Philosoft

*sigh*

Anyone else getting tired of descriptions of God that reduce to, "God exists but not in a way that anything else that exists exists. Since there are no other things that exist as God exists, we are free to make up things about God's state of existence that ensure his continued non-observability"?

Hmm. Another one for the Humor forum, methinks.

Jobar

You'll see perpetual change
You'll be perpetual change!

It make no sense to me to say that God must be unchanging. The single aspect of the universe of observation which appears unending is in fact change! From the most distant galaxies moving away at a goodly fraction of the speed of light, to the dynamic whirl of quantum particles, and at all points in between- all things change. In fact all we are able to observe is forms of change. If there is any form of perfection in reality, it will be always changing, always perfect.

RogerLeeCooke

To suppose a case that is not, well, let's quote Hemingway ("For Whom the Bell Tolls"): If your aunt had cojones, she'd be your uncle. It seems to me that it is useless for finite beings to speculate on the way an infinite being would perceive things. Would the idea of perception even make sense when applied to an infinite being who supposedly conjured the whole universe into existence out of nothing? The problem is as ill-defined as asking how a "woman" with testicles would have sexual intercourse.

Ron Singh

*sigh*

Philisoft, me thinks you thinks wrongly!

You exist, but not in the way that I or invisible pink unicorns exist. Ergo, you belong in the humor section.

--Sincerely, Ron.

Ron Singh

Dear Jobar,

I agree, every thing in the universe is changing. Therefor everything in the universe has been moved from a prime cause. Where you hinder is when you claim that all that is observable must change. Agreed via perception. All that we experience however does not exist under such a limitation. All does not change.

Case in example. Love does not change, it is merely experienced in different degrees and amounts. Things, as in the material, change, the immaterial however is not obliged to change, only our experience of the immaterial changes.

Moreover, God must be unchanging. Since time is merely a property of this universe, that which is not contingent upon this universe is not obliged to be an adherant to one of its properties.

--Sincerely, Ron.

Philosoft

Not, however, as wrongly as you spells.

<strong> Pay close attention. This is fundamental stuff that you apparently fail to grasp.

Concrete things: made of matter, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, 1-dimensional strings that oscillate through 11 dimensions. Can affect other concrete things.

Abstract things: physical concepts, mental representations of concrete things; pseudo-physical concepts, such as pink unicorns, which have no known concrete referent; heuristics, such as imaginary numbers. Cannot directly affect or interact with concrete things.

Every "thing" you can observe or think about belongs in at least one of these two categories. No exceptions. None. "God" is (allegedly) an abstract thing. It exists only conceptually (for those cognitivists out there). It has attributes that are compatible with only abstract things. Yet you insist that "abstract God" is able to directly interact with the concrete world. Now you have a disjunct. You have created a situation which can only be resolved by special pleading. Good luck.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

WJ

"Abstract things: physical concepts, mental representations of concrete things; pseudo-physical concepts, such as pink unicorns, which have no known concrete referent; heuristics, such as imaginary numbers. Cannot directly affect or interact with concrete things.'

This is another example of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing nature. At worse its a contradiction; at best a paradox. Abstract timeless concepts (math) accurately, thought never completely, describe(s) nature ('concrete' things).

EDIT: So it is not correct to say abstract things [concepts] do not affect physical things.

Ron, I think you might agree (?) (aka, God the mathematician, which is only speculation of course)



[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

WJ

Philo,

"Yet you insist that "abstract God" is able to directly interact with the concrete world. Now you have a disjunct. You have created a situation which can only be resolved by special pleading. Good luck."

Well, as been so much so said, if we use the logic of the synthetic apriori, one could 'reasonably' conclude that the statement 'God is a mathmetician' is not obviously absurd. It fits most all the philosophic metaphors and analogies as drawn from the natural sciences.


So much for speculation.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.

A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."

-- Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," Atlas Shrugged

If God exists, and is omnipresent, then God would be 'a consciousness, conscious of nothing but itself.

Keith.

Philosoft

No kidding. This has sod-all to do with what I wrote.

<strong> Huh? How do you reach this conclusion? You might want to try making an argument first.