bd-from-kg

Philosoft:

Actually most “talk” about the most important things is of the same basic nature as talk about the beauty of the Clarinet Quintet. Are you saying that all such talk is meaningless? If I say that my wife and I love one another, am I talking gibberish because I can’t define what I mean?

Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean that you can explain just what the proposition is that you’re trying to express. If I tell the serviceman that my car doesn’t seem to be running right, do I have to be able to define just what I mean in order to be saying something meaningful?

Also, even for “simple” statements there’s an infinite regression problem in insisting that you should be able to define what you mean. For example, suppose that I say that I have a beach ball that’s blue on one side and red on the other. To really define what I mean, I’ll have to define “red” and “blue”. But “red and “blue” cannot be defined, so I can’t define what I mean by even a simple statement like this. Does it follow that I don't "really" mean anything?

bd-from-kg

Jobar:

Sure. “The infinite” cannot be described or spoken of because the phrase is meaningless (or at any rate it doesn't refer to any thing). But what you said originally was:

The implication seems to be that something infinite cannot be definite because it can’t be defined. Not merely that “the infinite” can’t be defined, but that nothing infinite can be defined, because nothing infinite can be definite.

I think that when anyone halfway intelligent is talking about God it is fair to assume that he is not attempting a complete definition. Presuming to be able to completely define God (especially in the sense that you illustrate with your “keyboard” example) is insane.

Philosoft

Maybe you mean something different by "define." In this context, I think "define" means "at least one of the parties in any dialogue means something by the letter-string."

I think our differences are a matter of degree. I didn't take "define" to imply "with a very high degree of precision." "Not running right" might not be a specific concept, but the person uttering it has at least an idea what he means.
I would say it's not possible to describe "red" and "blue" but there are certainly definitions of varying levels of complexity and accuracy.

Jobar

I think this thread indicates how hard (indeed, impossible) it is to talk meaningfully about infinity.

I had a calculus professor at Ga. Tech who would not use the term 'infinity'. He would use phrases like "when x becomes arbitrarily large". His point was that infinity is an absolute, and our minds and languages- even our mathematics- do not handle absolutes at all well. "The infinity that can be talked about is not the *infinite* infinity."

In the world we live and converse in, this zone of middle dimensions, our languages are excellent instruments. I can describe my keyboard well enough so that someone who speaks the same language can make a working copy of it, given the proper tools. But for a perfect copy, an infinitely accurate copy, no amount of describing the keyboard suffices. If God is "the set of all things" what can we say, or do, or understand about that set?

excreationist

The speaker and the listener would both (presumably) have learnt that loving involves caring or being attracted to, etc, something else.

We are taught as a toddler to associate the spoken and written words "red" and "blue" for the appropriate visual sensations... so we might see something that activates the red receptors in our eyes and hear the word "red" spoken and eventually learn to associate the two concepts together. We'd also associate "red" with other things - like red fire-engines, red ferrarris, stop signs, aggression, blood, etc.
Hearing or reading the word "red" would cause us to trigger many of those associations. Those related things would give the word a meaning. In turn, to give things like stop signs and fire-engines meaning we'd need to see what they are associated with - e.g. the shape, behaviour of those objects, etc. I think we use the external world as a frame of reference. So perhaps if we became blind we'd gradually lose the ability to have a strong imagination for what colours are like. e.g. dark pink, light bluish-purple, etc.

Biff the unclean

And just why are we considering this super power of the character God? Being Infinite seems to be a power that was added on as the story developed. Sort of like Superman being able to fly when he went from the comics to the radio. God didn't start out as infinite in episode one.
Of course it's impossible for God to be infinite. The whole point to super powers is that they are impossible. If they were possible they wouldn't be cool.

The impossible abilities combined with the lack of ordinary abilities (like being able to be perceived) is common fare amongst fictional characters. Non-fictional characters find it impossible to do the impossible. I consider my non-fictional self to be lucky to drive a stick shift, I'm not omni anything.

But the ordinary abilities like being seen and leaving evidence of my presence I have down pat. "Hi, it's me, over here! See me waving, hi, hello!" Now that's something that neither God nor Superman can do…wave to you.

Magus55

Yes God is very feasible - you are trying to apply our principles and logic to a being that exists outside out it. God has both personality and consciousness - humans were created in his image - thus we are some what like him except hes perfect and we aren't. God is outside out universe, outside time, and outside logic -you can't define God using human standards and then when he doesn't fit those standards claim he's not feasible - God is above and beyond any logical conclusion you can dream of.

Jobar

Magus55, welcome to Internet Infidels.

And if God is beyond all logic, neither you, nor I, nor the Pope, nor the Bible, nor any preacher, can ever say a single meaningful word about him.

Biff the unclean

God is outside out universe, outside time, and outside logic...
Right, none of these characteristics is possible, except being outside of logic (illogical) which is what gives God away as being fictional. That's the logical conclusion I can dream of. All of God's super powers are impossible. But the writers meant them to be impossible. All of God's limitations...no matter how you look at it, not being able to be precieved is a limitation, existing only in a book is a limitation...belong solely to fictional characters.

Sure you can claim "God has both personality and consciousness - humans were created in his image - thus we are some what like him except hes perfect and we aren't" because that's what the plot of the book God appears in says.
I can claim that Clark Kent has X-ray vision, is faster than a speeding bullet, is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I can claim that because that's what the comics say he can do.
But Clark being able the do the impossible is a sure give away that he is fictional. His existing only in comic books and being undetectable in the real world is another sure give away. The exact same give aways that show Harry Potter, Tarzan, James Bond, Dionysus, Freddy the Pig and God Almighty to be fictional characters.

Magus55

Biff, lets suppose God does exist - you don't think an omnipotent being can do all he says he can? Since tons of people saw Jesus perform miracles that completely defy all your logic and understanding - he's already shown it can be done.