Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 07-18-2002, 07:23 PM

But, if works of art were perfect, no one would need art instruction after elementary school.

I've been painting for more than two decades, and I haven't created anything close to a 'perfect' painting yet.

Still trying, though.

(But not holding my breath.)

Keith.

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 07:30 PM

AVE

Philosoft

God – ideal and perfect, on the one hand. God – the Creator, on the other hand.

According to your argument:

Abstract things: physical concepts, mental representations of concrete things; pseudo-physical concepts, such as pink unicorns, which have no known concrete referent; heuristics, such as imaginary numbers. Cannot directly affect or interact with concrete things.

it is impossible that God should have created the Universe and intervened in the later course of its existence.

AVE

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 07:32 PM

AVE

Keith Russell

If God exists, and is omnipresent, then God would be 'a consciousness, conscious of nothing but itself.
I also find it quite meaningless that a consciousness should be only conscious of itself, but I’m curious:
- Couldn’t this consciousness conscious of its being, not just of itself?
- Is human consciousness conscious of itself?

AVE

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 07:33 PM

Theli

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

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

Is it possible for god himself to know that he is omniscient?

These are problems that bother me as well, and I’m sure that my discourse is not more consistent than others, which has actually made me initiate this thread. If God is some abstract perfection, perhaps the limited human intellectual endeavor to decipher his nature is futile. Maybe God is philosophically inconceivable. And so any statement about God remains nonsensical.

AVE

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Laurentius · 07-18-2002, 07:35 PM

AVE

WJ

So, you did write that little piece… It is the “grasshopper” that made me believe otherwise, I think.

Our free-will is determined. That is, it’s influenced. Of course. Let’s say we have to make a resolution. The resolution we’ve got to make will be at least influenced by the number of choices we have at hand, 2 or 20 or 200. But that does not take away the free-will of this decision. Last but not least, it doesn’t make our resolution “pre-planned”.

Saying that the existence of causality chains presupposes a “plan” reminds me of the design argument: the universe consists of rules and structures, so someone must have design them.

AVE

Tristan Scott · 07-19-2002, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Quote from Philosoft

How do imaginary numbers directly affect rabbits?

If the rabbit wants to use a cell phone or a TV, they would affect him, as without them we would not have these devices.

Philosoft · 07-19-2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
<strong>

If the rabbit wants to use a cell phone or a TV, they [imaginary numbers] would affect him, as without them we would not have these devices.</strong>

Indeed. Notice I said nothing about indirect effects. I might have said "physically affect." Abstract imaginary numbers cannot push, pull, sit on, lick, have sex with etc, physical rabbits.

Tristan Scott · 07-19-2002, 03:09 PM

SOunds like you're splitting hares to me...

Philosoft · 07-19-2002, 05:19 PM

You can just hop on out of here with that attitude, mister.

Ron Singh · 07-19-2002, 05:50 PM

Hi everyone. I'll get my responses to everyone when I have the time. So I don't look like a flake, I tell you this.

--Sincerely, Ron.

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

07-18-2002, 07:23 PM	#31
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	But, if works of art were perfect, no one would need art instruction after elementary school. I've been painting for more than two decades, and I haven't created anything close to a 'perfect' painting yet. Still trying, though. (But not holding my breath.) Keith.

07-18-2002, 07:30 PM	#32
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE Philosoft God – ideal and perfect, on the one hand. God – the Creator, on the other hand. According to your argument: Abstract things: physical concepts, mental representations of concrete things; pseudo-physical concepts, such as pink unicorns, which have no known concrete referent; heuristics, such as imaginary numbers. Cannot directly affect or interact with concrete things. it is impossible that God should have created the Universe and intervened in the later course of its existence. AVE

07-18-2002, 07:32 PM	#33
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE Keith Russell If God exists, and is omnipresent, then God would be 'a consciousness, conscious of nothing but itself. I also find it quite meaningless that a consciousness should be only conscious of itself, but I’m curious: - Couldn’t this consciousness conscious of its being, not just of itself? - Is human consciousness conscious of itself? AVE

07-18-2002, 07:33 PM	#34
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Theli And unchanging god can't be referred to as conscious. It is no more conscious than a rock. Exactly, but how can you say that he feels something when there is no reference point when he didn't feel it? Is it possible for god himself to know that he is omniscient? These are problems that bother me as well, and I’m sure that my discourse is not more consistent than others, which has actually made me initiate this thread. If God is some abstract perfection, perhaps the limited human intellectual endeavor to decipher his nature is futile. Maybe God is philosophically inconceivable. And so any statement about God remains nonsensical. AVE [ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

07-18-2002, 07:35 PM	#35
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE WJ So, you did write that little piece… It is the “grasshopper” that made me believe otherwise, I think. Our free-will is determined. That is, it’s influenced. Of course. Let’s say we have to make a resolution. The resolution we’ve got to make will be at least influenced by the number of choices we have at hand, 2 or 20 or 200. But that does not take away the free-will of this decision. Last but not least, it doesn’t make our resolution “pre-planned”. Saying that the existence of causality chains presupposes a “plan” reminds me of the design argument: the universe consists of rules and structures, so someone must have design them. AVE

07-19-2002, 03:09 PM	#38
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	SOunds like you're splitting hares to me...

07-19-2002, 05:19 PM	#39
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	You can just hop on out of here with that attitude, mister.

07-19-2002, 05:50 PM	#40
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	Hi everyone. I'll get my responses to everyone when I have the time. So I don't look like a flake, I tell you this. --Sincerely, Ron.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.