arrive at infinite regress again, but this regress seeks first movement, not the cause of existence. To state it in different but simpler terms, remember that Leibniz needed to show that the universe was contingent, that it could be otherwise, for his conclusion to be valid. I then ask, what else have we witnessed besides the existence of the universe? The answer is, of course, nothing. We cannot prove the contingency of the universe. Surely we may observe different motions within existence, but there is always existence; a God is not needed.

You and Leibniz compare arbitrary apples with an orange; individual essences or movements with that which is the container of all essences and movements.



I also think I’ll add this one in here for you, because you ignored it in the other thread, and you ignored me when I asked in this thread if you ignored it in the other thread. Again, this is from another website, and I’m quoting it because I can’t put it in any better words:

The argument that God is extratemporal is quite innovative, but it suffers a few major flaws. One is that actions require temporality: if you want to do something, you need time to do it in. The Big Bang theory posits that the Universe began with a singularity: a point of infinite mass and zero volume. Everything, ever, was crammed into it, literally: all time and all space were in it.

Now, this screws the idea of a time up a lot. Time would not exist outside the singularity, and because the singularity contained all matter and space, there was no time. Supposing you could stand on top of the singularity before it went bang, you could wait forever, and nothing would happen: events require time to happen.

The time from the universe being a singularity to the big bang would thus be infinite.

Therefore, since the big bang has happened, the singularity must have existed for an infinite time before that.

Therefore, the universe is eternal and uncaused, and we don't need to cut anyone with Ockham's Razor.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Another flame.... :mad:


No, it isn't. It's called "Oberon cannot take constructive criticism". Most of what you need to know is already posted - you need only be more diligent.


So if eternity is absolute stillness, and if God is dynamic as you claim, then how can God be eternal?


You're still trapped in human conceptualization. The only way one can conceptualize eternity is by omission of ascribing anything to it. It's not "still" for instance, beause for a thing to be still, would require something else to be not still for the stillness to have intelligibility. Our language effectively stops at the edge of our reasoning, but we can discover that eternity is complete actualization, which is neither still, nor moving, but only "is".



You still haven't adequately explained why eternity has to be motionless or perfect. Eternity could be simple chaos with movement, creation, destruction, recreation, redestruction for ever and ever. So what if objects in eternity mingle and effect each other? Maybe eternity is just a label for what transpires between the begining of time (the Big Bang) and the end of time (a Big Crunch)? The truth of the matter is we don't know so the say "eternity must be...." is to speak out of an orifice other than one's mouth.


Even chaos is still a kind of structure. For eternity, there must be no objects whatsoever. An object is something which has boundaries and limits in its own right. Eternity cannot have objects "in it", as it is a single plane whereby nothing can be in definition or concept. There cant be movement cuz there can be no objects. It is complete actuality.


Just out of curiosity, is there a subject you are not erudite in?

Oh, plenty! But I stick to commenting on stuff I am familiar with. Indeed, you won't find me spamming my opinions on threads that I've got no real knowledge of. My beef with alot of posters is that they come in here and believe their uneducated opinions have an actual bearing on the way things are (and no, thats not directed at you). To become knowledgeable about something demands practise and expertise that comes with time. Put me in a thread where they were discussing the inns and outs of engineering a fusion reactor and I wouldn't know wtf people were talking about.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Since replying to your copious posts are a time sink, I'll focus on just this one for now.

I'll address this one separately, because it seems to be the crux of your argument. Yes, movement means things change and "die" within our experience. It is really just change, and you agree with that. Ex. My house burning to the ground is a change from the molecules that make up wood and a lot of energy to the molecules that make up ash and smoke. My house "dies," my house is not eternal, because things change.

But what we see of change is just local movement. There is no creating or destroying, just a rearrangement of things we find in our universe. Unfortunately for you, there is no connection between change within and the change or "death" of the whole. In other words, change cannot affect that which is the container of all change.


Lets focus on this "local movement". There need not be creation or destruction, but there is rather only the matter of simplicity. You refered to Aristotle being obsolete, but what he pointed out on potency and act has relevance. As I told Oberon, there can be no objects in eternity, because eternity is fundamentally simple, and space/time is complex with finite boundaries.


Leibniz and Aquinas argue for the existence of God in this way (that movement necessitates a first, unmoved mover), and I'm assuming that they are where you get your argument from. I shall use examples from a paper I wrote for a philosophy class in which I showed that their arguments are flawed.


That's great. I can show you some graduate work I did on Leibniz, and I can assure you that his Monadology makes zero reference of the Aquinean prime mover argument, but rather infinite, dimensionless monads that have always existed.


For example, there is a table in front of me, and I am a human being. The table was created at one point, and will be destroyed in the future. I was born over twenty years ago, and will die sometime in the future. This is all because of change; movement. Moreover, the table is different from me. Since the table and I are different, and at one point were otherwise, we are contingents. Why are we the way we are? What is the sufficient reason? To avoid infinite regress, Leibniz supposes that there must be something outside of this series, which is the cause of this series. To avoid applying the principle of sufficient reason (Leibniz's own) to this cause, it must not be contingent; it is impossible for it to be otherwise. This "thing" has always existed, and it is sufficient reason for itself. Leibniz identifies this as a Supreme Substance, or God.


Leibniz discussed reflection, not "outside" things. THat's not Leibnizian at all, since his system was representative of a mathematical formula, which is a closed system.


I also think I’ll add this one in here for you, because you ignored it in the other thread, and you ignored me when I asked in this thread if you ignored it in the other thread. Again, this is from another website, and I’m quoting it because I can’t put it in any better words:

I don't "Ignore" what people write, but one thing for certain is the fact that I can't spend all day, every day replying to you and others here.


The argument that God is extratemporal is quite innovative, but it suffers a few major flaws.


This guy shot himself in the foot from the get-go. If God was extratemporal only, that would imply limitations on God. I would assert that God is also in and through the temporal (indeed, it must be this way, so as to sustain the temporal in existence). That would serve to diffuse the rest. ttyl.

[Oberon]

It's called "Oberon cannot take constructive criticism".

How should I respond to this? If I agree then it refutes the very point you're trying to make so the statement becomes false. If I disagree it validates your statement and makes mine false. I think I'll avoid it all together...

You're still trapped in human conceptualization.

Aren't we all?

Now let's play a game of AoA vs AoA...

...eternity is complete actualization, which is neither still, nor moving, but only "is".

Eternity = no movement.

Which one is it?

Our language effectively stops at the edge of our reasoning...

Like that fool Wittgenstein, there are a plethora of people who are obsessed with language. Whatever language you want to describe a given concept, the concept still remains.

Without language there can be no understanding. The concept may remain but it cannot be understood without language. The problem is, if you cannot use language to understand a concept such as eternity, then how do you plan to parley to others that you do indeed understand it and that they do not and why you're right and we're wrong?

Even chaos is still a kind of structure.

True chaos, by definition, is devoid of struction, otherwise it wouldn't be chaos now would it?

My beef with alot of posters is that they come in here and believe their uneducated opinions have an actual bearing on the way things are

And your educated opinion does? Opinions are like...well you know the saying. Nothing will change because of this debate, regardless of whether the opinions expressed are educated or not.

To become knowledgeable about something demands practise and expertise that comes with time.

From my perspective this comment sounds very odd coming from someone so young...

[Sage the Mage]

You know, you really can't tell the two threads apart now.

Obereon just quit responding to any ad hominem.
/waits for the response to me.

If God was extratemporal only, that would imply limitations on God. I would assert that God is also in and through the temporal (indeed, it must be this way, so as to sustain the temporal in existence).
Explain in and through. Do you mean that God exists both inside and outside the universe?

[Oberon]

Obereon just quit responding to any ad hominem.
/waits for the response to me.

okay :p

[Cloud_Walker]

Lets focus on this "local movement". There need not be creation or destruction, but there is rather only the matter of simplicity. You refered to Aristotle being obsolete, but what he pointed out on potency and act has relevance. As I told Oberon, there can be no objects in eternity, because eternity is fundamentally simple, and space/time is complex with finite boundaries.

Well, you are getting somewhere. I saw that you responded to Oberon:

Our language effectively stops at the edge of our reasoning, but we can discover that eternity is complete actualization, which is neither still, nor moving, but only "is".

Which is completely true. We have no reference of anything outside of existence, so we can not truly describe existence. Monism is a great concept.

There is nothing besides that which exists, so that which exists is monistic due to lack of any comparison. Existence is simple. Existence is. Infinitely temporal or not, existence is. Infinitely temporal, existence is. Finitely temporal existence is. Therefore, just by noting that existence is, that it is simple, one cannot argue for nor against eternity. By noting that eternity merely "is," is simple, you are saying nothing to deny or accept it.

Aside: complexity comes from human categorization of different parts of that which just is. Therefore, it is quite obvious to draw the conclusion that these categories are false or tautological.

Another aside: potentiality and actuality are nothing but labels we apply to certain "motions." I use "motions" because I'm pretty sure we agree that things come to be (actualize) and cease to be because of movement - it's just a broader term. Plus, who's to say where something will end up, that it will stay there (actuality), or where something is supposed to go (potentiality)? Aristotle assumes that things move towards a purpose, instead of just seeing that things move.

That's great. I can show you some graduate work I did on Leibniz, and I can assure you that his Monadology makes zero reference of the Aquinean prime mover argument, but rather infinite, dimensionless monads that have always existed.

Ok...

I never said Leibniz referenced Aquinas. I never said he didn't talk about monads.

I don't have a copy of The Monadology, but try paragraphs 38-40 (that's what I have referenced in my paper).

Leibniz discussed reflection, not "outside" things. THat's not Leibnizian at all, since his system was representative of a mathematical formula, which is a closed system.

This guy shot himself in the foot from the get-go.

I'm hoping you didn't just stop after that first line, because if you understand the argument, it applies to any argument where God exists outside of spacetime.

I would assert that God is also in and through the temporal (indeed, it must be this way, so as to sustain the temporal in existence).

"In and through the temporal," which is spacetime/the universe/existence. So, God is existence?

I would also like you to back up the premise that the temporal needs "sustaining" to "exist" - don't forget that I already showed you that time as we experience it is an illusion, and you agreed with this demonstration :D. And since space and time are the same (shown in the same argument), you must back up the premise that all dimensions of existence, therefore all of existence, needs "sustaining."

[DrunkCajun]

Since replying to your copious posts are a time sink, I'll focus on just this one for now.

For someone complaining so much about people allegedly not reading your posts through entirely and responding in full this seems rather ironic.

This was interesting up until AoA started flaming everyone in sight. It's one thing to get impatient, but good lord man, take a deep breath before posting, seriously. It won't hurt.

At any rate, it's really too bad that people aren't mature enough to carry on an intelligent discussion about such topics without slinging insults or loosely veiled flames at one another.

And for the record, AoA, I'm not trying to take sides, but I've known Cloud for a while and while I can see where you might take offense at his choice of words in a few cases, in reality if you read them without assuming he's out to get you personally, you'll realize that he's not trying to be nasty.

*dons flameproof suit and heads back to the other OTF*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Which one is it?


As far as I can tell, the two aren't mutually exclusive.


Without language there can be no understanding. The concept may remain but it cannot be understood without language. The problem is, if you cannot use language to understand a concept such as eternity, then how do you plan to parley to others that you do indeed understand it and that they do not and why you're right and we're wrong?


I would have hoped the language I offered would be sufficient.


True chaos, by definition, is devoid of struction, otherwise it wouldn't be chaos now would it?


Wrong. Chaos can be conceptualized, and chaos is composed of its own components, otherwise it would be perfectly simple actuality. Having no structure means having no composition.


And your educated opinion does? Opinions are like...well you know the saying. Nothing will change because of this debate, regardless of whether the opinions expressed are educated or not.


Then why do you bother to come here then?


From my perspective this comment sounds very odd coming from someone so young...

You're not much older than me. But regardless, there are people who lived their whole lives without endeavoring to learn, while others who strive to develop themselves.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

For someone complaining so much about people allegedly not reading your posts through entirely and responding in full this seems rather ironic.


Who are you? It's easy to come in here, drop a bomb, and take a walk. I've been on this forum for over a year now, and I don't believe anyone could accuse me of taking a walk from a debate on an issue I participate in. You may want to delve into the pages and pages of back threads, as they offer a more educated position.


This was interesting up until AoA started flaming everyone in sight. It's one thing to get impatient, but good lord man, take a deep breath before posting, seriously. It won't hurt.

At any rate, it's really too bad that people aren't mature enough to carry on an intelligent discussion about such topics without slinging insults or loosely veiled flames at one another.


I'm going to ignore this because I haven't seen you around here before. I could understand that if I were a new poster, but frankly it upsets me to continually post the same things over and over. Makes you wonder why people even bother engaging in argument. As Oberon said, "things wont change". I however believe that some are affected, as some were over the past year.


And for the record, AoA, I'm not trying to take sides, but I've known Cloud for a while and while I can see where you might take offense at his choice of words in a few cases, in reality if you read them without assuming he's out to get you personally, you'll realize that he's not trying to be nasty.


If I didnt think CW was a smart guy and worthy of conversation, I wouldn't bother replying to his posts. Kind of wonder why I'm giving this post the time of day, but I've gotta cover my a$$ from time to time.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

There is nothing besides that which exists, so that which exists is monistic due to lack of any comparison. Existence is simple. Existence is. Infinitely temporal or not, existence is. Infinitely temporal, existence is. Finitely temporal existence is. Therefore, just by noting that existence is, that it is simple, one cannot argue for nor against eternity. By noting that eternity merely "is," is simple, you are saying nothing to deny or accept it.


I agree with everything you said here. However, I want to point out that I maintain that temporal existence (while it "is"), is not simple, but complex.


Aside: complexity comes from human categorization of different parts of that which just is. Therefore, it is quite obvious to draw the conclusion that these categories are false or tautological.


Ahh. At this juncture, we are presented with objectivity and subjectivity. You say that structure is imposed by human conceptualization, and I say that human beings discover concepts inherent in nature.


Another aside: potentiality and actuality are nothing but labels we apply to certain "motions." I use "motions" because I'm pretty sure we agree that things come to be (actualize) and cease to be because of movement - it's just a broader term. Plus, who's to say where something will end up, that it will stay there (actuality), or where something is supposed to go (potentiality)? Aristotle assumes that things move towards a purpose, instead of just seeing that things move.


I maintain that all things must have an inherent purpose, or reason for being.


I never said Leibniz referenced Aquinas. I never said he didn't talk about monads.

I don't have a copy of The Monadology, but try paragraphs 38-40 (that's what I have referenced in my paper).


I'll take a look.


I'm hoping you didn't just stop after that first line, because if you understand the argument, it applies to any argument where God exists outside of spacetime.


You'll have to show me where in the text Leibniz maintains language of God being outside reality. He is very clear in with monads being dimensionless reflections, which contain the divine.


"In and through the temporal," which is spacetime/the universe/existence. So, God is existence?


This is a tougher one to articulate. I would say that God creates and sustains the cosmos. As Augustine said, "there's a trace of the trinity in all things" (just as an example).


I would also like you to back up the premise that the temporal needs "sustaining" to "exist" - don't forget that I already showed you that time as we experience it is an illusion, and you agreed with this demonstration :D.


The universe needs to be sustained because by its nature it cannot be eternal, and thus self-sustaining. Anything created is contingent, and therefore needs to be maintained.


And since space and time are the same (shown in the same argument), you must back up the premise that all dimensions of existence, therefore all of existence, needs "sustaining."

Just did in the above few sentances.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Explain in and through. Do you mean that God exists both inside and outside the universe?

Refer to my reply to CW. In and through means that the cosmos needs to be sustained, and its existence is contingent upon God's will for it to exist.

[Sage the Mage]

The universe needs to be sustained because by its nature it cannot be eternal, and thus self-sustaining. Anything created is contingent, and therefore needs to be maintained.
I disagree. Reason: conservation of energy/matter.

[Oberon]

As far as I can tell, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

So saying eternity isn't still but that it is no movement isn't a contradiction? Please elaborate.

Chaos can be conceptualized, and chaos is composed of its own components, otherwise it would be perfectly simple actuality. Having no structure means having no composition.

True chaos cannot be conceptualized. As you have noted yourself there are a priori truths which form the basis for our understanding. These truths provide a structure to thought. Since thought is based on a structure, it cannot conceive of true chaos. I believe this is why you do not believe true chaos exists, because it goes against the structure underlying thought in your head. The question is, is that because true chaos doesn't exist, or is it because true chaos is impossible to conceptualize with a structured mind?

Then why do you bother to come here then?

Because I keep hoping you'll change your avatar from that ugly Lord Marshall in CoR back to yourself to give me something pretty to look at.*

You're not much older than me. But regardless, there are people who lived their whole lives without endeavoring to learn, while others who strive to develop themselves.

This is true. I do believe you're a bit more cocky than you should be and too quick to dismiss the opinions of others. In the long run this will dampen your digestion of knowledge not to mention piss a bunch of people off. If I didn't like you on some level I wouldn't make such a statement but I believe people can change.


* I also like debating.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I disagree. Reason: conservation of energy/matter.

What you must come to realize Sage, is that you must bring it all back to the beginning. Energy and matter are contingent, created things. That's what I'm trying to say here. If its not God, it needs to be sustained in existence.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So saying eternity isn't still but that it is no movement isn't a contradiction? Please elaborate.


If it's still, it would indicate a period of rest - since a thing is knowin in reference to its opposite. If there was knowledge in eternity of stillness, it would come by means to knowledge of it being un-still, which would be impossible due to eternity's simplicity.


True chaos cannot be conceptualized. As you have noted yourself there are a priori truths which form the basis for our understanding. These truths provide a structure to thought. Since thought is based on a structure, it cannot conceive of true chaos. I believe this is why you do not believe true chaos exists, because it goes against the structure underlying thought in your head. The question is, is that because true chaos doesn't exist, or is it because true chaos is impossible to conceptualize with a structured mind?


Every now and then, you do bring forth a good point j/k. In the case where chaos would be absense of structure, and thought, concepts, and world would be structure, I would have to say that chaos would be a definition for nothingness, since anything that "is" has structure. In addition, Having structure in thought must also imply structure in nature, as structured thought could not glean objects in a chaotic cosmos.


Because I keep hoping you'll change your avatar from that ugly Lord Marshall in CoR back to yourself to give me something pretty to look at.*


Thanks for that, but you know I don't swing that way^^.


This is true. I do believe you're a bit more cocky than you should be and too quick to dismiss the opinions of others. In the long run this will dampen your digestion of knowledge not to mention piss a bunch of people off. If I didn't like you on some level I wouldn't make such a statement but I believe people can change.


Meh. Nobody's perfect. I will say however that discussion should delve deeper than mere "opinion".

[DrunkCajun]

Who are you?

To answer your question with your own words:

You may want to delve into the pages and pages of back threads, as they offer a more educated position.

Let me recommend the DII OTF, Pal Forum, or any number of the DII forums.

I'm going to ignore this because I haven't seen you around here before. I could understand that if I were a new poster, but frankly it upsets me to continually post the same things over and over. Makes you wonder why people even bother engaging in argument. As Oberon said, "things wont change". I however believe that some are affected, as some were over the past year.

Not sure I follow, but I'm sorry I've upset you. And just because you haven't seen me does not mean I haven't been around.

If I didnt think CW was a smart guy and worthy of conversation, I wouldn't bother replying to his posts. Kind of wonder why I'm giving this post the time of day, but I've gotta cover my a$$ from time to time.

Fair enough--my point was merely that I thought you were taking CW's comments a little too personally and as a result your replies were a little too personal. Telling him to get an education, telling him he's incapable of reading and intepretting when your comments are clearly contradicting themselves--these really serve no other purpose than to be intentionally hurtful, and I thought there were probably better ways of handling things.

[Sage the Mage]

That's what I'm trying to say here. If its not God, it needs to be sustained in existence.
So you're saying the universe needs a constant influx of stuff to survive?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Fair enough--my point was merely that I thought you were taking CW's comments a little too personally and as a result your replies were a little too personal. Telling him to get an education, telling him he's incapable of reading and intepretting when your comments are clearly contradicting themselves--these really serve no other purpose than to be intentionally hurtful, and I thought there were probably better ways of handling things.

Well, everything I did tell him was in a certain context, and as such, shouldn't be cut-and-pasted out and taken on their own. If you knew me better, you'd just realize that I bear people no ill-will, but I can sometimes be harsh (though its always within the context of argument). Other than that, the only trouble I have with this post is your claim that my comments were "clearly contradicting themselves". If you'd care to join in, by all means.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So you're saying the universe needs a constant influx of stuff to survive?

Not stuff - since that's always there to begin with. The universe per se is a closed system, with all of its components already there, doing their thing. I'm saying that "stuff" needs to be supported in its existence by the will of God, because "stuff" is not eternal by nature, and thus self sustaining.

[DuskO]

[offtopic]

I like the new avatar AoA. You obviously have pretty good taste in movies. :)

[/off-topic]

[Oberon]

If it's still, it would indicate a period of rest - since a thing is knowin in reference to its opposite. If there was knowledge in eternity of stillness, it would come by means to knowledge of it being un-still, which would be impossible due to eternity's simplicity.

Perhaps eternity is infinitely complex? Perhaps eternity is simply an imaginary concept with no basis in reality? It may be assuming there is an eternity outside of or beyond the universe is as silly a concept as assuming you must be able to divide by zero or find the square root of -1.

Every now and then, you do bring forth a good point j/k. In the case where chaos would be absense of structure, and thought, concepts, and world would be structure, I would have to say that chaos would be a definition for nothingness, since anything that "is" has structure. In addition, Having structure in thought must also imply structure in nature, as structured thought could not glean objects in a chaotic cosmos.

Now you know how we Democrats felt on November 3rd.

Thanks for that, but you know I don't swing that way^^.

Doesn't make you any less attractive but we all have our crosses to bear. Personally if I was going to choose someone from that movie for an avatar I'd go with Karl Urban's character...

http://img186.exs.cx/img186/3264/urban3we.jpg

Meh. Nobody's perfect. I will say however that discussion should delve deeper than mere "opinion".

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Democritus was an "atomist" of the ancient world. Atomists also composed groups like the stoics and epicureans, which held their philosophies to deal only with temporal concerns. Then there was that massive reaction from the neo-plationists..

Anyway, CoR was by far one of my fav movies, and I'm sad to see a legendary villan like the lord marshall get offed. Another one of my favorite villans was the "deacon" in waterworld. :p

Perhaps eternity is infinitely complex? Perhaps eternity is simply an imaginary concept with no basis in reality? It may be assuming there is an eternity outside of or beyond the universe is as silly a concept as assuming you must be able to divide by zero or find the square root of -1.


Can't have infinite complexity - complexity has to do with limits and definitions, which cannot be eternal by nature.

[Oberon]

Can't have infinite complexity - complexity has to do with limits and definitions, which cannot be eternal by nature.

Would this apply to God?

[Cloud_Walker]

You'll have to show me where in the text Leibniz maintains language of God being outside reality. He is very clear in with monads being dimensionless reflections, which contain the divine.

I meant the first line of the argument presented by "Mike aka EvilTeuf," which I quoted from another site. He proves that God cannot exist outside of the universe, or at least shows that Ockham's Razor makes such a concept useless.

The universe needs to be sustained because by its nature it cannot be eternal, and thus self-sustaining. Anything created is contingent, and therefore needs to be maintained.

Let's start over here. Show me that the universe must be contingent, or that it cannot be eternal.

Aside: I will agree that anything created must be contingent, though I won't agree with the maintaining part, because as Sage said, there is conservation of mass-energy.

Just did in the above few sentances.

Yea I just had to make sure you weren't isolating what we experience as temporal from the rest of existence.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Would this apply to God?

No, I don't believe it could, as God would be a contingent being, if he were composed of complexity and structure. One may thing that because God has many "attributes", he is complex, but in truth he is utterly simple and eternal.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I meant the first line of the argument presented by "Mike aka EvilTeuf," which I quoted from another site. He proves that God cannot exist outside of the universe, or at least shows that Ockham's Razor makes such a concept useless.


"completely" outside would be impossible, yes.


Let's start over here. Show me that the universe must be contingent, or that it cannot be eternal.

Aside: I will agree that anything created must be contingent, though I won't agree with the maintaining part, because as Sage said, there is conservation of mass-energy.


Ok. Energy is still a limited thing - anything that can be conceptulaized or defined has limits. Anything that has limits is contingent. Contingent things are not self-sustaining things. As such, they need something that keeps them in existence. Definition and limitation in anything shows that it cannot be eternal.

[Sage the Mage]

"completely" outside would be impossible, yes.
And "partially" outside of existence is also an impossibility.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And "partially" outside of existence is also an impossibility.

Nobody mentioned partially. God can't be partially about anything. He is in and through everything that is, and everything that is not.

[Oberon]

Nobody mentioned partially. God can't be partially about anything. He is in and through everything that is, and everything that is not.

How can anything be "in and through" anything "that is not"? If something "is not" then what is there to be "in and through"?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

How can anything be "in and through" anything "that is not"? If something "is not" then what is there to be "in and through"?

At this level, language is looking over the edge of a cliff.. But in the best terms I'm capable of, I'd have to say that with God, you're dealing with something beyond the normal realm of conception, and rules for that matter. I could say that all creation is "swept up" into himself, or that creation is contained within the Godhead. It's really hard to point out the technicalities, since its beyond the empirical method. However, we can say that God is not limited by any realm, since he is the author of realms. Anything contingent, which is whatever is, is sustained by God. Anything that isnt, is a mere conceptualization, which further defines that which is (if that makes sense). The best way to describe it is perhaps by means of a hierarchy of powers. An stone for instance has no sentience. A plant has more power than a stone, as it is a living thing, and so on with animals, human beings, etc. Each of these things has a degree of creation/mastery over the lesser things. God is the greatest, but hes even beyond greatness, since he cannot be slotted into a hierarchy with things above and below - since he is eternal simplicity.

[Oberon]

AoA,

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it appears you're saying God is above reason itself - that it need not apply to him. For example, if I ask if God could create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it - you'd have to say reason like this doesn't apply to God. Am I right or am I wrong?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA,

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it appears you're saying God is above reason itself - that it need not apply to him. For example, if I ask if God could create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it - you'd have to say reason like this doesn't apply to God. Am I right or am I wrong?


God is above reason. Reason is a human being's method of comprehension. It involves composing and dividing, and unifying concepts. The nature of God cannot be gauged by human reason, but can be outlined by reference to what it is not - and that comes by means of what he has created and the options we have with that. Of that, there is surety using reason of an outline we can get of God.

Some have used the "too heavy to lift" argument before but they're missing the point. God is not bound by any unit of measurement, so since he is above that entire plane of existence in that manner, that paradox is not applicible.

[Oberon]

God is above reason. Reason is a human being's method of comprehension. It involves composing and dividing, and unifying concepts. The nature of God cannot be gauged by human reason, but can be outlined by reference to what it is not - and that comes by means of what he has created and the options we have with that. Of that, there is surety using reason of an outline we can get of God.

Seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. The nature of God cannot be gauged by reason but can be gauged indirectly by his creation (the universe). This assumes there is a God and the universe is his creation. Once you've made that leap of faith (not reason) then yes I can see your point. But I'm not much for leaps of faith.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. The nature of God cannot be gauged by reason but can be gauged indirectly by his creation (the universe). This assumes there is a God and the universe is his creation. Once you've made that leap of faith (not reason) then yes I can see your point. But I'm not much for leaps of faith.

No, I never used an assumption of God as my point of departure. I stated that the nature of creation and what we can glean from it with our reasoning demands that there be a God, who contains certian attributes we can understand conceptually. In the end however, we will need faith - God asks for faith, and scripture says that its only by the Holy Spirit that we can know God (as opposed to knowing "about" God, which i'm always talking about). Having faith is dangerous because we've learned that it is by others who have betrayed us, and the general selfishness of human nature. I don't like faith for those reasons either, but without it, we're f---ed. At least I know that reason has brought us to that point. I believe however that God loves us (one can even discern this by reason as well), and you should try making a connection.

[Cloud_Walker]

anything that can be conceptulaized or defined has limits. Anything that has limits is contingent.

So God also has limits and is contingent? You would say no, because God is beyond conception, right? I wonder how you know about anything that is beyond conception.

[Cloud_Walker]

At this level, language is looking over the edge of a cliff..
...
However, we can say that God is not limited by any realm, since he is the author of realms.

You are still talking and thinking about existence. As much as you wish otherwise, you cannot do anything more.

[Oberon]

So God also has limits and is contingent? You would say no, because God is beyond conception, right? I wonder how you know about anything that is beyond conception.

AoA doesn't know, he believes. His views regarding God are more a matter of his personal faith rather than rational discourse despite his claims otherwise. I'm not sure why he doesn't simply admit to this and be done with it. There's nothing wrong with a belief based on faith, so long as there isn't positive evidence against the faith-based conviction. The fact that he doesn't simply believe in God like a deist, but has narrowed the God he debates here about to the Christian one and the Bible as the way to know this God - this alone should give you an idea of where faith alone has taken him. He portrays reason as what leads him to knowing God exists (and even some aspects of this God) but from there only faith alone can explain the jump past all other possible religions to one in particular and one scripture in particular. If I'm mistaken in this observation of you AoA, please tell me. I'd be interested to see how reason can be used to prove the Trinity is real.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So God also has limits and is contingent? You would say no, because God is beyond conception, right? I wonder how you know about anything that is beyond conception.


What method did I tell you before about how this can be realized?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You are still talking and thinking about existence. As much as you wish otherwise, you cannot do anything more.

Nope. Thinking about existence to draw conclusions is called empiricism. Dealing with a priori concepts in reason is called speculative reason. It's the difference between infancy and maturity of thought.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA doesn't know, he believes. His views regarding God are more a matter of his personal faith rather than rational discourse despite his claims otherwise.


No, I think that's what you're comfortable believing. From your own personal experiences, the idea that the Christian God is real would be very frightening to you I would imagine. Good going in brushing aside all I've spoken to give my "beliefs" qualification in terms of thinking. I do believe, but its not "belief" per se. That term is used in reference to blind faith. What I've spoken about is what one person is forced to believe, because reason manhandles all other possibilities.


I'm not sure why he doesn't simply admit to this and be done with it. There's nothing wrong with a belief based on faith, so long as there isn't positive evidence against the faith-based conviction. The fact that he doesn't simply believe in God like a deist, but has narrowed the God he debates here about to the Christian one and the Bible as the way to know this God - this alone should give you an idea of where faith alone has taken him. He portrays reason as what leads him to knowing God exists (and even some aspects of this God) but from there only faith alone can explain the jump past all other possible religions to one in particular and one scripture in particular. If I'm mistaken in this observation of you AoA, please tell me. I'd be interested to see how reason can be used to prove the Trinity is real.

I had difficulty with most of this paragraph, especially with the "jumping past" aspect. I will however set aside those assumptions and treat of the other religions if you wish - for indeed, truth fears no detractor. The true faith comes by means of a merger of reason and revelation. So far I've preached on what reason can give us, and have talked about the possible metaphysics and options for belief using reason alone. Anyone coming in here preaching revelation would be laughed at - and would be entirely useless to you guys. A true faith or religion can be known by reference to its creed, as well as reference to reason, which has its own inherent structure apart from any creed or dogma. The nexus point at which these two meet will make or break any faith. To put it in short form (and I'll do this now since I have to log off in a few min), Christianity is the only faith that coincides with what reason brings us. I'll leave you with that, and await the tidal wave of objections for tommorow.

[Oberon]

No, I think that's what you're comfortable believing. From your own personal experiences, the idea that the Christian God is real would be very frightening to you I would imagine. Good going in brushing aside all I've spoken to give my "beliefs" qualification in terms of thinking. I do believe, but its not "belief" per se. That term is used in reference to blind faith. What I've spoken about is what one person is forced to believe, because reason manhandles all other possibilities.

Beliefs can vary in terms of their dependence on faith (blind or otherwise). Some beliefs are completely blind whereas others have supporting evidence (not enough to constitute proof but some nonetheless). As for the Christian God, it depends on whether it's the loving one or the fire and brimstone one. I'm assuming your comment was due to my being gay and if God hates me for the way he made me then that's his fault not mine.

I had difficulty with most of this paragraph, especially with the "jumping past" aspect. I will however set aside those assumptions and treat of the other religions if you wish - for indeed, truth fears no detractor. The true faith comes by means of a merger of reason and revelation. So far I've preached on what reason can give us, and have talked about the possible metaphysics and options for belief using reason alone. Anyone coming in here preaching revelation would be laughed at - and would be entirely useless to you guys. A true faith or religion can be known by reference to its creed, as well as reference to reason, which has its own inherent structure apart from any creed or dogma. The nexus point at which these two meet will make or break any faith. To put it in short form (and I'll do this now since I have to log off in a few min), Christianity is the only faith that coincides with what reason brings us. I'll leave you with that, and await the tidal wave of objections for tommorow.

That's quite a statement to make. Care to explain your reasoning further?

[Sage the Mage]

Nope. Thinking about existence to draw conclusions is called empiricism. Dealing with a priori concepts in reason is called speculative reason. It's the difference between infancy and maturity of thought.
"Well because the universe does this, God has to have this quality!" No, sorry, God doesn't. With empiricism, you are still trying to apply reason to God, and as you said, God is above reason.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Beliefs can vary in terms of their dependence on faith (blind or otherwise). Some beliefs are completely blind whereas others have supporting evidence (not enough to constitute proof but some nonetheless). As for the Christian God, it depends on whether it's the loving one or the fire and brimstone one. I'm assuming your comment was due to my being gay and if God hates me for the way he made me then that's his fault not mine.


God is a loving God, but lets be careful to also note that he is a "holy" God. In that sense, he does ask for repentance and for us choose to live holy lives as best we can. As far as the you being gay thing is concerned, no, God doesn't hate a person for "being gay" lol.. That's just who you are, and that's that. However, a gay person is called to the same commitment to faithfulness as a strait person is. I've met a few gay people who really pulled this off well.


That's quite a statement to make. Care to explain your reasoning further?

Well I'd have to start with outlining the ways in which most belief systems do not coincide with the metaphysics offered by reason. One such belief is zoroastarianism. I had this debate a good 5 months or so ago. For the sake of example, zoroasters hold that theres a continual struggle between two equal powers - good and evil. What the sad part is is the fact that most christians believe that. However, this is not so. Note I've highlighted the "equal" part. The problem with this "two superpowers" doctrine is the fact that there can be only one ultimate ruling power. There must be a greatest, and there must be a least. Two "greatest" things of the same nature would be one "greatest" thing (which wipes out pantheism). In the case of the zoroaster, two opposing greatest powers would cancel each other out - making existence impossible. That's just one example.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

"Well because the universe does this, God has to have this quality!" No, sorry, God doesn't. With empiricism, you are still trying to apply reason to God, and as you said, God is above reason.

You quoted the key to understanding this properly, though it wasn't grasped. Empiricism, when taken to its end, moves into speculative reason, using the concepts that empiricism discovers. And yes, the cosmos was created in a certain fashion, as opposed to another kind. This speaks of the nature of its creator.

[Sage the Mage]

Then God is no longer beyond reason.

[Cloud_Walker]

What method did I tell you before about how this can be realized?

Look, God can either be conceptualized or not. According to you, if something can be conceptualized, it is contingent. If something is beyond conceptualization, then you, by the very definition of the word, cannot know anything about it; you cannot even think about it; there is no such "it." I don't see how you can misinterpret this.

Your method says that you take reason to a point, then use faith. The thing is, you think this makes what you take on faith perfectly acceptable, even though it is beyond reason (do you realize what that means?). Further, you cannot know if an object of faith exists, simply because you have to have faith in it. If I am mistaken about your method, please explain it clearly and simply, with as little ambiguity as possible.

Dealing with a priori concepts in reason is called speculative reason.

A priori concepts exist, do they not?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Then God is no longer beyond reason.

He is and he is not. Beyond in the sense that his being is far beyond us to fully grasp, but not beyond in that we are priveleged to discover what kind of God we're dealing with.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Look, God can either be conceptualized or not. According to you, if something can be conceptualized, it is contingent. If something is beyond conceptualization, then you, by the very definition of the word, cannot know anything about it; you cannot even think about it; there is no such "it." I don't see how you can misinterpret this.


Our understanding of God is contingent, not God himself. It's contingent on our use of "negative theology", which I explained is the best way to come to terms with this topic - by discovering what is, by discovering what isn't.


Your method says that you take reason to a point, then use faith.


oh.. you make it sound so arbitrary.. You also make reason and faith sound like tools. If that's the case, you've totally missed what's at stake here. Reason is used regardless - we use it when we don't even realize it. However, reason has its own limits, and these limits have to do with the content it takes into account. The transition from reason to faith is seamless. There's no point where you say "oh, I'm cool with what I know now, lets dive in", its more like faith is so emphatically reccommended by reason that once you travel as far as you can down the path of reason, faith is a "no brainer".


The thing is, you think this makes what you take on faith perfectly acceptable, even though it is beyond reason (do you realize what that means?). Further, you cannot know if an object of faith exists, simply because you have to have faith in it. If I am mistaken about your method, please explain it clearly and simply, with as little ambiguity as possible.


Reason allows us to know "about" God. Faith is not "taking our chances", but rather, is as scripture says, the "evidence of things unseen". In this way, faith is a continuation of reason, since it makes the most sense after discovering the natural limitation of human power. Knowing the object of faith, when one gets to this point, is walking it, not simply knowing it - it involves the whole being.


A priori concepts exist, do they not?

No, they don't exist in the way you understand them to. Existing is in terms of an actual entity that exists. A priori concepts do not exist, but "are". There's a difference.

[Sage the Mage]

He is and he is not. Beyond in the sense that his being is far beyond us to fully grasp, but not beyond in that we are priveleged to discover what kind of God we're dealing with.
Well then, God is no longer beyond reason. God has limits. Tell me, who created those limits?

[Cloud_Walker]

I think I have tired of hearing how you claim to know your god. I asked you to prove that god exists by proving that the universe was created/is contingent. To do so, you need to prove that the universe was at one point otherwise, i.e., it didn't exist. You tried this once, claiming that energy is limited (how do you know that?), and therefore the universe is not eternal. I don't know where you got that connection, but it doesn't matter, because due to the nature of spacetime, the length of time, eternal or not, has no bearing on whether the time (and space along with it, of course) was created.

And don't try to throw around your odd combo of faith and reason again. I'm asking you to prove it to me, and that means using reason. (You use faith because there is literally no reason to believe in a god.)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well then, God is no longer beyond reason. God has limits. Tell me, who created those limits?

Still haven't got it. The limits have to do with our own faculty. For our purposes, he is beyond OUR limits.

[Sage the Mage]

Then you're putting him beyond reason again, which includes contradictions, which again means you can know nothing. Get it yet?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think I have tired of hearing how you claim to know your god.


Ok let's drop the subject shall we? mmmk..


I asked you to prove that god exists by proving that the universe was created/is contingent.


God cannot be proven, but the non existence of a supreme being can be disproven. Think about it.


To do so, you need to prove that the universe was at one point otherwise, i.e., it didn't exist. You tried this once, claiming that energy is limited (how do you know that?),


Energy is a force which affects things. It is ruled by laws and limitations. It is a fabric of the universe. It's not eternal.


and therefore the universe is not eternal. I don't know where you got that connection, but it doesn't matter, because due to the nature of spacetime, the length of time, eternal or not, has no bearing on whether the time (and space along with it, of course) was created.


Anything contingent and composite (even energy), needs a creator. Nothing unnecessary or finite can create itself.


And don't try to throw around your odd combo of faith and reason again.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was that odd. I guess we'll just have to make it a taboo subject... :/


I'm asking you to prove it to me, and that means using reason. (You use faith because there is literally no reason to believe in a god.)

I can't prove God to you - and you'll never reach God by trying to put him on a dissection table. I call your reason scepticism. Scepticism because you're limiting yourself to a childish way of thinking. I haven't met many people who could explore the cosmos and come to the conclusion that there is no God. In addition, after all the time I spent educating you, you who claim to know philosophy, how you will not allow yourself to be enlightened.

[Oberon]

God cannot be proven, but the non existence of a supreme being can be disproven.

Not if you remain objective. I believe you start with the belief that God exists then work you reasoning in reverse to make it appear so. Maybe I'm mistaken here but you've offered no evidence at all to back such a claim.

Energy is a force which affects things. It is ruled by laws and limitations. It is a fabric of the universe. It's not eternal.

The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) indicates that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Prior to the Big Bang all energy was stored in a singularity. Afterwards it will expand and change form again and again but it will never disappear.

Anything contingent and composite (even energy), needs a creator. Nothing unnecessary or finite can create itself.

Opinion given as fact. You don't know this but you claim you do. Unless you were there to witness the origins of the universe, don't pretend you know. You believe, but you don't know.

I can't prove God to you - and you'll never reach God by trying to put him on a dissection table. I call your reason scepticism. Scepticism because you're limiting yourself to a childish way of thinking. I haven't met many people who could explore the cosmos and come to the conclusion that there is no God. In addition, after all the time I spent educating you, you who claim to know philosophy, how you will not allow yourself to be enlightened.

No one here is saying there is no God. All we're saying is there's no evidence to conclude there is a God. For the last time please stop with the ad hominen remarks. Calling our thinking "childish" won't help your side of the debate.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Not if you remain objective. I believe you start with the belief that God exists then work you reasoning in reverse to make it appear so. Maybe I'm mistaken here but you've offered no evidence at all to back such a claim.


That would be dogmatism. In all the time I spent on this thread, I have avoided such an approach by taking a "grassroots" approach to this. I've always commented on the notion that from what we can perceive and reason out, its very appropriate to say that a creator would be necessary.

Now the problematic that my detractors are having in this is the fact that they want a "proof". One of the tragedies in philosophy, that came about with the onset of Cartesianism, is that proof is demanded for methods that need ask for no proof. A proof is a thing that is sure and guaranteed, because we have mastery over the content. Transcendentals cannot be proven in this manner, because their conclusions are of a higher reality than the premises, unlike empiricism.


The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) indicates that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Prior to the Big Bang all energy was stored in a singularity. Afterwards it will expand and change form again and again but it will never disappear.


I totally agree that energy is something that continues in one form or another. That's like time, and the concept of existing - its always in a certain form. But you make a mistake of asserting its enternalness, due to that fact. Energy is not an utterly simple thing, and still operates by means of laws and patterns. It still has structure. Structure is not eternal or simple.


Opinion given as fact. You don't know this but you claim you do. Unless you were there to witness the origins of the universe, don't pretend you know. You believe, but you don't know.


Now that's ad hominem. There's no content here containing any sort of argument relevant to the discussion save for blatant dogmatism. I've explained my point clearly enough.


No one here is saying there is no God. All we're saying is there's no evidence to conclude there is a God. For the last time please stop with the ad hominen remarks. Calling our thinking "childish" won't help your side of the debate.

I'm not trying to "help" it. My goal isn't to convert any of you. As you said "nothing will change". Even if I manage to convince you of what I'm saying, that won't change your day to day routines, or who you are. Perhaps childish was a strong term, but if I'm confronted with people who claim to know philosophy, and are still locked in empiricism when dealing with transcendentals, I call that childish. To say one has no knowledge of philosophy is one thing, but to quote me texts and claim to have the rudiments understood (CW), I find it a time sink to continually say the same things over and over, to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps if I just give you a few texts things may help. One text that can help in understanding my position is the Mystical Theology by Pseudo Dionysius. The best way to deal with hardcore Humeans and empiricists like you guys is with a touch of the neo platonic. Give that a go, and then come back to me.

[Cloud_Walker]

God cannot be proven, but the non existence of a supreme being can be disproven. Think about it.

Just like how you cannot disprove that there is a completely unobservable jelly donut orbiting your head. Or that there's pink-striped dragons flying around playing Blackjack in midair outside of our universe. This is where Ockham's Razor comes in handy.

Energy is a force which affects things. It is ruled by laws and limitations. It is a fabric of the universe. It's not eternal.

Wrong again. Spactime is the fabric of the universe. Energy is contained within space time. And I already said that eternity has nothing to do with contingency.

Anything contingent and composite (even energy), needs a creator. Nothing unnecessary or finite can create itself.

Right off the bat you assumed it was contingent. I have asked you to prove it so.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was that odd. I guess we'll just have to make it a taboo subject... :/

"Odd" because I have never heard of it before. Make it taboo, I don't care, I was just saying that it doesn't apply in this "new" conversation we have going.

I can't prove God to you - and you'll never reach God by trying to put him on a dissection table. I call your reason scepticism. Scepticism because you're limiting yourself to a childish way of thinking. I haven't met many people who could explore the cosmos and come to the conclusion that there is no God. In addition, after all the time I spent educating you, you who claim to know philosophy, how you will not allow yourself to be enlightened.

I don't know where I made that claim. Anyways, the existence of God is probably one of the things I think about most, which means almost constantly. Lately I have been creating and molding rebuttals of arguments for God, because I don't think he exists. I do keep an open mind, though, it's just that you aren't really putting up a reasonable (note the word "reason" in there, because you use faith) argument. It has probably fell off the back of the pages, already, but in the DII OTF, anyone who remembers a certain thread will have seen me switch from deism to atheism in the back pages of a debate between myself and a graduate level scientist (I think), because he put up an argument that defeated mine.

But "I can't prove God to you" is perfectly fine. If you believe in God because you have faith, that's all good. I have no problem with fideism. Actually, I have no problem with any belief system (actions required by them is a different story, though), it's just that fideism means we have to end this discussion.

Oh, and if you want to call my thinking childish, go ahead. I'd like to disagree, though, and think that a thorough and exclusive use of reason is quite the opposite.

EDIT: I just ordered that book from Amazon.

[Cloud_Walker]

Perhaps childish was a strong term, but if I'm confronted with people who claim to know philosophy, and are still locked in empiricism when dealing with transcendentals, I call that childish. To say one has no knowledge of philosophy is one thing, but to quote me texts and claim to have the rudiments understood (CW), I find it a time sink to continually say the same things over and over, to fall on deaf ears.

Nice euphamism for ad hominem.

So, if I quote from a text, that automatically means that I have read everything ever written on the subject of philosophy? Either that, or I can claim to know nothing about philosophy, but it would be too late for me to say so, huh? It's either all or nothing for you.

The best way to deal with hardcore Humeans and empiricists like you guys is with a touch of the neo platonic.

Advice for you: label us all you want, it will only serve to blind you. The problem is that you have yet to show us where we are wrong.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Just like how you cannot disprove that there is a completely unobservable jelly donut orbiting your head. Or that there's pink-striped dragons flying around playing Blackjack in midair outside of our universe. This is where Ockham's Razor comes in handy.


Answers like these are the reason you need to study dialectics. By means of metaphysics, we can make certain claims about God. Another text you could look at is Aquinas' summa theologica, since you're so in love with medieval philosophy ala william ockham.


Wrong again. Spactime is the fabric of the universe. Energy is contained within space time. And I already said that eternity has nothing to do with contingency.


Right off the bat you assumed it was contingent. I have asked you to prove it so.


I put those two together to reveal your inconsistency. If its contained in spacetime (which I'll grant you), then it is still contingent.


I don't know where I made that claim. Anyways, the existence of God is probably one of the things I think about most, which means almost constantly. Lately I have been creating and molding rebuttals of arguments for God, because I don't think he exists.


Sounds like you're using a method of falsification. Those familiar with the term will know that this entails cutting away at a concept to test its validity. Problem is, you're using an empirical method to gauge a transcendental that can only be gauged in the speculative.


I do keep an open mind, though, it's just that you aren't really putting up a reasonable (note the word "reason" in there, because you use faith) argument.


I went as far as I could with reason (please read those texts), and faith is the only alternative. In addition to falsification, you might try to consider arguments "for" God.


It has probably fell off the back of the pages, already, but in the DII OTF, anyone who remembers a certain thread will have seen me switch from deism to atheism in the back pages of a debate between myself and a graduate level scientist (I think), because he put up an argument that defeated mine.


I'll take a look for it. Atheism is one of the silliest things I've come across, and the fact that people subscribe to it continues to baffle me. I've met several (and read from several other) scientists who would gawk at the notion of atheism. One text you might want to read is Thomas Dubay's The Evidential Power of Beauty.


But "I can't prove God to you" is perfectly fine. If you believe in God because you have faith, that's all good. I have no problem with fideism. Actually, I have no problem with any belief system (actions required by them is a different story, though), it's just that fideism means we have to end this discussion.


Albeit, qualified faith. I'm sure if you read the texts I've assigned, they can describe it in more eloquent terms.

On another note, I'd like to hear more about the "actions required by faith" bit.


Oh, and if you want to call my thinking childish, go ahead. I'd like to disagree, though, and think that a thorough and exclusive use of reason is quite the opposite.


Well, I hope that open mind of yours stays with you :).



EDIT: I just ordered that book from Amazon.

Cool ^^

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So, if I quote from a text, that automatically means that I have read everything ever written on the subject of philosophy? Either that, or I can claim to know nothing about philosophy, but it would be too late for me to say so, huh? It's either all or nothing for you.


If you walked into a graduate department with that attitude, you'd be rubbing your sore a$$ for a week.


Advice for you: label us all you want, it will only serve to blind you. The problem is that you have yet to show us where we are wrong.

Who is this "us"? I've shown you many times. All you manage to post is "you're wrong". Good luck reading the texts.

[Sage the Mage]

I'm still not seeing the whole, "We can know stuff about stuff beyond reason." Remember, the only reason you have to put such things beyond reason is to allow for some sort of contradiction, so why not have more contradictions?

[Alakon]

I'm just going to put forward a question here.
If there is no God, what is the reason for existence?
Why does anything exist, why are we here? Why do we have this concept of a God, why do we have a concept of right and wrong, why do we care?
I think that these emotions would not stem from a non-sentient unemotional singularity of some kind.
Now, I do not know if the universe began as a singularity, but I do 'know' that God existed before matter.
In the bible it says that God is made of dynamic energy.
Spacetime is a concept, and I don't think the concept or actuality of time was created by God or the singularity.
For if time did not exist, either of them would be unable to enact the energy required to create time because they'd never be able to do it.
You might say God existed outside time, or that the singularity was the focal point of all spacetime thereby operating under its own rules in a way.
But whatever the case, there was some mode of time operating already.
I don't think God made all the rules, but within the universe, and I don't think there are others, his ability at energy and matter and spirit or whatever transformations makes him virtually boundless in power.
Then I wonder, is time actual a thing, is it an energy constant, a thread to which all existence is attached?
God cannot go back in time, not in the way that is generally accepted, he would have to manually reverse the universe and people's actions, theoretically while time was still moving forward.
Time may be nothing at all, it may just be a concept, time might be a natural state, and non-time the unnatural.
All I know is that Jehovah said he was there at the beginning and he will be there at the end, which I take to mean he will live indefinitely and he existed before all else.
According to the bible, and there is no mention of singularities, it simply says he created the heavens and the earth, then he proceeded to mold and shape the earth and populate it.
During all the events that unfold he doesn't speak of exploding anything into existence, although it's concievable maybe that what it mean't when it said creation of heavens and earth.
After that though, there was definite purpose.
If the universe didn't have order, then it would have collapsed on itself before it begun.
There is talk that existence takes the path of least resistance, that life and existence simply choose the path that offers the greatest rewards, eg, continuing existence.
But that would not explain life, for why would life be easier for the universe to maintain, and life is far more complicated.
We humans seem to have made our own universe, a universe of our own perceptions, of our interaction with one another, of how we view things. This shapes our universe, and they are all particular to ourselves, this all takes creativity.
Creativity does not stem from path of least resistance, sentience does not rise from non-sentience.

If my arguments seem weak and foolish to you, feel free to have me clarify anything.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm still not seeing the whole, "We can know stuff about stuff beyond reason." Remember, the only reason you have to put such things beyond reason is to allow for some sort of contradiction, so why not have more contradictions?

If you don't get it now, you probably never will.. Go google "negative theology" for instance, and you might come up with something.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

In the bible it says that God is made of dynamic energy.


Umm.... No.

[Sage the Mage]

If you don't get it now, you probably never will.. Go google "negative theology" for instance, and you might come up with something.
Ok, one more time :)

You say, "God is above reason and thus can only be referenced by what it is not." Then the whole state an empirical fact about the universe and draw conclusions thing.

Now I look at the God is above reason thing and conclude you can't apply reason to God. Remember, God does and does not exist by your statements, so why not allow other weirdo crap?

I also conclude that if I accepted your negative theology, then God must follow certain rules, and begin to wonder, "Hey where did those rules come from?"

Do you get my problem now?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yea I get it. What I'm trying to say is that while God can be alluded to by reason, it is not an exact proof, as an exact proof would require a full mastery over the subject matter. When I say that reason emphatically reccomends God to us, I do not say that one is obligated in faith in God, but that one can come to a comfortable position in that there are not many options one can arrive at, having taken the joyride of reason.

In addition, one cannot gauge the scope of God, nor have knowledge by reason alone. To quote Dionysius,

"Indeed the inscrutable one is out of the reach of every rational process. Nor can any words come up to the inexpressible Good, thie One, this Source of all unity, this supraexistent Being. Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech, it is gathered up by no discourse, by no intuition, by no name." (mystical theology, part1)

You can see the dialectic of knowing and un-knowing there.

[Cloud_Walker]

I put those two together to reveal your inconsistency. If its contained in spacetime (which I'll grant you), then it is still contingent.

But I'm not asking you to prove the contingency of energy.

Sounds like you're using a method of falsification. Those familiar with the term will know that this entails cutting away at a concept to test its validity. Problem is, you're using an empirical method to gauge a transcendental that can only be gauged in the speculative.

I'm using reason. I have to use reason because there is no evidence for God.

I went as far as I could with reason (please read those texts), and faith is the only alternative. In addition to falsification, you might try to consider arguments "for" God.

I have. Many of them. That dictionary I have must have at least 7. The problem is that they aren't flawless.

I'll take a look for it. Atheism is one of the silliest things I've come across, and the fact that people subscribe to it continues to baffle me. I've met several (and read from several other) scientists who would gawk at the notion of atheism. One text you might want to read is Thomas Dubay's The Evidential Power of Beauty.

I doubt you'll find it, but the thread title is "Evolution as a fact" or something like that. As you might suppose, the thread evolved (no pun intended).

On another note, I'd like to hear more about the "actions required by faith" bit.

Example: When radical fundamentalist Islam requires people to fly planes into skyscrapers, then I have a problem.

If you walked into a graduate department with that attitude, you'd be rubbing your sore a$$ for a week.

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

Who is this "us"?

Did you read what I quoted from you?

I've shown you many times. All you manage to post is "you're wrong". Good luck reading the texts.

*Sigh*

"Indeed the inscrutable one is out of the reach of every rational process. Nor can any words come up to the inexpressible Good, thie One, this Source of all unity, this supraexistent Being. Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech, it is gathered up by no discourse, by no intuition, by no name."

Where your (and Pseudo's) position falters, AoA, is where I can say something like that about anything, and no one can prove me wrong or prove that the thing doesn't exist, because I will say it is beyond proof, beyond even conception. So why pick one thing over another? This is why I use reason.

Afterthought: I do always keep the open mind, AoA. If I come across an argument exclusively for the existence of God that I cannot poke holes in, I will accept it. I have run into many, and left many behind with holes. Some leave me stumped, but eventually I figure them out. If there is one that is invulnerable to my poking, then it will stand that test of time (usually short; never longer than a month). I don't lie to myself, either. If I find that argument, it will not be immediately cast aside by my blind allegiance to an ideology. I even regret labeling myself as an atheist above.

I wish everyone had an open mind, though (not necessarily directed at you).

And I do look forward to reading Pseudo's works. More than once have I been impressed with the ancient Greeks...

[Alakon]

Umm.... No.

Isaiah 40:26 "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy , he also being vigorous of power, not one of them is missing".

Another scripture you may find interesting is one of the first
Genesis 1:26 "And God went on to say "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection... all the earth and every moving animal that moves upon the earth""
When he says us, he is referring to his son, Jesus Christ, the master worker; possibly the other angels too.

I suppose it to mean that God has given himself form, I don't pretend to know why; and he intended us to dominate the earth.

[Sage the Mage]

Yea I get it. What I'm trying to say is that while God can be alluded to by reason, it is not an exact proof, as an exact proof would require a full mastery over the subject matter. When I say that reason emphatically reccomends God to us, I do not say that one is obligated in faith in God, but that one can come to a comfortable position in that there are not many options one can arrive at, having taken the joyride of reason.
I'm assuming the existence of your God right now to ascertain what we can know about 'em. I guess you missed that shift.

In addition, one cannot gauge the scope of God, nor have knowledge by reason alone.
Unless I'm misreading...you're agreeing we can know absolutely nothing about that which is beyond reason (God)?


To quote Dionysius,

"Indeed the inscrutable one is out of the reach of every rational process. Nor can any words come up to the inexpressible Good, thie One, this Source of all unity, this supraexistent Being. Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech, it is gathered up by no discourse, by no intuition, by no name." (mystical theology, part1)

You can see the dialectic of knowing and un-knowing there.
And again, we see that you are supporting my whole, we can know absolutely nothing about God ("out of the reach of every rational process") argument.

So...you...agree with me?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm using reason. I have to use reason because there is no evidence for God.


Than what you call reason is simply logical positivism.


I have. Many of them. That dictionary I have must have at least 7. The problem is that they aren't flawless.


Do you intend to tell me arguements for atheism are? Also, due to your fixation in the empirical method, I doubt you have the scope to fully gauge the arguments as they are intended to be understood.


Where your (and Pseudo's) position falters, AoA, is where I can say something like that about anything, and no one can prove me wrong or prove that the thing doesn't exist, because I will say it is beyond proof, beyond even conception. So why pick one thing over another? This is why I use reason.


Just like those who say God could be the tooth fairy.. Well, that argument was not a starting point, but is the pinnacle of rigorous methods in metaphysics.


Afterthought: I do always keep the open mind, AoA. If I come across an argument exclusively for the existence of God that I cannot poke holes in, I will accept it. I have run into many, and left many behind with holes.


One thing I might add is the fact that you might "miss God" because you would use your own understanding as the method of scoping God.. That wound entail that you would necessarily have to "be God" in order to fully understand him. On another note, why is it that you continaully trouble yourself with questions of his existence?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Isaiah 40:26 "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy , he also being vigorous of power, not one of them is missing".


In the revised standard, it says "By his great might and the strength of his power".

That scripture uses language denoting his power, not his composure. God cant be composed of anything, if he is still God. To be composed of a thing is to be limited by it,

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm assuming the existence of your God right now to ascertain what we can know about 'em. I guess you missed that shift.


Unless I'm misreading...you're agreeing we can know absolutely nothing about that which is beyond reason (God)?


And again, we see that you are supporting my whole, we can know absolutely nothing about God ("out of the reach of every rational process") argument.

So...you...agree with me?

I wouldn't expect you to grasp it. You're in your teens, and while smart, you dont posess the practised hand of a philosopher or scholar. Your methods apply fine in a lab, but not in the realm of dialectics and speculative reason. Look up "dialectic" in a dictionary.

[Cloud_Walker]

Than what you call reason is simply logical positivism.

Perhaps I wasn't thorough. Logical positivism states that anything that does not relate to experience is meaningless. I disagree with that. I do suggest that God does not relate to experience, but I don't discard the notion because of that.

Do you intend to tell me arguements for atheism are?

There are no arguments for atheism. Atheists might try, but the old saying is still true: you can't prove a negative. All atheists do is reject arguments for the existence of God.

Also, due to your fixation in the empirical method, I doubt you have the scope to fully gauge the arguments as they are intended to be understood.

I just realised that I'm not sure why you think I'm fixed on the empirical method. In fact, my true view of reality discards our meaningless and subjective categorizations of experience as mere appearances. Reality is "like our brave captain's map, 'a perfect and absolute blank.'" Look up Francis Herbert Bradley.

Well, that argument was not a starting point, but is the pinnacle of rigorous methods in metaphysics.

Good to hear. Otherwise I would have been smiling the whole way through the book.

On another note, why is it that you continaully trouble yourself with questions of his existence?

I don't consider it troubling :).

It is a widely held and varying belief among human beings, with much time and resources devoted to it. Not to mention many great minds support the idea of his existence. Above all, though, I just love to think.

[Sage the Mage]

I wouldn't expect you to grasp it. You're in your teens, and while smart, you dont posess the practised hand of a philosopher or scholar. Your methods apply fine in a lab, but not in the realm of dialectics and speculative reason. Look up "dialectic" in a dictionary.
Congrats on still dodging the question.

Again, you have two possibilites for God:
1 God is beyond all reason, and thus you cannot know anything about God.
2 God is not beyond all reason, so God must follow some rules. Who created those rules?

You still seem to think there's a middle ground, that reason sortof applies to God. That is direct reasoning doesn't, but indirect methods do. Again, that requires that God follows certain rules, so its problem is case 2.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Perhaps I wasn't thorough. Logical positivism states that anything that does not relate to experience is meaningless. I disagree with that. I do suggest that God does not relate to experience, but I don't discard the notion because of that.


I assert that God relates to experience insofar as experience per se is contingent.


There are no arguments for atheism. Atheists might try, but the old saying is still true: you can't prove a negative. All atheists do is reject arguments for the existence of God.


If you're neither atheist nor theist, what are you? A sceptic?


I just realised that I'm not sure why you think I'm fixed on the empirical method. In fact, my true view of reality discards our meaningless and subjective categorizations of experience as mere appearances. Reality is "like our brave captain's map, 'a perfect and absolute blank.'" Look up Francis Herbert Bradley.


You might like to start reading Kant. He touches on that, but he shows the folly of scepticism.


I don't consider it troubling :).

It is a widely held and varying belief among human beings, with much time and resources devoted to it. Not to mention many great minds support the idea of his existence. Above all, though, I just love to think.

Perhaps not troubling in the sense that you're banging your head against the wall, but troubling insofar as you mentioned that it was something you think about "almost continually".

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Congrats on still dodging the question.

Again, you have two possibilites for God:
1 God is beyond all reason, and thus you cannot know anything about God.
2 God is not beyond all reason, so God must follow some rules. Who created those rules?

You still seem to think there's a middle ground, that reason sortof applies to God. That is direct reasoning doesn't, but indirect methods do. Again, that requires that God follows certain rules, so its problem is case 2.

Sage, to you it may seem that I'll always be dodging it. However, I brought up dialectics because its the key to this mystery, and its a higher form of thinking than the empirical method. I did not assent to a middle ground, but rather further rigor into the topic. I'll present two different definitions, which can show those two claims more clearly.

God is "beyond all reason", if reason is a power that grasps objects in their mastery. That is to say, the keyboard you're using now is not beyond reason since you know what it is. However, since we cant know God through and through by reason, he is beyond it. THat's ok.

God is "not beyond reason", the same way that chicago is 10 miles away, and you know this by a sign on the highway (assuming you've never been there). We thus have no proof chicago is actually existing at that point (since we are not there), but we have a degree of assurance that it is there, because of the sign on the road, and from what you've learned through pictures, maps, and whatever else (all these things being signs like others, but not proofs). Now before you say "thats not the same thing", yes it is, since when we're using reason as on a path, which takes us further to our destination by means of its continued use.

[Alakon]

In the revised standard, it says "By his great might and the strength of his power".

That scripture uses language denoting his power, not his composure. God cant be composed of anything, if he is still God. To be composed of a thing is to be limited by it,

You are probably right about the scripture, however that does not necessarily negate the possibility of him being energy.
If one can convert matter to energy via e=mc2, then the reverse is also possible.
There is no need for him to be outside physical bounds. A rhino is still bigger than the mouse.
If he is limitless energy, I don't know how it would be limitless, but if he was, then he could create as much matter as necessary.
I would assume that if I was an all-powerful being I'd create something as close to my mode as possible.
Besides, who says energy is limited? The fact that we recognize the existence of it, and can create some of it, does not mean to say we truly understand it and all its capabilities. We know that any form of matter can be created with it, who knows what other things can be created with it. Such as the angels.
But everything created by God would have to have some link between maker and product, unless you believe in magic which observes no bounds or reason.
So if God was composed of no known material, there would still be some formula, however complicated, that links his other-dimenisonal self, with this physical universe, there has to be a cross-over.
And I'm not sure if I fully understand your statement that God is composed of nothing, I assume that you mean of no known substance, because if he was composed of nothing then I'd assume he'd be able to do nothing.
Take for example the laptop I am working on, to one who had no understanding of technology, they might say that that it was done by magic. I am outside the internal workings of the laptop, and the science that governs me is different from the science that governs the laptop. (Organic/Mechanical)
Yet to affect this laptop, to input new data, I have to translate the thoughts in my head to the screen, via the Keyboard. My organic brain originates the idea, but my organic body has to press the keys, which now makes the process mechanical as the various signals are channelled through; I still have to operate on them medium of the universe I'm trying to affect.

A note about the revised bible version, I'm not saying that it's not true, but our society has put a lot of effort into understanding and translating the bible, we had many different reference books to aid us in our understanding of it; maybe I just misunderstood what God was trying to say.

[Sage the Mage]

If you're neither atheist nor theist, what are you? A sceptic?
Geeze, for a philsophy guy, you don't know much :)
Agnostic: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=agnostic&book=Dictionary

God is "beyond all reason", if reason is a power that grasps objects in their mastery. That is to say, the keyboard you're using now is not beyond reason since you know what it is. However, since we cant know God through and through by reason, he is beyond it. THat's ok.
Case 1. Remember case 1 is that God is beyond all reason, and we can know absolutely nothing. It cannot exist at the same time as case 2, where you can know something about God.

God is "not beyond reason", the same way that chicago is 10 miles away, and you know this by a sign on the highway (assuming you've never been there). We thus have no proof chicago is actually existing at that point (since we are not there), but we have a degree of assurance that it is there, because of the sign on the road, and from what you've learned through pictures, maps, and whatever else (all these things being signs like others, but not proofs).
Case 2. There's still the question of, "If your evidence is true, then who created the rules?"

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Geeze, for a philsophy guy, you don't know much :)
Agnostic: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=agnostic&book=Dictionary


lol.. As far as I can tell, an agnostic IS a sceptic :).


Case 1. Remember case 1 is that God is beyond all reason, and we can know absolutely nothing. It cannot exist at the same time as case 2, where you can know something about God.


What about knowing things that he is not?


Case 2. There's still the question of, "If your evidence is true, then who created the rules?"

Buh?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You are probably right about the scripture, however that does not necessarily negate the possibility of him being energy.
If one can convert matter to energy via e=mc2, then the reverse is also possible.
There is no need for him to be outside physical bounds. A rhino is still bigger than the mouse.
If he is limitless energy, I don't know how it would be limitless, but if he was, then he could create as much matter as necessary.
I would assume that if I was an all-powerful being I'd create something as close to my mode as possible.
Besides, who says energy is limited? The fact that we recognize the existence of it, and can create some of it, does not mean to say we truly understand it and all its capabilities. We know that any form of matter can be created with it, who knows what other things can be created with it. Such as the angels.
But everything created by God would have to have some link between maker and product, unless you believe in magic which observes no bounds or reason.
So if God was composed of no known material, there would still be some formula, however complicated, that links his other-dimenisonal self, with this physical universe, there has to be a cross-over.
And I'm not sure if I fully understand your statement that God is composed of nothing, I assume that you mean of no known substance, because if he was composed of nothing then I'd assume he'd be able to do nothing.
Take for example the laptop I am working on, to one who had no understanding of technology, they might say that that it was done by magic. I am outside the internal workings of the laptop, and the science that governs me is different from the science that governs the laptop. (Organic/Mechanical)
Yet to affect this laptop, to input new data, I have to translate the thoughts in my head to the screen, via the Keyboard. My organic brain originates the idea, but my organic body has to press the keys, which now makes the process mechanical as the various signals are channelled through; I still have to operate on them medium of the universe I'm trying to affect.

A note about the revised bible version, I'm not saying that it's not true, but our society has put a lot of effort into understanding and translating the bible, we had many different reference books to aid us in our understanding of it; maybe I just misunderstood what God was trying to say.


Damn, you're long winded... :p. I explained further back in this thread and on the religion one how God could not be a composite being (which includes energy). God cant be energy, as even energy is limited and is subject to laws.

[Sage the Mage]

What about knowing things that he is not?
Then you still know something about God, and case 2 applies. I really don't get how you think that's some sort of special reasoning.

Buh?
Whenever you limit God, that is you know something, then God now has rules to follow (the first one now being: God must be within the realm of reason, followed by God cannot be X, Y, Z, et cetera when using negation). So all I ask now is, who created those rules?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Then you still know something about God, and case 2 applies. I really don't get how you think that's some sort of special reasoning.


I can see you're having a hard time with the notion of reason. To you, reason means "perfect knowledge". You're very caretesian in that sense. Reason and content however are mutually exclusive. Reason deals with content. The limits of reason are what's within our power to grasp content. So we can know things about God, but we cannot have a thorough knowledge of God. Let me put it to you this way. The "idea" of God is within reason, but not God himself. I hope that helps, cuz I've tried to say the same things in different ways like 20 times.


Whenever you limit God, that is you know something, then God now has rules to follow (the first one now being: God must be within the realm of reason, followed by God cannot be X, Y, Z, et cetera when using negation). So all I ask now is, who created those rules?

You're still not getting it. WE have the limits not God. Therein lies the problematic. God per se cannot be limited, as I explained earlier. However, our perception IS limited. As such, we run the risk of putting "God in a box" as it were. Having said that, we would have to refer rules to what is found in the world. For example, we can say that God desires order, since we exist in an ordered cosmos. That is not to say that God is an ordered God, as opposed to a disordered one, since that would place restrictions on his nature. So, We would have to say then that sturcture and order is of necessity for any created thing to have being and sustainance. By negation, we must arrive at the conclusion that God is not composed of rules, but rather implements them for creation with his eternal will.

[Sage the Mage]

For example, we can say that God desires order, since we exist in an ordered cosmos. That is not to say that God is an ordered God, as opposed to a disordered one, since that would place restrictions on his nature.
So, would you say that God does not desire disorder?

[Eiger]

So, would you say that God does not desire disorder?

Seems to me he probably likes both order and disorder. Probably enjoys a little variety from time to time. He/she/it certainly put enough of both on this planet!

[Oberon]

So, would you say that God does not desire disorder?


Desire indicates need. An omnipotent being wouldn't need anything since any need would be a weakness.

BTW - AoA you have mail.

[ScytheNoire]

being a servant of Satan, he prefers order within his own organization, but chaos amongst the non-followers.

so i'd have to say God would have to be the opposite, right? maybe?

[Cloud_Walker]

If you're neither atheist nor theist, what are you? A sceptic?

I do not mean to sound hostile, but why do you insist on labeling me? Just ask me what I think about something. That is all that is needed.

Aside: for further clarification, atheism is the lack of a belief that theists have. There are no arguments for atheism, but on the contrary there must be arguments for theism - atheism is not a belief.

You might like to start reading Kant. He touches on that, but he shows the folly of scepticism.

But this isn't quite skepticism. Skepticism says things along the lines of "we can't know," while I'm just saying that we can know all we want. The only catch is that what we claim to know does not necessarily pertain to reality or "the absolute."

Perhaps not troubling in the sense that you're banging your head against the wall, but troubling insofar as you mentioned that it was something you think about "almost continually".

I forgot to add one other reason: there's always the possibility I might be wrong.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So, would you say that God does not desire disorder?

Oberon put it well with the need thing. I'd say its more of an objective reality. Order "is", if you will, or at least has to be, in order for nature to exist.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I do not mean to sound hostile, but why do you insist on labeling me? Just ask me what I think about something. That is all that is needed.


Well I did ask, as you recall. Seems to me you're a sceptic if not a theist or atheist. Then again, scepticism and dogmatism are 2 sides of the same coin.


Aside: for further clarification, atheism is the lack of a belief that theists have. There are no arguments for atheism, but on the contrary there must be arguments for theism - atheism is not a belief.


Atheism is a dogmatism.


But this isn't quite skepticism. Skepticism says things along the lines of "we can't know," while I'm just saying that we can know all we want. The only catch is that what we claim to know does not necessarily pertain to reality or "the absolute."


Even the speculative can get away with saying they can't know certain things, as I have pointed out a few times. I'd be inclined to say that the sceptic is one who does not wish to know. Scepticism is a suspension of judgement. Some have called it a comfortable suspension, as we see with the epicureans for example. The same holds true today. I'm sure you need not be reminded we live in a "sceptical" culture. That's not because people have used their reason to its extent, but rather because learning is tiresome. Just ask the dozens of posters who get pissed off about "another useless religion thread".

[Sage the Mage]

Oberon put it well with the need thing. I'd say its more of an objective reality. Order "is", if you will, or at least has to be, in order for nature to exist.
So, does God not desire disorder?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So, does God not desire disorder?

When using the term desire in this case, I wouldn't think the desire of God could be understood in the same sense as the desire of a human being, for example. Our desire is a yearning to make up for an inherent lack in our beings. In that sense, God could not desire anything, since he is eternally complete and simple. Yet, it could be said that God desires himself, as desire would have to be a fully eternal, subsistent thing. That is why God loves humanity, because of the incarnation of Christ. I take a bit of liberty saying that, but it seems to make the most sense to me. In order for the temporal world to exist, there must be an order established. Disorder is simply a lack of order - it's a non-thing, rather than a thing.

[Alakon]

Damn, you're long winded... :p. I explained further back in this thread and on the religion one how God could not be a composite being (which includes energy). God cant be energy, as even energy is limited and is subject to laws.
Sorry about that... by-product of story writing.
However I do not necessarily believe that God is beyond everything, and why he cannot be subject to any laws. He is already subject to law of existence, if he exists, he cannot non-exist.
He admits to at least one limitation in the bible "that he cannot lie". Although this may be a self-imposed limitation, it is one nonetheless.
And he has the four qualities, Love, Power, Justice, and Wisdom. Is to Love, a limiitation? To not want to destroy your creations, instead, giving them a chance?

As for limitations in power, which is what I think you might mean.
He made us didn't he? He gave us free will and the ability to manipulate our surroundings, and the first thing we do is defy him. He made us perfect, yet we still had the ability to defect from perfection.
What about Satan, if God is beyond all understanding in power and wisdom, would he not have made it so that satan stayed a good guy? That being loyal to God was the natural state, and it was impossible to think otherwise.

He seems to view us as his collective children, and we have so far been acting like such. But he is not so far removed, after all, he has let himself been persuaded in the past to spare people's lives, or to make life more bearable.

You do not love something you do not care about, I do not love ants that I have put into a little farm, if the farm was to tip over and break, I wouldn't exert myself to try and find all the little ants and put them back.
Since God has taken a personal interest in his creations, walking among them, even sacrificing his own son in behalf of us.

Personally I think that God desires order, but allows for disorder because it teaches us something. Thus, Armageddon 'the time of testing'.
But mostly, as God himself has said he simply desires our love, as any father would.

[Sage the Mage]

In that sense, God could not desire anything, since he is eternally complete and simple. Yet, it could be said that God desires himself, as desire would have to be a fully eternal, subsistent thing.

Basically, you're attempting to use reason on God, and you can't come up with a definitive answer. So...my "you can know nothing" thing is still applying.

[Oberon]

Basically, you're attempting to use reason on God, and you can't come up with a definitive answer. So...my "you can know nothing" thing is still applying.

Actually AoA has come up with some fairly good answers. I'm not convinced he is right, but I don't think you're giving him the credit he deserves. Just because you can't know everything, that doesn't mean that you know nothing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Basically, you're attempting to use reason on God, and you can't come up with a definitive answer. So...my "you can know nothing" thing is still applying.

No, I wasn't "using reason on God" lol :p. Reason was employed in what we can know by it, which led us to the conclusion of the possibility of God. Plz stop trying to "basically say" what I say, it's not working.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sorry about that... by-product of story writing.
However I do not necessarily believe that God is beyond everything, and why he cannot be subject to any laws. He is already subject to law of existence, if he exists, he cannot non-exist.


...Thats why seminarians in the church are required to do a few years of philosophy before theology. God is not subject to the law of existence, since even God is beyond that law. To exist is only known by reference to its opposite - thus, only temporal things are bound by that law.


He admits to at least one limitation in the bible "that he cannot lie". Although this may be a self-imposed limitation, it is one nonetheless.
And he has the four qualities, Love, Power, Justice, and Wisdom. Is to Love, a limiitation? To not want to destroy your creations, instead, giving them a chance?


He does not have 4 qualities, or even 3, or 2, or 1. He "is". It's like a light passed through a prizm, and we make sense of the particulars in his universal.


As for limitations in power, which is what I think you might mean.
He made us didn't he? He gave us free will and the ability to manipulate our surroundings, and the first thing we do is defy him. He made us perfect, yet we still had the ability to defect from perfection.
What about Satan, if God is beyond all understanding in power and wisdom, would he not have made it so that satan stayed a good guy? That being loyal to God was the natural state, and it was impossible to think otherwise.


Any being below God, is not God. Only creatures who share in the divine essence can be faithful. If God "made it so that" satan would have remained in the presence of God, it would entail that he (satan) was never his own being to begin with. Anything that is not God, cannot be God. As for the fall, it was inevitable. However, in the incarnation of Christ, humanity is much better off than even the angels since we may partake in the Godhead.


He seems to view us as his collective children, and we have so far been acting like such. But he is not so far removed, after all, he has let himself been persuaded in the past to spare people's lives, or to make life more bearable.


Try not to take the old testament too literally without looking at its context.


You do not love something you do not care about, I do not love ants that I have put into a little farm, if the farm was to tip over and break, I wouldn't exert myself to try and find all the little ants and put them back.
Since God has taken a personal interest in his creations, walking among them, even sacrificing his own son in behalf of us.


Yep.


Personally I think that God desires order, but allows for disorder because it teaches us something. Thus, Armageddon 'the time of testing'.
But mostly, as God himself has said he simply desires our love, as any father would.

That's true. It has happened on an even higher plane than simply in terms of morality, but also in the incarnation.

[Sage the Mage]

No, I wasn't "using reason on God" lol :p. Reason was employed in what we can know by it, which led us to the conclusion of the possibility of God. Plz stop trying to "basically say" what I say, it's not working.
Honestly I should have just asked the question again since you didn't actually answer it, just run off on another tangent.

Our desire is a yearning to make up for an inherent lack in our beings. In that sense, God could not desire anything, since he is eternally complete and simple.
God doesn't desire, by human definition. This is assuming that reason applies to God.

Yet, it could be said that God desires himself, as desire would have to be a fully eternal, subsistent thing.
God does desire, by some other reason. Look here, another assumption of reason applying to God.

That is why God loves humanity
While we're at it, you're also assuming God has love at all. Again, another assumption of reason working on God.

Maybe I'm just using the wrong term? When I say reason working, I mean the rules of reason are applicable (things can't be true and false at the same time) so that we can actually know stuff.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sage, you really should actually read the posts in their context, instead of applying one context - your own - to everything.

Honestly I should have just asked the question again since you didn't actually answer it, just run off on another tangent.


Yes, I admit its tiring trying to say the same things over and over, using different words.


God doesn't desire, by human definition. This is assuming that reason applies to God.


My statement said "In that sense". It's called drawing from a particular example. You come around and apply one sweeping universal to everything I post, without taking note of nuance. I'm sorry if your need for security prevents you from allowing nuance, but it's there.

I want you to understand something - and this applies to all your replies to my post. Reason is a power in a human being, capable of composing and dividing concepts to bring about a unity of concept. Reason can apply to the world we live in, and can be applied to God in the sense that what the world tells us about God. Savvy? Now reason cannot apply to God insofar as God is an immediate object of analysis. Now, does that say "God is subject to our reason"? YES AND NO. This "dialectic" troubles you greatly, but I'm afraid you'll have to humble yourself and "live the question" a bit more if you care to get anything out of this. YES insofar as the world can point to a God, and NO, because God is not a masterable object of analysis. Thus, it is NOT A PROOF, but an EVIDENCE. If you want to take things a step further with faith, its your choice.


While we're at it, you're also assuming God has love at all. Again, another assumption of reason working on God.


Since we were speaking in the context of desire, that example was not out of place.

[Sage the Mage]

Reason is a power in a human being, capable of composing and dividing concepts to bring about a unity of concept. Reason can apply to the world we live in, and can be applied to God in the sense that what the world tells us about God.
Then God follows rules.

[Cloud_Walker]

Then again, scepticism and dogmatism are 2 sides of the same coin.

That they are.

Atheism is a dogmatism.

According to Dictionary.com, dogmatism is the "arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief." Atheism is not a belief. The prefix "a-" is a prefix of negation - not believing in what theists believe in. Keep in mind, though, that there are many, many different kinds of atheists. They differ from the particular theism that they lack to the way they act on that belief. Some atheists may be dogmatists, but by definition atheism is not dogmatism.

Even the speculative can get away with saying they can't know certain things, as I have pointed out a few times. I'd be inclined to say that the sceptic is one who does not wish to know. Scepticism is a suspension of judgement. Some have called it a comfortable suspension, as we see with the epicureans for example. The same holds true today. I'm sure you need not be reminded we live in a "sceptical" culture. That's not because people have used their reason to its extent, but rather because learning is tiresome. Just ask the dozens of posters who get pissed off about "another useless religion thread".

Lol, I agree completely (especially with that last part).

[Cloud_Walker]

Alrighty then. I got the book and read Dionysius' Mystical Theology. I learned that he is called Pseudo Dionysius because all we know is his pseudonym: Dionysius. A mysterious, background, yet influential writer who I can easily tell why he had a profound influence on theology. An ancient Greek he is not, though - I forgot Neo-Platonists lived quite a long time after Plato.

Luckily, Mystical Theology is very short, dense, and profound. I understand now everything you (AoA) have said in our discussions. He must be your favorite writer :). Impressed by him, I am. Swayed, however, I am not. His god can be debunked in a few ways, the most effective is the easiest. I shall present that one last.

For the other readers who either did not fully understand AoA in the past few pages of this thread, or have not read Dionysius, I will go through the key points in his text and explain them as I debunk them.

**************************************************

Dionysius suggests the method for attempting to contact God with the mind, or to, as one wise man has put it, "touch the deep waters." He writes to a friend:

...my advice to you as you look for a sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and, with your understanding laid aside, to strive upward as much as you can toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge.

This is what you were saying, AoA, when you stated that God is transcendant, and neither exists nor is nonexistent. We cannot sense him, and he is beyond reason. Your faith beyond reason I suppose is what comes after stepping into this darkness of supra-knowledge ("supra-" meaning "beyond").

But what can we know beyond knowledge? By definition, nothing. Don't lie to yourself.

But back to his text, Dionysius says it again in a different way:

I pray we could come to this darkness so far above light! If only we lacked sight and knowledge so as to see, so as to know, unseeing and unknowing, that which lies beyond all vision and knowledge. For this would be really to see and to know: to praise the Transcendent One in a transcending way, namely through the denial of all beings.

This to me was the most profound of all the passages in the text. But notice the use of the word "if" at the beginning of the second sentence. He admits that we really do not know God. This "transcendant way" is literally beyond all methods - not available to us.

You cannot prove God to me, AoA? I see why.

But what is this "denial of all beings" that he talks about? He clarifies a page later:

When we assert what is beyond every assertion, we must then proceed from what is most akin to it, and as we do so we make the affirmation on which everything else depends. But when we deny that which is beyond every denial, we have to start by denying those qualities which differ most from the goal we hope to attain. Is it not closer to reality to say that God is life and goodness rather than that he is air or stone? Is it not more accurate to deny that drunkenness and rage can be attributed to him than to deny that we can apply to him the terms of speech and thought?

This is exactly what you were talking about, AoA, when you said we can approach God through reason by asserting what he is not/denying what he is. But I'll be damned if you were ever going to give an example of that. Thank God (no pun intended) Dionysius did.

Since God transcends our understanding, what position is he (or you) in to pick out which attributes most/least fit God? He, of course, makes his selections based off of scripture. To do so, the truth of the Bible must be established.

But when he reaches the conclusion of this method, he makes the whole process useless. Right after that, Dionysius writes:

It is not a material body, and hence has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it.

So not only do we deny drunkenness and rage to God, but we also deny God the applicability to speech and thought. Dionysius denies every possible assertion that could be made about God. He goes further:

Again, as we climb higher, we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge or truth...

...and so on. I wonder, though, how the truth of scripture, written by the hand of man through God, can be estabilished if God is beyond all sensation and understanding, substance, spirit, and thought. How does the writer know he's writing through God? How does anyone know? Nobody can know, because Dionysius eliminated that possibility. He also eliminated the truth of every story in the Bible where God interacted with human beings, much less the universe, or all of existence. God is not any of that, he is outside of all of that. Dionysius is beginning to look like a deist...

Everything up till now, however, has only been written to show everyone how circular, fallacious, and nonsensical his arguments are. The base for all of these points crumbles so easily. Why does Dionysius go through all of this to try to know God? He says very early:

Since it is the Cause of all beings, we should posit and ascribe to it all the affirmations we make in regard to beings, and, more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations, since it surpasses all being. Now we should not conclude that the negations are simply the opposites of the affirmations, but rather that the cause of all is considerably prior to this, beyond privations, beyond every denial, beyond every assertion.

And there you have it. An assumed "Cause of all beings." I wouldn't even ask for an argument for this starting premise of his, because he most likely got that from scripture, the validity of which has already been erased from possibility by him. Further, a "cause of all beings" is logically impossible. If "all beings" is a result of a cause, what is there left to cause it? There is nothing, of course. You, AoA, would try to then propose that this cause is beyond existence, which literally is not possible. To call it a "cause," even to call it "it," is to assert its existence. You cannot think about nothing, because to think about nothing is to not think.

May our universe not be all of existence? May God exist outside of our universe to cause it? Maybe so, but due to the nature of spacetime, there need not be a cause. Therefore to posit one would be unverifiable (outside our universe), without tangible use, and without speculative relevance. This is where Ockham's Razor comes in handy, to cut out God and anything from a big green monster named Forky McCheese to a sea of vanilla ice cream existing outside of our logically self sufficient universe.

Defeated more thoroughly, we take a look at causality itself. We perceive causality because we always see pairs of related events (cause and effect). Events are happenings in time. Causality is made possible by the progression of time. Whether or not there really is such a causal law of the universe is irrelevant when asking the question: what cause can there be outside of time? Easily answered: none.

**************************************************

I must say, however, that Dionysius' approach to God is much like my approach to existence. All categories of existence, anything within existence is only compared to something else. That which we call a beer can we separate from that which is not a beer can. But the beer can and everything else are still a part of the whole of existence. Everything we know is a division or categorization that only is what it is because everything else is excluded from that category. All knowledge is comparative, relative. What can we say about existence as a whole? Only that it exists, because we have nothing to compare it to. I deny every assertion made about existence up to the point of the assertion that it exists, because it is impossible to assert that something does not exist while you are calling it something.

The only truth is that something exists. All else is relative, subjective. Existence exists. That is redundant, so that can be simplified:

Existence.

[/tangent]

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Then God follows rules.


/Takes a long, draw out sigh.

God is on a different level than humanity. Humans are bound by what kind of beings we are. God is bound by the kind of being he is. Since this is utterly eternal and simple, it can be said he is not bound by a rule, since he is all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

According to Dictionary.com, dogmatism is the "arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief." Atheism is not a belief. The prefix "a-" is a prefix of negation - not believing in what theists believe in. Keep in mind, though, that there are many, many different kinds of atheists. They differ from the particular theism that they lack to the way they act on that belief. Some atheists may be dogmatists, but by definition atheism is not dogmatism.


I'll offer that an atheist must believe something else other than God. Call it "the world we live in", etc. That's still a dogmatism.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Everything up till now, however, has only been written to show everyone how circular, fallacious, and nonsensical his arguments are. The base for all of these points crumbles so easily. Why does Dionysius go through all of this to try to know God? He says very early:


Thanks for taking the time to read the text, and post all this. Ill start off by saying that his text is not representative of an argument, as there were no clear premises and conclusions offered. This is akin to many neo-platonic texts, insofar as they are more characteristic of an activity, than an essay or treatise. The mystical theology was presented initially as a prayer guide for the clergy, and I use it as a tool for meditation on occasion. As I mentioned earlier however, this point cannot be used as a point of departure for an argument.


And there you have it. An assumed "Cause of all beings." I wouldn't even ask for an argument for this starting premise of his, because he most likely got that from scripture, the validity of which has already been erased from possibility by him.


Be careful not to step beyond yourself here. I think you maybe got a bit excited, and jumped the gun. If you disapprove of assumption, it would be wise to refrain from making them, as to the precursor of Dionysius' mystical theology.


Further, a "cause of all beings" is logically impossible. If "all beings" is a result of a cause, what is there left to cause it? There is nothing, of course. You, AoA, would try to then propose that this cause is beyond existence, which literally is not possible. To call it a "cause," even to call it "it," is to assert its existence. You cannot think about nothing, because to think about nothing is to not think.


You are right in saying that in order to cause something, the causer must be within that framework, that's fine. However, it is absurd to assrert the eternity of causality. I'll use a different term if you prefer. Things must be created and sustained in being.


May our universe not be all of existence? May God exist outside of our universe to cause it? Maybe so, but due to the nature of spacetime, there need not be a cause. Therefore to posit one would be unverifiable (outside our universe), without tangible use, and without speculative relevance. This is where Ockham's Razor comes in handy, to cut out God and anything from a big green monster named Forky McCheese to a sea of vanilla ice cream existing outside of our logically self sufficient universe.


Denial that the universe must be created and sustained in its system is scepticism. I've demonstrated how the cosmos cannot be eternal, and you have yet to argue against that effectively.


I must say, however, that Dionysius' approach to God is much like my approach to existence.
[/tangent]

That's the first time I have heard someone liken an empirical sceptic platform to Dionysius. Hopefully its the last.

[Sage the Mage]

God is on a different level than humanity. Humans are bound by what kind of beings we are. God is bound by the kind of being he is. Since this is utterly eternal and simple, it can be said he is not bound by a rule, since he is all.
Then well, you have a God that's X and not X at the same time.

[Andarcel]

The argument from necessity runs something like:

-Every think we encounter in the world is contingent; it has a cause for its existence. The chair I'm sitting needed trees to be made, for example.

-An infinite regress of contingent beings is not possible; it is akin to saying that the world sits on top of an infinite stack of turtles. That wouldn't prevent the world from falling.

-If an infinite regress is impossible, there must exist some necessary being which is uncaused and causes all the contingent beings. This we call God.

This argument is not scriptural - Aristotle believed in something quite similar - but it is very flawed. Common objections:

- An infinite regress IS possible, or at least no one can demonstrate why it shouldn't be except by irrelevant analogies.

- The beings that compose the world in their most basic form (matter and energy) are fully conserved and therefore could well be necessary.

- The necessary being could be totally different from God as we understand Him. It could be multiple beings, in fact - nothing in the argument demands a single necessary being.

Some possible answers:

- Even if an infinite regress is theoretically possible, the Big Bang strongly implies that there isn't one. It also proves that matter and energy ARE contingent - they have a time at which they didnot exist.

- The Big Bang is coextensive with time and space. Therefore, the cause of the Big Bang must be extra-temporal and extra-spatial.

- Time and space are necessary to distinguish between bodies. It is meaningless to talk of multiple necessary beings - there is no means to separate them from one another because there is no medium.

I'll save the argument over how we might get from this to something like God as commonly understood for later.

[Andarcel]

...Thats why seminarians in the church are required to do a few years of philosophy before theology. God is not subject to the law of existence, since even God is beyond that law. To exist is only known by reference to its opposite - thus, only temporal things are bound by that law. According to Kant, existence is not a genuine property of things. Just had to point that out. :p And if God is beyond the laws of logic, then the concept of God can have no meaning (and thus no implication) for us.

Atheism is not a belief. Er... uh? "A=" is indeed a negation here, but it's a negation of "theos," god. Atheists believe that God does not exist, in other words, as well you know. That is a statement of conviction about the world, just as if I said "China does not exist." I think AoA made a syntactical error. Atheism is a dogma, not "a dogmatism."

Mysticism is designed to provoke an emotional and spiritual rather than intellectual knowledge of God, and paradox and contradiction are time-honored means of doing so.

[Cloud_Walker]

I'll offer that an atheist must believe something else other than God. Call it "the world we live in", etc. That's still a dogmatism.

They believe in nothing more than a theist believes in.

[Cloud_Walker]

Thanks for taking the time to read the text, and post all this. Ill start off by saying that his text is not representative of an argument, as there were no clear premises and conclusions offered. This is akin to many neo-platonic texts, insofar as they are more characteristic of an activity, than an essay or treatise. The mystical theology was presented initially as a prayer guide for the clergy, and I use it as a tool for meditation on occasion. As I mentioned earlier however, this point cannot be used as a point of departure for an argument.

I seriously doubt you mentioned that text in this thread so that we could use it as a meditation device.

Yes, I know he doesn't argue for anything besides his method of knowing God, but I made his work relevant to this thread.

You are right in saying that in order to cause something, the causer must be within that framework, that's fine. However, it is absurd to assrert the eternity of causality. I'll use a different term if you prefer. Things must be created and sustained in being.

So, conservation of mass-energy is absurd?

That which contains all causes cannot itself be caused.

Denial that the universe must be created and sustained in its system is scepticism. I've demonstrated how the cosmos cannot be eternal, and you have yet to argue against that effectively.

And I told you that, eternal or not, the cosmos cannot be caused.

You seem all too energetic about labeling every viewpoint that differs from yours as either dogmatism or skepticism.

That's the first time I have heard someone liken an empirical sceptic platform to Dionysius. Hopefully its the last.

Enlightening...

Anyways, what's an empirical skeptic? Don't say "you" because I'm already aware of the label you have placed on me, and have already seen an example of how it narrows your mind (above).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

- Even if an infinite regress is theoretically possible, the Big Bang strongly implies that there isn't one. It also proves that matter and energy ARE contingent - they have a time at which they didnot exist.

- The Big Bang is coextensive with time and space. Therefore, the cause of the Big Bang must be extra-temporal and extra-spatial.

- Time and space are necessary to distinguish between bodies. It is meaningless to talk of multiple necessary beings - there is no means to separate them from one another because there is no medium.

I'll save the argument over how we might get from this to something like God as commonly understood for later.

You're not far off.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

According to Kant, existence is not a genuine property of things. Just had to point that out. :p And if God is beyond the laws of logic, then the concept of God can have no meaning (and thus no implication) for us.


Don't recall claiming that existence was owned or contained within a thing, but rather things partake of it.


Er... uh? "A=" is indeed a negation here, but it's a negation of "theos," god. Atheists believe that God does not exist, in other words, as well you know. That is a statement of conviction about the world, just as if I said "China does not exist." I think AoA made a syntactical error. Atheism is a dogma, not "a dogmatism."


Yes.


Mysticism is designed to provoke an emotional and spiritual rather than intellectual knowledge of God, and paradox and contradiction are time-honored means of doing so.

This is true. However, since emotions are wrought of thoughts, it does deal in terms of the intellect as well. Dialectic is the highest form of our speculative faculty.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

They believe in nothing more than a theist believes in.

As Andarcel pointed out, it's a dogma. I'm amused by people who say "there is no truth!". That very sentance is representative of a truth statement (its true that there is no truth. That's called affirming the denial, and is the perennial stumbling block of all sceptics.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I seriously doubt you mentioned that text in this thread so that we could use it as a meditation device.

Yes, I know he doesn't argue for anything besides his method of knowing God, but I made his work relevant to this thread.


I pointed out the meditation device aspect because you erred in claiming Dionysius to present an actual argument. In that case, no, you did not "make his work relevant", but manhandled it. I brought his text here, and created an argument using key points in his text, to which you haven't really done alot with frankly.


So, conservation of mass-energy is absurd?

That which contains all causes cannot itself be caused.


I don't recall inserting "mass energy" into a definition of God. In fact, I made mention of the contingent nature of energy, as an aspect of the cosmos. Apparently we keep coming back to this since you haven't grasp the necessary underpinnings for a definition of the "eternal" yet, and keep getting caught up in an eternal cosmos. Then we have Sage back there, whom I won't even credit with a reply, that probably will never understand that concept till he shuffles off this mortal coil. Whether energy is conserved, used, w/e, it's nature is not eternal. You may say that it's eternal in the sense that it is not created or destroyed (ie, always existing in a form or another), but what you're not getting is the fact that it is ordered to a specific purpose as regards objects that it affects. It is locked into a relationship of contingency with other objects.


You seem all too energetic about labeling every viewpoint that differs from yours as either dogmatism or skepticism.


I don't see the rhyme or reason of that, nor its relevance to this thread.


Anyways, what's an empirical skeptic? Don't say "you" because I'm already aware of the label you have placed on me, and have already seen an example of how it narrows your mind (above).

I'm not aware of a label I have "placed you". If you've made the mistake of my attributing anything to your person in this, the mistake is all yours. I don't know you from Adam, and I'm not inclined to change that. All I see is text on a forum, which I treat of.

An empirical sceptic is one who believes the empirical method is the only method available to learn about "reality".

[Andarcel]

And I told you that, eternal or not, the cosmos cannot be caused. The sum of all things can't have a cause. The sum of all things in the universe (a bounded spatial and temporal continuum) can have a cause.

They believe in nothing more than a theist believes in. True. Theists and atheists both have dogmas (or doctrines, if you prefer).

pparently we keep coming back to this since you haven't grasp the necessary underpinnings for a definition of the "eternal" yet, and keep getting caught up in an eternal cosmos. Then we have Sage back there, whom I won't even credit with a reply, that probably will never understand that concept till he shuffles off this mortal coil. The difficulty may be that you haven't defined eternity properly. I know what you mean, but I doubt anyone else here does.

[Sage the Mage]

Eternity - time without a limit, start or end.

God is without limits under AoA's definition. So, God is everything. But, to be without a limit, God must be not everything as well.

Being both everything and not everything puts God outside of human conception and logic itself. You kinda break a rule of logic when you have a statement being both true and false. This is also why you can't tell anything about God due to reason. Blah blah blah, so God is X. Well we already knew that God was X, given the fact God is without limits. We just also knew that God must be not X too.

[Alakon]

Ok, although I lack the eloquence of everyone else here, I still try my best.
When I say things such as time, or that God exists, I do not necessarily mean that God exists as we know it. It's an ambiguous word I suppose, however, in some form God, in your words Aoa, is . Therefore he is not, not; in whatever sense you want to take it.

God does encompass all spectrum of emotion and blah blah blah, but that does not really mean that his spectrum extends beyond everything.
And speaking of such, if it took him several days (note, the word day is also ambiguous when applied to God) to create all life on earth, how would he have created an eternal universe, let alone several eternal universes.
If his eternal power was so eternal, extending beyond all bounds, there's no reason why he couldn't make us all Gods, as companions, applying non-logic here.

And the question of not being made of divine essence, that doesn't sound right to me. I mean, God created everything, so everything is composed of what he is composed of. We may not operate on the same level, we may not be spirits as such, but that does not mean that we cannot share similar mind and emotion.

Just because a bird can fly, doesn't mean it is any less able to feel than a mouse.
God has a mind, a sentience, we have sentience, there's no reason why he would deliberately give us a mind so vastly underpowered that he could not possibly hold any value in us.
Are you familiar with the promise of the little flock?
If not, it says in the bible that 144,000 of earthly anointed shall be chosen to reign beside Jehovah and his son as Kings to share their personal experience as humans.
Jehovah wouldn't stunt their growth by giving them pea-brains, and it shows that he values the knowledge and experience of those who have been humans, for example if I wished to know what it was like to be an indian, I'd ask an indian.

I don't think God would create a son with inferior intelligence either, especially not if he was entrusting a great portion of the universe's construction and maintenance to him. I wouldn't deliberately have me a retarded son, however lovable.

Btw, of course the universe can have a cause, we can build houses can't we? Construct vast cities, interconnect all across the globe for trading and communication?
Why should God and his angels be any less able to create a vast collection of planets and suns, interconnected by space and time?
The sum of all things? Including God? I don't think that that can have a cause , because there's nothing else to cause it.
(Unless you like the theory of negativity and vacuum. Such as, if there's a void, something will fill it, like water levels, or space. But then there would be the question of where it came from. But applying non-linear/known/possible rules, I guess it would pop into existence, for what reason I don't know.)

And as for God being outside this universe and all that, why would he bother creating this universe if he was outside it? Why wouldn't he just make stuff in his non-reality or whatever you want to call it?

[Cloud_Walker]

Er... uh? "A=" is indeed a negation here, but it's a negation of "theos," god. Atheists believe that God does not exist, in other words, as well you know. That is a statement of conviction about the world, just as if I said "China does not exist." I think AoA made a syntactical error. Atheism is a dogma, not "a dogmatism."

You cannot prove a negative. I do not go around saying that a pink space aardvark does not exist. It cannot be a belief that I don't believe something. "Dogma" cannot describe that which isn't there.

I don't support any point of view. I just reject other points of view.

Are all babies dogmatists? They certainly aren't born believing in God.

[Cloud_Walker]

As Andarcel pointed out, it's a dogma. I'm amused by people who say "there is no truth!". That very sentance is representative of a truth statement (its true that there is no truth. That's called affirming the denial, and is the perennial stumbling block of all sceptics.

I only once said that there is no truth (I forgot if it was in this thread or the other one), and immediately corrected that statement - I don't know why you are still talking about it.

[Cloud_Walker]

I brought his text here, and created an argument using key points in his text, to which you haven't really done alot with frankly.

Huh?! Has post #136 been totally erased from history, or something?

You may say that it's eternal in the sense that it is not created or destroyed (ie, always existing in a form or another), but what you're not getting is the fact that it is ordered to a specific purpose as regards objects that it affects. It is locked into a relationship of contingency with other objects.

Yes, it's individual instances are dependent on each other. But as a whole it is self sufficient. I have addressed this point before.

An empirical sceptic is one who believes the empirical method is the only method available to learn about "reality".

"The text" that you labeled as "empirically skeptical" had nothing to do with empiricism, and in fact truly rejects empiricism.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You cannot prove a negative. I do not go around saying that a pink space aardvark does not exist. It cannot be a belief that I don't believe something. "Dogma" cannot describe that which isn't there.

I don't support any point of view. I just reject other points of view.


*Sheathes sword*

Well, my work is done here... With that huge error you just made, I'm not sure I can treat your posts with even the remotest amount of earnest. That last sentance is the silliest sentances I've seen here for quite some time. By what means do you "reject other points of view"? Did that means of rejection come from some vacuum? No, it came from a "point of view" or platform that makes the rejection of other views possible.

[Pongle]

Eternal nothingness is hell... But I see what you're saying. It can be argued however that ceasing to be completely is impossible. I can elaborate more tommorow or something - I gotta run.

No, it's NOTHING - YOUR NOT THERE FOR IT.

Key word: Nothingness.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, it's NOTHING - YOUR NOT THERE FOR IT.

Key word: Nothingness.


Go back to the carebear forums.

[Cloud_Walker]

*Sheathes sword*

Well, my work is done here... With that huge error you just made, I'm not sure I can treat your posts with even the remotest amount of earnest. That last sentance is the silliest sentances I've seen here for quite some time. By what means do you "reject other points of view"? Did that means of rejection come from some vacuum? No, it came from a "point of view" or platform that makes the rejection of other views possible.

Have you been mistakenly thinking I can prove that no god exists this whole time?

I have been trying to show you that it is completely unreasonable for anyone to believe in your god.

EDIT: And the rejecting viewpoints part only pertains to discussions about God. You seem surprised to find out that, by definition, atheism is not a belief, and there is therefore no viewpoint to support.

"Did that means of rejection come from some vacuum? No, it came from a "point of view" or platform that makes the rejection of other views possible."

Right, so please tell me what my point of view is. That's right, not the point of view of theists. It's really simple.

EDIT2: It would be somewhat amusing and somewhat dissappointing if you think that my post gave good reason to step out of the discussion ("*sheathes sword*" ...) or ignore my points, which you seem to have all of a sudden stopped responding to.

[Andarcel]

You seem surprised to find out that, by definition, atheism is not a belief, and there is therefore no viewpoint to support. Ok, I tend to find it frustrating when people just ignore posts. Beyond that, I think your refusal to acknowledge that atheism is a belief is disengenuous. You really can't possibly be that stupid. If this is honestly causing you problems, look up the word "belief."

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Have you been mistakenly thinking I can prove that no god exists this whole time?


CW - There really is no neutral ground. By arguing against one point, you affirm the other. Then, you keep using this neat little term - "your God". This God would have to be yours as well. It is impossible to stand in a vacuum and simply "reject other views", with yourself having no view. You have your own perspective, but have attempted to remain hidden in trying feebly to discredit other perspectives. I don't know how the hell you can claim to "not support any views". That's just intellectual dishonesty. The view you hold, by means of the positioning you've taken on this thread, is that of the perennial sceptic.

[Oberon]

The view you hold, by means of the positioning you've taken on this thread, is that of the perennial sceptic.

Maybe you're being too skeptical about his skepticism.


ps - What's the deal with the Windows Paint graffiti of your avatar? Don't cover your face like that.

[Sage the Mage]

EDIT: And the rejecting viewpoints part only pertains to discussions about God. You seem surprised to find out that, by definition, atheism is not a belief, and there is therefore no viewpoint to support.
Atheism - a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=atheism&book=Dictionary

Right, so please tell me what my point of view is. That's right, not the point of view of theists. It's really simple.
That's still a point of view, just in the perspective of atheists.

And I'm reminded of a Simpson's quote:
"Unemployment: Its not just for philsophy majors anymore!"

[Cloud_Walker]

CW - There really is no neutral ground. By arguing against one point, you affirm the other. Then, you keep using this neat little term - "your God". This God would have to be yours as well. It is impossible to stand in a vacuum and simply "reject other views", with yourself having no view. You have your own perspective, but have attempted to remain hidden in trying feebly to discredit other perspectives. I don't know how the hell you can claim to "not support any views". That's just intellectual dishonesty. The view you hold, by means of the positioning you've taken on this thread, is that of the perennial sceptic.

I can't hold the view that God does not exist, because I can't prove a negative. Nobody can. I know platforms don't come out of nowhere to reject others and then cease to exist. My viewpoint is one of the universe that does not include a god. So yes, I have a position with regards to things, but my position does not include anything about a deity because I don't believe one exists. It is just a lack. Now, if choosing sides in this type of argument were the only viewpoint anyone could hold, then yes, I would have to believe in something related to the subject, but that is not the case.

For example, my worldview does not include an argument against the existence of golden space armadillos because that isn't something I believe in. If I were to write all of the fundamentals of my view of existence, it's not like you would say "well you have to have some sort of take on golden space armadillos!"

Nevertheless, I understand what you're saying.

Anyways...

Denial that the universe must be created and sustained in its system is scepticism. I've demonstrated how the cosmos cannot be eternal, and you have yet to argue against that effectively.

And I told you that, eternal or not, the cosmos cannot be caused.

The ball is still in your court.

[Cloud_Walker]

Ok, I tend to find it frustrating when people just ignore posts. Beyond that, I think your refusal to acknowledge that atheism is a belief is disengenuous. You really can't possibly be that stupid. If this is honestly causing you problems, look up the word "belief."

Atheism - a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...book=Dictionary

And you stopped there? Look up "disbelief" and then click on "disbelieving."

[Cloud_Walker]

The argument from necessity runs something like:

I'll just address this because it seems to be why the believers here believe.

- Even if an infinite regress is theoretically possible, the Big Bang strongly implies that there isn't one. It also proves that matter and energy ARE contingent - they have a time at which they didnot exist.

This is the common mistake of thinking that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe rather than just part of its structure. I was a deist until I realized that the above view is a mistake.

- The Big Bang is coextensive with time and space. Therefore, the cause of the Big Bang must be extra-temporal and extra-spatial.

Not possible. Causality is necessarily linked with time. When something is caused, that is an event. Events do not happen outside of time.

- Time and space are necessary to distinguish between bodies. It is meaningless to talk of multiple necessary beings - there is no means to separate them from one another because there is no medium.

That "possible answer" to defend the argument already assumes it is true and that there exists something outside of spacetime.

I'll save the argument over how we might get from this to something like God as commonly understood for later.

That would be interesting to hear, as I've always wondered if that is possible. But don't worry about that yet, you have to defend the original argument first.

[Oberon]

This is the common mistake of thinking that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe rather than just part of its structure. I was a deist until I realized that the above view is a mistake.

The Big Bang did create our universe. Whether ours is simply one of many no one can tell but to dismiss the Big Bang as "just part of its structure" is nothing short of dogmatism.

[Sage the Mage]

And you stopped there? Look up "disbelief" and then click on "disbelieving."

Atheism - a belief in a lack of a divine power.
Theism - a belief in a divine power.
Belief - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=belief&book=Dictionary. That is, just the position of thinking a statement is true or false.
Faith - believing in something without a firm ground.

Anymore words I need to define?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I can't hold the view that God does not exist, because I can't prove a negative. Nobody can. I know platforms don't come out of nowhere to reject others and then cease to exist. My viewpoint is one of the universe that does not include a god. So yes, I have a position with regards to things, but my position does not include anything about a deity because I don't believe one exists. It is just a lack. Now, if choosing sides in this type of argument were the only viewpoint anyone could hold, then yes, I would have to believe in something related to the subject, but that is not the case.


Ok, so you're a sceptic. You use a method of falsification to come to your conclusions. However, in having this "lack", there is something that fills this void. This is both a scepticism and a dogma on your part. There really is no lack, there will always be one prevelant position, as you admitted...

Nevertheless, I understand what you're saying.

I'm glad you see now my point. Thus, your position in the matter is that of an unspeculative atheist. That may make you cringe, because stating a position leaves you open to detractors. On simpler minded forums, you could get away with that, but not here, not now.


For example, my worldview does not include an argument against the existence of golden space armadillos because that isn't something I believe in. If I were to write all of the fundamentals of my view of existence, it's not like you would say "well you have to have some sort of take on golden space armadillos!"


I don't recall bringing a particular language or definition as regards to what God "is" (like you did with the armadillos), but what GOd is not. That's easily discernable, because we deal with content that gives language. THere's really no escape..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This is the common mistake of thinking that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe rather than just part of its structure. I was a deist until I realized that the above view is a mistake.


What a horrendous stumbling block! Now you can be a "theist" again, because regardless of the big bang being the beginning of the universe, or being part of its structure as you admit, it's still structure, and thus not eternal. Welcome to the fellowship of believers, brother! That's why we believe ^^.

[Andarcel]

And you stopped there? Look up "disbelief" and then click on "disbelieving." Irrelevant. If an atheist can be defined in terms of an unnegated belief (i.e., "I believe there is no God") then the atheist believes something, in this case the particular kind of belief which we could call doctrine or dogma.

This is the common mistake of thinking that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe rather than just part of its structure. I was a deist until I realized that the above view is a mistake. I've wavered back and forth on this for quite some time, so I would be interested in a fuller argument before I respond.

I'll just address this because it seems to be why the believers here believe. As enar as I can tell, it's not actually the reason why ANY of the believers here believe. I just brought it up as an intellectual exercise.

Not possible. Causality is necessarily linked with time. When something is caused, that is an event. Events do not happen outside of time. Here you are simply wrong. Events are indeed caused by previous events, which are temporal, but they are also caused by non-temporal conditions. I fell because I was on the panet Earth and someone pushed me, but also because of the nature of the force of gravity, which is not temporally contingent. Indeed, no event's causes can ever be described without reference, explicit or implicit, to such conditions. On the other hand, suppose there was a force whose conditions were simply that, at a certain point in time it would cause an acceleration in a certain object (violating Newton's Third). Such an event would still rely on previous events to create the object and locate it, but in a sense its most salient cause would simply be this extemporal condition, the force. If you want, then, you could treat the mechanism of God's intervention in the world as simply an especially elaborate series of clauses tacked on to the universe's rules. The inelegance of this system might help explain the lack miracles.

That "possible answer" to defend the argument already assumes it is true and that there exists something outside of spacetime. Well, duh. The objection it answers claims that, even if we accepted the argument as true, we could have a whole pantheon if we wanted. Whereas the answer attempts to demonstrate the opposite.

[Cloud_Walker]

Whoa! 4 on 1, now. This is getting quite time consuming.

The Big Bang did create our universe. Whether ours is simply one of many no one can tell but to dismiss the Big Bang as "just part of its structure" is nothing short of dogmatism.

The universe contains all of spacetime. Note that this means it contains all of time, even when it was at the singularity. Spacetime is a continuum of four dimensions. It is not the entirety of space at any certain point in time. It is the entirety of space at all times.

Anymore words I need to define?

Yes. The ones I asked you to look up.

There really is no lack, there will always be one prevelant position, as you admitted...

Right, but my position does not include things I don't believe in, like God or golden space armadillos. If I must include everything I don't believe in, then I would literally never know the entirety of my own position, because one can make up an infinite number of things.

I'm glad you see now my point. Thus, your position in the matter is that of an unspeculative atheist. That may make you cringe, because stating a position leaves you open to detractors. On simpler minded forums, you could get away with that, but not here, not now.

I don't care what you label me as.

I don't recall bringing a particular language or definition as regards to what God "is" (like you did with the armadillos), but what GOd is not. That's easily discernable, because we deal with content that gives language. THere's really no escape..

You misunderstood. I was not trying to say what your god (I use "your god" because as you should know there is not one single definition of the word "god") is other than something I don't believe in, like golden space armadillos.

What a horrendous stumbling block! Now you can be a "theist" again, because regardless of the big bang being the beginning of the universe, or being part of its structure as you admit, it's still structure, and thus not eternal. Welcome to the fellowship of believers, brother! That's why we believe ^^.

You continuously miss the point that the length of time the universe contains has no bearing on whether it was caused or not, because there cannot be a cause outside of time. Try again.

Irrelevant. If an atheist can be defined in terms of an unnegated belief (i.e., "I believe there is no God") then the atheist believes something, in this case the particular kind of belief which we could call doctrine or dogma.

How about this: "I don't believe in God." If that is a dogma, then everyone has infinitely many dogmas. See a little bit above.

On the other hand, suppose there was a force whose conditions were simply that, at a certain point in time it would cause an acceleration in a certain object (violating Newton's Third). Such an event would still rely on previous events to create the object and locate it, but in a sense its most salient cause would simply be this extemporal condition, the force.

You forget that force = mass*acceleration. Acceleration = motion, which is also necessarily linked with time.

Gravity does nothing without time, and indeed gravity is merely the topography is spacetime.

Well, duh. The objection it answers claims that, even if we accepted the argument as true, we could have a whole pantheon if we wanted. Whereas the answer attempts to demonstrate the opposite.

My mistake.

[Cloud_Walker]

What a horrendous stumbling block! Now you can be a "theist" again, because regardless of the big bang being the beginning of the universe, or being part of its structure as you admit, it's still structure, and thus not eternal. Welcome to the fellowship of believers, brother! That's why we believe ^^.

Not that it really matters, but I wonder how you make the leap from "structure" to "not eternal." Care to present the argument?

If it has something to do with, for example, "My computer has structure, therefore it was created at some point," then don't bother.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Whoa! 4 on 1, now. This is getting quite time consuming.


How about just admitting you're wrong.


Right, but my position does not include things I don't believe in, like God or golden space armadillos.

You misunderstood. I was not trying to say what your god (I use "your god" because as you should know there is not one single definition of the word "god") is other than something I don't believe in, like golden space armadillos.


Sry, I understood :). I did not bring up what God "is", but what he "isn't". You simply dogmatically dismissed the "isn't".


I don't care what you label me as.


You'd do well in considering what you label yourself as...


You continuously miss the point that the length of time the universe contains has no bearing on whether it was caused or not, because there cannot be a cause outside of time. Try again.


Try paying attention ^^. I admitted earlier that causality is a principle of spacetime only. What I did say however is that there must be creator.


How about this: "I don't believe in God." If that is a dogma, then everyone has infinitely many dogmas. See a little bit above.


Not in the context of this discussion, which seemed to fly over your head. Never once did we discuss the properties of God, but rather the simple concept of the world allowing for the possiblity thereof. Your dogma is clear, and unified in this respect.


Not that it really matters


I dont waste time with conjecture.


but I wonder how you make the leap from "structure" to "not eternal." Care to present the argument?


I did, many times before. Furthermore, there is no leap. Eternity cannot have structure. Why? Because structure implies ordering and definition, which represent contingency.


If it has something to do with, for example, "My computer has structure, therefore it was created at some point," then don't bother.


Sure, I'll only post from now on that which fits into your non-speculative framework.

[Andarcel]

Whoa! 4 on 1, now. This is getting quite time consuming. The solution, of course, is to not reply to those other n00bs.

You continuously miss the point that the length of time the universe contains has no bearing on whether it was caused or not, because there cannot be a cause outside of time. Try again.

You forget that force = mass*acceleration. Acceleration = motion, which is also necessarily linked with time. Thanks you for making my point for me. Causes outside of time can produce effects in time. Well done. Your only trouble is a failure to distinguish between cause and effect in your example.

Gravity does nothing without time, and indeed gravity is merely the topography is spacetime. And electromagnetic fields do nothing without charged particles. And God does nothing without the universe. So? If your refering to the contingency of causes on spatial and temporal relationships, well, God-causes are no different - He responds according to circumstance. Anything else could not be a cause at all, because by definition a cause is orderly and patterned. You would just have chaos.

How about this: "I don't believe in God." If that is a dogma, then everyone has infinitely many dogmas. See a little bit above. That's the agnostic position, not necessarily the atheist position. If you hold that there are no golden space armadilloes anywhere, that is also a dogmatic position. Simply not believing in golden space armadilloes does not constitute a dogma - you could have no strong opinion either way.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The solution, of course, is to not reply to those other n00bs.


/Smack! :p

[Sage the Mage]

Yes. The ones I asked you to look up.
The reason I defined the other words and not disbelief is I figured you'd actually notice that belief already covers this.

disbelief - the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
disbelieving - to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
And for fun:
dogma - a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

I did, many times before. Furthermore, there is no leap. Eternity cannot have structure. Why? Because structure implies ordering and definition, which represent contingency.
Sry, I understood . I did not bring up what God "is", but what he "isn't". You simply dogmatically dismissed the "isn't".
You say God has no structure. You also say we can limit what God can be by determing what God is not. Saying that God is not something implies a structure. So you might wanna fix that inconsistency.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You say God has no structure. You also say we can limit what God can be by determing what God is not.


No. We cannot limit what God can be, but rather we can know what he can be "to us". Remember that our perceptions exist in a framework.


Saying that God is not something implies a structure. So you might wanna fix that inconsistency.

What God is not, by means of looking at the structure of the world, is a being that transcends structure. Our language ends there, but that's what we have to work with.

[Sage the Mage]

No. We cannot limit what God can be, but rather we can know what he can be "to us". Remember that our perceptions exist in a framework.
If you say, God is not hating to us, that's still a limit on what God can be. Just remove the "to us" portion and you should hopefully see it.

What God is not, by means of looking at the structure of the world, is a being that transcends structure.
I'm guessing you worded that incorrectly. When I read it, it says that God has a structure, though its unknown what that structure is.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If you say, God is not hating to us, that's still a limit on what God can be. Just remove the "to us" portion and you should hopefully see it.


An eternal thing can only be undertood by reference to that which is not eternal. Human beings are aware of a concept of eternity, only by reference to something that isnt eternal. If we can discover "attributes" about God by discovering what cannot be, that does seem to say something about God doesn't it. However, that per se does not put a limit on God's being. It rather demonstrates a very small extent of what we can learn. So, he is one thing, and not something else to us - as that is the extent of our knowledge.


I'm guessing you worded that incorrectly. When I read it, it says that God has a structure, though its unknown what that structure is.

As for structure, God cannot be structured in terms of any temporal thing (as I explained that if he were temporal in nature, he could not be master, creator, and sustainer of the universe). Structure can be defined only in terms of space/time. Now, you we'rent dumb in pointing out that God has to be one thing, and not another. However, this does not detract from his eternalness or universalness, since he still "is", as opposed to "is not". As such, its fitting to say that there is a principle of isness, and an is-notness. THat's about the extent of language I'm capable of.

[Sage the Mage]

Now, you we'rent dumb in pointing out that God has to be one thing, and not another. However, this does not detract from his eternalness or universalness, since he still "is", as opposed to "is not". As such, its fitting to say that there is a principle of isness, and an is-notness. THat's about the extent of language I'm capable of.However, that per se does not put a limit on God's being. It rather demonstrates a very small extent of what we can learn. So, he is one thing, and not something else to us - as that is the extent of our knowledge.
Again, that's still a limit. Again, just remove the "to us": So, he is one thing, and not something else.

Structure can be defined only in terms of space/time.
i is defined as the square root of -1. Hopefully that's not in reference to space/time.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Again, that's still a limit. Again, just remove the "to us": So, he is one thing, and not something else.


I can't claim to know what God is, other than the fact that he is a personal God, who transcends the temporal. I just can't analyze it. I'm content with knowing what little I do know, however.


i is defined as the square root of -1. Hopefully that's not in reference to space/time.

You remind me of Descartes. Mathematics however applies to the structure of the cosmos.

[Sage the Mage]

I can't claim to know what God is, other than the fact that he is a personal God, who transcends the temporal. I just can't analyze it. I'm content with knowing what little I do know, however.
Define "personal God"

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Define "personal God"

I define "personal God" as a God that has a will. This is opposed to the notion that God is some kind of force, like in star wars. I suppose, it could be best defined in terms of being somewhat like a "person", as a human being would understand. My reason for making such a claim is that an utterly simple, perfect, and eternal God could not create a finite, temporal universe, save by an act of the will.

[Oberon]

I define "personal God" as a God that has a will. This is opposed to the notion that God is some kind of force, like in star wars. I suppose, it could be best defined in terms of being somewhat like a "person", as a human being would understand. My reason for making such a claim is that an utterly simple, perfect, and eternal God could not create a finite, temporal universe, save by an act of the will.

Maybe it was a mistake? Maybe it was a byproduct of something else? For all we know the universe is God's feces ("Cosmic Egg" becomes "Cosmic Turd"?). Sometimes your reasoning reminds me of Sir Bedevere's in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Maybe it was a mistake? Maybe it was a byproduct of something else? For all we know the universe is God's feces ("Cosmic Egg" becomes "Cosmic Turd"?). Sometimes your reasoning reminds me of Sir Bedevere's in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

I've seen the movie, but it's been some time ago.. Anyway, I'm afraid the person of reason will come to the conclusion that it really can't be a "mistake". Everything has purpose, or it cannot be.

[Oberon]

I've seen the movie, but it's been some time ago.. Anyway, I'm afraid the person of reason will come to the conclusion that it really can't be a "mistake". Everything has purpose, or it cannot be.

What is the purpose of covering your eyes and writing PWNT over your forehead?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What is the purpose of covering your eyes and writing PWNT over your forehead?

Its cuz I'm a l33t pwnzor. ^.^

[Oberon]

Its cuz I'm a l33t pwnzor. ^.^

Maybe in the looks department but as for debating God...dunno... ;)

[Cloud_Walker]

Getting quite offensive, aren't we?

Sry, I understood :). I did not bring up what God "is", but what he "isn't". You simply dogmatically dismissed the "isn't".

One more time: I was saying that God is something I don't believe in. That's all!

You'd do well in considering what you label yourself as...

I don't label myself.

Try paying attention ^^. I admitted earlier that causality is a principle of spacetime only. What I did say however is that there must be creator.

Creations are caused by their creators. This is beyond simple.

Not in the context of this discussion, which seemed to fly over your head. Never once did we discuss the properties of God, but rather the simple concept of the world allowing for the possiblity thereof. Your dogma is clear, and unified in this respect.

One more time: I don't believe in God. According to you, that is a dogma. I don't believe in golden space armadillos. That would be a dogma to you, as well. You don't believe in golden space armadillos. You have a dogma (omg!). I don't believe in silver space armadillos. Another dogma! You don't believe in silver space armadillos. Another dogma!

I did, many times before. Furthermore, there is no leap. Eternity cannot have structure. Why? Because structure implies ordering and definition, which represent contingency.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard, then, to point me to one time if there are so many.

But anyways, let's take apart your short "argument":

Structure = ordering and definition. Therefore, this is what you said: "Eternity cannot have structure, because structure implies contingency."

So, at least you got off the Eternity track and onto contingency, but you still have the same leap from structure to contingency. Explain, please.

Also, to show contingency, you must show that something at one point was not, or that it is possible for it not to be. This is kind of hard when our something is everything, no?

How about just admitting you're wrong.

I do not lie to myself and others.

[Cloud_Walker]

The solution, of course, is to not reply to those other n00bs.

I am actually taking that into consideration.

Thanks you for making my point for me. Causes outside of time can produce effects in time. Well done. Your only trouble is a failure to distinguish between cause and effect in your example.

I'm not understanding you, because my point was that there are no causes outside of time.

And electromagnetic fields do nothing without charged particles. And God does nothing without the universe. So?

There can be no change, hence no cause, without time. Causes exist in that which has time, i.e., the universe. That which contains causes cannot itself be caused. I went over this before with AoA.

If your refering to the contingency of causes on spatial and temporal relationships, well, God-causes are no different - He responds according to circumstance. Anything else could not be a cause at all, because by definition a cause is orderly and patterned. You would just have chaos.

I thought we were going to prove that God exists before we start using him as a premise in an argument.

That's the agnostic position, not necessarily the atheist position.

Hooray! See the problem of labels? All this argument to realize that you (unspecific plural) have been interpreting me incorrectly because of a label.

If you hold that there are no golden space armadilloes anywhere, that is also a dogmatic position.

I would surely agree that it is a dogma to hold that one can prove a negative, which I already said (a few times) no one (including myself) can do.

Simply not believing in golden space armadilloes does not constitute a dogma.

Now, the $64,000 question: has that been what I've been saying all along?

(for the smart alecks: that's a rhetorical question)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Getting quite offensive, aren't we?


Call it boredom/exasperation.


One more time: I was saying that God is something I don't believe in. That's all!


Lol. We'll it's not all.. The only other position one could have if they are not agruing *for* God, is to argue *against* God. There really is no neutral position.


I don't label myself.


A person does so by their behavior and ideologies. Thus far you've shown me to have the perspective of a sceptic. Don't like that? Show me otherwise. Don't care? Well.. then again, neither do I..


Creations are caused by their creators. This is beyond simple.


See now you've gotten into the habit of shifting things around :/. By your own definition, causality is simply defined as the relationship between objects. So, a creation "ex niliho", could not have been caused, but only manifested, if you will.


One more time: I don't believe in God. According to you, that is a dogma. I don't believe in golden space armadillos. That would be a dogma to you, as well. You don't believe in golden space armadillos. You have a dogma (omg!). I don't believe in silver space armadillos. Another dogma! You don't believe in silver space armadillos. Another dogma!


Hey, you brought in the space aramdillos, not me lol.. Agnosticism is still a dogmatism. How can that possibly be? Hmm.. Well, Scepticism in itself is still a dogmatism, because scepticism is nothing without a content, and must rest on some manner of object to make it an intelligible position. Now, you've stated that God is something you don't hold, so fine. That's still a dogmatism, because it is a scepticism.


Structure = ordering and definition. Therefore, this is what you said: "Eternity cannot have structure, because structure implies contingency."

So, at least you got off the Eternity track and onto contingency, but you still have the same leap from structure to contingency. Explain, please.


I don't see where you get this "leap" thing.. I see it as self evident that anything of contingency (thus not necessity), must have some certain boundaries to it. Would you not say that is the same thing as saying it has structure?


Also, to show contingency, you must show that something at one point was not, or that it is possible for it not to be. This is kind of hard when our something is everything, no?


Huh? Were you half asleep at the keyboard when you wrote this? I certainly didn't posit the eternity of the world, that's more your department.


I do not lie to myself and others.

I suppose you'd never be capable of decieving yourself either..

[Andarcel]

I'm not understanding you, because my point was that there are no causes outside of time. That was what you intended to demonstrate. What you actually demonstrated was that atemporal causes, such as the structure of the universe, have temporal effects. I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. Every determined event is caused by the laws of physics acting on temporal and spatial objects. The laws of physics themselves are neither events nor objects and thus do not exist in time. They only apply to things in space and time - indeed, they only have meaning for us as applied to things in space and time - but that does not make them spatial or temporal. I won't go over the connection to God again, since I might get a response claiming that I was using God as a premise.

That which contains causes cannot itself be caused. This piece of bread contains the cause of the satiation of my hunger, yet I think I can identify its causes pretty clearly. You mean something that contains ALL causes cannot be caused. But I just pointed out that, not only are there causes which cannot be said to exist "inside" time, but that there MUST be causes outside of time. Causes are patterns driven by rules, and rules have no time dependence.

I thought we were going to prove that God exists before we start using him as a premise in an argument.Once again, not a premise, a defense. Reread the original post please.

Hooray! See the problem of labels? All this argument to realize that you (unspecific plural) have been interpreting me incorrectly because of a label. I'm not even slightly interested in labeling, which is why I didn't label you. I was talking about the nature of atheism. If you were talking about your personal beliefs, it would have really helped me to know that "atheist" is now a code-word for "Cloud-Walker."

I would surely agree that it is a dogma to hold that one can prove a negative, which I already said (a few times) no one (including myself) can do. No, that's an analytic statement, not a synthetic proposition, so it's not a dogma: it's just wrong.

Now, the $64,000 question: has that been what I've been saying all along? No, because you were talking about atheists (equivalent to saying, "I believe there are no golden space armadilloes," not, "I do not believe in golden space armadilloes.") If you meant agnosticism all along, again, it would have helped if you said that.

[DrunkCajun]

Wow. This thread is still going?

*hands cookies to all sides involved for keeping on topic and sticking with it this long*

[Cloud_Walker]

Lol. We'll it's not all.. The only other position one could have if they are not agruing *for* God, is to argue *against* God. There really is no neutral position.

Huh? You were getting all antsy about my use of the word "is," and I was just clarifying the usage, again. What is all this?

A person does so by their behavior and ideologies. Thus far you've shown me to have the perspective of a sceptic. Don't like that? Show me otherwise. Don't care? Well.. then again, neither do I..

A person merely acts and possesses their ideas. I simply does not follow that they automatically label them.

You don't care yet you assign labels to me? I've seen "scepticism," "agnosticism," and "dogmatism" in one response alone.

See now you've gotten into the habit of shifting things around :/. By your own definition, causality is simply defined as the relationship between objects. So, a creation "ex niliho", could not have been caused, but only manifested, if you will.

Unfortunately, that's all causality can ever be. Nobody can claim to know if it really is a property of the universe.

Hey, you brought in the space aramdillos, not me lol..

Um... Ok? I brought it up because you call such lack of belief dogmatism. I therefore drew the conclusion that everyone has infinitely many dogmatisms. Don't believe it? Let's start counting the things we don't believe in:

1. golden space armadillos
2. silver space armadillos
3. diamond space armadillos
4. half gold half silver space armadillos
5. one third platinum, two thirds lead space squirrels............

I don't see where you get this "leap" thing.. I see it as self evident that anything of contingency (thus not necessity), must have some certain boundaries to it.

That I would agree with, but that isn't the relevant argument, here. It would be more relevant if you could say that if something has boundaries, then it is contingent. Further, when the something is everything, it has no boundaries, because it is separated from literally nothing.

Just like all causes, it also contains all boundaries.

Would you not say that is the same thing as saying it has structure?

I think I understand what you're saying. It is based off of the assumption that what we observe is actually inherent in reality. See my explanation of causality above.

Aside: remember my view of existence? It is like our brave captain's map: a complete blank.

Huh? Were you half asleep at the keyboard when you wrote this? I certainly didn't posit the eternity of the world, that's more your department.

I never said you did, and eternity has nothing to do with the couple sentences you quoted from me.

I suppose you'd never be capable of decieving yourself either..

That would be lying to myself.

[Cloud_Walker]

That was what you intended to demonstrate. What you actually demonstrated was that atemporal causes, such as the structure of the universe, have temporal effects. I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. Every determined event is caused by the laws of physics acting on temporal and spatial objects. The laws of physics themselves are neither events nor objects and thus do not exist in time. They only apply to things in space and time - indeed, they only have meaning for us as applied to things in space and time - but that does not make them spatial or temporal. I won't go over the connection to God again, since I might get a response claiming that I was using God as a premise.

This piece of bread contains the cause of the satiation of my hunger, yet I think I can identify its causes pretty clearly. You mean something that contains ALL causes cannot be caused. But I just pointed out that, not only are there causes which cannot be said to exist "inside" time, but that there MUST be causes outside of time. Causes are patterns driven by rules, and rules have no time dependence.

No, the laws of physics don't cause anything. Mass-energy causes things. The causes all happen in such a way that we can infer rules that they don't break. The rules are patterns. Causes are not merely patterns. Causes are events, changes, from one space at one point in time to space at another point in time.

Once again, not a premise, a defense. Reread the original post please.

Then I'm sure you can represent it without God. All I got from the post was that causes appear to be orderly and patterned, which is true. I guess that's how you made the leap to causes being patterns, which is not true.

I'm not even slightly interested in labeling, which is why I didn't label you. I was talking about the nature of atheism. If you were talking about your personal beliefs, it would have really helped me to know that "atheist" is now a code-word for "Cloud-Walker."

I know you aren't, please reread the purposefully inserted words in parenthesis, referring to the word "you."

The subject of the definition of atheism was brought up with respect to the beliefs I have presented in this thread. I said it was the lack of belief. Sage said it was disbelief. I said disbelief meant "lack of belief." You said it didn't matter. I restated the atheistic position I said lacked belief. You then realized it was agnostic and not atheist. If you want a label, it's "weak atheism."

No, that's an analytic statement, not a synthetic proposition, so it's not a dogma: it's just wrong.

Lol, dogmas can be wrong.

No, because you were talking about atheists (equivalent to saying, "I believe there are no golden space armadilloes," not, "I do not believe in golden space armadilloes.") If you meant agnosticism all along, again, it would have helped if you said that.

I never said that "there are no golden space armadillos," which would require a negative to be proved, which I already said is not possible.

[Andarcel]

No, the laws of physics don't cause anything. Mass-energy causes things. The causes all happen [b]in such a way that we can infer rules that they don't break[b]. The rules are patterns. Causes are not merely patterns. Causes are events, changes, from one space at one point in time to space at another point in time. No event could ever be a cause without rules. No juxtaposition of objects could have any implication without rules. I'm really stumped as to how to make this point any better.

So I'll try it this way. Why do causes all just "happen in such a way that we can infer rules they don't break"? Well, judging from your post, it just happens to turn out that way. Wrong answer. They "happen in such a way that we can infer rules they don't break" because there ARE rules they don't break. Remove the rules, you remove the causes. No laws of physics, no causes. All caused events are caused by the laws of the universe operating on a particular situation.
Then I'm sure you can represent it without God. I made the point to demonstrate the conenction to God. I wanted to do so primarily because I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is an equivocation around the word "cause," and I wanted to bring it to the original topic to force you to pick one particular meaning (see below). All I got from the post was that causes appear to be orderly and patterned, which is true. I guess that's how you made the leap to causes being patterns, which is not true. Ok. Yet another way. Two electrons approach each other and they are repelled. Why does this happen? Why does B follow from A? Because the laws of the universe dictate as much. How do we determine that the approach has any connection with the repulsion? By a pattern of behavior. The cause is indeed not the pattern; it is the law which generates the pattern. If the law were not the fundamental cause, then causes would not create patterns.

Do you not want to call those causes? Ok. We'll just call them rules then. It's irrelevant to God's agency so long as you allow God to design the rules. As I already said, all God has to do is design the rules with appropriate exceptions, i.e. a rule that says "at such-and-such a time water in a particular sea will disobey the ordinary laws of gravity and form a channel." Or "at such-and-such a time, particles in a particular location will vibrate in such a way as to produce a voice." Or whatever other exceptions you want. Now, speaking in these terms without using the word "caused" will quickly grow cumbersome, but if it's really important to you, we can.

I know you aren't, please reread the purposefully inserted words in parenthesis, referring to the word "you."

The subject of the definition of atheism was brought up with respect to the beliefs I have presented in this thread. I said it was the lack of belief. Sage said it was disbelief. I said disbelief meant "lack of belief." You said it didn't matter. I restated the atheistic position I said lacked belief. You then realized it was agnostic and not atheist. If you want a label, it's "weak atheism." Hazards of entering in the middle of the thread, I guess. If someone used the word "atheist" incorrectly, just point it out. The word has a well-defined and specific meaning.

Lol, dogmas can be wrong. You're fastening on a rhetorical flourish and missing the substance. I'll rephrase. The claim that a negative can be proven is not a claim about the world, it is a claim about logic. Logical claims are either true or false, and the truth or falsness of the claim is imediately available without recourse to an exterior world. This one happens to be false, but that fact is irrelevant. It could be true - it still wouldn't be a dogma.

Incidentally, according to your own standards of knowledge, dogmas are not truly falsifiable, so in an important sense dogmas can't be false.

I never said that "there are no golden space armadillos," which would require a negative to be proved, which I already said is not possible. And once again I never said that you said there were no golden space armadilloes, or that you were an atheist. I said that either position constitutes a dogma.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A person merely acts and possesses their ideas. I simply does not follow that they automatically label them.

You don't care yet you assign labels to me? I've seen "scepticism," "agnosticism," and "dogmatism" in one response alone.


You got too sensitive I think..


Um... Ok? I brought it up because you call such lack of belief dogmatism. I therefore drew the conclusion that everyone has infinitely many dogmatisms. Don't believe it? Let's start counting the things we don't believe in:

1. golden space armadillos
2. silver space armadillos
3. diamond space armadillos
4. half gold half silver space armadillos
5. one third platinum, two thirds lead space squirrels............


The problematic you're stuck on here as to do with the fact that you haven't grasped the nature of negative theology as it were. I expressed clearly that I did not offer content to God, only rather that which he cannot be by looking at the world. To omit that possibility, by taking a grassroots approach, would be dogmatism. Discussion of content is not relevant here.


That I would agree with, but that isn't the relevant argument, here. It would be more relevant if you could say that if something has boundaries, then it is contingent. Further, when the something is everything, it has no boundaries, because it is separated from literally nothing.


That's fine.


Aside: remember my view of existence? It is like our brave captain's map: a complete blank.


Don't recall the analogy.


That would be lying to myself.

I do believe your honesty, but honesty per se is not a safeguard from deception.

[Sage the Mage]

I expressed clearly that I did not offer content to God, only rather that which he cannot be by looking at the world.
I can't claim to know what God is, other than the fact that he is a personal God, who transcends the temporal. I just can't analyze it. I'm content with knowing what little I do know, however.
And...yeah

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And...yeah

Beg your pardon, is there an inconsistency I'm supposed to be aware of here?

[Cloud_Walker]

No event could ever be a cause without rules. No juxtaposition of objects could have any implication without rules. I'm really stumped as to how to make this point any better.

So I'll try it this way. Why do causes all just "happen in such a way that we can infer rules they don't break"? Well, judging from your post, it just happens to turn out that way. Wrong answer. They "happen in such a way that we can infer rules they don't break" because there ARE rules they don't break. Remove the rules, you remove the causes. No laws of physics, no causes. All caused events are caused by the laws of the universe operating on a particular situation.

Two things:

1. You are assuming that our laws of physics tell us about reality. They only serve to interpret experience in a logically consistent way. We observe mass-energy causes and make up laws to understand how they happen.

2. You still think that a law can cause something. I already told you, mass-energy causes things. Why did that car move? Because another car hit it. How did it move? In a way consistent with the laws of physics. The cause is mass-energy. The cause and effect are governed by the laws (aka patterns), but they are not laws or patterns themselves. A law or pattern does not exist, it is an abstraction. It can cause nothing.

I made the point to demonstrate the conenction to God. I wanted to do so primarily because I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is an equivocation around the word "cause," and I wanted to bring it to the original topic to force you to pick one particular meaning (see below). Ok. Yet another way. Two electrons approach each other and they are repelled. Why does this happen? Why does B follow from A? Because the laws of the universe dictate as much. How do we determine that the approach has any connection with the repulsion? By a pattern of behavior. The cause is indeed not the pattern; it is the law which generates the pattern. If the law were not the fundamental cause, then causes would not create patterns.

See above. Also, the law is the pattern.

Do you not want to call those causes? Ok. We'll just call them rules then. It's irrelevant to God's agency so long as you allow God to design the rules. As I already said, all God has to do is design the rules with appropriate exceptions, i.e. a rule that says "at such-and-such a time water in a particular sea will disobey the ordinary laws of gravity and form a channel." Or "at such-and-such a time, particles in a particular location will vibrate in such a way as to produce a voice." Or whatever other exceptions you want. Now, speaking in these terms without using the word "caused" will quickly grow cumbersome, but if it's really important to you, we can.

As much as you would like to disagree, you are still assuming God exists, and as far as I'm aware, this is a discussion about the existence of God. You can't assume he exists and actions he takes to defend his existence. Before you jump all over this part, no, I don't understand exactly what you wrote. That is because you incorrectly think that laws are causes and aren't patterns.

You're fastening on a rhetorical flourish and missing the substance. I'll rephrase. The claim that a negative can be proven is not a claim about the world, it is a claim about logic. Logical claims are either true or false, and the truth or falsness of the claim is imediately available without recourse to an exterior world. This one happens to be false, but that fact is irrelevant. It could be true - it still wouldn't be a dogma.

Incidentally, according to your own standards of knowledge, dogmas are not truly falsifiable, so in an important sense dogmas can't be false.

I never used the word dogma other than an interpretation of your or AoA's use of it, FYI. The statement: "I can prove a negative" surely is a logical claim (a false one), but that's not the statement we've been talking about. The statement we've been talking about is "I believe God does not exist," which, according to you two, is a dogma, and a wrong one. All I was trying to do is remind you of your own position on the matter.

And once again I never said that you said there were no golden space armadilloes, or that you were an atheist. I said that either position constitutes a dogma.

That's nice, but, relevance?

[Cloud_Walker]

The problematic you're stuck on here as to do with the fact that you haven't grasped the nature of negative theology as it were. I expressed clearly that I did not offer content to God, only rather that which he cannot be by looking at the world. To omit that possibility, by taking a grassroots approach, would be dogmatism. Discussion of content is not relevant here.

I have not once tried to discuss the content of God, because I don't believe he exists. This is what I've been trying to get across to you. I am saying absolutely nothing about God other than that I don't believe he exists.

That's fine.

Ok, so, any other arguments for contingency?

Don't recall the analogy.

It's not that important. All I'm saying is that I don't believe it even has structure. And indeed we can't really know anyways. See the above discussion with Andarcel about laws and patterns, if you want.

I do believe your honesty, but honesty per se is not a safeguard from deception.

Of course, of course. I like to refer to all inaccuracies not caused by dishonesty as mistakes. I could be wrong of course, but if I knew I was, I would admit it.

[Cloud_Walker]

Beg your pardon, is there an inconsistency I'm supposed to be aware of here?

Since I'm here and semi-bored, I'll just do this for Sage.

I expressed clearly that I did not offer content to God, only rather that which he cannot be by looking at the world.

Ok, you can only say what God cannot be...

I can't claim to know what God is, other than the fact that he is a personal God, who transcends the temporal. I just can't analyze it. I'm content with knowing what little I do know, however.

And here you are saying not only what he can be, but what he actually is, i.e., a personal god who transcends the temporal.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I have not once tried to discuss the content of God, because I don't believe he exists. This is what I've been trying to get across to you. I am saying absolutely nothing about God other than that I don't believe he exists.


I realise that, but those times when you did treat of God, you assumed had to be one of content, hence, the space armadillos. This, and your post after this still indicate that you haven't yet got in touch with the dialectic that this sort of thing demands. One can know what God is, and what he is not. The key is methodology. I cannot "know" know God (as in, fully comprehend his being in terms of analysis, as that is beyond our faculties. Yet, we can know what he is not (and thus, in a way, know what he is), but reference to things of contingency.

[Andarcel]

Two things:1. You are assuming that our laws of physics tell us about reality. They only serve to interpret experience in a logically consistent way. We observe mass-energy causes and make up laws to understand how they happen. Conveniently I wrote a paper on this topic. I'll paste in a subsequent post. But it's really not relevant to an entity outside of space and time could cause things in space and time. Instrumentalism has no implications either way.

2. You still think that a law can cause something. I already told you, mass-energy causes things. Why did that car move? Because another car hit it. How did it move? In a way consistent with the laws of physics. The cause is mass-energy. The cause and effect are governed by the laws (aka patterns), but they are not laws or patterns themselves. A law or pattern does not exist, it is an abstraction. It can cause nothing. You are paying zero attention to what I'm saying, you just continue to assert an illogical position. Why does one car hitting another cause it to move? Pray, do tell.

See above. Also, the law is the pattern. Semantical games.

As much as you would like to disagree, you are still assuming God exists, and as far as I'm aware, this is a discussion about the existence of God. You can't assume he exists and actions he takes to defend his existence. Before you jump all over this part, no, I don't understand exactly what you wrote. Clearly not. You said there are no causes outside of time, and therefore by inference a god outside of time couldn't cause anything. I've been trying to establish that such a being COULD cause things in time. You keep responding by saying that I'm assuming God exists. I'm torn between laughing and smashing my keyboard in frustration. When you either concede that an atemporal entity CAN direct temporal events or actually engage my demonstration of how an atemporal entity could do so, I will reply again.

That's nice, but, relevance? You were replying to a statement I never made. I pointed out that I never made it, which made YOUR comment kind of irrelevant.

[Andarcel]

...The notion of science as a useful construction may not be entirely absent among some physicists, for whom these questions have become rather pressing since interferometer and dual-slit experiments overthrew classical mechanics. Still, one is hard-pressed to find any trace of this idea among the giants. Einstein would be appalled of course, but even the ruthlessly hard-nosed and practical Feynman stubbornly believes in the power of physics to grasp an outer world. They have an excellent reason for revolting against Waltz’s statement: it makes no sense from either the numinal or phenomenal perspective.

Consider a world that exists precisely as a scientific theory describes. We might choose string theory, one of the simplest possible structures that gives rise to suitable complexity. In this world, strings are real by definition, as are their interactions and the dimensions in which these occur. Dust coalesces and forms planets, planets form life, and life produces a rational species. This species, by means of ingenious probing attended by considerable trial and error, eventually discovers the full nature of their world, strings and all.

This is the story of our universe and the practice of science as told by a naturalist. We can all see how it works. The story of itself does not admit any proof; we have no way of telling whether it is right or wrong. It does, however, have one great advantage compelling us to believe it: it is the only rational possibility we are prepared to accept....

Now consider the efforts of someone who believes there to be no reality to be discovered by science. If such a person were willing to adopt a position of perfect negation, the belief that nothing reported by the senses is real, he could at least be consistent. He would be an object of ridicule, but at least his beliefs would be logically possible. But Waltz does not appear to hold any beliefs of such a radical nature. Indeed, the very word “useful” with which he supplants “truth” could have no meaning unless he granted at least the reality immediately available to us by sensory perception. But if he grants that much, attempting to hold that no objective world underlies perception turns out to be nonsense. We cannot simply accept the reasoning process that forms objects out of sensory data as objective up to a point and entirely subjective interpretation thereafter. The same line of reasoning that tells us about the existence of our physical selves tells us also about the electron. They differ only in the degree of certainty. Waltz’s pragmatism relies on a distinction without a difference.

So much for the argument from the numinous; let us see what the world should look like to us if indeed the causes of natural science were artificial constructs. One could ask whether such a world could have any patterns at all, or if it would merely be ungovernable chaos. I suspect the latter, for without real causes as organizational principles, there exists by definition no reason for a pattern to emerge. But if there were patterns of any sort, we might set about assigning causes to them. As we attempted to broaden the scope of our causes, however, we would find that we had to make these causes more and more complicated, filling them with exceptions and arbitrary loopholes to account for deviations. If we tried to make one theory explain the flight of a bird and the growth of a leaf, we should find that we simply have to specify that our causes act differently in the different cases without explanation. [In other words, we could only deal with the variety of behavior we encounter in the world through theories tailor-made to each instance.)

Contrast this with the findings of science. Rather than delineating ungovernable complexity as we progress further in explaining more phenomena, natural sciences trend towards sublime simplicity. In M theory, this simplicity becomes nearly perfect. I know of no other possible account for this eerie and beautiful convergence of causality than that we are describing something real with science. Without objective reality, nothing could unify the causes of the multitude of phenomena that we see in the world....

[Cloud_Walker]

I realise that, but those times when you did treat of God, you assumed had to be one of content, hence, the space armadillos. This, and your post after this still indicate that you haven't yet got in touch with the dialectic that this sort of thing demands. One can know what God is, and what he is not. The key is methodology. I cannot "know" know God (as in, fully comprehend his being in terms of analysis, as that is beyond our faculties. Yet, we can know what he is not (and thus, in a way, know what he is), but reference to things of contingency.

No, I never ever assigned God content.

[Cloud_Walker]

Conveniently I wrote a paper on this topic. I'll paste in a subsequent post. But it's really not relevant to an entity outside of space and time could cause things in space and time. Instrumentalism has no implications either way.

You are paying zero attention to what I'm saying, you just continue to assert an illogical position. Why does one car hitting another cause it to move? Pray, do tell.

Semantical games.

You are getting causes and patterns confused, which is not just a semantical game when we're talking about what can exist outside of time. Patterns can, causes cannot.

Your paper mixes these two up. In the fifth paragraph, you talk about causes and patterns as two distinct things, yet you for some reason think that I am arguing that the causes don't communicate reality, or don't exist. I said the laws of physics, the patterns, do not tell us about reality. If they did, the universe would change everytime a scientific theory is debunked, which is simply not true. That's why they are called scientific theories.

or actually engage my demonstration of how an atemporal entity could do so, I will reply again.

Go right ahead. However, don't suffer the illusion that you can clearly explain anything to everybody.

[Sage the Mage]

I cannot "know" know God (as in, fully comprehend his being in terms of analysis, as that is beyond our faculties. Yet, we can know what he is not (and thus, in a way, know what he is), but reference to things of contingency.
God is X; You disagree with that statement right?

The answer to Andarcel's argument is infinite permutations, but I'll admit I just skimmed over it for now.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

God is X; You disagree with that statement right?


:p Depends on what your "X" is *^^*. Really though, one can't start discussing this by using God as a premise.

[Andarcel]

God is X; You disagree with that statement right?

The answer to Andarcel's argument is infinite permutations, but I'll admit I just skimmed over it for now.

Actually, no. I didn't use that exact phrasing, but I'm talking about inifinite permutations when I say "As we attempted to broaden the scope of our causes, however, we would find that we had to make these causes more and more complicated, filling them with exceptions and arbitrary loopholes to account for deviations." You could use infinite permutations to create a theory of everything, but if it's simply a mental construct it should have to be as complicated as the phenomena it explains. Whereas the two main theories of physics today are supremely simple and explain almost everything. String theory (or M theory) is simpler still, and it covers the whole shebang. The naturalist explains this as, well, obvious; if reality is based on simple precepts, then of course you can identify simple precepts to explain all events. The instrumentalist explains it by... well, the instrumentalist doesn't have any explanation, does he?


Go right ahead. However, don't suffer the illusion that you can clearly explain anything to everybody. I don't. Some concepts I just can't explain to some people. Such is life. But I've explained the basic principle of deistic intervention to people who actually matter to me in about 30s, so I am content.

Since you don't appear to even grasp what we're arguing about, continuing this would be pointless.

[Cloud_Walker]

Since you don't appear to even grasp what we're arguing about, continuing this would be pointless.

I now know what you are arguing for. So please, present it again.

(I have that same lack of satisfactory communication skills, as well)

[raffster]

so murder against someone who does not believe in religion, someone who's only chance at life was taken away, deserves a much harsher punishment.

so that is my opinion, murdering a religious person should be weighed as less morally objectionable and be given a lighter sentence, if they continue to give exceptions such as the abused woman scenario.

just my opinion.

I cannot see how a murdered victim's beliefs should affect the degree of punishment of the murderer. What does the victim's religion have anything to do with the fact that he or she was murdered? Is the murderer's "paradigm" affected by the fact that the person that he or she is about to kill has a very strong faith?

I'm trying to connect the dots here ... Somebody murdered somebody ... Everything else surrounding it holds little water.

[raffster]

At this level, language is looking over the edge of a cliff.. But in the best terms I'm capable of, I'd have to say that with God, you're dealing with something beyond the normal realm of conception, and rules for that matter. I could say that all creation is "swept up" into himself, or that creation is contained within the Godhead. It's really hard to point out the technicalities, since its beyond the empirical method. However, we can say that God is not limited by any realm, since he is the author of realms. Anything contingent, which is whatever is, is sustained by God. Anything that isnt, is a mere conceptualization, which further defines that which is (if that makes sense). The best way to describe it is perhaps by means of a hierarchy of powers. An stone for instance has no sentience. A plant has more power than a stone, as it is a living thing, and so on with animals, human beings, etc. Each of these things has a degree of creation/mastery over the lesser things. God is the greatest, but hes even beyond greatness, since he cannot be slotted into a hierarchy with things above and below - since he is eternal simplicity.

I'm curious to know, AoA, what "faith" strengthening exercises you do on a daily basis. You seemed pretty sure about the nature of God (almost like you've met God), what eternity is like (almost like you've been there). Dang! From a Buddhist's perspective you could pass for an "enlightened" believer.

Just so you know there is no hierarchy of powers. The hierarchy you speak of is nothing more than a mental construct as we who are unenlightened, differentiate between the relative and the absolute with a delusioned mind. If you have really perceived God and eternity, you will know that all things are the same. The stone is the plant is the universe is God. You and I are the same and yet not the same, and beyond both sameness and unsameness.

I am not speaking from my own personal experience. I am plagiarizing a Zen book as I type. :P

[raffster]

How about just admitting you're wrong.



Ummm -- that's not a good thing to say. How do you know you're right? Or how any of us are?

Anybody here seen God? Anybody here experienced eternity?

That's why I really like Zen. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, nobody's either and nobody's either either.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm curious to know, AoA, what "faith" strengthening exercises you do on a daily basis. You seemed pretty sure about the nature of God (almost like you've met God), what eternity is like (almost like you've been there). Dang! From a Buddhist's perspective you could pass for an "enlightened" believer.


Haha Raff, I thought I'd come across you again. You were always preaching teh zen, but now it appears you've taken a double shot :p. My thought when reading this is why would you assume my "faith" is matter of exercises, or a series of patterns? I'd be tempted to believe that thats how you gauge your own "faith". Having said that, would you say you have faith, or enlightenment? Or is it just "what your into?".


Just so you know there is no hierarchy of powers.


WOW! If I wasn't sure before, I sure know now! lol... That's quite a statement. Lets see how you qualify that one..


The hierarchy you speak of is nothing more than a mental construct as we who are unenlightened, differentiate between the relative and the absolute with a delusioned mind. If you have really perceived God and eternity, you will know that all things are the same. The stone is the plant is the universe is God. You and I are the same and yet not the same, and beyond both sameness and unsameness.

I am not speaking from my own personal experience. I am plagiarizing a Zen book as I type. :P

Lol.. I suppose I could go ahead and tell you "this is how it is" by just stamping a paragraph from a philosophy text or something.. Still, that shouldnt take away from a person's ability to think correctly :p. If "everything's the same", how could something of differentation such as a mental construct be possible, and how could one be enlightened or disillusioned as you say? Instead of cut and paste journalism, show your readers you've at least attained a modicum of what you're talking about, let alone maintaing as your creed.

Ummm -- that's not a good thing to say. How do you know you're right? Or how any of us are?


Um... Try paying attention to the argument that's been going on for upteen pages? It's a start... ^^


Anybody here seen God? Anybody here experienced eternity?

That's why I really like Zen. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, nobody's either and nobody's either either.

I'd love a philosophy that was opium as well, save for the fact that I have a rather pressing need to understand what's at stake in what doctrine I ascribe to. Thus far, what you've described is fluff. If you want me to take it seriously, try actually describing its value, instead of just airing your opinions.

[raffster]

Haha Raff, I thought I'd come across you again. You were always preaching teh zen, but now it appears you've taken a double shot :p. My thought when reading this is why would you assume my "faith" is matter of exercises, or a series of patterns? I'd be tempted to believe that thats how you gauge your own "faith". Having said that, would you say you have faith, or enlightenment? Or is it just "what your into?".

Hey AoA, thank you for your response.

What I found lacking when I still believed in God (Christianity as a religion, to be more specific) was the fact that there was nothing that could be a gauge of one's depth of spirituality. Perhaps it's just me or believers in general but after I accepted Christ, what steps could I have taken to reinforce that faith? I look back now and could think of nothing that could be equated to "spiritual exercises" that Zen practitioners do. I "sit" in the "bodhi-mind" at least 30 minutes everyday, and I've never felt such mental/spiritual freedom. Something was amiss while I still believed in God, and now that I don't believe in God anymore I feel unbound. Maybe I was just with the wrong Church, I don't know. But it's been a month since I've stopped believing and my spirituality has only grown deeper.

What I'm asking you isn't so much of exercise (perhaps that applies to Zen practitioners or Christian monastics) but rather, what do you "do" to strengthen your faith. You seem so deeply convinced about your faith so I think it would be great to share your practice with the heathen. I would, if I were in your shoes.

Do you read the Bible? Pray every hour? I dunno. Somebody isn't just convicted simply because he believes. But be wary that many spiritual people are only spritual as far as the intellect is concerned. Many Zen practitioners are also guilty of this. And I'm probably one of them.

To believe in something is different from actually perceiving something. I guess that's where I was going with that question. Is your faith based on blind belief or a sense of perception?

WOW! If I wasn't sure before, I sure know now! lol... That's quite a statement. Lets see how you qualify that one..

I don't have to. If I could express what words cannot express (like the true meaning behind my signature) then I am far from actually describing it. Even the most brilliant Zen masters couldn't describe their sense of reality from the perspective of enlightenment. To do what you asked is asking me to do what is not possible. You'll have to perceive that yourself.


Lol.. I suppose I could go ahead and tell you "this is how it is" by just stamping a paragraph from a philosophy text or something.. Still, that shouldnt take away from a person's ability to think correctly :p. If "everything's the same", how could something of differentation such as a mental construct be possible, and how could one be enlightened or disillusioned as you say? Instead of cut and paste journalism, show your readers you've at least attained a modicum of what you're talking about, let alone maintaing as your creed.

Why do I have to reinvent the wheel? I happened to be reading this particular Zen book while going through the on-going discussions between you and everybody else. I thought the stuff I was reading was quite applicable...well, I apologize for copying and pasting.

Everything is the same yet they are not. A delusioned mind can only see the duality of things, hence everything in the universe is given a name or an attribute, a level of "hierarchy" if you must. A delusioned mind sees you and me, here and there, yesterday and tomorrow, darkness and light, birth and death, suffering and joy, etc. etc. etc. Someone who has perceived enlightenment sees everything as they are and at the same time sees everything as "one". An enlightened being doesn't distinguish between delusioned and enlightened, to him both are the same and yet they are not.

When you kill a flame where does it go? Is the flame greater than the candle or is the candle greater than the flame? Is the flame the candle and the candle the flame?

When "God's eternal presence" permeates every single part of the entire universe, isn't God present in the keyboard I'm typing on to reply to your post?

Um... Try paying attention to the argument that's been going on for upteen pages? It's a start... ^^

From what perspective was Cloud Walker wrong? Doesn't mean that because he doesn't agree with you or you with him means that he's wrong. To think you're right just because you debate better, have a stronger grasp of logic, or even more intelligent, is I think being arrogant, don you think?

A true believer's faith should resonate through every aspect of his being.

I'd love a philosophy that was opium as well, save for the fact that I have a rather pressing need to understand what's at stake in what doctrine I ascribe to. Thus far, what you've described is fluff. If you want me to take it seriously, try actually describing its value, instead of just airing your opinions.

Yes Zen is nothing but fluff indeed. The Zen master himself would tell you that there is no such thing as Zen, and that Zen doesn't exist.

But I can tell you this much: what we are all looking for (whether we are atheists or theists) cannot be grasped by the intellect. So no matter how try you understand "God" you will never succeed. No matter how hard I try to understand "Zen" I will fail.

We have to directly experience what we are looking for. For until then, we can only help but speculate was "truth is" as we are doing right now.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hey AoA, thank you for your response.

What I found lacking when I still believed in God (Christianity as a religion, to be more specific) was the fact that there was nothing that could be a gauge of one's depth of spirituality.


I don't believe the goal is to gauge its depth. That would imply that we would have total mastery over our relationship with God. I usually don't guage it, I just try to take stock of my life a day at a time and try to develop good habits.


Perhaps it's just me or believers in general but after I accepted Christ, what steps could I have taken to reinforce that faith? I look back now and could think of nothing that could be equated to "spiritual exercises" that Zen practitioners do. I "sit" in the "bodhi-mind" at least 30 minutes everyday, and I've never felt such mental/spiritual freedom. Something was amiss while I still believed in God, and now that I don't believe in God anymore I feel unbound. Maybe I was just with the wrong Church, I don't know. But it's been a month since I've stopped believing and my spirituality has only grown deeper.


I'd say that we become as we do. This happens in different ways for different people. Usually a good rule of thumb is to find a spirituality that works for you (provided it is rooted in scripture and tradition), and make it a routine.


What I'm asking you isn't so much of exercise (perhaps that applies to Zen practitioners or Christian monastics) but rather, what do you "do" to strengthen your faith. You seem so deeply convinced about your faith so I think it would be great to share your practice with the heathen. I would, if I were in your shoes.


Well it is a personal journey. I'd advise anyone wondering about it however to start reading scripture. Perhaps not in an analytical manner, but to read it and allow it to affect you - even if negatively. Then, focus on the areas that struck a chord. Then, there's also the option of just sitting down and having a heart-to-heart with God, if that makes sense. I don't have a whole lot of advice really. My path was reading the scriptures, and my philosophical leanings. For all I know, yours may be as well.


To believe in something is different from actually perceiving something. I guess that's where I was going with that question. Is your faith based on blind belief or a sense of perception?


I'd say that its based on both. I would only believe something if it made sense to me and passed my scrutiny, yet I'm also willing to take the step forward in faith when I reach the end of my ability. I've had a few "experiences" of God however, which helped as well.


I don't have to. If I could express what words cannot express (like the true meaning behind my signature) then I am far from actually describing it. Even the most brilliant Zen masters couldn't describe their sense of reality from the perspective of enlightenment. To do what you asked is asking me to do what is not possible. You'll have to perceive that yourself.


You should make an effort to qualify what you post, so others can understand.


Everything is the same yet they are not. A delusioned mind can only see the duality of things, hence everything in the universe is given a name or an attribute, a level of "hierarchy" if you must. A delusioned mind sees you and me, here and there, yesterday and tomorrow, darkness and light, birth and death, suffering and joy, etc. etc. etc. Someone who has perceived enlightenment sees everything as they are and at the same time sees everything as "one". An enlightened being doesn't distinguish between delusioned and enlightened, to him both are the same and yet they are not.


What a strange epistemology you have. I've tried reefer a few times, but it wasn't my thing lol.. No, in all seriousness, you have to make your position intelligible. What you've written does not make sense. Logic is real.

[QUITE]
When you kill a flame where does it go? Is the flame greater than the candle or is the candle greater than the flame? Is the flame the candle and the candle the flame?
[/QUOTE]

Man.. Try reading some ancient greek :p. A thing is what it is.


When "God's eternal presence" permeates every single part of the entire universe, isn't God present in the keyboard I'm typing on to reply to your post?


Yes, but the keyboard is still its own thing, and cannot be a candle, as it were lol.


From what perspective was Cloud Walker wrong? Doesn't mean that because he doesn't agree with you or you with him means that he's wrong. To think you're right just because you debate better, have a stronger grasp of logic, or even more intelligent, is I think being arrogant, don you think?


You'd pretty much have to join that debate to bring any of it forth. As for the latter part, I'd say those, combined with a firm grasp of the subject matter does not make me arrogant, it makes me correct :).


A true believer's faith should resonate through every aspect of his being.


Amen.


Yes Zen is nothing but fluff indeed. The Zen master himself would tell you that there is no such thing as Zen, and that Zen doesn't exist.

But I can tell you this much: what we are all looking for (whether we are atheists or theists) cannot be grasped by the intellect. So no matter how try you understand "God" you will never succeed. No matter how hard I try to understand "Zen" I will fail.

We have to directly experience what we are looking for. For until then, we can only help but speculate was "truth is" as we are doing right now.

haha.. That's really powerful shyt. Let me write it down..... Ok done. I almost want to go buy a few grams now lol..

[raffster]

Namaste AoA,

I thank you for your response. The few times we've gotten back and forth on each other has been quite "enlightening". Somehow reading stuff you post makes me ponder upon my own belief system and how my faith fits in the grand scheme of my purpose or destiny in this so-called lifetime.

And I appreciate your well intentioned puns. I really think while we are coming from two different angles, what we hope to achieve is the same: to you salvation, to me enlightenment. Same in the sense that we both hope that our philosophies will somehow add more meaning, depth and perhaps even "morality" to our lives.

Unfortunately Zen cannot be stated in logical terms. It is beyond logic. Some of the stuff that I'm reading now could only be understood from an enlightened person's perspective. My sig, for example -- I have been trying to contemplate its meaning for a month now. And I'm just being honest that it is truly beyond all explanation. Zen says that when you explain Zen, you have already failed or missed the mark.

I like what you said about your discovering faith as a journey, because that is the same way I look at my own spirituality.

I think you like being correct as you've aptly pointed out, and I think we all do. And I think all of the arguments here at their deepest core is the "truth" and is "correct" for that individual.

Finally the keyboard and the candle are the same ... it's up to us to realize that.

Thanks again.

raffster

PS: Don't buy a few grams. If you want to get high a little more dig into this:

http://www.mro.org/zmm/dharmateachings/dharmateach(daido).html

Some of his discourses like "The Whole Earth is Medicine" are really very good reading stuff for us in this journey.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Namaste AoA,
And I appreciate your well intentioned puns. I really think while we are coming from two different angles, what we hope to achieve is the same: to you salvation, to me enlightenment. Same in the sense that we both hope that our philosophies will somehow add more meaning, depth and perhaps even "morality" to our lives.


There's a text I'd like you to read from Kant called "what is enlightenment?".


Unfortunately Zen cannot be stated in logical terms. It is beyond logic. Some of the stuff that I'm reading now could only be understood from an enlightened person's perspective. My sig, for example -- I have been trying to contemplate its meaning for a month now. And I'm just being honest that it is truly beyond all explanation. Zen says that when you explain Zen, you have already failed or missed the mark.

I like what you said about your discovering faith as a journey, because that is the same way I look at my own spirituality.


The neo platonists held something similar, but even they were able to articulate its structure. So should you.


I think you like being correct as you've aptly pointed out, and I think we all do. And I think all of the arguments here at their deepest core is the "truth" and is "correct" for that individual.

Finally the keyboard and the candle are the same ... it's up to us to realize that.


They are the same and not the same. Depends what angle you look at it, but their differentness can't be denied.

[Oberon]

I'd love a philosophy that was opium as well, save for the fact that I have a rather pressing need to understand what's at stake in what doctrine I ascribe to.

Are you ill? :confused:

[Sage the Mage]

Evil login crazyness

My sig, for example -- I have been trying to contemplate its meaning for a month now. And I'm just being honest that it is truly beyond all explanation.
"Empty-handed I go, and behold the spade is in my hands; I walk on foot and yet on the back of an ox I am riding; When I pass over the bridge, Lo, the water floweth not, but the bridge doth flow."
...Be one with the golf club.
My guess:
Anywho, everything acts as one, the spade to your hand, you to the ox, the ox to the bridge, the bridge to the water.

I now know what you are arguing for. So please, present it again.
He was arguing for the existence of the rules, not that humans create the rules as a tool of understanding.

Depends on what your "X" is *^^*. Really though, one can't start discussing this by using God as a premise.
I'll reword it: You say we can't know that God is X, correct? But we can know that God is not Y.

[Andarcel]

I now know what you are arguing for. So please, present it again.

(I have that same lack of satisfactory communication skills, as well)

The universe runs according to rules. You can call them causes or the basis of causes as you prefer, but no event could ever be contingent on another event without them. If you create the universe, you create the rules. Thus, you could build into the rules one which stated that evil people would create an electromagnetic polarization whih would cause them to be struck by lightning. We see the evil-doer struck by lightning, and call it a miracle. Now, you can try and say that you didn't cause the evildoer to be struck down if you like - the evildoer's evilness cause him to be struck down. But this misses the point.

You could create any number of odd little exceptions to the rules of causality which would allow for any miracle you wanted. If you are omniscient, you can essentially act freely within the universe despite being outside of it simply by designing the rules, much like writing scripts in a videogame. In a sense, when a player directs his character to walk into a certain area and it triggers a script to open a door, the player is the cause. But if you knew the player so well that you knew the character would walk into that precise area at that exact time when you wrote the script, you're really the one opening the door, aren't you?

And in a sense, if Moses raises his staff and the Red Sea parts, Moses is the one parting the Red Sea. But if God wrote the rules that state that Moses lifting his staff at that precise juncture would part the Red Sea, and God knew that Moses would raise his staff at just that point, God caused the Red Sea to part in any meaningful sense of the word.

Thus, it is possible to posit a creator outside of time which can for all intents and purposes can act inside time in an omnipotent fashion.

[Cloud_Walker]

The universe runs according to rules. You can call them causes or the basis of causes as you prefer, but no event could ever be contingent on another event without them. If you create the universe, you create the rules. Thus, you could build into the rules one which stated that evil people would create an electromagnetic polarization whih would cause them to be struck by lightning. We see the evil-doer struck by lightning, and call it a miracle. Now, you can try and say that you didn't cause the evildoer to be struck down if you like - the evildoer's evilness cause him to be struck down. But this misses the point.

You could create any number of odd little exceptions to the rules of causality which would allow for any miracle you wanted. If you are omniscient, you can essentially act freely within the universe despite being outside of it simply by designing the rules, much like writing scripts in a videogame. In a sense, when a player directs his character to walk into a certain area and it triggers a script to open a door, the player is the cause. But if you knew the player so well that you knew the character would walk into that precise area at that exact time when you wrote the script, you're really the one opening the door, aren't you?

And in a sense, if Moses raises his staff and the Red Sea parts, Moses is the one parting the Red Sea. But if God wrote the rules that state that Moses lifting his staff at that precise juncture would part the Red Sea, and God knew that Moses would raise his staff at just that point, God caused the Red Sea to part in any meaningful sense of the word.

Thus, it is possible to posit a creator outside of time which can for all intents and purposes can act inside time in an omnipotent fashion.

You're just naming God as the cause of events within time, and I'm not sure for what reason. I'm talking about the existence of spacetime itself (not events within), and that it can't be caused. Therefore, there is no need for a god.

[Andarcel]

You're just naming God as the cause of events within time, and I'm not sure for what reason. I'm talking about the existence of spacetime itself (not events within), and that it can't be caused. Therefore, there is no need for a god. Oh. Well, that's a more interesting question anyway.

I think you're tied to thinking of space and time as a sort of event, and therefore any cause would have to be antecedent which of course is logically impossible. But you can have "if God, then space and time." You can have God generate space and time in their full extent as simply an aspect of the nature of God without a temporal dependence. Or, perhaps more accuractely, you can have God generate all the matter in space and time, as a function generates all the points in a continuum.The function defines the dimensions it projects points in, which is what gives them meaning.

[Oberon]

I hate to repeat myself (http://www.rpgforums.net/showpost.php?p=3402333&postcount=220) but I'm concerned. Are you ill Nate?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I hate to repeat myself (http://www.rpgforums.net/showpost.php?p=3402333&postcount=220) but I'm concerned. Are you ill Nate?

I'm sorry, that reference flew right over my head. You'd have to explain it.

[Cloud_Walker]

Oh. Well, that's a more interesting question anyway.

I think you're tied to thinking of space and time as a sort of event, and therefore any cause would have to be antecedent which of course is logically impossible. But you can have "if God, then space and time." You can have God generate space and time in their full extent as simply an aspect of the nature of God without a temporal dependence. Or, perhaps more accuractely, you can have God generate all the matter in space and time, as a function generates all the points in a continuum.The function defines the dimensions it projects points in, which is what gives them meaning.

The reason I don't believe in God is because I think spacetime is exactly not an event :).

But to defend the position from meaningless propositions, I wield Ockham's Razor. There still is no reason to propose a god. Further, the only meaning the existence of one would give to the universe (relating to your analogy with the function, which is a very good analogy, btw) is that it is that which is not God.

[Oberon]

I'm sorry, that reference flew right over my head. You'd have to explain it.

You said "I have a rather pressing need to understand what's at stake in what doctrine I ascribe to." It just seems like something a terminally ill person might say instead of a healthy 20-something-year old.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You said "I have a rather pressing need to understand what's at stake in what doctrine I ascribe to." It just seems like something a terminally ill person might say instead of a healthy 20-something-year old.

Umm.. w/e. Let me rephrase - I like to know my shyt. How's that?

[Oberon]

Umm.. w/e. Let me rephrase - I like to know my shyt. How's that?

Okay. I was simply concerned for you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Mmmmk... :rolleyes:

[Oberon]

Mmmmk... :rolleyes:


For all we knew you don't shave your head - it could be chemotherapy. Geez I was just concerned. No need to get an attitude over *that*. Save it for when I'm being a jerk.

[Andarcel]

The reason I don't believe in God is because I think spacetime is exactly not an event :).

But to defend the position from meaningless propositions, I wield Ockham's Razor. There still is no reason to propose a god. Further, the only meaning the existence of one would give to the universe (relating to your analogy with the function, which is a very good analogy, btw) is that it is that which is not God.

I've been away with the Army for four days, so this reply is a bit late.

A universe is a spacetime continuum.

Here are MY arguments for God. None of them have the power of proof, at least in the conventional sense, but they remove God from degenerative theorizing, which answers the Occam's Razor objection.Sorry for sentence structure and specific terminology, but I'm too tired to make it easier to read.

1) The universe gives rise to incredibly complex structures and behaviors. These structures are ordered. Now, conventionally this point is argued out over physical constants; vary the relative strength of the four fundamental forces a little, and the elaborate organization of our universe collapses. The answer to this has classically been the Strong Anthropomorphic Principle, that there are infinite universes with varying constants. I think this theory is actually more degenerative than God. More importantly, I argue for a much stronger position on structure. Organization is by definition less probable than disorganization. If you assign rules to a universe arbitrarily, the odds of it sustaining complex structure approach zero.

For an analogy, take a guy with the basic materials for making a house. He could decided to lay out all the timber at one end of the field and all the bricks at the other. He could make piles of bricks in a grid format and lay the planks in between them. He could set the planks like Stonehenge and pile the bricks in the middle. If he simply assigns himself random rules of operation, the odds that he'll even get tight walls, let alone a roof, are vanishingly small. BTW, the point isn't that the house has a particular purpose; you could add skyscrapers and detailed modern art and anything else you want, a long as its an example of a highly organized structure. The odds against him building any of them are immense, even if you allow infinite variation.

Now, you have two possible explanations left for complex structure in the universe. 1) An intelligent designer, or 2) an infinite array of multiverses, each with its own set of laws and each containing an infinite array of universes with varying constants. This is the ultimate degenerative explanation; it can never possibly explain why there should be such an infinite array of multiverses instead of the one, and so it can never really get around a kind of radical improbability.

2) The universe obeys the laws of logic. It has no reason to; logic is a property of meaning, not matter. Nor can this be explained by saying that we construct the universe so that it obeys the laws of logic. In fact, physics right now does not obey the Law of Noncontradiction. But there is broad confidence in the field that we will shortly resolve the contradiction, and furthermore that the universe will turn out to be
supremely simple. Now, not only is a simple universe the hardest sort to force to have complex structures in, reinforcing the point above, but it is also astonishingly elegant. It possesses the transcendental beauty one expects of an omniscient designer.

3) The strangest fact of our universe is the capacity for experience. We can posit all kinds of mechanical universes devoid of experience, but we can't ever get it to fit with or account for the fact that we can feel, that we have consciousness. The property of experience and the property of behavior simply have nothing logically in common. To see this, consider the old philosophical riddle: is the green I see (experience) really the same as the green you see (experience), or would I call your green red if I could experience it directly? This question illustrates the distinctness of our concepts of brain and consciousness. Looking at the same ball, we could receive exactly the same impulses from our retinas and have exactly the same brain behavior, yet in theory we could be experiencing two completely different colors which we both simply learned to call "green" in childhood.

Here, for me, is the kicker. We know certain behaviors correspond to experiences - an antidepressant alters brain chemistry which alters electrical patterns which changes our experience. But experiences also influence behavior. At some level, telekinesis is occuring all the time in that particles of our brains. How do we know? Return to the question about green I posed above. In a mechanical world, one in which human beings have no experiences but are simply automata, such a question could never arise. The concept of consciousness could never occur. The language of feeling - love, hate, anger - might arise as a shorthand for complex behaviors, but the philosophical idea of a distinction between mind and body could never come about. In fact, the idea of a mind as we understand it could make no sense to a soulless biological computer.

Now, if experience is simply a sort of summary of our brain behavior, completely without the capacity to cause events, then we should act like this robotic society. Since we do not, I conclude that we as experiencing beings can in some small but ultimately significant way override the laws of physics. And I believe the existance of a universe which contains and priveleges experiencing beings in this way is excellent confirmation of God.

All of these arguments have in common one element: science will never be able to offer an explanation for them. Science could disprove the facts I use in the second argument, but that is the limit of its power here. So I believe we have all the material necessary to conclusively debate these points and make God stand or fall here.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Indeed. I should cut & paste the "#3" section onto another thread we had concerning "life". Most OTF denizens believe it's just compounded chemical interaction, which you have clearly demonstrated to be otherwise.

[Oberon]

1) The universe gives rise to incredibly complex structures and behaviors. These structures are ordered. Now, conventionally this point is argued out over physical constants; vary the relative strength of the four fundamental forces a little, and the elaborate organization of our universe collapses. The answer to this has classically been the Strong Anthropomorphic Principle, that there are infinite universes with varying constants. I think this theory is actually more degenerative than God. More importantly, I argue for a much stronger position on structure. Organization is by definition less probable than disorganization. If you assign rules to a universe arbitrarily, the odds of it sustaining complex structure approach zero.

There's a few problems with this line of reasoning. First off the universe isn't as complex as many people believe it to be. Stars and galaxies, planets and moons - they're amazingly simple. Life is complex, and as we've searched dozens of worlds and have only discovered life (so far) on our own it indicates this complexity limits life's ability to take root and flourish. So we have one universe with (nearly) infinite worlds. The universe itself is relatively simple, the potential life on countless worlds within is complex and therefore exceedingly rare. If you must throw God into the equation then you must decide is God exceedingly complex (moreso than his creation - which experience dictates is the more probable (i.e the watchmaker is more complex than the watch)) or is exceedingly simple (as AoA has indicated in previous posts). If the former then this counters your original post about origanization and disorganization and complex structures. If the later then you already believe complexity can arise from simplicity and my point is valid - complexity (life) arising from simplicity (the inanimate universe) - only it doesn't include God (Occam's Razor again).

2) The universe obeys the laws of logic. It has no reason to; logic is a property of meaning, not matter. Nor can this be explained by saying that we construct the universe so that it obeys the laws of logic. In fact, physics right now does not obey the Law of Noncontradiction. But there is broad confidence in the field that we will shortly resolve the contradiction, and furthermore that the universe will turn out to be
supremely simple. Now, not only is a simple universe the hardest sort to force to have complex structures in, reinforcing the point above, but it is also astonishingly elegant. It possesses the transcendental beauty one expects of an omniscient designer.

The "laws of logic" as you call them are human concepts developed from observation and experience within said universe. They are not restrictions we mere humans have placed on the universe which the universe must "obey". The buggy does not pull the horse. It is nice that you seem to understand what I mean about a "simple universe" being elegant but you're mistaken - a simple universe is the *best* possible universe for complex structures (life) to arise. The more rules there are the harder it is for life to accomidate them.

3) The strangest fact of our universe is the capacity for experience. We can posit all kinds of mechanical universes devoid of experience, but we can't ever get it to fit with or account for the fact that we can feel, that we have consciousness. The property of experience and the property of behavior simply have nothing logically in common. To see this, consider the old philosophical riddle: is the green I see (experience) really the same as the green you see (experience), or would I call your green red if I could experience it directly? This question illustrates the distinctness of our concepts of brain and consciousness. Looking at the same ball, we could receive exactly the same impulses from our retinas and have exactly the same brain behavior, yet in theory we could be experiencing two completely different colors which we both simply learned to call "green" in childhood.

We evolved together. If "green" for you meant "red" for me and "purple" for someone else color itself would have no meaning and would have been a waste for our species to develop. We would have been better off with more rods and fewer or no cones and could at least see better at night. Color gave our ancestors an advantage - probably with discovering fruit and knowing when it's okay to eat. If there was no commonality there would be no benefit. Also our eyes and our brains have the same structure and light waves behave the same regardless whose retina they hit. Ironically this arguement is a good example of what I meant above. In a complex universe - where the laws of physics vary as such - life would be much harder if not impossible. It's because these laws are constant and simple that life can adapt and utilize them to its advantage.

Here, for me, is the kicker. We know certain behaviors correspond to experiences - an antidepressant alters brain chemistry which alters electrical patterns which changes our experience. But experiences also influence behavior. At some level, telekinesis is occuring all the time in that particles of our brains. How do we know? Return to the question about green I posed above. In a mechanical world, one in which human beings have no experiences but are simply automata, such a question could never arise. The concept of consciousness could never occur. The language of feeling - love, hate, anger - might arise as a shorthand for complex behaviors, but the philosophical idea of a distinction between mind and body could never come about. In fact, the idea of a mind as we understand it could make no sense to a soulless biological computer.

Actually it makes perfect sense. A rough anaology - mind:body for humans as software:hardware for computers. We both have a brain (CPU) but ours is far more complex. As I've shown above, complexity is what separates the animate from the inanimate. The mind, and consciousness, are the result of still more complexity. While my anaology here is imperfect, since computers are far far simpler than humans, should they ever achieve a complexity aproaching ours - I have no doubt they will become conscious. There were quite a few episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation involving Data which dealt with this. I believe they concurred that Data was a sentient being. Who's gonna argue with Starfleet? :D

All of these arguments have in common one element: science will never be able to offer an explanation for them. Science could disprove the facts I use in the second argument, but that is the limit of its power here. So I believe we have all the material necessary to conclusively debate these points and make God stand or fall here.

An explanation for *everthing* is desirable but be careful that your wish for *an* explanation doesn't take priority over your wish for the *correct* explanation.

[Cloud_Walker]

Ah! I thought we ended it. Oh well, back to the reading. Pardon my lack of quotes, but I'm not a fan of so much scrolling.

1) An intelligent design argument? Let's see:
-Complexity and its counterpart, simplicity, are imposed on things by intelligent beings - us.
-Order and regularity do not imply design.
-It begs the question: who designed the designer?
-This universe is all we have. Where's the undesigned universe to which you are comparing ours?

2) Well let me right off the bat say that perceived elegance or beauty is not an argument for anything other than your personal tastes. "Transcendental beauty" is by definition beyond us, anyways.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, either, because you state that the universe obeys the laws of logic, then say that physics right now is illogical (confidence means absolutely nothing). Logic, randomness, complexity, simplicity, etc. (this includes beauty), are not things inherent in the universe, just like how you said logic is a property of meaning. Meaning exists for intelligent beings for the sake of understanding experience. No argument for God can come from any of this.

3) There's a reason you can't prove you exist. Reason is tautological. We cannot define that which defines. This puts ourselves, our inward experience, our thoughts beyond description. The act of thinking automatically separates that which does the thinking from that which is being thought about, forever leaving that which does the thinking outside of thought. This is why we make up a category for the unexplainable and call it "mind," while the rest we call "body." But is this separation inside my head meaningful to anything outside of me? Of course not. Does it mean that this separation actually exists? With reason, a construct of human beings, yes. But otherwise, no.

But because ourselves remain undefineable, you are just using that as another argument for intelligent design, or possibly a god of the gaps. See above number 1).

[raffster]

There's a reason you can't prove you exist. Reason is tautological. We cannot define that which defines. This puts ourselves, our inward experience, our thoughts beyond description. The act of thinking automatically separates that which does the thinking from that which is being thought about, forever leaving that which does the thinking outside of thought. This is why we make up a category for the unexplainable and call it "mind," while the rest we call "body." But is this separation inside my head meaningful to anything outside of me? Of course not. Does it mean that this separation actually exists? With reason, a construct of human beings, yes. But otherwise, no.

But because ourselves remain undefineable, you are just using that as another argument for intelligent design, or possibly a god of the gaps. See above number 1).

Zen Buddhism teaches that after all the aggregates that make up what we identify as "the self" is removed (sight, sound, scent, taste, touch, phenomena) nothing but everything remains.

The Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra proclaims: "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form. Sensation, conception, discrimination, awareness are likewise like this."

We do not have to prove we exist. The thing we call "self" that exists, exists only in the relative terms of existence. In the absolute there is no self.

[Sage the Mage]

2) an infinite array of multiverses, each with its own set of laws and each containing an infinite array of universes with varying constants. This is the ultimate degenerative explanation; it can never possibly explain why there should be such an infinite array of multiverses instead of the one, and so it can never really get around a kind of radical improbability.
The question is, why should there be just one? :) "There is just one universe and it has these rules."

Here, for me, is the kicker. We know certain behaviors correspond to experiences - an antidepressant alters brain chemistry which alters electrical patterns which changes our experience. But experiences also influence behavior.
Definately thinking we need a definition for experiences here. "Ouch! The stove burned me the last time I touched it!" So you avoid touching a hot stove?

While my anaology here is imperfect, since computers are far far simpler than humans, should they ever achieve a complexity aproaching ours - I have no doubt they will become conscious
We gotta learn how a human learns before teaching a machine to learn.

[Oberon]

The Popol Vuh proclaims:

There came the one named Gouger of Faces: he gouged out their eyeballs.

There came Sudden Bloodletter: he snapped off their heads.

There came Crunching Jaguar: he ate their flesh.

There came Tearing Jaguar: he tore them open.

:p

Raffster, your sig is too long.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

O.o, Andarcel on the hot-seat. Don't let 'em get to ye ^^. I'll let you field this one on your own. However, I'll pick on Sage here for a bit, since I gotta jet.

The question is, why should there be just one? :) "There is just one universe and it has these rules."


If there were many universes, there would only essentially be one universe. This is because as Andarcel so correctly pointed out, a universe is a space/time continuum, which are subject to laws and structure. As such, it would not matter how many there were, only that they are a finite, composite reality. In addition, there could not be an infintesimal number of universes, since the infinite would imply an eternity, which cannot be composed of structure, as I previously argued.


Definately thinking we need a definition for experiences here. "Ouch! The stove burned me the last time I touched it!" So you avoid touching a hot stove?


K.I.S.S. - get it? (keep it simple, stoopid). The experience he referred to was the aspect of "experiencing experience". This goes beyond mere causality of objects, and allows one to be aware of, and participate as an ethical actor in a given scenario. It's called "being human".



BTW Raffster - Shorten your Sig to 3 lines or less or R++ will editzorz your sig. Also, *please* stop spouting aphorisms...

[raffster]

BTW Raffster - Shorten your Sig to 3 lines or less or R++ will editzorz your sig. Also, *please* stop spouting aphorisms...

Done. Sorry about the aphorisms...

[Sage the Mage]

If there were many universes, there would only essentially be one universe. This is because as Andarcel so correctly pointed out, a universe is a space/time continuum, which are subject to laws and structure. As such, it would not matter how many there were, only that they are a finite, composite reality.
Hurray for logical leaps of faith.

In addition, there could not be an infintesimal number of universes, since the infinite would imply an eternity, which cannot be composed of structure, as I previously argued.
Well then, your God can't have a structure.

K.I.S.S. - get it? (keep it simple, stoopid). The experience he referred to was the aspect of "experiencing experience". This goes beyond mere causality of objects, and allows one to be aware of, and participate as an ethical actor in a given scenario. It's called "being human".
For one who rips on raffster, you come up with strangely similar stuff :)
So how about you give me a definition?

[Andarcel]

There's a few problems with this line of reasoning. First off the universe isn't as complex as many people believe it to be. Stars and galaxies, planets and moons - they're amazingly simple.

Vary the coefficient of, say, electromagnetism a bit, and you could never get stars capable of sustaining life.

Life is complex, and as we've searched dozens of worlds and have only discovered life (so far) on our own it indicates this complexity limits life's ability to take root and flourish. So we have one universe with (nearly) infinite worlds. The universe itself is relatively simple, the potential life on countless worlds within is complex and therefore exceedingly rare. Life is part of the universe, and the possibility of life is part of the possibilities of the universe. Besides, to my knowledge, we have searched exactly two planets for life thus far, and one of them is Earth. 50% ain't bad. If you must throw God into the equation then you must decide is God exceedingly complex (moreso than his creation - which experience dictates is the more probable (i.e the watchmaker is more complex than the watch)) or is exceedingly simple (as AoA has indicated in previous posts). If the former then this counters your original post about origanization and disorganization and complex structures. If the later then you already believe complexity can arise from simplicity and my point is valid - complexity (life) arising from simplicity (the inanimate universe) - only it doesn't include God (Occam's Razor again). Is God simple or complex? An interesting question which I never really considered, but ultimately irrelevant. Simplicity giving rise to complexity is actually the greatest evidence of design. I mentioned as much in my post. The reason for this is that it's much harder to get complexity out of simplicity. For example, you could have an exceedingly simple unverse consisting entirely of one particle with one force (attractive), and you would never get anything but a series of black holes.

The "laws of logic" as you call them are human concepts developed from observation and experience within said universe. We do not acquire the laws of logic from experience of the universe. Nor are they human concepts; they apply to any thinking being anywhere. They are not restrictions we mere humans have placed on the universe which the universe must "obey". The buggy does not pull the horse. This was my point, actually. There's no reason for the universe to obey them, no reason for it to be comprehensible, but it is. It is nice that you seem to understand what I mean about a "simple universe" being elegant but you're mistaken - a simple universe is the *best* possible universe for complex structures (life) to arise. The more rules there are the harder it is for life to accomidate them. More rules create a greater variety of interaction which creates greater opportunity for complexity. See below where I explain what "ordered" and "complex" mean.

We evolved together. If "green" for you meant "red" for me and "purple" for someone else color itself would have no meaning and would have been a waste for our species to develop. We would have been better off with more rods and fewer or no cones and could at least see better at night. Color gave our ancestors an advantage - probably with discovering fruit and knowing when it's okay to eat. If there was no commonality there would be no benefit. Also our eyes and our brains have the same structure and light waves behave the same regardless whose retina they hit. You missed the point of the question, which is understandable since it was clumsily put. Let me put is this way. Recall the matrix when Mouse is speculating that the machines got tastes wrong? What if oatmeal really originally tasted like chicken, etc.? Well, what if when you eat oatmeal you taste the same flavor I experience when I eat chicken, and when I eat oatmeal the flavor I experience is the same as what you taste when you eat an orange? Maybe people don't actually have different tastes in flavor - they just taste different flavors when eating the same foods.

Or another way - can you conceive of your body never ahving existed? Sure. You could be a spirit with all your sensory eprceptions being created by some demon. Can you conceive of your mind never having existed and not existing right now? No, of course not. You think, therefore you (as a thinker or mind) are.

While my anaology here is imperfect, since computers are far far simpler than humans, should they ever achieve a complexity aproaching ours - I have no doubt they will become conscious. There were quite a few episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation involving Data which dealt with this. I believe they concurred that Data was a sentient being. Who's gonna argue with Starfleet? :D I will. There's nothing at all that says that computers will become conscious by becoming more complex. They could become so complex that it's impossible to tell one from a human without ever once experiencing anything. Heck, for all I know YOU don't have any consciousness, which is why the question about green didn't make sense to you :p.

Complexity and its counterpart, simplicity, are imposed on things by intelligent beings - us. As it happens, I expected you to make that mistake. Complexity and order have perfectly objective definitions. A complex or ordered structure is one in which a slight rearrangement of its elements produces dramatic changes in its properties. Thus, a dust cloud is not complex because you can interchange all the dust particles with each other and you still have a structure with the same properties. A robot is complex because if you change the location of a few ions in a silicon matrix within it you can dramatically change its behavior.

2) Well let me right off the bat say that perceived elegance or beauty is not an argument for anything other than your personal tastes. If you embrace aesthetic relativism. I don't. But that's a different argument.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, either, because you state that the universe obeys the laws of logic, then say that physics right now is illogical (confidence means absolutely nothing). If it's a confidence you don't share, of course. I possess it, and nearly every physicist I've met possesses it, so it matters not at all to me whether you do or not. In the coming years someone clever may find a means of experimentally verifying string theory, and then you'll wind up having to deal with the argument.

There's a reason you can't prove you exist. Reason is tautological. We cannot define that which defines. This puts ourselves, our inward experience, our thoughts beyond description. The act of thinking automatically separates that which does the thinking from that which is being thought about, forever leaving that which does the thinking outside of thought. This is why we make up a category for the unexplainable and call it "mind," while the rest we call "body." But is this separation inside my head meaningful to anything outside of me? Of course not. Does it mean that this separation actually exists? With reason, a construct of human beings, yes. But otherwise, no. This is just twaddle. There is nothing undefineable about our minds, and they are inexplicable only in terms of naturalism. I cannot view my most immediate self - the thing doing the thinking - as exterior to myself, for obvious reasons, but I can see my thoughts and experiences as exterior and therefore assess them. These are the things that make up the domain of the consciousness and they are as available as, indeed more available than, any physical object for mental scrutiny.

[Xaf]

Looks like things never change 'round here.

[Cloud_Walker]

As it happens, I expected you to make that mistake. Complexity and order have perfectly objective definitions. A complex or ordered structure is one in which a slight rearrangement of its elements produces dramatic changes in its properties. Thus, a dust cloud is not complex because you can interchange all the dust particles with each other and you still have a structure with the same properties. A robot is complex because if you change the location of a few ions in a silicon matrix within it you can dramatically change its behavior.

Complexity may be objective as in everybody agrees where it "exists," but it is not inherent in things. That's what matters.

If you embrace aesthetic relativism. I don't. But that's a different argument.

Alright, so drop it. You're trying to argue for God.

If it's a confidence you don't share, of course. I possess it, and nearly every physicist I've met possesses it, so it matters not at all to me whether you do or not. In the coming years someone clever may find a means of experimentally verifying string theory, and then you'll wind up having to deal with the argument.

Confidence cannot be used to support any argument, so drop that as well.

This is just twaddle. There is nothing undefineable about our minds, and they are inexplicable only in terms of naturalism. I cannot view my most immediate self - the thing doing the thinking - as exterior to myself, for obvious reasons, but I can see my thoughts and experiences as exterior and therefore assess them. These are the things that make up the domain of the consciousness and they are as available as, indeed more available than, any physical object for mental scrutiny.

Alright, so what's so mystical about experience?

But it doesn't really matter, because, like I said, you use all of this to disguise an Intelligent Design argument.

[Cloud_Walker]

We do not acquire the laws of logic from experience of the universe. Nor are they human concepts; they apply to any thinking being anywhere.

Pray tell, how do you know that?

You think, therefore you (as a thinker or mind) are.

"I think, therefore I am" is an argument that presupposes its conclusion.

[Andarcel]

Complexity may be objective as in everybody agrees where it "exists," but it is not inherent in things. That's what matters.


You appear to be very confused about the meaning of "objective." Something that is objective is inherent in things. It is not a function of consensus. Everyone could believe that robots weren't complex and they would be wrong.

Alright, so drop it. I'll suspend it pending a possible future discussion about aesthetics. It was, in any case, not intended as its own point which is why I didn't make it one.

Confidence cannot be used to support any argument, so drop that as well. No. But you're free to ignore it.

Alright, so what's so mystical about experience? It's not mystical as I use the word. It's just weird. As a concept it has nothing to do with matter at all, and yet we find it bound up with matter. Nothing in nature implies its existence, and yet it does exist, and thereby provides meaning to the universe.

But it doesn't really matter, because, like I said, you use all of this to disguise an Intelligent Design argument. I beg your pardon. Disguise? This is supposed to be a disguised ID argument? And here I thought it was explicit. Here, I'll make it so: THIS IS AN ARGUMENT (three, really) FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER OF THE UNIVERSE, KNOWN AS GOD.

But it doesn't matter, since the label has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.I thought you were really emphatic about that point, actually.

Pray tell, how do you know that? I will NOT reproduce Kant's entire argument here. I hate appealing to texts, but if you want to find out you'll just have to read Critique of Pure Reason. Otherwise, establish an objection to this position.

"I think, therefore I am" is an argument that presupposes its conclusion. ALL arguments presuppose their conclusion. All syllogisms are tautologies, the conclusion is always contained in the premise(s). That is what makes the conclusion logically valid.

And this has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

[Cloud_Walker]

You appear to be very confused about the meaning of "objective." Something that is objective is inherent in things. It is not a function of consensus. Everyone could believe that robots weren't complex and they would be wrong.

Complexity is arrived at through reason, and not concensus, and therefore it is objective. You are correct, I should not have used the word "agrees." But it is still not inherent in things, it depends on logic.

It's not mystical as I use the word. It's just weird. As a concept it has nothing to do with matter at all, and yet we find it bound up with matter. Nothing in nature implies its existence, and yet it does exist, and thereby provides meaning to the universe.

Its existence is implied in us. We are a part of nature. Are "we" an illusion? After all, we can't prove we exist. See at the bottom...

I beg your pardon. Disguise? This is supposed to be a disguised ID argument? And here I thought it was explicit. Here, I'll make it so: THIS IS AN ARGUMENT (three, really) FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER OF THE UNIVERSE, KNOWN AS GOD.

Calm down.

You know, you could have saved both of us a lot of typing.

But it doesn't matter, since the label has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.I thought you were really emphatic about that point, actually.

Arguments can easily be exactly the same, only said in different ways. Labels help in making them easily understood, and supported or refuted if necessary. People, however, are never exactly the same, which is why I don't like the labeling of a person as, say, an "atheist."

But that's still not why I used the label. I used the label because I thought you would recognize it, and that it was debunked over 200 years ago by David Hume.

I will NOT reproduce Kant's entire argument here. I hate appealing to texts, but if you want to find out you'll just have to read Critique of Pure Reason. Otherwise, establish an objection to this position.

Easy. 1) What other intelligent life forms do you know of, and 2) how do you know every intelligent life form uses logic, or even know their names or where they live? Apparantly you and Kant have discovered intelligent life out there and are hiding it from the rest of us.

ALL arguments presuppose their conclusion. All syllogisms are tautologies, the conclusion is always contained in the premise(s). That is what makes the conclusion logically valid.

All arguments are invalid and beg the question? That's a new one to me.

As defined by Aristotle, syllogisms are a "discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so." [emphasis added]

And this has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I felt the need to correct you because it (Decartes' Cogito) has a profound effect on a worldview depending on whether it is accepted or not.

[Oberon]

Vary the coefficient of, say, electromagnetism a bit, and you could never get stars capable of sustaining life.

You're assuming it could vary. As we have only one universe to study, the chances of it forming the way it did are 1:1. Without any alternative universe(s) to study this subject will have to remain conjecture.


Life is part of the universe, and the possibility of life is part of the possibilities of the universe.

Life may be part of the universe but my distinction was the inanimate parts of the universe (the "stage" so to speak) are simple while the animate parts (the "actors") are complex. Electromagnetism for example is simplier than a one-celled organism.


Besides, to my knowledge, we have searched exactly two planets for life thus far, and one of them is Earth. 50% ain't bad.

We've searched the moon, Venus, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are many ways to discover life on a planet that don't involve a robot shoving it's arm into the dirt. Spectrography can provide us with details on the make-up of a planet's atmosphere even via Earth-based telescopes. Certain gases (like oxygen) are possible signs of life for example.


Is God simple or complex? An interesting question which I never really considered, but ultimately irrelevant. Simplicity giving rise to complexity is actually the greatest evidence of design. I mentioned as much in my post. The reason for this is that it's much harder to get complexity out of simplicity. For example, you could have an exceedingly simple unverse consisting entirely of one particle with one force (attractive), and you would never get anything but a series of black holes.

You should study up on Stanley Miller's experiment of 1953 (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article5.html). Complexity can lead to simplicity without design.


We do not acquire the laws of logic from experience of the universe. Nor are they human concepts; they apply to any thinking being anywhere.

I suppose that means Plato, Aristotle and Kant did nothing new.


You missed the point of the question, which is understandable since it was clumsily put. Let me put is this way. Recall the matrix when Mouse is speculating that the machines got tastes wrong? What if oatmeal really originally tasted like chicken, etc.? Well, what if when you eat oatmeal you taste the same flavor I experience when I eat chicken, and when I eat oatmeal the flavor I experience is the same as what you taste when you eat an orange? Maybe people don't actually have different tastes in flavor - they just taste different flavors when eating the same foods.

Again this is counterintuitive to evolution. If different foods had different tastes we'd have no specialized taste buds which always get stimulated by certain foods on every tongue. It would all be random. We'd need no chefs since no one could tell what the final product would taste like regardless of the ingredients used. Oatmeal and oranges are chemically and structurally different. For them to taste the same would indicate our sense of taste is messed up and as useless - no evolutionary advantage.

Or another way - can you conceive of your body never ahving existed? Sure. You could be a spirit with all your sensory eprceptions being created by some demon. Can you conceive of your mind never having existed and not existing right now? No, of course not. You think, therefore you (as a thinker or mind) are.

If your body never existed your mind wouldn't either. The mind is a product of the brain. It cannot exist independent of the brain's structure. You also cannot have sensory perceptions without sensory organs. We can conceive of a world where we never existed but not of ourselves where we never existed because it's an illogical statement. If we never existed all that we could conceive of that condition is "nothingness" which is an ideal we humans really cannot comprehend (we've had this discussion before).

[raffster]

God. (just an expression). It's so hard to jump in. Everybody here is saying that has some truth in it. I'm mostly with Cloud Walker on this one.