Albert Cipriani

Dear Darkblade,
You sound young: No thing can be infinite. The classic philosophical definition of a thing is that which has extension. Now then, nothing can have extension if it does not also have bounds. Ergo, an infinite thing (i.e., a thing that extends infinitely without bounds) is a contradiction in terms.

Ergo ergo, GOD IS NOT A THING! The all too apparent hidden assumption in your argument is that God is a thing, that is something that "exists in... space." This is simply absurd. There can be no "in" or "out" for Him any more than there can be a place for beauty, a top to a circle, or enough space for ideas.

You ask: Duh, because morality cannot be created. That's like asking me to create happiness for you. Happiness is an experience that may be induced but not caused. As our happiness is the consequence of our response to reality, our morality is the consequence of our response to freedom.

God did create a maximal number of perfect beings, angels. He induced them to be moral. But many of them and most of us refuse most of the time to be moral. Their moral freedom rendered their perfection imperfect in the same way that many of us are too self-important to laugh. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

the_cave

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cipher Girl
If god permeates throughout the universe, existing in the same space as other creatures, why could there not be many gods all existing in the same space? Why does there have to be only one?

It's not really like I'm suggesting that god is some sort of infinitely fine spirit-stuff that fits into the space we're in. I'm saying that god is the reason for our existence--the reason why existence exists, and does not not-exist. The reason why it was created, and the reason why it doesn't go away. Whatever that reason is, that's what I call "god". There can only be one reason for this, so there can be only one god.

Besides, if there were many "gods" all existing in the same place, the god that I would be talking about would be the one being who was the reason for the existence of all those other "gods"! Which wouldn't really make them gods, it would make them spirits--spirits who had a creator. But then, this is your imagery, and not mine, so I don't choose to defend it at length.



Well, it's a very good question what the attributes of god are! But it's not a matter of predicting and detecting god. No matter what the results of science are, the bare fact of their existence will still need to be explained--just as it has always needed to be explained. And the ultimate explanation will also explain its own existence! Which is why god is refered to as a necessary being; he is because he is that which exists (whatever else that may be.) "God" is a way of refering to this mystery, which will never be explained by science--because it's the cause of our scientific laws themselves.

I also apologize if I said god "exists only in this universe". He exists only in relation to this universe--since he exists both within and without it.



Well, I'm not claiming this, but for the record, it would indeed have the same effect, but that's diferent from being the same thing--since this deity would, in fact, exist, which is different from it not existing. So there would be a difference.

True, but the mods seem to be willing to let it go wherever it leads.

Fiach

Sorry it made you angry. I just gave my explanation based on how I see it. I don't accept your analogies nor your beliefs and you can't prove them to me. But try to chill out Boyo. As Red Green says, "we are all in this together."

Fiach:banghead:

Cipher Girl

Besides, if there were many "gods" all existing in the same place, the god that I would be talking about would be the one being who was the reason for the existence of all those other "gods"! Which wouldn't really make them gods, it would make them spirits--spirits who had a creator. But then, this is your imagery, and not mine, so I don't choose to defend it at length.
But could there not be an infinity of: god1 contains/creates the universe, god2 contains/creates god1, god3 contains/creates god2, ..., god(n) contain/creates god(n-1)? Why would not each be god or is it only god(n)?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Fiach,
I apologize for getting frustrated with you in my last post. I’ll be better.

You write:
Only if you have a very low standard for what constitutes an explanation. An explanation ought to be something conceptually more complex than mere knowledge. Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that through our five senses we know all that we know. I’d say he’s about 99.9% correct. Point is, that knowledge, unless we infer some sort of explanation with it, is doomed to remain as mere knowledge.

You ask:
Never! Only fideists disdain evidence. I’m saying don’t limit your belief system to only those things that you can know. Rather, build your belief system upon un-provable yet rational inferences that spring from the things that you know.

Otherwise, you overstate your case to say you believe or can explain anything. If you limit your “beliefs” or “explanations” to relaying that which is detectable, you are actually only trafficking facts dressed up as beliefs or explanations. Material facts are the starting point of philosophy, not its be-all and end-all conclusion. That’s why I have such disdain for the fact that “Materialism” is even classified as a philosophy. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Darkblade

Firstly, this is irrelevant, regardless of whether it is true or not (although I suppose you could check or could have checked my age here at Infidels, and compared it to an unrevealed standard that you have for whether a person is young or not). My ability to function here in debate does not necessarily correspond to my age, as, as you know, not all people are equally intelligent or knowledgeable, and these traits are not observed to adhere, in dependence, to age. So, as that was either an ageist or apparently derogatory remark, I can't help but think that you sound younger, or at least feel as much.

thing
1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

God, therefore, MUST be a thing! This can not be denied, unless you would either deny that your god is an entity, or that he even exists. In any case, I did not try to “hide” anything in my post, as you so paranoidly (although neither this adverb, nor paranoiacally, exist (but I assume you understand)) assume. Every time I defined your god, I defined it as a being. Just because I used the word something doesn’t indicate that I am going back on that. In fact, if something is not a thing, guess what it is called; nothing. This was clearly an attempt at distracting me rather than countering any evidentiary or logical arguments I presented.

If you wish to create a strawman here by thinking that I said that your god would have to create morality, go ahead. However, I said, “create…morally perfect natural beings…”. What this (obviously) meant was that CGC would create a being that would constantly conform to morality, whatever that might be. Obviously, you don’t deny that this is possible for a being, as CGC is defined as being morally perfect. I will preemptively assume that you would argue that either because the beings would be natural, they can’t constantly be moral, or, because CGC is perfect, all being that are not CGC are not perfect. However, the former has no evidence to back it up, and the latter is strange because it would mean that, because of CGC being perfect, it is necessary that all beings be caused to be immoral at some point or other, i.e., God forces the existence of evil in all other [natural] beings! This would appear to be yet another restriction on your god’s supposedly perfect and infinite abilities and characteristics. Why am I not surprised.

I did, however, also, for the sake of argument, posit that the supernatural realm does exist, and then demonstrated that CGC could still have created beings with both free will and moral perfection. You have not disproved this, so, even if your non-disproof of the logical possibility of CGC creating morally perfect free-willed natural beings somehow could hold, CGC would still not be off the hook for creating being that “created” evil.

It seems that you did not attempt to dismantle any of my arguments, but rather replied with ad hominems and the like.

Jobar

Can't say I've ever seen the will of God expressed as an outcome probability, or furnished with error bars. ("Thou shalt not kill"- 97.863% of the time, with an experimental error of .00037%? Nope, doesn't sound very Biblical...)

Albert Cipriani

Dear Darkblade,
How you sound is irrelevant to your argument, but should not be irrelevant to you. If you are at all like me, you should like to know how you come across. When people tell me I sound like an arrogant prig, I am momentarily stung, but ultimately grateful for the opportunity it affords me to change the way I sound. I did you a service that you may yet take advantage of rather than relegate to the wastebasket labeled ad hominem.

Based upon a worthless dictionary definition, you assert:
I do deny them both. God is a being, indeed, the only being. He does not have existence, but is the contingent cause of all things that have existence.

An entity is that which exists among other things that exist. God is not like that. All other things are the false gods He warned us against in the first commandment.

You assert:
Well then, according to your own dictionary definition, the cosmological constant and radio waves have been “nothing” for an awful long time. Neither of them were an “entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence” until relatively recently.

I hate to tell you this, for you will not be able to confirm it in your dictionary, but nothing does not exist. Like this board’s famous orbiting pink unicorn, nothing is only a mental construction that has no empirical counterpart.

You assert that what I said
The words you’ve posted thus far provide ample evidence that you are in no need of help in that regard from me.

You assert:
You are one letter away from being right. The word is “could” not “would.” All of God’s creatures Could remain morally perfect (“My grace is sufficient for thee.”), but some of them Would not.

You argue:
No. I would not make that heretical argument. Aren’t my arguments sufficient for you? Why do you feel compelled to make up arguments for me? The rest of your argument that you say is my potential argument that you’ve preemptively refuted is simply incoherent to me.

You say:
I agree that all of God’s creatures were “created with both free will and moral perfection.” I have no interest in disproving what I believe.

Darkblade, you need to take a deep breath. Then try to focus your mind on a single point, like your moniker implies. Then present this point to me for argumentation. As it is, well, you sound young. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

Albert:
You assert:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CGC would create a being that would constantly conform to morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are one letter away from being right. The word is “could” not “would.” All of God’s creatures Could remain morally perfect (“My grace is sufficient for thee.”), but some of them Would not.

All of God's creatures, Albert? How about the AIDS virus, or the tsetse fly, or the intestinal roundworm? Do you really believe that the lion, with its ripping teeth and short digestive tract, could survive on a vegetarian diet and lie down with the lamb?

And you are still trying to use a pantheistic view of God to defend your traditional Catholic monotheism. Do you wish to go another round on that one? As Darkblade has pointed out, if God is not an entity in the material universe, and like the Tao, when looked for cannot be seen, listened for cannot be heard, felt for cannot be touched- then when we attempt to describe Him He cannot be spoken of!

Fiach

Albert:

You say, "Never! Only fideists disdain evidence. I’m saying don’t limit your belief system to only those things that you can know. Rather, build your belief system upon un-provable yet rational inferences that spring from the things that you know.

I don't rule out unprovable yet rational inferences that spring from what I already know. An example for me is evolution from one-celled organisms to me is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming and confirmed by cross studies. But going from replicating molecules to the first cell is inferred because we know it happened. Either that was a natural process part of bio-evolution or creation by an external entity (God). But we have no evidence. But since I know as a genetic molecular chemist, that nucleotide sequences can make proteins, lipoproteins, and regulatory genes can make various structures. We haven't provent that genes can assemble lipoproteins along with their sodium pumps and ion channels but it is plausible based on our observation of other systems as complex. Genes can take undifferentiated ectoderm and endoderm reorganising them into gills. We know this. It is not incredible that some genes can make a double layered lipoprotein cell membrane. One can still postulate a God but that is a hypotheis that is untestable.

Otherwise, you overstate your case to say you believe or can explain anything.

I never say that. As a scientist I cannot with any integrity say that I know how the first cells formed or what precipitated the Bib Bang. I only know how multiple species of multcellular organisms developed by evolutionary mechanisms, that continents drift on tectonic crustal plates propelled by huge circulating mantle currents upwelling at crustal rift zones. I know that Earth is spherical, and revolves around the Sun, etc.

If you limit your “beliefs” or “explanations” to relaying that which is detectable, you are actually only trafficking facts dressed up as beliefs or explanations. Material facts are the starting point of philosophy, not its be-all and end-all conclusion.

As a materialist, I have no evidence of the non-material entities. I simply say that I don't know if there is anything other than our matter-energy universe. I don't rule out something beyond that, only that I can't know it.

That’s why I have such disdain for the fact that “Materialism” is even classified as a philosophy.

I can agree. I feel that philosophy is mere idle speculation, not factual knowledge except for the old famous "I think, therefore I am". There is a joke on this.

R. DeCartes went into a restaurant. The waitress said, "Would you like a cup of tea?" And De Cartes replied, "I think not." And he disappeared.

– Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Slainte mhaith, Albert

Fiach