Godot

"I am not a tree."

Now that I've established that, what am I? By defining something according to what it isn't, you've set yourself up for a very large all-inclusive list. In the above statement I've described myself as not being something which is patently obvious not to be the case. By declaring myself to not be a tree does not invalidate the statement. It is redundant, but it still conveys information. It just so happens that the information contained within the statement is so absurd as to not be worth considering.

Perhaps the term "conveys no information" is inefficient. It should say conveys no pertinent information. In your obtuse reference to the number zero, it in no way can be rightly thought of as conveying no information. Only a closed-minded simpleton could think that. In mathematical terms, zero is a relativistic construct: it conveys information regardless of its placement. We simply choose to disregard it sometimes because its presence is superfluous and redundant.

Quit trying to obfuscate with your bloody zeroes. [deleted insult]
P.S. I like my fish grilled with some rosemary and a dash of lemon.

Alix Nenuphar

To Sandlewood's point then: precisely what information is your definition of God intended to convey? What does it tell us about God?

Consider what information we look for in regard to a 'person' (and God is usually defined as personal - implying that some of the things we could say about people we could say about God).

We could describe the person physically... Is this appropriate to God? No.

We could describe the person mentally... Is this appropriate? Most of the history of Christianity and Christian theology appears to be devoted to this pursuit.

Does your 'negative' description then convey any meaningful, i.e. actionable information about God? Does it give us guidance in how to relate to God? In how to interact with God? In what feelings we should have towards God?

It doesn't appear to.

In addition, your metaphorical response to Sandlewood also appears to be inappropriate. Of what relevance is the fish? In particular, your use of the metaphor, which is an attempt to imply that God can be understood as not(everything) is faulty: you are asking the fish to comprehend another physical state (which it might understand, unless you presume that the ocean in which your metaphysical piscean floats has not bottom); in the case of God, you are asking the human mind to conceive of something that cannot, by definition be conceived of (since anything it can conceive is part of the universe, and hence, not God).

Albert Cipriani

Dear Godot,
I’m happy to learn that, notwithstanding your wooden attempts to dialogue with me, you are, indeed, “not a tree.” No doubt your squirrely friends must be disappointed.

Filtering through your morass of words I detect you are trying to say that
So when you lay claim to not being a tree, the informational content of that statement is negligible. But what if your negative claim included a larger set of things than trees, such as, you are not vegetative nor mineral? That would leave only one other possibility, animal. That is informational. Ergo, your problem with negative statements turns out to actually be your problem with negative statements that ARE TOO NARROWLY NEGATIVE.

But my negative statement regarding God is as broad as a negative statement can possibly be. God is not anything, that is, of the set of all things, God is not a member. Thus, this universally broad negative statement has more informational content than you are able to imagine.

You are way out on a limb here. I suggest you come down out of your tree and get grounded in the fact that negative statements are informational. For you to continue to argue against so obvious a fact leads me to believe that the Iraqi minister of propaganda has a job opening for you. – Sincerely Amazed, Albert the Traditional Catholic

sandlewood

Fortunately, Alix has saved me a bit of typing by saying what I was thinking and saying it better.

However, I’m tempted to concede that you have indeed conveyed information in telling us that God is nothing. That way you can get on with the business of explaining how God is nothing. Even if I don’t agree with you, your speculations can be interesting, like they were in this thread. But strangely, on the page pointed to by that link, I find this quote:
So I presume your beliefs about defining things with a negative have changed since then? Unfortunately, I did not understand your definition of God then and I don’t think I’m likely to understand it now. (Oh, I understand you mean that only God can “be” and that I cannot “be”. But to me that’s just playing around with word meanings.)

As far as I know, God is traditionally defined as having attributes. It doesn’t seem likely to me that a “nothing” can have attributes. It’s ironic that theists make a point that atheists claim the Universe appeared from nothing. As just one example, William Lane Craig says here:
So I think you need to distinguish between your nothing-god that can create a universe and the nothing that cannot create a universe, the latter being the “nothing” that Craig and other theists are claiming that we atheists expect everyone to believe.

I don’t think the bits about the fish and the number zero need any more comments, but I will add more if needed.

Ryanfire

You're assuming there was a *before* existence. What if there is no such thing as nothing. Isn't nothing a mathematical concept indicating the absence of any or all units? Even in a state of nothingness, there exists [nothing].

exist[nothing] = 1, the existence of nothing
or,
exist[0] = 1, the existence of 0

So we get subsets of zero.
exist[0] = 1
exist[0][0] = 2
exist[0][0][0] = 3
exist[0][0][0][0] = 4

Therefore the universe where we exist, exists, even in the state of 0/nothing.
Eliminating the need, purpose, or reason for god.

Perhaps somebody could help me formulate this better, or see the perspective I'm coming from.

-R

Albert Cipriani

Ah, It’s You Again, Alix,
A higher caliber debating partner than this guy who calls himself Sandlewood while claiming not to be a tree. But if you keep asking me questions, I’ll never get to your prior post. Oh well. I’ll indulge you as you’ve indulged me with your patience while I tried to shake the dust from his sandals.

Negative information, so that you guys might stop looking for God in all the wrong places, that is, empirically. My negative “definition” of God is really not a definition but a circumcision, delineating that which God is not.

No, it does not. And if I could agree with you that only “actionable information” is “meaningful,” then I’d have to conclude with you that my negative definition is meaningless.

But information is still meaningful even when it is not actionable. Otherwise, why do we study history? Certainly, military historians have yet to alter the course of a single battle they’ve studied. I dare say you carry around a lot of useless information that while not actionable is yet not meaningless to you.

I remember flinging a teaspoonful of cottage cheese at the back of the platinum-haired head of my second-grade classmate and thinking it was the funniest thing I’d ever done, white on white was the concept that I found so delicious. This is certainly un-actionable information. Yet I value the memory. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Ryanfire

You're assuming there was a *before* existence. What if there is no such thing as nothing. Isn't nothing a mathematical concept indicating the absence of any or all units? Even in a state of nothingness, there exists [nothing].

exist[nothing] = 1, the existence of nothing
or,
exist[0] = 1, the existence of 0

So we get subsets of zero.
exist[0] = 1
exist[0][0] = 2
exist[0][0][0] = 3
exist[0][0][0][0] = 4

Therefore the universe where we exist, exists, even in the state of 0/nothing.
Eliminating the need, purpose, or reason for god.

Perhaps somebody could help me formulate this better, or see the perspective I'm coming from.

-R

Alix Nenuphar

Albert Cipriani:

Sorry, I have a bad habit of asking questions acquired while still a very small child. The adults in my life found it most annoying. (Many of the adults in my life still find it annoying, come to think of it).

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that there is no empirical evidence for God, yes? Hence, science is an improper tool for investigation of the divine, and any logical arguments (e.g. arguments of Natural Religion, for example) are meaningless?

Second, we may be equivocating about 'actionable.' I myself study a great deal of history - and can put into practise in the present things learned from the past. That is part of the reason for studying history.

I would argue that with regard to God, the most important reason for defining, discussing, etc. is to understand actionable points: the reason we attempt to define and investigate God is to understand what he wants us to do. You have already made it clear that you do not believe in a 'comprehensible' God; that humans can never 'understand' God in the same fashion that they can undertand neural activity. You are also clear that we cannot investigate God using any of our tools that examine empirical entities (because there is no empirical evidence for God).

What does that leave us with? Direct, intuitive perception of those aspects of the Divine that the Divine wishes us to know?

Using that logic, all forums such as this which discuss God are meaningless, yes? All logic - being a mere human construct - is meaningless with regard to God, yes?

I'm not sure what's left. In some ways, you sound more like a Zen Buddhist than a Catholic....

More questions, I know...


Oh, I simply couldn't let this one go:
The reason that zero is the most useful, imaginative, and creative mathematical symbol is because of the information is conveys - there is no situation in which zero conveys no information, anymore than there is a situation in which '1' conveys no meaning.

Albert Cipriani

Dear R,
You hypothesize: Then you might as well believe in God, for nothing would require no more of an imaginative leap nor stretch of incredulity.

What with gravity waves and subatomic particles, in our universe there is no such thing as nothing. Even space is somewhat of an illusion, actually being a function of motion, that is, of time and gravity and God only knows what I don’t understand.

So if you wish to believe that there could be nothing in some other universe, you might as well believe in God outside of this universe. Why settle for nothing!? Go for the gusto! – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sandlewood,
You got me fair and square with that quote. I’m reminded of a documentary film in which the homosexual transvestite said that his “confused sexuality” was not confusing to himself. That’s how I feel about this.

I stand by my original quote you posted, a negative definition is no definition. Defining God in terms of what He is not (e.g., non-contingent being) is a misnomer, not really a definition at all. However, it IS INFORMATIONAL. That was the point I meant to underline.

Negative definitions cannot be dismissed as Godot tried to dismiss mine as being “so absurd as to not be worth considering.” He later said my negative definition of God “conveys no pertinent information.” I meant only to defeat both of his characterizations of negative definitions, not defend negative definitions.

Indeed, the phrase “negative definition” ought to be considered an oxymoron. Nothing is being defined. Rather, potential definitions are being circumscribed. A negative definition supplies information like walking on a treadmill supplies exercise. It’s just that neither treadmill walking nor negative definitions get us anywhere. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic