Philosoft

Except that this entire line of reasoning simply presumes there is a pre-existing definition of "being" that includes whatever it is God is supposed to "be," but is fundamentally different from every other thing we consider "being." I've yet to see a coherent definition.

ShottleBop

. . . kind of like "dark matter"?

Philosoft

Not if it's actually composed of something. I think the general implication of "dark matter" is that we can't see it, not that it's matter that isn't matter.

Autonemesis

Ugh!!! Pop-ups!

Autonemesis

Not at all. Dark matter is what astronomers call whatever-it-is that accounts for the observed gravitational effects on visible matter. Stars orbit galactic centers faster than they should, and galaxies orbit the gravitational centers of their cluster faster than they should, unless there is a lot more mass and hence a stronger gravitational field present than the visible matter in the galaxy would imply. At those speeds galaxies should fly apart, and galaxy clusters should disperse, but they don't. It may be some new form or state of matter. It may simply be matter of the ordinary kind that is too faint to observe with current technology. It might also be the result of a gap in our understanding of gravity or galaxies, or the result of a systematic error, and not actually exist at all. Unravelling this mystery will deepen our understanding of the cosmos whatever the answer actually is.

geoff

Why not start with the stock theistic definition? A necessary being (not logically, but in all possible worlds), all powerful, and all knowing. (Not to quibble, but according to the definition I supplied of "coherent", "Quosh exists" would not be incoherent. Whether it's true, however...

sidewinder

Gemma: I get annoyed when Christians participate in discussions on these boards and all they do in defense of their beliefs is spout bible verses and popular Christian catch phrases. Furthermore, I resent their arrogance and tone of superiority toward non-Christians, especially when they've provided no logic and/or evidence for their beliefs. These types are basically saying: "Those poor, hurting atheists. They have such dark hearts and it's so sad that they prefer sin over eternal life. It's too bad they can't see the Truth like I see it." I'm saying all this because this is exactly the impression you've given me with your participation on these boards. By the way, are you interested in answering my questions to you about Islam from the Free Will discussion?

HRG

I don't think that this is the stock theistic definition since it excludes polytheism.

Independently, I don't think that it is meaningful. First, which worlds are "possible" ? Next, how do we identify beings across worlds so that we can say that being B1 in world W1 is "the same" as B2 in W2 ? Finally, "all powerful" and "all knowing" run into problems when we apply Cantor's Diagonal argument to the (infinite) set of all thoughts that a god can hold.

BTW, I'm curious about your definition of "coherent" which would make "Quosh exists" coherent. Does the same hold for "Geoff shpozzles" or even "Quosh shpozzles" ?

Regards,
HRG.

Philosoft

Once again, a definition like this simply presumes there is a state of existence into which God alone neatly fits. In order to 'exist' one must 'be.' In order for the word 'exist' to be meaningful in the above context, it must be shown that God is, but in some way different from the way(s) all other things are.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

geoff

Ok, I'm a monotheist, so that's what I'm talking about.

I don't think Cantor's argument holds because when theists speak of the "infinity of God", they're not talking about a mathematical infinity. They're not talking about an infinite number of definite and discrete finite parts that make up a whole, like an infinite set. If you will, God's infinity is not a quantitative infinity; it's more like a qualitative infinity. It's a catch-all term meaning that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and so forth. But God is not made up of an actually infinite number of definite and discrete finite parts, so the notion of divine infinity isn't this idea of quantitative mathematical idea.

Oh, and about "quoshes" and "sphpozzling", yes, those would be coherent the way I've defined it. But true? I doubt it. Care to defend quoshes and sphozzling?

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: geoff ]</p>