The important thing here is not to confuse a concept with an actual manifestation. "Unicorn" exists as a concept, but it doesn't exist as an actual manifestion. And when someone says unicorn, they're generally referring to the "manifestion" context of the word. The "concept" context of the word is usually not what they're referring to. Confusing two different contexts of a single term can be just as much an equivocation fallacy as confusing two different terms.
In other words, if I say "Unicorns[1] don't exist," the proper response is not "Of course unicorns[2] exist!"
I'll agree. My argument was specifically in response to the assertion that a concept could neither exist in reality nor in imagination.
Quote from Harkius »
Yes, as written. While it is possible to imagine things that do not yet exist (such as a television set that is also a toaster), it is not possible to imagine things that are so far from observation and definition that they cannot coherently exist. [...] To exist in the imagination or the mind is to be capable of being visualized. To be capable of being imagined. To be logically consistent enough for someone (given a definition) to be capable of perceiving said phenomenon without having experienced it.
OK. I'll buy that.
Quote from erimir »
No, this was the argument:
1. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything but violate logic.
2. Physical laws are not logically necessary (in other words, it would not result in a logical contradiction if physical laws were different in some ways, e.g. if Planck's constant was different)
3. Thus, violating a physical law does not violate logic.
4. Therefore, omnipotence includes the ability to violate physical laws.
Would you like to clarify what your problem with that is? The argument seems valid to me. I don't see how it is circular.
Quite simply, you define omnipotence as "the ability to do everything but violate logic". The thing is, "the ability to do everything" is rather ambiguous; what does that mean? Then you introduce physical laws as the counterpart to logic and refer to nothing other than those two concepts. Therefore, it seems to me you've defined omnipotence as "the ability to violate physical laws but not logic"; you've introduced no other terms that indicate otherwise. Therfore, your conclusion is your definition.
Furthermore, I understand the concept of omnipotence is not definitive, however in its broadest and most generally accepted terms the word means:
Quote from Dictionary.com »
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful
Granted, others have pointed out before that your definition is potentially as valid as the one I've just posted, but it's no more valid, so if you want to use one and not the other I think that requires some justification.
Quote from erimir »
Was that it, or was it that "I think"?
(the adjective is "Cartesian", btw)
If memory serves, "I think, therefore I am" was DesCartes' ultimate conclusion, but those who followed in his footsteps distilled the logic further into "I think" and eventually into "Thought exists".
There is one. He said that he wouldn't. Problem resolved.
Yes, but God could be lying. Why? It doesn't have to make logical sense Assuming that because he says something, and a good God wouldn't lie, that he actually will do what he says he will, is relying on him being bound by logic. After all, since he can be both A and not-A, he can be an honest liar.
Well, I would be if that were indeed my argument. If you scroll up, though, you will see that I am saying that is irreconcilable only if God is all things, and not if God is comprised of all things.
Ok, so you were interpreting "everything" as "each individual thing is God, e.g. a rock is God, and a tree is God", rather than interpreting "everything" as "everything collectively".
And now?
And now I think you were just misinterpreting what was said, or at least wanting more precise language, without really make that clear enough.
Also, my name is Harkius. Not Harkion.
Sorry, I caught that while I was posting, but I guess I missed one, so they weren't all corrected.
No. To say that a unicorn exists in the MMORPG is equivalent to saying that one exists in your imagination.
Eh, since the philosophy of the mind isn't really all that relevant to the questions about God in this thread, I figure I'll just stop now. I'm willing to talk about it elsewhere tho.
Quote from extremestan »
I think we're back to our fundamental disagreement about having a rational basis for one's religious beliefs, about one religion having more evidence for its validity than another, etc.
Well, you'll notice I was using very similar religious views as the example. I think that even if you said there was evidence for Christianity, you wouldn't avoid the problem of not being able to meaningfully decide between two similar accounts of Christianity. Unless you believe there is evidence for every tenet of your view of Christianity...
Quote from Kraj »
Quite simply, you define omnipotence as "the ability to do everything but violate logic". The thing is, "the ability to do everything" is rather ambiguous; what does that mean? Then you introduce physical laws as the counterpart to logic and refer to nothing other than those two concepts.
Why should I need to? Physical laws ARE distinct from the rules of logic. If you could prove that the physical laws in the universe are logical necessities, you would not only gain much fame and probably help answer some scientific questions, but you would also have decisively destroyed the fine-tuning argument for God.
If we're talking about omnipotence being limited only by logic, you would need to show that our physical laws are a logical necessity in order to say that God can't violate them (i.e. that violating physical laws necessarily means violating logic).
Therefore, it seems to me you've defined omnipotence as "the ability to violate physical laws but not logic"; you've introduced no other terms that indicate otherwise. Therfore, your conclusion is your definition.
No, I defined omnipotence as the ability to do anything but violate logic. I concluded that this sort of omnipotence includes the ability to violate physical laws. The first premise is NOT the same as the conclusion.
I did not define it as such, I demonstrated that if it is the ability to do anything but violate logic, then it necessarily is also the ability to violate physical laws. BUT that conclusion would not hold if physical laws were logically necessary.
So you can attack premise 2 (physical laws are not logically necessary). Or you could attack the idea of omnipotence as logically incoherent. I won't stop you, since if you remember, I'm an atheist, and if you could successfully show that, it would only improve my position.
Granted, others have pointed out before that your definition is potentially as valid as the one I've just posted, but it's no more valid, so if you want to use one and not the other I think that requires some justification.
I was originally responding to you saying that this definition of omnipotence didn't make sense.
Your argument was essentially, this, correct me if I'm wrong:
1. God created the universe out of nothing.
2. Creating the universe out of nothing violates the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
3. Violating the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is logically impossible (in addition to being physically impossible).
4. Therefore, God can't both be unable to do the logically impossible and create the universe.
5. But as per premise 1, God DID create the universe.
6. Therefore, God is capable of the logically impossible (not bound by logic).
What I was saying is that 3 is not true, therefore God being bound by logic does not result in a contradiction if he violates the law of conservation of mass and energy, and so your criticism fails.
Your argument was essentially, this, correct me if I'm wrong:
1. God created the universe out of nothing.
2. Creating the universe out of nothing violates the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
3. Violating the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is logically impossible (in addition to being physically impossible).
4. Therefore, God can't both be unable to do the logically impossible and create the universe.
5. But as per premise 1, God DID create the universe.
6. Therefore, God is capable of the logically impossible (not bound by logic).
And so I shall correct you. I never stated premise 3 nor continued from there. I'll state my argument in the same format so we can continue with clear understanding:
1. Assuming that all laws in the universe are either physical or logical
2. Assuming that nothing in the universe violates those laws
3. Assuming God created the universe
---
4. If God created the universe, God must have violated the physical law of the conservation of energy.
5. If God is unique in the ability to violate one law of the universe, then God could potentially be unique in the ability to violate another law of the universe.
6. Therefore, it is unreasonable to claim God must be bound by logical laws.
This argument does not preclude the possibility that the laws of logic apply to God, but it does show that there is sound reasoning behind the possibility that they don't. In the absence of an argument that shows with greater certainty that the laws of logic do apply to God, both possibilities are equally valid.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Well, you'll notice I was using very similar religious views as the example. I think that even if you said there was evidence for Christianity, you wouldn't avoid the problem of not being able to meaningfully decide between two similar accounts of Christianity. Unless you believe there is evidence for every tenet of your view of Christianity...
There is! That's why I converted from being a Baptist to being a Catholic. I assure you, I would never have done that unless I was fully convinced with evidence.
Of course I believe there is evidence for every tenet of my view of Christianity. I wouldn't believe in something unless I reasoned my way there. Also, if the "accounts of Christianity" in question are similar enough (like between Roman and Byzantine Catholics), the differences don't have any temporal nor eternal implication.
There is! That's why I converted from being a Baptist to being a Catholic. I assure you, I would never have done that unless I was fully convinced with evidence.
I must admit I am personally rather curious as to how one determines whether one sect of Christianity is more correct than another.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I didn't think that the language was causing the ambiguity, I thought that the idea itself seemed flawed.
You believe it is impossible to have a concept of that which is/encompasses everything collectively (i.e. "universe")?
If that is so, what does "everything" mean, then, since it can't be possibly really describing absolutely everything?
This is actually my problem with a lot of theistic conceptions (it isn't that theism necessarily creates the problem, just that it seems common among the ideas of theists) - that God is an object (or, in the Magic analogy, a card). They may see God may be the biggest, baddest, coolest, most über-legendary creature in all the game of Magic, an indestructible, untargetable 1,000/1,000 for 0 with every desirable ability ever invented, and protection from everything. But it's still just another card.
That seems to be what your issue is Harkius. Your contention appears to be "How can one guy be everything?"
Now, my problem with it is that I think it's impractical to entertain that God would be "some guy" - even if 'he' is the most powerful, smartest, wisest, and most morally perfect "guy" that there is.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
My contention is not, "How can one guy be everything?" My contention is that one entity cannot simultaneously be two mutually contradictory things and still obey the laws of logic
But that is your contention, because you are stating the same thing each time. You are the one that does not understand, you are the one that is using red herrings, and you are the one that is convoluting. I really don't care how little you care for my Magic analogies, this one was apt, and exceedingly clear. Using "card" or "game" or whatever is much simpler and more resistant to term-twisting that using ambiguously define words like "entity" or "something."
I, and another poster, have already explained, more than once, more than once, the irrelevancy of your "mutually contradictory things" problem.
What I am saying is not that hard. It's not. It's very simple. If you would actually read, instead of just ignoring the posts you aren't pleased with, you may see it as such.
You are saying that God is "some guy," because that is what you mean by "an entity." What I am saying is that "God" is not the kind of "entity" that you insist such a being/concept would be - a normal, temporally, spacially and ontologically confined person like you or me.
Quote from Harkius »
That's nice. But, I never said that God was "some guy". I claimed that an entity cannot. I never, to the best of my knowledge, claimed that God was "some guy". Putting those words into my argument misconstrues it so badly that it is almost like you are trying to red herring it.
I was making a general statement about a common concept in the world.
Harkius, I don't understand you, and I am getting really tired of your hostility. You are also the one who claimed in another thread that I presumed to judge the worth and import of other peoples' feelings, even though I never stated, implied, intoned, or otherwise made apparent such a claim. You just assumed that I must be taking the "illogical" stance you oppose.
You also believed that I was claiming that all definitions are absoluetly true, despite my clear and simple explanation that such was not the case.
I am not telling you that normal person (or entity, or whatever term you'd prefer to use, since mine seem to "confuse" you) can be "both a square and a circle at the same time," or whichever mutually exclusive states you want to refer to. I've already directly stated that such is not my argument. Like, three times.
What I am saying is that if we are to conceive of "God," then it would be most logical to not model our concept after our own physical, temporal, and ontological limits, since, chances are, if there is a God, then "he" is not the same type of "being" that shares those limits.
I think it is fallacy to claim that our individual limits are the "logical" limits that all beings must have. For instance, we cannot be in two distance places at once. I think it is illogical to assume that there is no such being, or force, or essence, or whatever, that does not have that limit.
I imagine I am just "hitting my head into a brick wall," as it were, since I doubt you will actually try and understand what I am saying, instead of just picking out whatever you need to throw another dismissal at me.
I apologize if this seemed offensive, but I'd appreciate not having to repeat myself nine hundred times.
Quote from Kraj »
That sounds reasonable to me.
I just realized my two favorite people are starting to exasterpate each other. Let's make sure we all stay friends, k?
Kraj, I am sorry if I incense your favorite person, but I tend to be less than pleased when someone essentially ignores all my comments (whether he is visually examining those words or not), but nevertheless presumes to contest or dismiss them.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I must admit I am personally rather curious as to how one determines whether one sect of Christianity is more correct than another.
It's called interdenominational Christian apologetics, and it's actually a really fun subject to tackle. My favorite reference points are historicity and Scripture, points which few Christians would say were worthless cornerstones. For example, my sect says that "regeneration," or being "born again," refers to the Grace administered during baptism. Many other sects, like many Protestant sects (mostly the ones disconnected from Catholicism by several generations), say that being "born again" happens immediately upon making a confession of faith. An impasse? No, because we have reference points. I usually bring up the numerous early Church father writings that speak of baptism and being "born again" synonymously, both implicitly and explicitly. We'll talk about John 3, and the other guy will usually say that "water" refers to a carnal birth. Then I'll respond with three points: Every person has to be born, so listing that as a salvation requirement is needlessly redundant; "born of water" was not a phrase used at the time to refer to regular birth; "water," at that time, was never used to refer to ambiotic fluid. I'll then go on to bring up other passages that outline the importance of baptism as a normally-necessary sacrament -- an appeal to God, not just a proclamation to man. At this point I'll point out 1 Peter 3.
That's not to say that these issues can be resolved easily. There's a lot of stubbornness at play, among other things. But these aren't hopeless issues. You can see that the way I try to convince the heretic is by showing him historical evidence, Biblical evidence, and then correcting his faulty interpretation of that Biblical evidence using historical evidence. I don't say, "Well let me know when you start having faith. cya"
mamelon, to be perfectly honest, I have not been closely following the discourse between the two of you. I apologize in advance if my comments are presumptuous, but...
...based on Harikus' post on this page and your response, it appears to me that this a case where the two of you agree but reach your conclusions from different perspectives. That creates the appearance not only of disagreement but also a lack of understanding since neither of you see how the others' arguments are even logical responses to your own (because they're not).
I may be completely wrong, but I'm not nuts either - I've had this happen and I'm becoming a little better at recognizing it. Again, apologies if I'm wrong but perhaps you both would benefit from either taking a break from the discussion or, alternatively, instead of responding to each others' post take a moment and state your position in its simplest and clearest terms. Even if you find out that you do indeed disagree, it will most likely assist you two in carrying on in a constructive and respectful manner.
extremestan, that seems like a reasonable course of action. The first question that pops into my mind, though, is: surely no one sect could possibly be the closest to correct on absolutely all the issues at once? How do you reconcile that? My next question would be, how does one determine which version of the Bible is the most valid to use as a referential foundation for teachings?
extremestan, that seems like a reasonable course of action. The first question that pops into my mind, though, is: surely no one sect could possibly be the closest to correct on absolutely all the issues at once? How do you reconcile that?
You wouldn't think so, but there is. Imagine my surprise, finding a Christian denomation that is correct on every spiritually vital issue. I can say with full and complete honesty that, after accepting some shared Christian fundamentals, Catholicism's positions on vital issues are by far the most reasonable (well, not "by far" compared to Eastern Orthodoxy -- they're almost the same denomination except for rite, semantics, and politics). There were New Testament verses that were confusing or even meaningless until I looked at them in a Catholic context. It's really amazing how apparent now it is to me that Christians are supposed to be Catholic.
Now, there are some issues I have with the Roman rite of Catholicism; I personally feel that priests should be permitted to marry. But Catholicism as a whole doesn't have a universal mandate in that regard.
Quote from Kraj »
My next question would be, how does one determine which version of the Bible is the most valid to use as a referential foundation for teachings?
Thankfully, most of the dozens of versions of the Bible don't differ from each other enough to matter. If an issue does come up, we appeal to historicity.
Done. I'm sorry if you felt I was being nasty to you.
Quote from Harkius »
Second, I agree that I am stating the same thing each time, but that one of us does not understand the other one. Since I understand what I am saying, and what you are saying and arguing against is not what I am saying, I have been assuming that it has been you. I am willing to admit that I might be wrong. I will go back and reread what you have said.
The reason that I have resisted the Magic card analogy is not because of the lack of being able to twist the words. I am resisting it because the realm in which we understand Magic cards is different than the realm in which we deal with objects like computers, trees, and apples.
While your analogy may have been exceedingly clear to you it obviously was not to me. Call me stupid, if you wish, but I don't understand the applicability of what you are saying.
Fair enough, and it seems to me that you do not understand my position. The thing about the analogy was that I stated my intended meaning - whether you understand the intent unexplained is certainly no fault of yours, and even if you still don't after explanation, it's still not your fault, but the reason I am frustrated is because I cannot think of many more ways to explain it, since I clarified the terms that you said you had a problem with. But I do realize that I may have been assuming some things were understood, when that was not true. I shall try to explain once more, and if there is a term or an implication that doesn't make sense to you, point it out so I can address it.
I am saying that if an "object" (person, tree, planet, cell, star, so on and so on - including things which contradict each other, like circles and squares) is represented by a Magic card, and if "God" is infinite, then God is not a Magic card (an object which is susceptible to being defined by singular, changeable, and diachotomous properties), God is the whole game (or some other "meta-context" in which all the cards exist, such as the mind of Richard Garfield, or something like that).
Though it is true that objects, or things (like the Magic cards) can and will have properties that contradict and exclude properties held by other objects (mono-blackness and mono-whiteness are mutually exclusive properties), "God," being the whole game, is not such a thing (if God can be called a thing) for which such properties are even applicable.
In short, your point about something being unable to be of one property (like roundness) and also be of another property (like cube-ness) if those properties exclude each other's possibility is true. I agree with. A square can't be a circle at the same time that it is a square, or else it isn't even a square to begin with.
What I am saying that if God is "infinite" and encompasses "everything," then God is not the type of "thing" for which such concerns are even applicable. That is all I am saying.
This example may be better, because it is more concrete. I will refer again to the wooden ball and the wooden building block. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that all objects, like people, animals, even planets, are made of wood. There exists nothing that is not made of wood.
Now, if I were to say "God is everything," what I would mean is that God is wood - all wood, the essence of wood. It may also be possible to say that God is source of all wood (like the One Tree, the first tree, the tree at the center of the universe, or something like that). It does not mean that God is, simultaneously, each individual and distinct object, as they are. It means all things are made up of "God" (in this case, wood).
Quote from Harkius »
And since then, everyone except for you has understood that we were talking about two different things. You continue to think that I am either talking about something that I am not (i.e., a single entity being two different mutually contradictory things at two different times, which is perfectly coherent) or arguing with my concept, without providing an argument that I can understand (i.e., your Magic card, we are all cards, etc. argument line).
I read your posts. I reread your posts. I will read them a third time, but I doubt that what was fuzzy will suddenly clarify. I don't understand what you are talking about.
I admit that I used too much information (all the talk about multicolor) that wasn't relevant to my primary point, and that it was confusing. The whole thing about hybrid cards, and forms and contexts, was kind of a side point, by which I was attempting to explain what I meant when I implicated the possibility that a property which is non-A is not a constant, essential trait which always defines a given object, it is a changeable state which is more relevant to observation and context than it is relevant to the object's "basic nature." What this means ontologically, or in relation to God, of course requires more explanation, but I was really just starting out with that.
Quote from Harkius »
No, I am saying that an entity is an intelligent being that can understand and respond to the universe. This entity does not have to be like us. As is clearly pointed out by the fact that I said that this entity, if God, can violate the laws of logic.
Alright, then. But it didn't seem as if such was your argument, as you seemed to be implicating that being which defies logic can't exist. I must have misread a certain passage.
Quote from Harkius »
First, don't bring my arguments about your behavior from another thread here. It is a completely different thread, and I don't even know which thread you're talking about. If it is the one that I think, it is in an entirely different portion of the Forums, and behavioral expectations vary quite a bit from place to place. Bringing it up here only confuses issues and does no good.
Second, I didn't assume it. I derived it from the arguments that you made, understanding them as I have. Clearly, you believe I am wrong. Clarify your position for me, then.
Firstly, I wasn't attempting to drag your name through the mud, or any such thing, and I apologize if it seemed so. I was trying to call to your attention that you and I frequently seem to be speaking "different languages," so to speak, and since my attempts to reconcile that have as of yet been unsuccessful, I thought you might be able to shed some light on it. If mentioning that is inappropriate, then you will hear no more about it.
Secondly, I don't think you are wrong about the whole things-with-mutually-exculsive-properties issue, what I think is that this issue does not disprove the existence of a "something" that is "infinite." That's it. I admit I have over-complicated the matter somewhat with my more oblique comments, and I'm sorry.
Quote from Harkius »
All right. What, then, shall we model God after? How can we gain any knowledge of God? What descriptors would you use?
Of course, this is the point of the whole thread, so I will give my input on this matter after I'm done with this.
Quote from Harkius »
In any event, this is back to the main point of the thread, and does not actually address my comment about mutual exclusivity.
I've already addressed it. If you still don't see my point, I can address it again, but I hope some of the examples I provided in this post will be sufficient for now.
Quote from Harkius »
I agree with the first part. However, in order for a being to be in two different places at the same time, said being would have to be physically discontinuous. While this does not violate the laws of logic, it is certainly hard to imagine a being that could do that. But, in principle, I agree that it would be unreasonable to assume that no being could.
It is hard to imagine that being could do so. Much of time, such a being is conceived of as "nonphysical" being (which is perhaps not the best term, since it could be said that even things that apparently nonphysical really are physical, but that's neither here nor there), such as a spirit (a pure consciousness not bound by physical location, or by senses, etc.). Something which not only can defy physical laws, but literally ignores the physical laws because those laws aren't even applicable to it.
I imagine that if it is possible for someone to be thinking of more than one thing at a time, then it is theoretically possible for a spirit (consciousness without a distinct body) to "be present" in multiple places at once, even distant places.
Quote from Harkius »
Yes, indeed, that is my M.O. I just ignore your arguments and then I pick and choose pieces, out of context, to make your arguments look dumb. That is what I do. You caught me. I guess that I shall slink off now, in shame, since you caught me at my game.
My purpose wasn't to insult you, and it was unfair to presume such, but I will explain my position:
I was trying to present another point to the argument, and show why I thought your contention about mutually exclusive properties wasn't addressing the whole matter of the discussion. Whenever you would even address me, it seemed to be in a very dismissive manner. I tried using an analogy to explain myself, hoping the common ground would help. When that didn't work, I used plain English to demonstrate my point. Each and every time, you seemed to think that I was trying to tell you that an object can have two mutually exclusive properties, which I am not. That was never, ever my point. It is impossible for an object to have two (or more) mutually exclusive properties. We are on the same page with that. Yet you have interpreted all of my discourses and explanantions as being arguments that you are wrong, that an object can have two or more mutually exclusive properties. Despite that I stated otherwise many, many times.
Quote from mamelon »
Nonetheless, we have found that one card have have a quality that excludes another quality, one which necessitates that it not have the other quality.
Quote from mamelon »
Iz Guildmage can be an :symr::symr: card, or a :symu::symu: card, but not be both in one given instance of gameplay.
Quote from mamelon »
You are saying that one object cannot be both of one quality and another quality if either of those qualities necessitates that it not be the other. Which is true. I'm not arguing that it's not true. You are correct.
Quote from mamelon »
In order for a circle to be a circle, it cannot be a square. In order for a square to be a square, it cannot be a circle.
Quote from mamelon »
Which would be problematic anyway, since I was trying to explain no such thing. I stated that such was not my argument a number of times, including in the original discourse about color, if you'll notice.
I made it very, very clear, using plain English. But you still seemed to think that my entire position was contingent on objects being able to have mutually exclusive properties.
Quote from Harkius »
My contention is that one entity cannot simultaneously be two mutually contradictory things and still obey the laws of logic. Period. End of story. If you still don't understand, I don't know that there is any way that I could make this more clear to you.
Can you see how that would lead to my feeling like you aren't really reading my posts? Maybe I overreacted, but can you at least imagine why I would feel that way?
Also, on the points you did see to understand, you just dimissed them, as if I had no place making such "claims."
Quote from Harkius »
Yeah, metaphysics is fun and all, but proof of this phenomoneon would be nice.
"Fun?" Nice. This entire thread is theoretical. Further, I was not trying to demonstrate to you that something was true, or some phenomenon was existent, or that God even exists. I know that you don't feel any reason to believe in God, which I respect. I was merely trying to say that if something were true (could be so, if it is possible), then it would implicate something about the nature of your argument, and our universe. I was demonstrating a theory because this thread is theory.
Philosophy does not care about proof - only analytical philosophy can even be provable, and that's because the philosophical statements are logically self-evident (analytical). But synthetical philosophical claims (which aren't self-evident) are never totally provable, at least not with philosophy being the way it is today.
In fact, proof itself is not even provable, except for proving the coherency of logical formalisms, or the aforementioned self-evident statements. Foundational philosophy assumes a foundation. When I proposed a foundation, I was saying "If we assume this foundation . . . la la la." That's what foundational philosophy is. I was also trying to show how what I was saying was coherent with itself (logical). That's all. I was saying that if, IF there really is no such thing as an object with only one possible state, or if there was no such thing as a truly distinct, individual object, then . . . conclusion X. I even stated that I was not attempting to prove it:
Quote from mamelon »
Some might even say there really isn't more than one physical card, that all objects are but forms of the "One Card" so to speak. I'm not attempting to prove that as such, but that is one of the possibilities I am referring to when I say that there may be no such quality or state as "non-A" - except "while being played," or in the context of a circumstance.
I was only talking about concepts and possibilities, which I planned to address as the discussion went on.
So when you demanded proof, that said to me that you didn't get the spirit of my intent, which is understandable. What is frustrating to me is that your attitude implicated that you weren't even interested in getting it. You seemed to be saying, "Well, since you can't prove it, who cares what you have to say?"
We can't prove that there even in a "God," and if anyone could, it probably would have already been proven - assuming they had in mind what or who this theoretical "God" even could or would be (which, by the way is the point of this thread - to form such a concept).
How would you feel if you said "A unicorn could exist," and someone responded with "Can you prove a unicorn does exist?"
If you want me to try to give practical reasons to entertain any of the ideas I have proposed as possible, fine, but when I'm just stating those ideas in the first place and asking you to try and understand what I am getting at, and then you ask for proof, you're getting ahead of yourself. And honestly, in such a thread, it's kind of rude.
I really don't mean to villify you. I think you're very intelligent, and I'm sorry if my arguments were confusing or if I overreacted, or if you thought I was implicating you were "dumb." I know that English is not your first language, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. But I'm not pulling it all out of nowhere, either. I'm not asking for an apology, or anything like that, I'm just asking that you make an effort to see where I am coming from without judgment.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Okay, I can understand that. What you are saying is that God is not a Magic card, like other entities are, but that God is comprised of something else. I am not sure what else God is (mainly because my terminology fails, not my imagination), but I understand that God is not a Magic card.
Basically, yes. In this example, God is a "conglomerate," as it were, much in the way a human body is a conglomerate of smaller objects (cells).
Quote from Harkius »
Understood. I think. You are saying that while all of these things are God, God is not necessarily all of these things, right? Indeed, that all of these things are God, but that God is not necessarily any of them.
Yes, in short. God could not be one single object, since that object would have to also encompass all other things, but each of those objects can be (in/made up of) God.
Quote from Harkius »
So, what you are saying is that if God is everything, then it doesn't matter that there are things that are God but that are also mutually exclusive? It seems that there are two classes of things. One class, evinced by everything we know of, except for God, is comprised of objects or entities which must be logically coherent (e.g., black or white, but not both) and another class (restricted, for the moment, to God alone) which includes things which may be logically incoherent (i.e., things for which concerns of logical coherence are inapplicable). Is that correct?
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the second class of things is not so much logically incoherent, but follows different rules of logic (similar to the way solids and gases tend to have different properties and follow different rules - for instance, a solid object can't be crammed into a bottle that doesn't match it's shape, but a gas, which has no definite shape, can be).
Quote from Harkius »
This makes more sense to me. God has (for the sake of clarity, not accuracy) some substance which all other things are made up of.
Essentially, yes.
Quote from Harkius »
Okay, but my difficulty was in using Magic cards because they are an abstraction of reality. While the rules for them are fundamentally clear, they are also fundamentally arbitrary. While this makes them very useful for analogical purposes, it makes them ultimately useless for explaining anything outside of the context of Magic. If card A represents property a, and rule X applies to card A, we cannot be certain that it applies to property a similarly or at all.
Well, that's true. Though the cards have a certain nature, it is only because "someone said so." So, in our perspective, they are not the same as "objects" such as we are.
Quote from Harkius »
I may not have actually said it. My bad. Somewhere I should have made very clear the following: While most logically incoherent objects cannot exist in either physical or mental instantiations, one of God's special properties, perhaps his most unique property (although not his most important (that would be Grace, kids!)) would be the capability of having an instantiation in some form without obeying this rule.
I see. *nod*
Quote from Harkius »
It wasn't that I thought that you were trying to drag my name through the mud. It was that I am a different person in OM than I am in Debate than I am in Trading Post. As such, you could easily imagine several different people operating my keyboard. Bringing that problem up here simply doesn't clarify anything for me at all, since our problem there was one of view point and our problem here is one of definitions, rhetoric, and terminology.
I'm sure that's true. I'm much the same way.
Quote from Harkius »
While I don't think that it actually is possible for a person to think about more than one thing at a time, I don't think that particular argument is relevant, here. I am completely prepared to say that a physically discontinuous being which is comprising (but not necessarily comprised by) all other existing things is logically coherent and could exist.
Well, true, it may or may not be possible to be actually thinking about two things (i.e. two places) at once, depending on how we define "think."
Quote from Harkius »
Okay, it may have been unfair, but in my defense, you were claiming that I was just going to ignore this post, that I had ignored all of the others, and that I was going to pick it apart for things to throw back at you. None of these behaviors are consistent, I don't think, with my actual activities on these threads. As such, I felt more than a little slighted, since these are the very activities that I declaim so loudly.
Actually, what I meant was that it was unfair for me to say what I did.
Quote from Harkius »
I am sorry that you felt that way. That appears to be a part of the way that I interact with people. I don't understand why, per se, people feel that way, but I am trying to get it under control. I apologize if you felt that I didn't take your arguments seriously. In the future, if I chose not to respond to your statements at all, that would be a clearer indication that I found them contemptible. Unless, and I can't imagine that you would do so, you posted something like this: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1244463&postcount=29
The fact that I chose to respond should always first be considered a sign that I consider you worthy of trying to discuss matters with.
Understood. Don't worry about it, I understand better now.
Quote from Harkius »
My apologies for misconstruing your position.
Thank you, and I realize you didn't see what the argument was in the first place.
Quote from Harkius »
Could you point these out? Perhaps I could explain in clearer language why I dismissed these arguments. Then my logic may be clear to you. I don't think that I dismissed any completely out of hand, although I may have left some by the road while chasing down this tricky issue that we have (finally? hopefully?) resolved.
I did so below that quote.
Quote from Harkius »
This would be one of those justified times that you felt that I was being condescending. The fact is, though, that you made a broad claim about all of the objects in the world. This claim is contrary to daily observation and is almost supernatural in its effect. To claim that all objects (not merely God, with whom I am perfectly comfortable changing forms at will), but my daily Pop Tarts? This is a claim that I would consider requiring some kind of reasoning or evidence. You provided neither, made it as if it were something that was both completely acceptable and within the constraints of Debate, and then expected me to ignore it. Well, I can ignore it, but I think that such statements have a place and that the center of a Debate such as this one is not the place for them. As such, I shone a spotlight on it. If I did so harshly, I can only say that I will attempt to be more gentle with you in the future. I do think that said action was justified, though.
Well, like I said, I wasn't actually making that claim, I was merely proposing the idea so that we might entertain it. If you do not wish to do so, that's fine by me.
However - I can proceed.
For example, the Pop Tarts. The Pop Tarts do not have only one form - if you break them up, or swallow them, or toast them, they change form. They can't be in the same form at the same time, but they have more than one form potentially. In addition, that which is the Pop Tart had other forms previous to its current one.
Of course, this causes us to say, "But if it changes form too radically, it changes identity - it's no longer a Pop Tart." Which leads us to examine the value of the identification in relation to the object.
In other words, it makes it evident that the Pop Tart is just our identification for yet another form of that mass of stuff that makes up the Pop Tart - the flour and sugar and so on. So, the real object is the mass of stuff, the Pop Tart is just another state it can take. And if we look deeply enough, the mass of stuff is just another form which the particles that comprise the stuff itself can take.
In the Magic card analogy, I was stating that there are some cards which have exactly one form that never changes - Nantuko Shade is always, always, always going to be a purely mono-black card, and it has no other forms it could ever take (in this example I am presuming for the sake of argument that cards like Shifting Sky don't exist).
My point was that there may not be any such object that is like that - has exactly one state it can be in, without any possible change. Which was kind of tertiary to my main point, but that's what I was talking about when I said that.
Note that I'm not the first one who has discussed this possibility, and I don't claim to fully understand all of the idea's implications. It's related to an aphorism (a koan?) I heard once - "all states are abstractions."
Of course, this idea will seem somewhat illogical, and I understand that. I'm not expecting it to be immediately clear.
And I agree, the card analogy is a bit unwieldly.
Quote from Harkius »
And, since said implications are rather damning to my arguments, I would (reasonably, I think) like to see some basis for them before I simply accept them and upset the balance of my theory.
Well, firstly, I was only trying to demonstrate how there could be a "thing" (or, more accurately, a "meta-thing," comprised of lesser "things") that could theoretically be infinite and all-encompassing.
Quote from Harkius »
Here we are going to have an irresolvable conflict, I fear. I see no reason to attempt to understand something for which you feel no need to provide proof. Also, I don't see demanding proof to be rude, I consider it the responsibility of posters to provide it when asked or to retract their claims. <Shrug>. That is my interpretation of this Forum.
I don't think it's rude to ask for proof in Debate at all, I merely meant it was somewhat out of place to ask for proof in a thread about unprovable theories and imaginary concepts which we discuss in a void.
For instance, if we are just talking about what or who "God" is, and trying to imagine concepts of God, we don't need to prove those concepts, we just need to define them, then relate them to the discussion.
I see the thread in this way - let's say that for millenia, people have argued whether or not unicorns really exist. Then, someone asks, "what is a unicorn, anyway?" And others respond, "we don't know, because no one has ever seen one."
Then the first person responds "how do we know we've never seen a unicorn, if we don't know what a unicorn is so that we might identify one?"
"God" is not unlike the unicorn. In this thread, we are trying to come up with what we mean by "God." We are sure to have different definitions, we are just trying to come up with as basic a definition as we can, so that we could (theoretically) answer our own question "How would we identify God if we could see or touch God?" In other words - what properties would a being or force need to have in order to be considered God?
I doubt we can prove this, but it seems at this point we're mostly brainstorming.
Quote from Harkius »
Actually...it is. Born and bred.
Ah, I see. I seem to recall it being stated at some point that you were a native Russian, and when you said "nyet" it seemed to confirm that. I guess I was thinking of someone else. Whoops.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Ah, no, my wife is a Russian, and I speak a little bit. I love, and always have, the culture and the people. Were I born in a different time, McCarthy would have had my head.
Russia is one of the nations whose culture fascinates me. I wish I knew more about it.
Quote from Harkius »
I would have to say, though, that my English would be savagely good if I had only been speaking it for several years. Perhaps it is because I have been speaking it for so long that these problems crop up?
It could. It happens with me, somewhat, too. If we always assume we are understood, chances are we aren't always understood.
Quote from Harkius »
With regard to our Pop Tarts, again, we had a breakdown in communication. The solid vs. gas was a more helpful example. Pop Tarts, even when chewed up, still qualify as Pop Tarts to me. (Second hand Pop Tarts, though, are no good. ). This hearkens back to chemistry 101 when we learned about the difference between physical and chemical changes. While a solid and a gas are both the same substance, they are in different forms and can, therefore, have properties that are very different.
Chewed Pop Tarts and whole Pop Tarts are also different forms, but they seem less different than solid and gas. I guess, perhaps, the defining characteristics of the Pop Tart (for me) are not altered by the Pop Tart undergoing processing in the tooth factory.
Well, I was just showing how a Pop Tart can change states. A hot Pop Tart and cold Pop Tart are both Pop Tarts, just in different states. However, it is possible for a Pop Tart to change so much that it will no longer be called a Pop Tart - such as if it digested and eliminated, in which case it would be called feces.
But all these idenfitications are just names for states - hot.PopTart, cold.PopTart and PopTart.become.feces are all just identifications for that same basic object - its properties can be changed, but it's still the same "mass of stuff," only changed. So, in other words, all the forms it can possible take aren't actually distinct objects, but changeable states.
Quote from Harkius »
Nevertheless, what say we get this back on topic?
Can do. I am going to suggest some different models for God. They are largely based on preexisting ideas, such as those found in world religions.
I suppose you may be wondering why I keep referring to "states and forms," and all that. I promise I am going to relate that topic to this one, as it has something to do with some of our models.
1) One of the most common models I find is what I call the Deity Model. Here, the word "deity" is defined as, basically, "a very old and powerful person with special powers, and presumably superior knowledge/wisdom and/or moral character." In this model, our deity is seen as a person not unlike a human being - only a human being who has much greater powers, is presumably ancient beyond reckoning, and knows a lot more than us. But if you look at the basic ontology, this deity is just a normal person, despite all of his super-ness. This is what I also call the "some guy" model - which I already mentioned. With this model, God is a very, very great and wise guy, more than we know, with all kinds of super-powers. The ability to know everything, do nearly anything, and create stuff are believed to be among his super-powers.
My problem with this model is that God's still just an object - a "card" in the game, so to speak. Like I said, he could be the coolest card ever, but he's still just a card. If there is a God after all, I have trouble believing that God is just another object floating in space (or "Heaven" as it were), if He is indeed to have the significance we assign to Him.
Traditional polytheistic cosmologies show this model most strongly, usually with a variety of super-people (a Pantheon) who run things. In these cases, they are generally pretty much like humans in respect to their inner nature, just with greater gifts, and a special status (called divinity).
I do not think that the sometimes called "real religions" such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth, actually explicitly propose this model, it just seems that a large number of religious practicioners seem to intuitively ascribe to this one. Some believe that God is not only a deity, but the only deity (which is technically monotheism). Other believe that there is more than one deity, but God is the best deity, and the greatest (if any of you have ever read the works of Joseph Campbell, he states his belief that the Judao-Christian God is just another tribal god like any other, he just happens to be "among the most powerful.")
If we are to define God as a being, I suggest that we do not define Him as a deity (using the above definition).
2) Now, I shall describe what is actually more than one model (two, to be exact), but they are very related to each other so I shall discuss them together.
One I shall call the Animistic/Pantheistic model. In this model, God is everything, and everything is (part of) God. This is not unlike what we were discussing earlier, except now we can make further distinctions. In this model, God = Nature, essentially. The whole physical Universe is God, and that is among God's only defining properties. In this case, God is the All - with a clear definition of All (Nature, the Cosmos). There are spirits and powers permeating all of nature, and everything is "animate."
People have a few problems with this model. For one, it implicates that there is no reality beyond Nature (our physical universe and the spirits which are inherently tied to it). Any aspects of reality that could exist that are not part of our natural Cosmos, our conceived world, don't exist.
The other problem is that there is an implication of "mindlessness" with God. In other words, God is just what we call the mass of natural phenomenon and animating forces (spirits) that infuse it. The only connection is that all this stuff is happening together, in the same "space."
If I were to identify a problem with this model, it would be that it seems an incomplete one.
The other is what I shall call the Monistic model. This is where states and forms become relavant. In this model, God is the One, and there really is nothing else. All else that "is," all objects, are part of a grand illusion. In Sanskrit, this is called the maya. There is no "physical universe", there are no distinct objects, even people, there is just the One, and "everything else" are but different forms of that One.
The idea is that every object you perceive isn't really an object, it's just a state that the One True Object (well, more like One True Subject) takes on. Just as I said that "Pop Tart" or "feces" aren't necessarily distinct objects, just different forms that their basic material can take on, so are all things. All objects are made of certain molecules, which are composed of certain atoms, which are composed of certain subatomic particles, which are all composed of energy of various charges, and so on. The idea here is that if go far enough, you will get that one basic "thing" that everything is made of - and really, everything else is just a form of it. Imagine one really big piece of paper, and though the paper can be twisted into one form at one side, and another form at another side, it's still the same piece of paper (even though a piece of paper isn't actually a single thing, as it's made up of molecules, we're pretending for this example that it is).
So, in this model, not only is God everything, we're all God. All the distinctions that separate us are illusory, as they are just inconstant states. They are abstractions. There really is no Harkius, no Mamelon, there is just God, and we are parts of God who think we are "individual" because that is the nature of the state we are in. There is a force that causes division amongst God, which causes illusory manifestations (maya), different disturbances, in God. Eventually, when all the disturbances are calmed, all illusion of separation will vanish and show itself to be only a dream, and we will all be One again (and truly, we never were apart to begin with).
Reincarnation is often a key element of monistic views. "People" are reincarnated (or reformed over and over, like clay), not as some sort of cosmic game or punishment, but because each incarnation (each form that aspect of God takes) becomes closer and closer to being undisturbed, to transcending out of its illusory separation and becoming a fully integrated part of the One. The idea is that everyone will continue to be reincarnated until all the disturbances are calmed and all the illusions are dispersed.
That's actually not the best explanation, but I hope you get the general idea. Ben Green could probably explain all of it's implications better.
The problem people tend to have with monism is that it seems to devalue individuality, and it might easily be used as a justification to treat others as unimportant (though some might point out that mistreating others doesn't help further the goal of eventual reintegration, as it is a disturbance).
3) Now, the last model I am going to describe tonight is perhaps the hardest to describe, and to understand, and I'm not sure I am even able to do so. I woud like to try and explain it though. It is a very paradoxical idea, which, while not making it impossible, will seem to defy logic and will probably seem rather mystical. It is in many ways a synthesis of the other models.
I call it the Meta-Deity model. In this model, if a deity is thought of as one of the many objects, then a (or rather, the) meta-deity is to a deity as "meta-thing" is to a "thing." Now, what I mean by "meta-thing" is not unlike how I was describing God through my earlier posts. In the monistic model, the One is our "meta-thing." It is the one "thing" that is the basic essence of all other things.
Actually, here's a better example. There's a term I sometimes use, and it is meta-organism. "Meta" indicating an over-arcing wholeness, a thing that is also a sum of other things. A meta-organism is an organism that is made up of smaller organisms. A human being is a meta-organism, as we are composed of cells and bacteria and mitochondria, which are all smaller, but complete, organisms that come together to form our bodies.
Our biosphere can also be referred to as a kind of meta-organism, a big whole that is made up of all the organisms that are part of it (despite the fact that a biosphere isn't traditionally thought of as an organism in itself).
I use this as an example of the idea that reality is a holonarchy. A holonarchy is a system comprised of holons. A holon is a something that, while whole in itself, can be connected with another holon to form a greater whole. A molecule is a holonarchy - it is made up of holons, which are the atoms, and the atoms are also holonarchies, and their electrons, protons, and neutrons are the holons that make up atoms.
What I call the meta-deific model of God implies a holonarchic reality. This is somewhat different from monism, which implies that there really are no holons, because there is no distinction (distinction is but a disturbance). In this model, God is akin to the One, complete person. Imagine that we, and every other thing that there is, is a cell. God is the meta-organism that we combine to make. Also, God is sentient and conscious, an individual being, in the way that we are individual beings while still being made up of lesser beings. I use the word "deity" as part of this model's name because of the implication of a conscious entity - though meta-deity isn't an object, it's the "over object," the meta-object.
This is very similar to monism, as it projects that we are all part of God, and that all of our states are states of God. However, unlike monism, it allows for the possibility of holons - that is, there is an All. In monism, there is One, but there is no All. "All" is an illusion.
In a more pantheistic/animistic model, there is an All, but not necessarily a One. Oh, there are ones, but there is not necessarily an over-arcing metareality.
The other distinction between this model and the pantheistic/animistic model is that the pantheistic/animistic model assumes no source - and a source would be similar to a One, and as I said the pantheistic/animistic model assumes no One. God may be the All, but who knows what the All is made of, or what connects it together.
In this model, we assume a One, though in a slightly different manner than monism. Our One God is not such just by virtue that He is the holonarchic sum of everything. He is also the point of origin, the "center." The origin is the essence, the "heart" of God, and all of the holons flow from that point (you'll notice there are some similarities between this image and the Big Bang theory, though perhaps with different meanings).
Imagine, if you will, a Tree. We can call this the "One Tree." The Tree grows outward to create all the branches, and leaves, of the Tree. The branches and leaves, and all other single parts of the Tree, could be thought of as all of the objects, all of the universe - all of the holons. But all of it is part of the Tree. The Tree is the big holonarchy of all holonarchies, and it is also the source of all the holons (all the wood and brances and leaves and flowers).
In this model, God is the One Tree.
In this model, we also don't assume all the holons are illusory (abstract states), but distinct "realities," that form together into the One Big Reality - the Meta-Deity. The Meta-Deity is the One, the All, the Ultimate Reality, and the Ultimate Source.
I find hints of this model amongst a wide variety of theological and cosmological perspectives. It is definitely present in Christianity (to which people frequently ascribe the Deity Model), if you look - God is seen as being transcedent (greater than the sum of the parts of the universe, and not fully "contained" by it) as well as imminent (permeating the universe, the essential element of the universe). It is also said in the Bible that the Father is "the One, and there is no other." And that the Church is the "body" of Christ (it could possibly be said that the Church, in this context, related to humankind as Christ symbolically relates to the "rest of God.") Also, the very concept of the Triune God insists holonarchy, and excludes simple deity (that God is "some guy"). How can God be distinct, individual beings that are also one being? It's the core mystery of Christianity (some say), and it is a great example of Meta-Deity.
Despite the monistic/deific overtones of Hinduism, I see a lot of meta-deific elements in it. Hindus speak of a one God, the One Will, but they pay great respect to the many "forms" of God, or all of the bhakti, which we think of as their pantheon. The pervasive attitude causes me to think that not all Hindus have a decidely monistic perspective by which they exclude the possibility of an All.
Buddhism is similar, though less because of any bhakti (Buddism isn't theistic). Buddhism is nominally monistic, though there are many Buddhists who entertain the reality of the "distinctions" - holons that aren't mere illusions. Note that in the meta-deific model, the "distinctions" aren't necessarily separations, as all of the holonic beings are closely interlinked.
The sect (according to my experience, limited though it may be) which seems to most directly state their meta-deific elements seems to be Gnosticism. The Gnostic idea of God is very mystical in some ways, but more explored in other ways than in the Christian texts. Gnostics see God as "the Uncontained One." He is also called "the One who Is not" - the One that does not exist. In other words, the One is the essential being rather than an existential being (which we can get into later), which is linked to the Gnostic attitude towards existential (as opposed to essential) reality. In Gnostic ideology, the closest thing there is to a deity is Barbelo, the first power, the Spirit of the Father, who is the active "person" in the universe, the creator god and (possible) existential "representative" of the One essential God.
Gnosticism also has some pantheistic elements to it, of course.
Okay, some general comments. I know I'm using my terms here, and if anyone has a contention with how I'm using them, I'd be happy to hear them.
Also, I know my explanations need work - I conceive all these much more clearly in my mind than I seem to be able to put into words.
If anyone would like to add to my descriptions, has a problem with how I described them, or would like to propose some of their own models, please come forth and do so!
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Yes, but there is no reason to believe that he is. This is not a matter of logic, but one of internal consistency within The Bible. (Wait...did I really just make that argument!?!?!)
Yes, but as I was saying, if God is illogical, there's no reason to assume that, even if the Bible DID come from God, that any of it is true.
Why would he plant false scriptures? I dunno, doesn't have to make (logical) sense
Like I said, making God illogical also means that there's no reason to believe anything (else) in particular about him.
Quote from Kraj »
This argument does not preclude the possibility that the laws of logic apply to God, but it does show that there is sound reasoning behind the possibility that they don't. In the absence of an argument that shows with greater certainty that the laws of logic do apply to God, both possibilities are equally valid.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like there can be any logical justification of God not being bound by logic.
To say that God is not bound by logic leads to absurdities - such as him being an honest liar who planted the Bible for his amusement, and what he says in it is both false and not false, and Satan is actually our savior, not Jesus, etc. None of that makes logical sense, but there no reason to say that it is impossible if God is not bound by logic. There doesn't even seem to be a way to assess the probability of one view or another of God, since there is no reason to suppose that a more logically consistent version of an illogical God is more probable. Maybe you're comfortable with those absurdities, but it doesn't seem to me that there's much point in such a belief, if you actually follow it to its conclusions, nor is there any reason for me to believe it.
Illogical != lying. It just means not bound by logic. Therefore, God could say that he is telling the truth, not be bound by logic, and still not be lying. The immediate assumption is that if he says that he is telling the truth, your only reason to believe him is that he says so. If you don't assume, though, that this is the only reason to believe him, it becomes a lot easier to accept that it all works fine. Since this system doesn't necessarily involve the primacy of logic, it shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not saying that he IS lying, just that there is no reason to assume that he is or isn't. And no reason to assume that one is more likely than the other. Such judgments require the use of logic.
Run that argument by me with a little more clarification, please.
Well, I don't really see how you can prove that an illogical being exists. For example, it could exist and not exist at the same time. Which is illogical, but...
These are absurdities only if you assume several things. 1) That the classical interpretation of the Bible is correct. 2) The Bible is not correct. Assuming both is not the same as saying that God is not bound by logic. Perhaps God isn't, but his statements are logical. There's no reason to assume that his statements are logical tho. Why would he make logical statements vs. illogical statements if he is not bound by logic?
I'm not saying that he would make illogical statements, just that I don't see how you can distinguish which one is true in any way (not even probabilistically).
Like I said, an illogical God could be an honest liar, malicious and kind, a married bachelor, whatever. I'm saying that there's no way to distinguish between an illogical God as being a liar vs honest vs being an honest liar.
There is a point in such a belief, if it is correct. There is value in such a belief because it addresses the difficulties of actually reconciling God with the logical difficulties of God.But I'm saying that if you can't say much about this God that is useful. It is pragmatically a useless belief. You can't even say it exists, since, as I said, it could both exist and not exist.
I don't see how it's possible to logically demonstrate that God is beyond the bounds of logic. To talk about any distinct thing in any meaningful sense necessitates subscribing to numerical identity, the foundation of logic. Arguing that logic doesn't apply to something distinct amounts to wasted and meaningless words.
Overstated. Assuming that logic doesn't apply to something means that we cannot coherently discuss said idea. It means that we cannot ascribe it a definition, we cannot divorce it from other concepts, and we cannot tell what it is. Huh. That's funny. That sounds a little like God, doesn't it?
I think what Stan meant was that you can't use logic to demonstrate something to which logic doesn't apply. If God is outside of logic, then you can no more use logic to show that than you can make a drawing of something that's invisible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like there can be any logical justification of God not being bound by logic.
Quite true. My point from the beggining has been that the reverse is also true. You cannot prove God is bound by logic any more than you can prove He isn't. All you can do is point out that if God is not bound by logic then you cannot draw any logical conclusions about Him. An assertion I also happen to agree with.
Quote from erimir »
To say that God is not bound by logic leads to absurdities - such as him being an honest liar who planted the Bible for his amusement, and what he says in it is both false and not false, and Satan is actually our savior, not Jesus, etc. None of that makes logical sense,
These are not examples of absurd logic, they are simply nonsense statements. The idea that God is not bound by logic does not mean the universe is a giant, cosmic "opposite day". It means that God's existence is more complex than we can possibly describe with our feeble formulas and rules. We can do our best to understand how God impacts the universe as we know it, but assuming that God must exist within the bounds of concepts we can understand is absurd, and honestly rather disheartening. Making logical arguments based on these grand assumptions and declaring them true is absurd.
If you want to start with some basic assumptions about God - which are based purely on belief - and draw logical conclusions from there then that's fine. But recognize that ultimately those conclusions are still beliefs, not logical truths.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
So, uh, not to sound rude, but . . . are we going to eventually get around to defining God?
Don't get me wrong - the discussion about whether or not God follows logical patterns is quite pertinent, but I'm wondering if anyone has any other premises as to what or who "God" could be.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
So, uh, not to sound rude, but . . . are we going to eventually get around to defining God?
I came the conclusion several pages ago that there is no definition for God that can be universally agreed upon, and any attempts to do so result in attributes that are necessarily ambiguous and don't contribute to logical discussion in a constructive way. As far as I see it, the only way to talk about God in a useful manner is to establish a definition of God that all participants can agree on for the purposes of an individual discussion from the beggining. Otherwise you end up arguing differing conclusions that are all correct and incorrect depending on your base assumptions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
God is an unknowable essence. It is absolutely futile to even attempt a description of God. Read the Baha'i writings to find out more!!!
I seriously hope you realize how you just utterly defeated yourself with that last sentence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OK. I'll buy that.
Quite simply, you define omnipotence as "the ability to do everything but violate logic". The thing is, "the ability to do everything" is rather ambiguous; what does that mean? Then you introduce physical laws as the counterpart to logic and refer to nothing other than those two concepts. Therefore, it seems to me you've defined omnipotence as "the ability to violate physical laws but not logic"; you've introduced no other terms that indicate otherwise. Therfore, your conclusion is your definition.
Furthermore, I understand the concept of omnipotence is not definitive, however in its broadest and most generally accepted terms the word means:
Granted, others have pointed out before that your definition is potentially as valid as the one I've just posted, but it's no more valid, so if you want to use one and not the other I think that requires some justification.
If memory serves, "I think, therefore I am" was DesCartes' ultimate conclusion, but those who followed in his footsteps distilled the logic further into "I think" and eventually into "Thought exists".
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Ok, so you were interpreting "everything" as "each individual thing is God, e.g. a rock is God, and a tree is God", rather than interpreting "everything" as "everything collectively".
And now I think you were just misinterpreting what was said, or at least wanting more precise language, without really make that clear enough.
Eh, since the philosophy of the mind isn't really all that relevant to the questions about God in this thread, I figure I'll just stop now. I'm willing to talk about it elsewhere tho.
Sorry, I caught that while I was posting, but I guess I missed one, so they weren't all corrected. Well, you'll notice I was using very similar religious views as the example. I think that even if you said there was evidence for Christianity, you wouldn't avoid the problem of not being able to meaningfully decide between two similar accounts of Christianity. Unless you believe there is evidence for every tenet of your view of Christianity...
Why should I need to? Physical laws ARE distinct from the rules of logic. If you could prove that the physical laws in the universe are logical necessities, you would not only gain much fame and probably help answer some scientific questions, but you would also have decisively destroyed the fine-tuning argument for God.
If we're talking about omnipotence being limited only by logic, you would need to show that our physical laws are a logical necessity in order to say that God can't violate them (i.e. that violating physical laws necessarily means violating logic).
No, I defined omnipotence as the ability to do anything but violate logic. I concluded that this sort of omnipotence includes the ability to violate physical laws. The first premise is NOT the same as the conclusion.
I did not define it as such, I demonstrated that if it is the ability to do anything but violate logic, then it necessarily is also the ability to violate physical laws. BUT that conclusion would not hold if physical laws were logically necessary.
So you can attack premise 2 (physical laws are not logically necessary). Or you could attack the idea of omnipotence as logically incoherent. I won't stop you, since if you remember, I'm an atheist, and if you could successfully show that, it would only improve my position.
I was originally responding to you saying that this definition of omnipotence didn't make sense.
Your argument was essentially, this, correct me if I'm wrong:
1. God created the universe out of nothing.
2. Creating the universe out of nothing violates the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
3. Violating the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is logically impossible (in addition to being physically impossible).
4. Therefore, God can't both be unable to do the logically impossible and create the universe.
5. But as per premise 1, God DID create the universe.
6. Therefore, God is capable of the logically impossible (not bound by logic).
What I was saying is that 3 is not true, therefore God being bound by logic does not result in a contradiction if he violates the law of conservation of mass and energy, and so your criticism fails.
And so I shall correct you. I never stated premise 3 nor continued from there. I'll state my argument in the same format so we can continue with clear understanding:
1. Assuming that all laws in the universe are either physical or logical
2. Assuming that nothing in the universe violates those laws
3. Assuming God created the universe
---
4. If God created the universe, God must have violated the physical law of the conservation of energy.
5. If God is unique in the ability to violate one law of the universe, then God could potentially be unique in the ability to violate another law of the universe.
6. Therefore, it is unreasonable to claim God must be bound by logical laws.
This argument does not preclude the possibility that the laws of logic apply to God, but it does show that there is sound reasoning behind the possibility that they don't. In the absence of an argument that shows with greater certainty that the laws of logic do apply to God, both possibilities are equally valid.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
There is! That's why I converted from being a Baptist to being a Catholic. I assure you, I would never have done that unless I was fully convinced with evidence.
Of course I believe there is evidence for every tenet of my view of Christianity. I wouldn't believe in something unless I reasoned my way there. Also, if the "accounts of Christianity" in question are similar enough (like between Roman and Byzantine Catholics), the differences don't have any temporal nor eternal implication.
I must admit I am personally rather curious as to how one determines whether one sect of Christianity is more correct than another.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
You believe it is impossible to have a concept of that which is/encompasses everything collectively (i.e. "universe")?
If that is so, what does "everything" mean, then, since it can't be possibly really describing absolutely everything?
This is actually my problem with a lot of theistic conceptions (it isn't that theism necessarily creates the problem, just that it seems common among the ideas of theists) - that God is an object (or, in the Magic analogy, a card). They may see God may be the biggest, baddest, coolest, most über-legendary creature in all the game of Magic, an indestructible, untargetable 1,000/1,000 for 0 with every desirable ability ever invented, and protection from everything. But it's still just another card.
That seems to be what your issue is Harkius. Your contention appears to be "How can one guy be everything?"
Now, my problem with it is that I think it's impractical to entertain that God would be "some guy" - even if 'he' is the most powerful, smartest, wisest, and most morally perfect "guy" that there is.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
That sounds reasonable to me.
I just realized my two favorite people are starting to exasterpate each other. Let's make sure we all stay friends, k?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
But that is your contention, because you are stating the same thing each time. You are the one that does not understand, you are the one that is using red herrings, and you are the one that is convoluting. I really don't care how little you care for my Magic analogies, this one was apt, and exceedingly clear. Using "card" or "game" or whatever is much simpler and more resistant to term-twisting that using ambiguously define words like "entity" or "something."
I, and another poster, have already explained, more than once, more than once, the irrelevancy of your "mutually contradictory things" problem.
What I am saying is not that hard. It's not. It's very simple. If you would actually read, instead of just ignoring the posts you aren't pleased with, you may see it as such.
You are saying that God is "some guy," because that is what you mean by "an entity." What I am saying is that "God" is not the kind of "entity" that you insist such a being/concept would be - a normal, temporally, spacially and ontologically confined person like you or me.
I was making a general statement about a common concept in the world.
Harkius, I don't understand you, and I am getting really tired of your hostility. You are also the one who claimed in another thread that I presumed to judge the worth and import of other peoples' feelings, even though I never stated, implied, intoned, or otherwise made apparent such a claim. You just assumed that I must be taking the "illogical" stance you oppose.
You also believed that I was claiming that all definitions are absoluetly true, despite my clear and simple explanation that such was not the case.
I am not telling you that normal person (or entity, or whatever term you'd prefer to use, since mine seem to "confuse" you) can be "both a square and a circle at the same time," or whichever mutually exclusive states you want to refer to. I've already directly stated that such is not my argument. Like, three times.
What I am saying is that if we are to conceive of "God," then it would be most logical to not model our concept after our own physical, temporal, and ontological limits, since, chances are, if there is a God, then "he" is not the same type of "being" that shares those limits.
I think it is fallacy to claim that our individual limits are the "logical" limits that all beings must have. For instance, we cannot be in two distance places at once. I think it is illogical to assume that there is no such being, or force, or essence, or whatever, that does not have that limit.
I imagine I am just "hitting my head into a brick wall," as it were, since I doubt you will actually try and understand what I am saying, instead of just picking out whatever you need to throw another dismissal at me.
I apologize if this seemed offensive, but I'd appreciate not having to repeat myself nine hundred times.
Kraj, I am sorry if I incense your favorite person, but I tend to be less than pleased when someone essentially ignores all my comments (whether he is visually examining those words or not), but nevertheless presumes to contest or dismiss them.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
It's called interdenominational Christian apologetics, and it's actually a really fun subject to tackle. My favorite reference points are historicity and Scripture, points which few Christians would say were worthless cornerstones. For example, my sect says that "regeneration," or being "born again," refers to the Grace administered during baptism. Many other sects, like many Protestant sects (mostly the ones disconnected from Catholicism by several generations), say that being "born again" happens immediately upon making a confession of faith. An impasse? No, because we have reference points. I usually bring up the numerous early Church father writings that speak of baptism and being "born again" synonymously, both implicitly and explicitly. We'll talk about John 3, and the other guy will usually say that "water" refers to a carnal birth. Then I'll respond with three points: Every person has to be born, so listing that as a salvation requirement is needlessly redundant; "born of water" was not a phrase used at the time to refer to regular birth; "water," at that time, was never used to refer to ambiotic fluid. I'll then go on to bring up other passages that outline the importance of baptism as a normally-necessary sacrament -- an appeal to God, not just a proclamation to man. At this point I'll point out 1 Peter 3.
That's not to say that these issues can be resolved easily. There's a lot of stubbornness at play, among other things. But these aren't hopeless issues. You can see that the way I try to convince the heretic is by showing him historical evidence, Biblical evidence, and then correcting his faulty interpretation of that Biblical evidence using historical evidence. I don't say, "Well let me know when you start having faith. cya"
...based on Harikus' post on this page and your response, it appears to me that this a case where the two of you agree but reach your conclusions from different perspectives. That creates the appearance not only of disagreement but also a lack of understanding since neither of you see how the others' arguments are even logical responses to your own (because they're not).
I may be completely wrong, but I'm not nuts either - I've had this happen and I'm becoming a little better at recognizing it. Again, apologies if I'm wrong but perhaps you both would benefit from either taking a break from the discussion or, alternatively, instead of responding to each others' post take a moment and state your position in its simplest and clearest terms. Even if you find out that you do indeed disagree, it will most likely assist you two in carrying on in a constructive and respectful manner.
extremestan, that seems like a reasonable course of action. The first question that pops into my mind, though, is: surely no one sect could possibly be the closest to correct on absolutely all the issues at once? How do you reconcile that? My next question would be, how does one determine which version of the Bible is the most valid to use as a referential foundation for teachings?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
You wouldn't think so, but there is. Imagine my surprise, finding a Christian denomation that is correct on every spiritually vital issue. I can say with full and complete honesty that, after accepting some shared Christian fundamentals, Catholicism's positions on vital issues are by far the most reasonable (well, not "by far" compared to Eastern Orthodoxy -- they're almost the same denomination except for rite, semantics, and politics). There were New Testament verses that were confusing or even meaningless until I looked at them in a Catholic context. It's really amazing how apparent now it is to me that Christians are supposed to be Catholic.
Now, there are some issues I have with the Roman rite of Catholicism; I personally feel that priests should be permitted to marry. But Catholicism as a whole doesn't have a universal mandate in that regard.
Thankfully, most of the dozens of versions of the Bible don't differ from each other enough to matter. If an issue does come up, we appeal to historicity.
Done. I'm sorry if you felt I was being nasty to you.
Fair enough, and it seems to me that you do not understand my position. The thing about the analogy was that I stated my intended meaning - whether you understand the intent unexplained is certainly no fault of yours, and even if you still don't after explanation, it's still not your fault, but the reason I am frustrated is because I cannot think of many more ways to explain it, since I clarified the terms that you said you had a problem with. But I do realize that I may have been assuming some things were understood, when that was not true. I shall try to explain once more, and if there is a term or an implication that doesn't make sense to you, point it out so I can address it.
I am saying that if an "object" (person, tree, planet, cell, star, so on and so on - including things which contradict each other, like circles and squares) is represented by a Magic card, and if "God" is infinite, then God is not a Magic card (an object which is susceptible to being defined by singular, changeable, and diachotomous properties), God is the whole game (or some other "meta-context" in which all the cards exist, such as the mind of Richard Garfield, or something like that).
Though it is true that objects, or things (like the Magic cards) can and will have properties that contradict and exclude properties held by other objects (mono-blackness and mono-whiteness are mutually exclusive properties), "God," being the whole game, is not such a thing (if God can be called a thing) for which such properties are even applicable.
In short, your point about something being unable to be of one property (like roundness) and also be of another property (like cube-ness) if those properties exclude each other's possibility is true. I agree with. A square can't be a circle at the same time that it is a square, or else it isn't even a square to begin with.
What I am saying that if God is "infinite" and encompasses "everything," then God is not the type of "thing" for which such concerns are even applicable. That is all I am saying.
This example may be better, because it is more concrete. I will refer again to the wooden ball and the wooden building block. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that all objects, like people, animals, even planets, are made of wood. There exists nothing that is not made of wood.
Now, if I were to say "God is everything," what I would mean is that God is wood - all wood, the essence of wood. It may also be possible to say that God is source of all wood (like the One Tree, the first tree, the tree at the center of the universe, or something like that). It does not mean that God is, simultaneously, each individual and distinct object, as they are. It means all things are made up of "God" (in this case, wood).
I admit that I used too much information (all the talk about multicolor) that wasn't relevant to my primary point, and that it was confusing. The whole thing about hybrid cards, and forms and contexts, was kind of a side point, by which I was attempting to explain what I meant when I implicated the possibility that a property which is non-A is not a constant, essential trait which always defines a given object, it is a changeable state which is more relevant to observation and context than it is relevant to the object's "basic nature." What this means ontologically, or in relation to God, of course requires more explanation, but I was really just starting out with that.
Alright, then. But it didn't seem as if such was your argument, as you seemed to be implicating that being which defies logic can't exist. I must have misread a certain passage.
Firstly, I wasn't attempting to drag your name through the mud, or any such thing, and I apologize if it seemed so. I was trying to call to your attention that you and I frequently seem to be speaking "different languages," so to speak, and since my attempts to reconcile that have as of yet been unsuccessful, I thought you might be able to shed some light on it. If mentioning that is inappropriate, then you will hear no more about it.
Secondly, I don't think you are wrong about the whole things-with-mutually-exculsive-properties issue, what I think is that this issue does not disprove the existence of a "something" that is "infinite." That's it. I admit I have over-complicated the matter somewhat with my more oblique comments, and I'm sorry.
Of course, this is the point of the whole thread, so I will give my input on this matter after I'm done with this.
I've already addressed it. If you still don't see my point, I can address it again, but I hope some of the examples I provided in this post will be sufficient for now.
It is hard to imagine that being could do so. Much of time, such a being is conceived of as "nonphysical" being (which is perhaps not the best term, since it could be said that even things that apparently nonphysical really are physical, but that's neither here nor there), such as a spirit (a pure consciousness not bound by physical location, or by senses, etc.). Something which not only can defy physical laws, but literally ignores the physical laws because those laws aren't even applicable to it.
I imagine that if it is possible for someone to be thinking of more than one thing at a time, then it is theoretically possible for a spirit (consciousness without a distinct body) to "be present" in multiple places at once, even distant places.
My purpose wasn't to insult you, and it was unfair to presume such, but I will explain my position:
I was trying to present another point to the argument, and show why I thought your contention about mutually exclusive properties wasn't addressing the whole matter of the discussion. Whenever you would even address me, it seemed to be in a very dismissive manner. I tried using an analogy to explain myself, hoping the common ground would help. When that didn't work, I used plain English to demonstrate my point. Each and every time, you seemed to think that I was trying to tell you that an object can have two mutually exclusive properties, which I am not. That was never, ever my point. It is impossible for an object to have two (or more) mutually exclusive properties. We are on the same page with that. Yet you have interpreted all of my discourses and explanantions as being arguments that you are wrong, that an object can have two or more mutually exclusive properties. Despite that I stated otherwise many, many times.
I made it very, very clear, using plain English. But you still seemed to think that my entire position was contingent on objects being able to have mutually exclusive properties.
Can you see how that would lead to my feeling like you aren't really reading my posts? Maybe I overreacted, but can you at least imagine why I would feel that way?
Also, on the points you did see to understand, you just dimissed them, as if I had no place making such "claims."
"Fun?" Nice. This entire thread is theoretical. Further, I was not trying to demonstrate to you that something was true, or some phenomenon was existent, or that God even exists. I know that you don't feel any reason to believe in God, which I respect. I was merely trying to say that if something were true (could be so, if it is possible), then it would implicate something about the nature of your argument, and our universe. I was demonstrating a theory because this thread is theory.
Philosophy does not care about proof - only analytical philosophy can even be provable, and that's because the philosophical statements are logically self-evident (analytical). But synthetical philosophical claims (which aren't self-evident) are never totally provable, at least not with philosophy being the way it is today.
In fact, proof itself is not even provable, except for proving the coherency of logical formalisms, or the aforementioned self-evident statements. Foundational philosophy assumes a foundation. When I proposed a foundation, I was saying "If we assume this foundation . . . la la la." That's what foundational philosophy is. I was also trying to show how what I was saying was coherent with itself (logical). That's all. I was saying that if, IF there really is no such thing as an object with only one possible state, or if there was no such thing as a truly distinct, individual object, then . . . conclusion X. I even stated that I was not attempting to prove it:
I was only talking about concepts and possibilities, which I planned to address as the discussion went on.
So when you demanded proof, that said to me that you didn't get the spirit of my intent, which is understandable. What is frustrating to me is that your attitude implicated that you weren't even interested in getting it. You seemed to be saying, "Well, since you can't prove it, who cares what you have to say?"
We can't prove that there even in a "God," and if anyone could, it probably would have already been proven - assuming they had in mind what or who this theoretical "God" even could or would be (which, by the way is the point of this thread - to form such a concept).
How would you feel if you said "A unicorn could exist," and someone responded with "Can you prove a unicorn does exist?"
If you want me to try to give practical reasons to entertain any of the ideas I have proposed as possible, fine, but when I'm just stating those ideas in the first place and asking you to try and understand what I am getting at, and then you ask for proof, you're getting ahead of yourself. And honestly, in such a thread, it's kind of rude.
I really don't mean to villify you. I think you're very intelligent, and I'm sorry if my arguments were confusing or if I overreacted, or if you thought I was implicating you were "dumb." I know that English is not your first language, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. But I'm not pulling it all out of nowhere, either. I'm not asking for an apology, or anything like that, I'm just asking that you make an effort to see where I am coming from without judgment.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Basically, yes. In this example, God is a "conglomerate," as it were, much in the way a human body is a conglomerate of smaller objects (cells).
Yes, in short. God could not be one single object, since that object would have to also encompass all other things, but each of those objects can be (in/made up of) God.
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the second class of things is not so much logically incoherent, but follows different rules of logic (similar to the way solids and gases tend to have different properties and follow different rules - for instance, a solid object can't be crammed into a bottle that doesn't match it's shape, but a gas, which has no definite shape, can be).
Essentially, yes.
Well, that's true. Though the cards have a certain nature, it is only because "someone said so." So, in our perspective, they are not the same as "objects" such as we are.
I see. *nod*
I'm sure that's true. I'm much the same way.
Well, true, it may or may not be possible to be actually thinking about two things (i.e. two places) at once, depending on how we define "think."
Actually, what I meant was that it was unfair for me to say what I did.
Understood. Don't worry about it, I understand better now.
Thank you, and I realize you didn't see what the argument was in the first place.
I did so below that quote.
Well, like I said, I wasn't actually making that claim, I was merely proposing the idea so that we might entertain it. If you do not wish to do so, that's fine by me.
However - I can proceed.
For example, the Pop Tarts. The Pop Tarts do not have only one form - if you break them up, or swallow them, or toast them, they change form. They can't be in the same form at the same time, but they have more than one form potentially. In addition, that which is the Pop Tart had other forms previous to its current one.
Of course, this causes us to say, "But if it changes form too radically, it changes identity - it's no longer a Pop Tart." Which leads us to examine the value of the identification in relation to the object.
In other words, it makes it evident that the Pop Tart is just our identification for yet another form of that mass of stuff that makes up the Pop Tart - the flour and sugar and so on. So, the real object is the mass of stuff, the Pop Tart is just another state it can take. And if we look deeply enough, the mass of stuff is just another form which the particles that comprise the stuff itself can take.
In the Magic card analogy, I was stating that there are some cards which have exactly one form that never changes - Nantuko Shade is always, always, always going to be a purely mono-black card, and it has no other forms it could ever take (in this example I am presuming for the sake of argument that cards like Shifting Sky don't exist).
My point was that there may not be any such object that is like that - has exactly one state it can be in, without any possible change. Which was kind of tertiary to my main point, but that's what I was talking about when I said that.
Note that I'm not the first one who has discussed this possibility, and I don't claim to fully understand all of the idea's implications. It's related to an aphorism (a koan?) I heard once - "all states are abstractions."
Of course, this idea will seem somewhat illogical, and I understand that. I'm not expecting it to be immediately clear.
And I agree, the card analogy is a bit unwieldly.
Well, firstly, I was only trying to demonstrate how there could be a "thing" (or, more accurately, a "meta-thing," comprised of lesser "things") that could theoretically be infinite and all-encompassing.
I don't think it's rude to ask for proof in Debate at all, I merely meant it was somewhat out of place to ask for proof in a thread about unprovable theories and imaginary concepts which we discuss in a void.
For instance, if we are just talking about what or who "God" is, and trying to imagine concepts of God, we don't need to prove those concepts, we just need to define them, then relate them to the discussion.
I see the thread in this way - let's say that for millenia, people have argued whether or not unicorns really exist. Then, someone asks, "what is a unicorn, anyway?" And others respond, "we don't know, because no one has ever seen one."
Then the first person responds "how do we know we've never seen a unicorn, if we don't know what a unicorn is so that we might identify one?"
"God" is not unlike the unicorn. In this thread, we are trying to come up with what we mean by "God." We are sure to have different definitions, we are just trying to come up with as basic a definition as we can, so that we could (theoretically) answer our own question "How would we identify God if we could see or touch God?" In other words - what properties would a being or force need to have in order to be considered God?
I doubt we can prove this, but it seems at this point we're mostly brainstorming.
Ah, I see. I seem to recall it being stated at some point that you were a native Russian, and when you said "nyet" it seemed to confirm that. I guess I was thinking of someone else. Whoops.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Russia is one of the nations whose culture fascinates me. I wish I knew more about it.
It could. It happens with me, somewhat, too. If we always assume we are understood, chances are we aren't always understood.
Well, I was just showing how a Pop Tart can change states. A hot Pop Tart and cold Pop Tart are both Pop Tarts, just in different states. However, it is possible for a Pop Tart to change so much that it will no longer be called a Pop Tart - such as if it digested and eliminated, in which case it would be called feces.
But all these idenfitications are just names for states - hot.PopTart, cold.PopTart and PopTart.become.feces are all just identifications for that same basic object - its properties can be changed, but it's still the same "mass of stuff," only changed. So, in other words, all the forms it can possible take aren't actually distinct objects, but changeable states.
Can do. I am going to suggest some different models for God. They are largely based on preexisting ideas, such as those found in world religions.
I suppose you may be wondering why I keep referring to "states and forms," and all that. I promise I am going to relate that topic to this one, as it has something to do with some of our models.
1) One of the most common models I find is what I call the Deity Model. Here, the word "deity" is defined as, basically, "a very old and powerful person with special powers, and presumably superior knowledge/wisdom and/or moral character." In this model, our deity is seen as a person not unlike a human being - only a human being who has much greater powers, is presumably ancient beyond reckoning, and knows a lot more than us. But if you look at the basic ontology, this deity is just a normal person, despite all of his super-ness. This is what I also call the "some guy" model - which I already mentioned. With this model, God is a very, very great and wise guy, more than we know, with all kinds of super-powers. The ability to know everything, do nearly anything, and create stuff are believed to be among his super-powers.
My problem with this model is that God's still just an object - a "card" in the game, so to speak. Like I said, he could be the coolest card ever, but he's still just a card. If there is a God after all, I have trouble believing that God is just another object floating in space (or "Heaven" as it were), if He is indeed to have the significance we assign to Him.
Traditional polytheistic cosmologies show this model most strongly, usually with a variety of super-people (a Pantheon) who run things. In these cases, they are generally pretty much like humans in respect to their inner nature, just with greater gifts, and a special status (called divinity).
I do not think that the sometimes called "real religions" such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth, actually explicitly propose this model, it just seems that a large number of religious practicioners seem to intuitively ascribe to this one. Some believe that God is not only a deity, but the only deity (which is technically monotheism). Other believe that there is more than one deity, but God is the best deity, and the greatest (if any of you have ever read the works of Joseph Campbell, he states his belief that the Judao-Christian God is just another tribal god like any other, he just happens to be "among the most powerful.")
If we are to define God as a being, I suggest that we do not define Him as a deity (using the above definition).
2) Now, I shall describe what is actually more than one model (two, to be exact), but they are very related to each other so I shall discuss them together.
One I shall call the Animistic/Pantheistic model. In this model, God is everything, and everything is (part of) God. This is not unlike what we were discussing earlier, except now we can make further distinctions. In this model, God = Nature, essentially. The whole physical Universe is God, and that is among God's only defining properties. In this case, God is the All - with a clear definition of All (Nature, the Cosmos). There are spirits and powers permeating all of nature, and everything is "animate."
People have a few problems with this model. For one, it implicates that there is no reality beyond Nature (our physical universe and the spirits which are inherently tied to it). Any aspects of reality that could exist that are not part of our natural Cosmos, our conceived world, don't exist.
The other problem is that there is an implication of "mindlessness" with God. In other words, God is just what we call the mass of natural phenomenon and animating forces (spirits) that infuse it. The only connection is that all this stuff is happening together, in the same "space."
If I were to identify a problem with this model, it would be that it seems an incomplete one.
The other is what I shall call the Monistic model. This is where states and forms become relavant. In this model, God is the One, and there really is nothing else. All else that "is," all objects, are part of a grand illusion. In Sanskrit, this is called the maya. There is no "physical universe", there are no distinct objects, even people, there is just the One, and "everything else" are but different forms of that One.
The idea is that every object you perceive isn't really an object, it's just a state that the One True Object (well, more like One True Subject) takes on. Just as I said that "Pop Tart" or "feces" aren't necessarily distinct objects, just different forms that their basic material can take on, so are all things. All objects are made of certain molecules, which are composed of certain atoms, which are composed of certain subatomic particles, which are all composed of energy of various charges, and so on. The idea here is that if go far enough, you will get that one basic "thing" that everything is made of - and really, everything else is just a form of it. Imagine one really big piece of paper, and though the paper can be twisted into one form at one side, and another form at another side, it's still the same piece of paper (even though a piece of paper isn't actually a single thing, as it's made up of molecules, we're pretending for this example that it is).
So, in this model, not only is God everything, we're all God. All the distinctions that separate us are illusory, as they are just inconstant states. They are abstractions. There really is no Harkius, no Mamelon, there is just God, and we are parts of God who think we are "individual" because that is the nature of the state we are in. There is a force that causes division amongst God, which causes illusory manifestations (maya), different disturbances, in God. Eventually, when all the disturbances are calmed, all illusion of separation will vanish and show itself to be only a dream, and we will all be One again (and truly, we never were apart to begin with).
Reincarnation is often a key element of monistic views. "People" are reincarnated (or reformed over and over, like clay), not as some sort of cosmic game or punishment, but because each incarnation (each form that aspect of God takes) becomes closer and closer to being undisturbed, to transcending out of its illusory separation and becoming a fully integrated part of the One. The idea is that everyone will continue to be reincarnated until all the disturbances are calmed and all the illusions are dispersed.
That's actually not the best explanation, but I hope you get the general idea. Ben Green could probably explain all of it's implications better.
The problem people tend to have with monism is that it seems to devalue individuality, and it might easily be used as a justification to treat others as unimportant (though some might point out that mistreating others doesn't help further the goal of eventual reintegration, as it is a disturbance).
3) Now, the last model I am going to describe tonight is perhaps the hardest to describe, and to understand, and I'm not sure I am even able to do so. I woud like to try and explain it though. It is a very paradoxical idea, which, while not making it impossible, will seem to defy logic and will probably seem rather mystical. It is in many ways a synthesis of the other models.
I call it the Meta-Deity model. In this model, if a deity is thought of as one of the many objects, then a (or rather, the) meta-deity is to a deity as "meta-thing" is to a "thing." Now, what I mean by "meta-thing" is not unlike how I was describing God through my earlier posts. In the monistic model, the One is our "meta-thing." It is the one "thing" that is the basic essence of all other things.
Actually, here's a better example. There's a term I sometimes use, and it is meta-organism. "Meta" indicating an over-arcing wholeness, a thing that is also a sum of other things. A meta-organism is an organism that is made up of smaller organisms. A human being is a meta-organism, as we are composed of cells and bacteria and mitochondria, which are all smaller, but complete, organisms that come together to form our bodies.
Our biosphere can also be referred to as a kind of meta-organism, a big whole that is made up of all the organisms that are part of it (despite the fact that a biosphere isn't traditionally thought of as an organism in itself).
I use this as an example of the idea that reality is a holonarchy. A holonarchy is a system comprised of holons. A holon is a something that, while whole in itself, can be connected with another holon to form a greater whole. A molecule is a holonarchy - it is made up of holons, which are the atoms, and the atoms are also holonarchies, and their electrons, protons, and neutrons are the holons that make up atoms.
What I call the meta-deific model of God implies a holonarchic reality. This is somewhat different from monism, which implies that there really are no holons, because there is no distinction (distinction is but a disturbance). In this model, God is akin to the One, complete person. Imagine that we, and every other thing that there is, is a cell. God is the meta-organism that we combine to make. Also, God is sentient and conscious, an individual being, in the way that we are individual beings while still being made up of lesser beings. I use the word "deity" as part of this model's name because of the implication of a conscious entity - though meta-deity isn't an object, it's the "over object," the meta-object.
This is very similar to monism, as it projects that we are all part of God, and that all of our states are states of God. However, unlike monism, it allows for the possibility of holons - that is, there is an All. In monism, there is One, but there is no All. "All" is an illusion.
In a more pantheistic/animistic model, there is an All, but not necessarily a One. Oh, there are ones, but there is not necessarily an over-arcing metareality.
The other distinction between this model and the pantheistic/animistic model is that the pantheistic/animistic model assumes no source - and a source would be similar to a One, and as I said the pantheistic/animistic model assumes no One. God may be the All, but who knows what the All is made of, or what connects it together.
In this model, we assume a One, though in a slightly different manner than monism. Our One God is not such just by virtue that He is the holonarchic sum of everything. He is also the point of origin, the "center." The origin is the essence, the "heart" of God, and all of the holons flow from that point (you'll notice there are some similarities between this image and the Big Bang theory, though perhaps with different meanings).
Imagine, if you will, a Tree. We can call this the "One Tree." The Tree grows outward to create all the branches, and leaves, of the Tree. The branches and leaves, and all other single parts of the Tree, could be thought of as all of the objects, all of the universe - all of the holons. But all of it is part of the Tree. The Tree is the big holonarchy of all holonarchies, and it is also the source of all the holons (all the wood and brances and leaves and flowers).
In this model, God is the One Tree.
In this model, we also don't assume all the holons are illusory (abstract states), but distinct "realities," that form together into the One Big Reality - the Meta-Deity. The Meta-Deity is the One, the All, the Ultimate Reality, and the Ultimate Source.
I find hints of this model amongst a wide variety of theological and cosmological perspectives. It is definitely present in Christianity (to which people frequently ascribe the Deity Model), if you look - God is seen as being transcedent (greater than the sum of the parts of the universe, and not fully "contained" by it) as well as imminent (permeating the universe, the essential element of the universe). It is also said in the Bible that the Father is "the One, and there is no other." And that the Church is the "body" of Christ (it could possibly be said that the Church, in this context, related to humankind as Christ symbolically relates to the "rest of God.") Also, the very concept of the Triune God insists holonarchy, and excludes simple deity (that God is "some guy"). How can God be distinct, individual beings that are also one being? It's the core mystery of Christianity (some say), and it is a great example of Meta-Deity.
Despite the monistic/deific overtones of Hinduism, I see a lot of meta-deific elements in it. Hindus speak of a one God, the One Will, but they pay great respect to the many "forms" of God, or all of the bhakti, which we think of as their pantheon. The pervasive attitude causes me to think that not all Hindus have a decidely monistic perspective by which they exclude the possibility of an All.
Buddhism is similar, though less because of any bhakti (Buddism isn't theistic). Buddhism is nominally monistic, though there are many Buddhists who entertain the reality of the "distinctions" - holons that aren't mere illusions. Note that in the meta-deific model, the "distinctions" aren't necessarily separations, as all of the holonic beings are closely interlinked.
The sect (according to my experience, limited though it may be) which seems to most directly state their meta-deific elements seems to be Gnosticism. The Gnostic idea of God is very mystical in some ways, but more explored in other ways than in the Christian texts. Gnostics see God as "the Uncontained One." He is also called "the One who Is not" - the One that does not exist. In other words, the One is the essential being rather than an existential being (which we can get into later), which is linked to the Gnostic attitude towards existential (as opposed to essential) reality. In Gnostic ideology, the closest thing there is to a deity is Barbelo, the first power, the Spirit of the Father, who is the active "person" in the universe, the creator god and (possible) existential "representative" of the One essential God.
Gnosticism also has some pantheistic elements to it, of course.
Okay, some general comments. I know I'm using my terms here, and if anyone has a contention with how I'm using them, I'd be happy to hear them.
Also, I know my explanations need work - I conceive all these much more clearly in my mind than I seem to be able to put into words.
If anyone would like to add to my descriptions, has a problem with how I described them, or would like to propose some of their own models, please come forth and do so!
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Yes, but as I was saying, if God is illogical, there's no reason to assume that, even if the Bible DID come from God, that any of it is true.
Why would he plant false scriptures? I dunno, doesn't have to make (logical) sense
Like I said, making God illogical also means that there's no reason to believe anything (else) in particular about him.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like there can be any logical justification of God not being bound by logic.
To say that God is not bound by logic leads to absurdities - such as him being an honest liar who planted the Bible for his amusement, and what he says in it is both false and not false, and Satan is actually our savior, not Jesus, etc. None of that makes logical sense, but there no reason to say that it is impossible if God is not bound by logic. There doesn't even seem to be a way to assess the probability of one view or another of God, since there is no reason to suppose that a more logically consistent version of an illogical God is more probable. Maybe you're comfortable with those absurdities, but it doesn't seem to me that there's much point in such a belief, if you actually follow it to its conclusions, nor is there any reason for me to believe it.
Well, I don't really see how you can prove that an illogical being exists. For example, it could exist and not exist at the same time. Which is illogical, but...
These are absurdities only if you assume several things. 1) That the classical interpretation of the Bible is correct. 2) The Bible is not correct. Assuming both is not the same as saying that God is not bound by logic. Perhaps God isn't, but his statements are logical.
There's no reason to assume that his statements are logical tho. Why would he make logical statements vs. illogical statements if he is not bound by logic?
I'm not saying that he would make illogical statements, just that I don't see how you can distinguish which one is true in any way (not even probabilistically).
Like I said, an illogical God could be an honest liar, malicious and kind, a married bachelor, whatever. I'm saying that there's no way to distinguish between an illogical God as being a liar vs honest vs being an honest liar.
There is a point in such a belief, if it is correct. There is value in such a belief because it addresses the difficulties of actually reconciling God with the logical difficulties of God.But I'm saying that if you can't say much about this God that is useful. It is pragmatically a useless belief. You can't even say it exists, since, as I said, it could both exist and not exist.
I think what Stan meant was that you can't use logic to demonstrate something to which logic doesn't apply. If God is outside of logic, then you can no more use logic to show that than you can make a drawing of something that's invisible.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
These are not examples of absurd logic, they are simply nonsense statements. The idea that God is not bound by logic does not mean the universe is a giant, cosmic "opposite day". It means that God's existence is more complex than we can possibly describe with our feeble formulas and rules. We can do our best to understand how God impacts the universe as we know it, but assuming that God must exist within the bounds of concepts we can understand is absurd, and honestly rather disheartening. Making logical arguments based on these grand assumptions and declaring them true is absurd.
If you want to start with some basic assumptions about God - which are based purely on belief - and draw logical conclusions from there then that's fine. But recognize that ultimately those conclusions are still beliefs, not logical truths.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Don't get me wrong - the discussion about whether or not God follows logical patterns is quite pertinent, but I'm wondering if anyone has any other premises as to what or who "God" could be.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I came the conclusion several pages ago that there is no definition for God that can be universally agreed upon, and any attempts to do so result in attributes that are necessarily ambiguous and don't contribute to logical discussion in a constructive way. As far as I see it, the only way to talk about God in a useful manner is to establish a definition of God that all participants can agree on for the purposes of an individual discussion from the beggining. Otherwise you end up arguing differing conclusions that are all correct and incorrect depending on your base assumptions.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
On the first page I pasted my list of attributes that encapsulate the typical notion of a god. No one responded.
Supreme
In charge of something.
Source
Everything we are familiar with, in some way, came from it or its kind.
Powerful
Can do more than humans.
Mysterious
Is mostly invisible to humans, humans can't grasp it completely.
Revealed
Is sometimes made visible to humans (through miracles, divine providence, blessings, curses, etc.), gives "hints" of its qualities.
Spiritual
Made of something different or more than mere physical components, if any physical components at all.
I seriously hope you realize how you just utterly defeated yourself with that last sentence.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!