The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

Even if the differences between chimps and humans were neglible to us, that would not entail that they would be neglible to god. Things are neglible to us because our perceptions are limited. The perceptions of god would not be. So there is no reason that any difference would be viewed as neglible. He would be able to see every difference for exactly what it is.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

Transworldly Depraved

phlebas:

You wrote:

It is contradictory to claim that some being is "wholly other" or completely transcendent and make analogies between this being and humans. If this god and humans are completely different then you cannot say this god's interests in humans would be like our interest in soap.

phlebas

You seem hell-bent on dabbling in the minutiae and avoiding the central point I've been making for two days here. Have it your way.

So, tell me why God would care that we believed in him, and not that chimps would believe in him.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

phlebas

It's just an analogy. I didn't say it was a mirror image. I'm trying to give you a hint of what I'm talking about, and you seem determined to not get it. I can't make a perfect analogy here, since we are not infinite beings.

But you're right -- our relationship with that carved soap would be MUCH MUCH closer than God's relationship to us.

Now, when you're done equivocating about common English composition and ready to talk about the actual issues at hand, let me know.

(Duck, sorry to have so totally hijiacked your thread.)

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

If chimps were capable of forming the concepts necessary for belief in god, then I imagine god would be interested in whether or not they did. However, I'm not aware of anything that suggests they do have this ability.

As for my "dabbling in minutiae", I have been pointing out that infinite attributes do not entail that god would view us as neglible. This is a position you have not defended, only restated several times. If you have a good reason to believe that infinite attributes entail apathy towards finite things, then I would like to hear it. However, you have not presented anything to back up this position thus far.

Omphaloskeptic

I have only skimmed the majority of posts as they tend to get a bit redundant with all the quoting and what-not, but I would like to make two observations. Firstly, before considering wether or not the notion of free will in heaven is coherent or not, shouldn't we define the term. Personally, I have yet to hear a coherent example of an act of "free" will. I think no one would argue that we have the capacity to make choices between options, but that in no way implies "free" in the sense of being independent of outside influences. Secondly, I think the nature of belief merits some attention in these line. It was mentional briefly before but seemed to have been overlooked. Does the "will", or the capcity to choose, or make choices have anything at all to do with one believes. Maybe we could discuss some of these basic belief-forming mechanisms in order to arrive at a consensus as to the nature of belief while we discuss the definition of free will. That's my two cents. Thanks

phlebas

<strong>Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
If chimps were capable of forming the concepts necessary for belief in god, then I imagine god would be interested in whether or not they did.</strong>

Why? You've yet to give a reason why the Christian god should care about humans, chimps, or rocks.

<strong>However, I'm not aware of anything that suggests they do have this ability.</strong>

I'm not arguing they do.

<strong>As for my "dabbling in minutiae", I have been pointing out that infinite attributes do not entail that god would view us as neglible.</strong>

Actually, all you've done is said they wouldn't. Did you read my soap-carving example above? Do you realize that the gulf between us and an infinite being would be infinitely greater than the gulf between us and a carved bar of soap, whether that soap was carved in our own image or not?

This isn't some sublime philosophical point I'm trying to make. It's simple math.

<strong>This is a position you have not defended, only restated several times.</strong>

I have given just about every analogy I can think of, only to have them all simply dismissed either out of hand or by a misunderstanding. All we've done is dance around the central question, which is:

Why would an infinite being make a finite universe?

And the corollary to that is: Given an infinite being and a finite universe, why should that infinite being care about the finite creatures that inhabit it.

I am NOT arguing that an infinite being would be unaware of us or would be unable to distinguish us from other objects in his finite universe. I'm saying that I have yet to see a reason why a being so vast would be anything other than indifferent to creatures such as us.

It is that gulf between us and the infinite which, IMHO, critically weakens the Christian notion of an infinite-yet-personal God.

I suppose you could turn this around to Satan, too -- even compared to Satan, it's difficult to see how we're relevant enough for him to give a damn about our souls, either.

<strong>If you have a good reason to believe that infinite attributes entail apathy towards finite things, then I would like to hear it.</strong>

I don't have evidence, merely common sense. If you don't see what I'm saying by now, then I'm afraid we are at an empasse of understanding, and there is little point in continuing to work over this dead horse.

<strong>However, you have not presented anything to back up this position thus far.</strong>

I guess that's a matter of opinion. To me, this is all painfully obvious, so it becomes difficult after awhile to expand on it.

Odd crop of atheists we're growing this year

The Loneliest Monk

phlebas,

You have given no justification for your position and have offered only bizarre analogies including one which makes reference to the beliefs of soap figures. And the claim that we are closer to rocks in consciousness than to god is highly doubtful since rocks are not conscious. A finite consciousness has more in common with an infinite consciousness than it does with a non-conscious entity. A person and god would have at least some conscious states in common. A person and a rock would have none. A person's conscious states could be viewed as a subset of the conscious states of an infinite consciousness. The set of conscious states of a rock would be empty.

phlebas

To quote myself:

If you don't see what I'm saying by now, then I'm afraid we are at an empasse of understanding, and there is little point in continuing to work over this dead horse.

If you want to start a thread about rock consciousness, go for it. I'm tired of running in circles around the main unanswerable question.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

Transworldly Depraved

phlebas:

You wrote:

Essentially, your only grounds for denying that God's motivations for creating a finite world is the claim that God would be infinite. You seem to think that this implies that God can have nothing in common with us and consequently cannot find value in the things in which we mere mortals find value. Yet the only attempt you have made to support your claim that an infinite being would be indifferent to beings such as us is through the use of a few analogies. This is contradictory because in order to make an analogy one must assume some similarities between the objects in the analogy. How can God be similar to us in various ways (ie. "God would think of us the same way we would think of soap-carvings") and also be completely transcendent? And if God is not completely transcendent, then how can you deny that God could value some of the same states of affairs as humans and also be motivated by some of the same considerations?

If you say that God is not after all completely transcendent then you open up the possibility that God could be motivated by the same values as we are. (And thus the theist can say that God created the world because he values conscious agents and physical systems.) But if you say that God is completely transcendent, then you cannot support your case by use of analogies between God and humans.