Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 07-18-2002, 07:35 AM

Philo,

Since you seem a bit sensitive to this topic, here's a rhetorical question for you. What goes into designing/creating a building?

Philosoft · 07-18-2002, 07:48 AM

WJ, with all due respect, I'm not going to respond to any more of your topic-changes until you answer any of my questions.

Theli · 07-18-2002, 08:35 AM

Ron Singh...

Quote:

I hope you aren't implying that such a being as God exists temporally. That is to say, linear with time. Time is merely change.

And unchanging god can't be reffered to as concious. It is no more concious than a rock.

Quote:

Ergo, God merely experiences all time at once, because there is nothing more than once for God. God exists, without change. God therefor is not subject to time.

If you cannot show this to be true, most probable or necessary it remains a fantasy in your head.
Your definition of a being should be based on acquired probable information, or it remains a phantom in your mind.

Quote:

I Also cannot help to note the bias you present while begging the question. You seem to suggest that God is some sort of material ether, a substance that invisible and undetectably exists everywhere. Sorry to displease you, but God is immaterial.

Once again...

First of, you don't know what "material" imply.
And if you want to suggest that something intelligent and orderly can exist without a structure you have alot of explaining to do.

Quote:

When we mean that he is omniscient, we mean that he knows all that there is to know.

Read above.

Quote:

There are two types of experience. Indirect experience is me using my senses such as my eyeballs and eyesight to admire a flower. Direct experience is me existing. And none of you know how it feels to be me.

Your feelings are based on the structure of your brain, and it's interactions with the outside world.

Quote:

This is how it is to be God. God experiences all that there is.

Aaaaaand once again. You don't have the knowledge to make such a claim. If you say that god feels something just like you do, then you are suggesting that he has some sort of structure (just like you).

Quote:

So, instead of passively and indirectly observing and hence knowing all that there is to know, he does more. God directly experiences all that there is, a.k.a he is omniscient.

There's that "everything" again... Or more like "all", in this case.
An unfounded assumption based on lacking knowledge of an incomprehensible question. Not a good way to make your point.

Quote:

And you are totally right to say that God does not change. BEcause changing the infinite and eternal is impossible.

Excacly, but how can you say that he feels something when there is no refference point when he didn't feel it?

Quote:

But now I must assert the rest of the fallicious. God must not be an entity, and I am not privy to the reasoning behind such a statement that you proposed stating that he was. Words like entity are strictly reserved for what is material. And to attach such a word to God is to bound him and box him up as if he were some sort of really big pie.

Yeeees....

But. If god has no change, no space and no structure, then isn't he in fact 'nothing'?

Quote:

What is change to us, is not change to God, ergo God experiences no change.

You just keep overflooding this thread with unfounded assumptions.

Quote:

We however do. Since God experiences directly all that there is to experience, he is omniscient towards everything.

And again.

Quote:

And since God exists in a timeless state of being, in our point of view, he has always known everything and always will know everything.

I have a question for you.
Is it possible for god himself to know that he is omniscient? (and no circular arguments, please)

WJ · 07-18-2002, 08:45 AM

Philo!

What *questions* have you asked me? I'll be more than happy to respond, did I miss something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Theli · 07-18-2002, 09:06 AM

Ron Singh again...

Quote:

I agree, every thing in the universe is changing.

Keep going...

Quote:

herefor everything in the universe has been moved from a prime cause.

Problem! The mover in this case must also be in change to be able to start the movement in the universe. If you suggest that something unchangable can start a chain of events, then the mover can just aswell have been nothingness.

Quote:

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.

I thought you said that everything changed.

Quote:

Case in example. Love does not change, it is merely experienced in different degrees and amounts.

Love is not an independent force, nor is it a being. It's an effect.
BTW, is there no love in our universe? oh dear...

Quote:

Things, as in the material, change, the immaterial however is not obliged to change, only our experience of the immaterial changes.

Since when did things become obligated/not obligated?
Once again, feelings are not independent forces wich can be observed as beings. It can only be observed as an effect. And I'm quite sure that "love" has changed since we were climbing the trees as monkeys.
And I'm also pretty sure it didn't exist before any beings capable of feeling it existed.

Quote:

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.

Two unfounded assumptions.

1. God exists outside our universe.
2. Time only exists inside our universe.

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 11:11 AM

AVE

Jobar

If there is any form of perfection in reality, it will be always changing, always perfect.

There is perfection in reality: any work of art. Works of art perfect and are unchanging.
Anything in reality that changes lacks something that needs to get it.
If God exists at a different layer of reality that allows him to be perfect without being a work of art, then he can be perfect and needs no change. And does not change.

AVE

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 11:18 AM

Ron Singh

You seem to suggest that God is some sort of material ether, a substance that invisible and undetectably exists everywhere.

What does God's omnipresence mean to you?

AVE

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 11:33 AM

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.

Some people can't help wondering about all kind of absurd perversions.

Others, about inconceivable absolutes.

To a certain extent, I was trying to stir myself into imagining them only to see how impossible it is.

Philosoft · 07-18-2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
<strong>Philo!

What *questions* have you asked me? I'll be more than happy to respond, did I miss something?

</strong>

Start here:

Quote:

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

You simply pulled this out of thin air. Why is my formulation wrong? How do imaginary numbers directly affect rabbits?

Keith Russell · 07-18-2002, 07:21 PM

Laurentius said:
"There is perfection in reality: any work of art. Works of art perfect and are unchanging."

As an artist, I must disagree.

Most of Leonardo's works have changed, and not for the better. Several of them were so shoddily constructed that they no longer exist.

The "Last Supper" has had to be restored at least twice.

And the Sistine Chapel ceiling underwent massive restoration less than a decade ago.

Works of art most certainly DO change, just like any other existent.

Everything that exists is perfectly what it is.

A is perfectly, precisely, and only A.

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2002, 07:35 AM	#21
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Philo, Since you seem a bit sensitive to this topic, here's a rhetorical question for you. What goes into designing/creating a building?

07-18-2002, 07:48 AM	#22
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	WJ, with all due respect, I'm not going to respond to any more of your topic-changes until you answer any of my questions.

07-18-2002, 08:45 AM	#24
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Philo! What questions have you asked me? I'll be more than happy to respond, did I miss something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

07-18-2002, 11:11 AM	#26
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE Jobar If there is any form of perfection in reality, it will be always changing, always perfect. There is perfection in reality: any work of art. Works of art perfect and are unchanging. Anything in reality that changes lacks something that needs to get it. If God exists at a different layer of reality that allows him to be perfect without being a work of art, then he can be perfect and needs no change. And does not change. AVE

07-18-2002, 11:18 AM	#27
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Ron Singh You seem to suggest that God is some sort of material ether, a substance that invisible and undetectably exists everywhere. What does God's omnipresence mean to you? AVE

07-18-2002, 11:33 AM	#28
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	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. Some people can't help wondering about all kind of absurd perversions. Others, about inconceivable absolutes. To a certain extent, I was trying to stir myself into imagining them only to see how impossible it is.

07-18-2002, 07:21 PM	#30
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Laurentius said: "There is perfection in reality: any work of art. Works of art perfect and are unchanging." As an artist, I must disagree. Most of Leonardo's works have changed, and not for the better. Several of them were so shoddily constructed that they no longer exist. The "Last Supper" has had to be restored at least twice. And the Sistine Chapel ceiling underwent massive restoration less than a decade ago. Works of art most certainly DO change, just like any other existent. Everything that exists is perfectly what it is. A is perfectly, precisely, and only A. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.