PandaJoe

So, at what point does something become conceptualized?

HRG

Not at all. The bible contains an incomplete characterization of a certain concept "God", plus the claim that this concept is actually instantiated in reality. We can deal with the first, without having to accept the second; just as you can study the Muslim concept of Allah without joining Islam.

As already demonstrated many times, "self-attesting" is an oxymoron.

Come on. Your "God of scripture" [b]is [b]a concept: the supreme entity which exists if Christian scripture corresponds to reality, just as Allah is the supreme entity which exists if the Qu'ran corresponds to reality.

Since you cannot propose a definition by demonstration, all we have are the properties that the Bible ascribes to your God.

Regards,
HRG.

yguy

detectable
\De*tect"a*ble\ (-[.a]*b'l), Detectible\De*tect"i*ble\, a. Capable of being detected or found out; as, parties not detectable. ``Errors detectible at a glance.'' --Latham.

detectable
adj 1: capable of being detected; "after a noticeable pause the lecturer continued" [syn: noticeable] 2: easily seen or detected; "a detectable note of sarcasm"; "he continued after a perceptible pause" [syn: perceptible ]

Gamma rays were undetectable 500 years ago. Now they are detectable. This is hardly a misuse of the word, as detection requires a detector. You have gratuitously added a temporal aspect to the definition.

yguy

Only in the minds of those who don't know He exists. Thus, those of us who DO know must relate to that concept through words in order to communicate the idea that He exists.

Nowhere357

yguy : Theorizing about God would be really, really stupid.


yguy : In fact, some in the Sci forum have assured me repeatedly that observed effects, such as the random motion of subatomic particles, don't necessarily have a cause.

Me : Just curious - did you accept the point at the time

yguy : Nope.


As I see it here, yguy's theory of god says the rest of us are stupid to have a theory of god.

Also, he rejects a point which opposes his position on one subject, then uses the same point to support his position on another subject.

Can someone - anyone - please explain to me why we should not see yguy's input here as indicitive of an inconsistent hypocritical double standard?

Dr Rick

Gamma rays most likely did exist 500 years ago, and their properties haven't changed all that much since then. If they are detectable now, they were very likely detectable back then, even if we couldn't take advantage of their detectability until recently.

Asserting that which is undetectable does not exist is not the same as asserting that which is undetected does not exist.

yguy

It may not have been a terribly effective argument, but I think calling it hypocritical is a bit much. The quote you posted was essentially an afterthought.

hinduwoman

Yguy, if God is not an object what is he? How can he then interact with the material world; how indeed can he create it?

And no, I don't know when the subject had been beaten to death. The minute you say God send down his Son or hurled fire on Sodom you are conceptualizing him as some kind of entity that interacts out of its conscious will with the world and influences the latter.

yguy

Why would you think He'd have to be an object to to that?

In fact, if something gives objects their "objectness", and that something IS an object, then something would have to give THAT something ITS "objectness".

Nowhere357

What reason do you have for thinking that "objectness" is something that must be given?

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?