What do you mean by saying that it requires both faith and reason to know God? Where does reason come into play if proofs of his existence are folly? Or is reason only to be used to show that God is possible?
Also, how do you know that trying to prove God is folly? How do you know God is mysterious? What does mysterious mean (note, that I find defining God as mysterious to lead to similar conclusions as Kraj's definition from the OP)?
And "according to the church" is not a good answer.
I know of quantum physics in that I am aware it exists and understand it's general philosophy of the most basic levels, but if you laid a true quantum physics problem in front of me to solve I'd laugh in your face.
Knowledge of something and knowing something are two entirely different things.
If you work of the Judeo-Christian definition of God as a Supreme and Superior being who created the universe and had some level of connection with humanity it makes sense that we would know of him through those connections but we would not know him as we could not possibly hope to comprehend the workings or thoughts of such a higher level being (trying to put an N64 cartridge into an NES).
@BenGreen: By that most recent account, you are a Panentheist. You believe that everything is in God. This contrasts with Pantheism, which is to say that God is in each and every thing.
Just so you know.
I believe that what you are getting at in terms of BenGreen's statement is perhaps more aptly described as monism. Though the distinction you refer to is valid and it's value is intriguing.
I also find it interesting to note that the Christian idea of God, while being nominally monotheistic, details God as being imminent throughout reality, that is, completely pervasive of every layer and aspect of existence, a thought which has a certain pantheistic "feel" to it.
I also can't stop thinking of Hinduism, which, while often perceived as being distinctly polytheistic by "outsiders", is actually a monotheistic religion (with admitted emanationist overtones).
I find Kraj's specific question to be good, and very answerable, but it actually leads to further questions which should be addressed.
Quote from Kraj »
My intention is not to pose a definition which all people and all belief systems could accept as complete. My purpose is to 1.) remove all the attributes of God that people and belief systems do disagree on and be left with a minimum of one attribute that they all can agree on; and 2.) to arrive at a definition which, due to mutual agreement independant of belief, can be used as a starting point of any discussion regarding the nature of God.
The "problem" here is that the basic nature of God, which is what we are attempting to define, is going to be disagreed upon. That's kind of acceptable because we can determine a number of prominent definitions of God, and see what most of them have in common. Which I think is what Kraj is getting at.
Some questions to consider:
1) Is God a being (i.e. a personality)?
1a) If so, what manner of being is God?
1b) Who or what is God in relation to other beings?
1c) What is the nature of the distinction between God and other beings?
2) What criteria must any given being fulfill in order to be appropriately called 'God'?
2a) Do any of these criteria necessitate that only one being can fulfill them at any one time?
2b) Is it possible for a being to fulfill such criteria at one time but later fail to fulfill them?
I find 1a, 1b, and 1c to be particularly interesting.
Of course, there are other questions, and all of the above are contingent upon 1 being answered with "yes."
If anyone else has more useful questions to propose, I'd love to see 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.
What do you mean by saying that it requires both faith and reason to know God? Where does reason come into play if proofs of his existence are folly?
Reason is deriving apparent knowledge from meritous observation within a logical framework. I don't know of any invincible logical proof of God, but I can claim God exists through reason.
Quote from erimir »
Also, how do you know that trying to prove God is folly?
I don't know it for sure, but I haven't seen an invincible logical proof of Him yet.
Quote from erimir »
How do you know God is mysterious?
Because he is not fully apparent.
Quote from erimir »
What does mysterious mean (note, that I find defining God as mysterious to lead to similar conclusions as Kraj's definition from the OP)?
Not fully apparent.
Quote from erimir »
And "according to the church" is not a good answer.
Why not? When the Church downplays logical certainty in God, that's important to note.
I don't know it for sure, but I haven't seen an invincible logical proof of Him yet.
I would also add that it is folly (to a certain degree) to attempt to prove the existence of God, because doing so implicates that one is "missing the point," so to speak. That requires a certain amount of explanation, though.
For instance, some would state that whether or not God can be proven to exist is not nearly as important as how one interacts with God subjectively throughout one's life and development. I tend to agree with this idea.
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.
Reason is deriving apparent knowledge from meritous observation within a logical framework. I don't know of any invincible logical proof of God, but I can claim God exists through reason.
Reason does not require observation - the Ontological Argument is an a priori proof of God, so it does not rely on observation, simply on logic. I think it fails, but even so...
I don't know it for sure, but I haven't seen an invincible logical proof of Him yet.
Well, I don't know it for sure either, but I wouldn't say that it is folly to try to prove or disprove God. I've seen some arguments that are very convincing for both (depending on your definition of God).
Why not? When the Church downplays logical certainty in God, that's important to note.
It is noteworthy, but it is not evidence. That's all I meant.
Quote from mamelon »
For instance, some would state that whether or not God can be proven to exist is not nearly as important as how one interacts with God subjectively throughout one's life and development. I tend to agree with this idea.
Yes, but some people would like to know whether it's even possible to interact with God. If he doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be important at all.
To me, the notion of interacting with God doesn't even make any sense, since I don't believe in God.
To me, the notion of interacting with God doesn't even make any sense, since I don't believe in God.
Well, of course, that makes it a somewhat different matter.
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.
Reason does not require observation - the Ontological Argument is an a priori proof of God, so it does not rely on observation, simply on logic. I think it fails, but even so...
I'm using the Kantian definition of reason.
Quote from erimir »
Well, I don't know it for sure either, but I wouldn't say that it is folly to try to prove or disprove God. I've seen some arguments that are very convincing for both (depending on your definition of God).
Well I haven't, for both, so here we are.
Quote from erimir »
It is noteworthy, but it is not evidence. That's all I meant.
It's not hard evidence, but I think it is evidence. If there were a way to definitely prove God, the Church probably would have latched onto it. But the Church says that belief in God requires at least a measure of faith. Thus, there's probably no definite proof. This is a reasonable argument, but it isn't completely logical because it depends on intuitive probabilities based on past observation.
If there were a way to definitely prove God, the Church probably would have latched onto it.
Not if the proof of God conflicts with Christianity. They have no interest in a proof of God if it would rule out Christianity in addition to atheism. And to be honest, the Christian God requires a bit of tweaking (in my view) from how he is depicted in the Bible for him to fit with some of the definitions of God used in these proofs (or defenses, when defending against an argument against God).
Of course, I would need to know what "the Church" is, since different churches have different opinions, and I haven't really heard of a church that says that God is not provable at all through reason. They would say faith is important, but they have no reason to claim that it isn't provable through reason. I can see that they might not endorse any particular logical proof nor say that it is necessary tho.
I personally don't think there's a way to definitely prove God, and I certainly haven't been convinced by any proof, but I don't think it's folly to try to.
But then again, I don't consider faith to be a valid way of knowing things, so as far as my personal beliefs are concerned, telling me that you need faith to believe in something is as good as conceding that there isn't a good reason to believe in it. So I guess I find logical proofs more important than you do.
Not if the proof of God conflicts with Christianity. They have no interest in a proof of God if it would rule out Christianity in addition to atheism.
That's true. But I haven't seen any proof attempt that would do that. I have no evidence that anyone has ever attempted a purely logical God-proof that disproves the God of the Church (the God of Abraham/Ibrahim). That's most likely because the only people trying to find logical proofs for God were Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The pagans were content having baseless beliefs (even if those beliefs were/are true), while the Judeo-Islamo-Christian scholars grasped enthusiastically at more signs of their mysterious God.
Quote from erimir »
Of course, I would need to know what "the Church" is, since different churches have different opinions, and I haven't really heard of a church that says that God is not provable at all through reason. They would say faith is important, but they have no reason to claim that it isn't provable through reason. I can see that they might not endorse any particular logical proof nor say that it is necessary tho.
I'm talking about the Catholic Church in particular. Also, terms are being screwed up here. The belief is as follows: God is evident through reason, but not provable through logic alone.
Quote from erimir »
But then again, I don't consider faith to be a valid way of knowing things, so as far as my personal beliefs are concerned, telling me that you need faith to believe in something is as good as conceding that there isn't a good reason to believe in it.
Gah. No good reason to believe that the Earth is round? That the Holocaust happened? That man landed on the moon? That Washington was the first president of the United States? That Nero ruled Rome? That the Egyptians built the pyramids? That Aristotle was Aristotelean?
Nothing based on observation is completely knowable. Faith is necessary for the practical application of things observed. Pure logic is fun, but it doesn't do anything.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't find the Christian God to be easily compatible with the view of God in some philosophical arguments. I realize that Christians made most of those arguments, but clearly we disagree on that point.
Quote from extremestan »
Gah. No good reason to believe that the Earth is round? That the Holocaust happened? That man landed on the moon? That Washington was the first president of the United States? That Nero ruled Rome? That the Egyptians built the pyramids? That Aristotle was Aristotelean?
Nothing based on observation is completely knowable. Faith is necessary for the practical application of things observed. Pure logic is fun, but it doesn't do anything.
So, you think that the "faith" required to believe in the Holocaust or that the Earth is round is the same as the faith required to believe in Christianity? Hardly.
There are miles of difference between having faith in Jesus's resurrection and believing that the Earth is round.
I don't mean faith as in that it's impossible to know empirical things with 100% certainty. That's not knowing by faith. That's admitting that you don't have perfect knowledge. Believing in something without sufficient evidence for it is what I mean by knowing through faith.
The Earth's roundness is actually fairly obvious even from its surface if one just takes the time to think about the implications and look around. People have, after all, been saying it was round for thousands of years before Gagarin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, stanalquin, in order to discuss what, if is a prerequisite. After all, it is impossible to assign real attributes to something which does not exist.
If Spinoza's proof is correct, then God cannot exist, for a = a, and a cannot not be a. If there are two extant things which are logically contradictory (such as a right triangle and an scalene triangle) then a must not be a. But a must be a. Therefore, we are at an impasse.
Plus, Spinoza's theorem is useless. It assumes that God exists, which is the point of the discussion that you are attempting to dispell. Problems abound.
Harkius
No, it's not useless. We are just trying to come up with a means of describing what is meant when we refer to "God," in detail. Whether or not there "really is a God" isn't nearly as relevant because we are just trying to define the concept of God, and there most certainly is such a concept.
Also, for God to be the whole of reality is not so illogical as you think. The existance multiple objects and subjects (a's, b's, c's), and even opposites, does not mean that there cannot be something that encompasses all of them.
I had a friend once you tried to use this argument to prove that a God couldn't exist - he claimed that if God were infinite, then it would be impossible anything but God to exist, including human beings.
To me this is not unlike saying that if I am a complete, cohesive body, then I cannot have both a hand and a foot, I cannot have both a right eye and a left eye, I cannot have distinct organs like a heart or a liver.
You assume that for something to "be all that is," it means that something must be a uniform, conglomerate mass (so to speak), like some single-celled organism.
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.
I could, therefore, claim that God is a bloodthirsty demon, sending his own son to Earth to be tormented and abused for his entertainment, all the while performing acts which shall not be named upon the personages of the relatives of everyone reading this. Not such a useful definition of God, is it?
One would assume that for practical purposes you would not do so.
Quote from Harkius »
Mamelon says the same thing. To you both, I would point out that you cannot simultaneously be both A and not-A. This is a logical maxim as fundamental as if you are A, then you are A. If there are two mutually exclusive properties, you cannot have both. Logically.
I realize that this statement is going to sound silly to you, but that's the problem with reality - it's not logical, it's analogical (or dialectical), and usually alogical.
Which is sort of what I was getting at when I asked "what manner of being" could God be?
For instance, one could say "One cannot be both tall and short." Tall and short, while mutually exclusive, are relative, so one could be considered tall by one standard but short by another.
That's not a good example, but it does demonstrate how oversimplification of the value of our terms and that upon which we are attempting to apply them can sidetrack the progression of the discussion - that is, we can miss something by trying to look at things from a wholly logical (linear) perspective.
Now, if something cannot be both A and non-A, can both A and non-A be "real"?
Here, I am suggesting something - that it is not so much that "God is all," rather, "all is (part of) God."
Which is coming back to pantheism/panentheism.
Really we are getting into diachotomies. Which are tricky. There is the possibility that while there is A, there is no such thing as non-A; rather, what we think of as non-A is not really non-A, but merely B, or C, or so on.
The triangles aren't a great example, either, because a triangle in a void is but an abstract image. A physical object could easily have one face which is a scalene triangle, and another face which is a right triangle, so some such thing.
I could have said it better, but it's late and I'm half asleep.
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.
Well, stanalquin, in order to discuss what, if is a prerequisite. After all, it is impossible to assign real attributes to something which does not exist.
For the sake of dicussion, I would just like to point out the very title of the thread implies a tacit assumption that God exists. After all, what use is there defining something that doesn't exist? Certainly debating the existance of God has its place, but it is not a prerequisite for a discussion that already assumes the afirmative.
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.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't find the Christian God to be easily compatible with the view of God in some philosophical arguments. I realize that Christians made most of those arguments, but clearly we disagree on that point.
Wait.. which point do we disagree on?
Quote from erimir »
So, you think that the "faith" required to believe in the Holocaust or that the Earth is round is the same as the faith required to believe in Christianity? Hardly.
No. They differ in degree.
Quote from erimir »
Believing in something without sufficient evidence for it is what I mean by knowing through faith.
For a long time, there wasn't. Now we have pictures, and it makes it a lot easier to believe.
Well obviously I mean with the evidence that is available today.
Quote from stanalquin »
Ben Green put rather succinctly what i am now going to drag out rather excessively. It was the theologian/philosopher (call him what you will) Baruch Spinoza who proposed (as a logical set of propositions) the following: (remember, this is all predicated upon accepting the actual existence of a greater power):
1- God exists.
2- All things which exist are real, they exist in reality.
3- God exists in reality.
4- God is infinite (Spinoza reasons no point in a limited God)
5- If God is infinite and exists in reality, there can be nothing in reality which is not God.
6- God is the whole of reality.
The implications of such a belief seem to me to make God irrelevant.
I would question premise 5, and probably also 2 and/or 3 (what does it mean to exist in reality - does it mean that you have to take up space? etc.). But it is quite easy to conceive of infinite things that aren't everything. For example, you can conceive of an infinitely long string - yet in spite of being infinite, there is no reason to assume that there is nothing that is not the string.
Oh and obviously, I would question 1.
Quote from extremestan »
Wait.. which point do we disagree on?
Those philosophers who put forth arguments for God's existence disagree with me on the issue of whether their arguments are compatible with the God of the Bible.
No. They differ in degree.
But I wouldn't say that I know the Holocaust happened through faith. Sure, I have some faith in my senses, that I'm in North Carolina, etc. I'm not a radical skeptic. But admitting that does not entail that I must consider all faith to be valid. I don't claim that radical skepticism is wrong, but I don't see any point in the position. So, I act as if I can trust my senses, but I don't actually consider that to be something known for certain.
Or do you think that they are equivalent, and that if I trust my senses, I must then concede that faith is a generally valid way of knowing things, even though faith can be used to support mutually exclusive positions with equal validity?
It doesn't seem to me that if faith can be used just as validly to claim that Christianity is true, and that Islam is true, and the two are mutually exclusive, obviously that kind of faith isn't a useful way of knowing things.
The scientific method can't be used just as validly to claim that bloodletting cures strep throat and antibiotics don't as it can to claim the opposite. There is evidence that strep throat can be cured with antibiotics, and not evidence for it being cured by bloodletting. Ergo it is reasonable to believe the medical science about strep throat being cured by antibiotics. The scientific method can differentiate between views - faith, such as the kind used to justify Christianity and Islam, cannot be used to differentiate between the two.
Those philosophers who put forth arguments for God's existence disagree with me on the issue of whether their arguments are compatible with the God of the Bible.
Continue.
Quote from erimir »
But I wouldn't say that I know the Holocaust happened through faith. Sure, I have some faith in my senses, that I'm in North Carolina, etc. I'm not a radical skeptic. But admitting that does not entail that I must consider all faith to be valid. I don't claim that radical skepticism is wrong, but I don't see any point in the position. So, I act as if I can trust my senses, but I don't actually consider that to be something known for certain.
Okay, but you didn't personally observe the Holocaust, or George Washington's presidency, or Nero's rule. This isn't an issue of "trusting your senses," it's an issue of heresay.
Quote from erimir »
It doesn't seem to me that if faith can be used just as validly to claim that Christianity is true, and that Islam is true, and the two are mutually exclusive, obviously that kind of faith isn't a useful way of knowing things.
I would contend that the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Islam and the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Christianity are not equal. Likewise are inequal the degree of faith needed to believe in Scientology, and the degree of faith needed to believe that the Great Schism happened in 1054, and the degree of faith needed to believe that man landed on the moon.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying "Since these all require leaps of faith to regard as true, they are all on equal footing." The most generally profitable principle is, if two claims contradict, to trust the one that has the greatest amount of apparent evidence (and thus needs the least amount of faith).
God is depicted in various places as being, in my view, not omnibenevolent, not omnipotent, not omniscient, not the greatest thing conceivable (tied to those, partly), having not actually given us free will (in the sense that he is incapable of subverting our wills), etc. Those things aren't necessarily a problem, depending on what you think about the Bible. Anywho, this is getting off topic. Maybe we could have another thread where we discuss whether the God of the Bible is compatible with such traits.
Okay, but you didn't personally observe the Holocaust, or George Washington's presidency, or Nero's rule. This isn't an issue of "trusting your senses," it's an issue of heresay.
Well, I can trust my senses and thus collect the evidence, if I were so inclined. I also have inductive evidence of the reliability of such information. And I also know through my experience that people are capable of collecting such evidence, as am I. I also know through science that we can date many artifacts and so forth, etc.
Now, I admit that I could still be wrong, and the justification of belief in historical events would require us to delve into historiography (theories of history). If we accept that logic and observation can give us reliable information, then I feel that history is something that can logically follow from that. History does of course have less certainty than scientific information, which can be replicated here and now. And I apportion the belief to the evidence - hence I believe in many scientific facts with more certainty than many historical facts. The more and better evidence, the more certainty, so you could say I'm opposed to being more certain of beliefs than is warranted. If there is no evidence, then I don't see how you can believe it with any certainty. Faith serves to increase the certainty of belief in something above and beyond the amount of actual support for the belief.
(Note: it's "hearsay")
I would contend that the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Islam and the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Christianity are not equal. Make no mistake, I'm not saying "Since these all require leaps of faith to regard as true, they are all on equal footing." The most generally profitable principle is, if two claims contradict, to trust the one that requires the least amount of faith. The caveat as the underlined word.
When I say faith is not a valid way of knowing, I mean to only refer to the type of faith referred to in religion - believing in something that has neither empirical nor logical evidence for its truth. Or even believing in something that has empirical or logical evidence against its truth. I feel that there is some distinction between the two tho, I believe the latter is called Fideism?
Both Christianity and Islam ultimately rely on claims about the existence of God - and neither version of the essentials of God is supported, so I don't see how one can be more valid than the other. If you grant either truth about the essentials of God, it would seem that the amount of faith to believe in the rest of the religion would probably end up in favor of the religion the definition of God came from.
So I don't see that one requires more faith than the other, and certainly both require more faith than not believing in God, or believing in Deism (which, like those, proposes a God, but not a whole attendant list of additional claims).
God is depicted in various places as being, in my view, not omnibenevolent, not omnipotent, not omniscient, not the greatest thing conceivable (tied to those, partly), having not actually given us free will (in the sense that he is incapable of subverting our wills), etc. Those things aren't necessarily a problem, depending on what you think about the Bible. Anywho, this is getting off topic. Maybe we could have another thread where we discuss whether the God of the Bible is compatible with such traits.
That would be good.
Quote from erimir »
Well, I can trust my senses and thus collect the evidence, if I were so inclined. I also have inductive evidence of the reliability of such information. And I also know through my experience that people are capable of collecting such evidence, as am I. I also know through science that we can date many artifacts and so forth, etc.
Now, I admit that I could still be wrong, and the justification of belief in historical events would require us to delve into historiography (theories of history). If we accept that logic and observation can give us reliable information, then I feel that history is something that can logically follow from that. History does of course have less certainty than scientific information, which can be replicated here and now. And I apportion the belief to the evidence - hence I believe in many scientific facts with more certainty than many historical facts. The more and better evidence, the more certainty, so you could say I'm opposed to being more certain of beliefs than is warranted. If there is no evidence, then I don't see how you can believe it with any certainty.
I agree with this.
Quote from erimir »
Faith serves to increase the certainty of belief in something above and beyond the amount of actual support for the belief.
Indeed it does. But even beliefs based on reasonability (like "inductive evidence of reliability") or methodology require faith to truly subscribe to. I think we're talking past each other, so I want to draw your attention to the 3rd to the last subresponse.
Quote from erimir »
(Note: it's "hearsay")
I know. For some reason, "hearsay" and "heresy" got screwed up in my mind-to-post transfer.
Quote from erimir »
When I say faith is not a valid way of knowing, I mean to only refer to the type of faith referred to in religion - believing in something that has neither empirical nor logical evidence for its truth. Or even believing in something that has empirical or logical evidence against its truth.
What I'm trying to say is that religion doesn't refer to a "different" type of faith. It refers to the exact same type of faith. As I've said earlier, I consider my religion to be based on a reasonable faith -- one that has observational and logical evidence to support it. I'm not the kind of guy who's going to say, "Well it's religion, so it's invincible." Fideism is terrible.
Quote from erimir »
Both Christianity and Islam ultimately rely on claims about the existence of God - and neither version of the essentials of God is supported, so I don't see how one can be more valid than the other. If you grant either truth about the essentials of God, it would seem that the amount of faith to believe in the rest of the religion would probably end up in favor of the religion the definition of God came from.
You can examine any religion's history, its roots, and its internal doctrinal harmony. You can also weigh its practices and beliefs against reason -- something which something like Scientology usually fails to breach.
Quote from erimir »
So I don't see that one requires more faith than the other, and certainly both require more faith than not believing in God, or believing in Deism (which, like those, proposes a God, but not a whole attendant list of additional claims).
If there's no evidence against God, and no evidence for God, then they take an equal amount of faith to subscribe to (unless one or the other violates some adopted principle). But, of course, the subscription to theism has much more profound implication, which may be a factor in either direction. The degree of profundity can also invalidate the aforementioned principle.
But if you have two mutually exclusive propositions with no evidence for either of them, wouldn't you say it's better to not believe either? Why have faith in either?
At any rate, it would seem where we would have more problems is that I don't think that Christianity is consistent with logic or observation And to definitely require more faith than a number of other theological positions. But that's a discussion on Christianity, perhaps a bit too far off topic.
But if you have two mutually exclusive propositions with no evidence for either of them, wouldn't you say it's better to not believe either? Why have faith in either?
At any rate, it would seem where we would have more problems is that I don't think that Christianity is consistent with logic or observation And to definitely require more faith than a number of other theological positions. But that's a discussion on Christianity, perhaps a bit too far off topic.
Why do you think Christianity is illogical? Is it just Christianity, or other religions, too?
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.
Kraj, your attempt to fix the thread goes unheeded.
Probably because people don't like to read.
Quote from Harkius »
The fact is that so long as a singe entity is argued to be comprised of two mutually exclusive things (i.e., God is everything), said entity cannot be logicially coherent.
Come on, we've been over this.
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.
Yes, yes we have. And I remain unconvinced that anything that is argued to be comprised of two mutually exclusive properties is not going to be logically reconcilable.
You say that not-A may be B. Very well then. I accept that such an entity could be both A and B. That is all well and good. However, it still cannot be both A and not-A. If, though, B is not-A, then said entity can no more be both A and B than it can A and not-A.
Harkius
Let's try this from another angle.
In the game of Magic, there are five colors. A color is a certain quality that "infuses" a card. None of the colors exclude the others. A black card can also be a white card, if it requires both white and black mana to be paid for it, so it is infused with both color qualities at once. This never changes, the card is always infused with those two qualities (barring anything such as Shifting Sky or whatnot).
So we need to take it another step. A mono-color card is one which requires (but can allow) no more than one color of mana to be paid for its cost. So, a mono-black card can't also be mono-white.
We run into a problem. A split card can be both mono-black and mono-white (one side costs B, the other side costs W). It does not require more than color of mana to be paid. And a split card, while it looks like two different cards, is really one physical card.
However, we can say that a split card has two forms - a mono-black form and a mono-white form. It can only be one form at a time - you have to choose which side to play, you can't play both (by the rules). While each of its forms is mono-color, as a whole card it is kind of like being multicolor.
Another problem - hybrid. Which is even sillier. Izzet Guildmage requires only one color color of mana, and only has one form. But it can be paid for with UU, or RR, or UR, and it is infused with two colors. So is it both mono-red and mono-blue at the same time? It is - it is pure red and pure blue at the same time. Gaze of the Gorgon is a better example, since it doesn't have activated abilities that require colored mana. It is exactly as black as it is green, it has only one form, it does not require more than one color of mana to be played.
But it is still infused with two color qualities. Unlike a split card, which is either-or, or a typical multicolor card, which is a combination, hybrid is an overlap.
So we can then define mono-color better as a card that only requires on color of mana, has only one form, and is only "infused" with one color quality (the one matching the color of mana used to pay for it).
And with hybrid we can also show a distinction - Iz Guildmage can be an RR card, or a UU card, but not be both in one given instance of gameplay.
This, not unlike with split cards, is a distinction that is based on time (on an "instance"). Though Iz Guildmage can only be paid with RR or UU, and never both, it is still equally potentially playable with either RR or UU - and it's not set, since if you play a second Iz Guildmage (the same essential object outside of the context of gameplay), it can be paid with RR even if the first was paid for with UU. In the same way, while Night // Day can only be in one form at a time, both forms are part of that card at all times, regardless of which "form" it takes.
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.
This is what you are saying. An A-object cannot also be a non-A-object. You are saying God cannot be everything because to be one thing God must also not be some other thing (God can't be all cards because God can't be a mono-black card and a mono-white card).
Now we come to the real problem, which is with the argument itself. It is true that if one object can be A, and another object be non-A (assuming there is any such thing as non-A outside of abstraction or changing temporal states), then an object can't be both at once.
The problem is that this is irrelevant. It is as if you are saying, "There is no such thing as the game of Magic, because some cards have qualities that are mutually exclusive with other qualities that some other cards have."
It's irrelevant because no one is saying God is a card (in the context of this discussion, anyway), what was said was (analogously) that God is game of Magic itself (or the creator, or the world in which Magic is played, or whatever).
Take the word "God" and replace it with "reality." Now, someone says "reality is everything." Would you also then respond by saying that reality can't be everything, because some states present in everything mutually exclude each other?
Even in the case of two objects, one of which is A and the other non-A, would it really be logical to say that both of those objects can't be contained in the same context, be permeated by the same essence or quality, or have originated from the same source?
Now, about the temporally relevant states I mentioned earlier - I will attempt to explain what I mean when I suggest there may not be any such thing as non-A outside of abstraction or circumstance (a temporal state which can change).
In the context of gameplay (which can represent time, circumstance), Night // Day can only be played as one of its sides, but not both. However, oustide of the game, just sitting on a desk or something (which can represent "out of time," like eternity, or whatever you like), Night // Day is both sides, both "forms" of the physical card at once, with equal potential to take either form, even though each form "excludes" the other. And we don't even have to get into out-of-game here - in the graveyard, library, or hand, Night//Day is considered to be both sides at once, on one card.
What I am getting at is the possibility that there is no object ("card") that really does only have one form, that every object really has more than form, whether we ever see it or not. True, an object may only be in form or another within a specific instant, it does not mean that the object does not equally encompass all of its forms.
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.
Hope that helps clarify what I am saying.
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.
Also, how do you know that trying to prove God is folly? How do you know God is mysterious? What does mysterious mean (note, that I find defining God as mysterious to lead to similar conclusions as Kraj's definition from the OP)?
And "according to the church" is not a good answer.
I know of quantum physics in that I am aware it exists and understand it's general philosophy of the most basic levels, but if you laid a true quantum physics problem in front of me to solve I'd laugh in your face.
Knowledge of something and knowing something are two entirely different things.
If you work of the Judeo-Christian definition of God as a Supreme and Superior being who created the universe and had some level of connection with humanity it makes sense that we would know of him through those connections but we would not know him as we could not possibly hope to comprehend the workings or thoughts of such a higher level being (trying to put an N64 cartridge into an NES).
I believe that what you are getting at in terms of BenGreen's statement is perhaps more aptly described as monism. Though the distinction you refer to is valid and it's value is intriguing.
I also find it interesting to note that the Christian idea of God, while being nominally monotheistic, details God as being imminent throughout reality, that is, completely pervasive of every layer and aspect of existence, a thought which has a certain pantheistic "feel" to it.
I also can't stop thinking of Hinduism, which, while often perceived as being distinctly polytheistic by "outsiders", is actually a monotheistic religion (with admitted emanationist overtones).
I find Kraj's specific question to be good, and very answerable, but it actually leads to further questions which should be addressed.
The "problem" here is that the basic nature of God, which is what we are attempting to define, is going to be disagreed upon. That's kind of acceptable because we can determine a number of prominent definitions of God, and see what most of them have in common. Which I think is what Kraj is getting at.
Some questions to consider:
1) Is God a being (i.e. a personality)?
1a) If so, what manner of being is God?
1b) Who or what is God in relation to other beings?
1c) What is the nature of the distinction between God and other beings?
2) What criteria must any given being fulfill in order to be appropriately called 'God'?
2a) Do any of these criteria necessitate that only one being can fulfill them at any one time?
2b) Is it possible for a being to fulfill such criteria at one time but later fail to fulfill them?
I find 1a, 1b, and 1c to be particularly interesting.
Of course, there are other questions, and all of the above are contingent upon 1 being answered with "yes."
If anyone else has more useful questions to propose, I'd love to see 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
Reason is deriving apparent knowledge from meritous observation within a logical framework. I don't know of any invincible logical proof of God, but I can claim God exists through reason.
I don't know it for sure, but I haven't seen an invincible logical proof of Him yet.
Because he is not fully apparent.
Not fully apparent.
Why not? When the Church downplays logical certainty in God, that's important to note.
I would also add that it is folly (to a certain degree) to attempt to prove the existence of God, because doing so implicates that one is "missing the point," so to speak. That requires a certain amount of explanation, though.
For instance, some would state that whether or not God can be proven to exist is not nearly as important as how one interacts with God subjectively throughout one's life and development. I tend to agree with this idea.
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
Well, I don't know it for sure either, but I wouldn't say that it is folly to try to prove or disprove God. I've seen some arguments that are very convincing for both (depending on your definition of God).
It is noteworthy, but it is not evidence. That's all I meant.
Yes, but some people would like to know whether it's even possible to interact with God. If he doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be important at all.
To me, the notion of interacting with God doesn't even make any sense, since I don't believe in God.
Well, of course, that makes it a somewhat different matter.
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'm using the Kantian definition of reason.
Well I haven't, for both, so here we are.
It's not hard evidence, but I think it is evidence. If there were a way to definitely prove God, the Church probably would have latched onto it. But the Church says that belief in God requires at least a measure of faith. Thus, there's probably no definite proof. This is a reasonable argument, but it isn't completely logical because it depends on intuitive probabilities based on past observation.
Not if the proof of God conflicts with Christianity. They have no interest in a proof of God if it would rule out Christianity in addition to atheism. And to be honest, the Christian God requires a bit of tweaking (in my view) from how he is depicted in the Bible for him to fit with some of the definitions of God used in these proofs (or defenses, when defending against an argument against God).
Of course, I would need to know what "the Church" is, since different churches have different opinions, and I haven't really heard of a church that says that God is not provable at all through reason. They would say faith is important, but they have no reason to claim that it isn't provable through reason. I can see that they might not endorse any particular logical proof nor say that it is necessary tho.
I personally don't think there's a way to definitely prove God, and I certainly haven't been convinced by any proof, but I don't think it's folly to try to.
But then again, I don't consider faith to be a valid way of knowing things, so as far as my personal beliefs are concerned, telling me that you need faith to believe in something is as good as conceding that there isn't a good reason to believe in it. So I guess I find logical proofs more important than you do.
That's true. But I haven't seen any proof attempt that would do that. I have no evidence that anyone has ever attempted a purely logical God-proof that disproves the God of the Church (the God of Abraham/Ibrahim). That's most likely because the only people trying to find logical proofs for God were Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The pagans were content having baseless beliefs (even if those beliefs were/are true), while the Judeo-Islamo-Christian scholars grasped enthusiastically at more signs of their mysterious God.
I'm talking about the Catholic Church in particular. Also, terms are being screwed up here. The belief is as follows: God is evident through reason, but not provable through logic alone.
Gah. No good reason to believe that the Earth is round? That the Holocaust happened? That man landed on the moon? That Washington was the first president of the United States? That Nero ruled Rome? That the Egyptians built the pyramids? That Aristotle was Aristotelean?
Nothing based on observation is completely knowable. Faith is necessary for the practical application of things observed. Pure logic is fun, but it doesn't do anything.
So, you think that the "faith" required to believe in the Holocaust or that the Earth is round is the same as the faith required to believe in Christianity? Hardly.
There are miles of difference between having faith in Jesus's resurrection and believing that the Earth is round.
I don't mean faith as in that it's impossible to know empirical things with 100% certainty. That's not knowing by faith. That's admitting that you don't have perfect knowledge. Believing in something without sufficient evidence for it is what I mean by knowing through faith.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, it's not useless. We are just trying to come up with a means of describing what is meant when we refer to "God," in detail. Whether or not there "really is a God" isn't nearly as relevant because we are just trying to define the concept of God, and there most certainly is such a concept.
Also, for God to be the whole of reality is not so illogical as you think. The existance multiple objects and subjects (a's, b's, c's), and even opposites, does not mean that there cannot be something that encompasses all of them.
I had a friend once you tried to use this argument to prove that a God couldn't exist - he claimed that if God were infinite, then it would be impossible anything but God to exist, including human beings.
To me this is not unlike saying that if I am a complete, cohesive body, then I cannot have both a hand and a foot, I cannot have both a right eye and a left eye, I cannot have distinct organs like a heart or a liver.
You assume that for something to "be all that is," it means that something must be a uniform, conglomerate mass (so to speak), like some single-celled organism.
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
One would assume that for practical purposes you would not do so.
I realize that this statement is going to sound silly to you, but that's the problem with reality - it's not logical, it's analogical (or dialectical), and usually alogical.
Which is sort of what I was getting at when I asked "what manner of being" could God be?
For instance, one could say "One cannot be both tall and short." Tall and short, while mutually exclusive, are relative, so one could be considered tall by one standard but short by another.
That's not a good example, but it does demonstrate how oversimplification of the value of our terms and that upon which we are attempting to apply them can sidetrack the progression of the discussion - that is, we can miss something by trying to look at things from a wholly logical (linear) perspective.
Now, if something cannot be both A and non-A, can both A and non-A be "real"?
Here, I am suggesting something - that it is not so much that "God is all," rather, "all is (part of) God."
Which is coming back to pantheism/panentheism.
Really we are getting into diachotomies. Which are tricky. There is the possibility that while there is A, there is no such thing as non-A; rather, what we think of as non-A is not really non-A, but merely B, or C, or so on.
The triangles aren't a great example, either, because a triangle in a void is but an abstract image. A physical object could easily have one face which is a scalene triangle, and another face which is a right triangle, so some such thing.
I could have said it better, but it's late and I'm half asleep.
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
For the sake of dicussion, I would just like to point out the very title of the thread implies a tacit assumption that God exists. After all, what use is there defining something that doesn't exist? Certainly debating the existance of God has its place, but it is not a prerequisite for a discussion that already assumes the afirmative.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Wait.. which point do we disagree on?
No. They differ in degree.
What do you mean by "sufficient" evidence?
This mess of a thread is my punishment for even attempting to be brilliant.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Well obviously I mean with the evidence that is available today.
The implications of such a belief seem to me to make God irrelevant.
I would question premise 5, and probably also 2 and/or 3 (what does it mean to exist in reality - does it mean that you have to take up space? etc.). But it is quite easy to conceive of infinite things that aren't everything. For example, you can conceive of an infinitely long string - yet in spite of being infinite, there is no reason to assume that there is nothing that is not the string.
Oh and obviously, I would question 1.
Those philosophers who put forth arguments for God's existence disagree with me on the issue of whether their arguments are compatible with the God of the Bible.
But I wouldn't say that I know the Holocaust happened through faith. Sure, I have some faith in my senses, that I'm in North Carolina, etc. I'm not a radical skeptic. But admitting that does not entail that I must consider all faith to be valid. I don't claim that radical skepticism is wrong, but I don't see any point in the position. So, I act as if I can trust my senses, but I don't actually consider that to be something known for certain.
Or do you think that they are equivalent, and that if I trust my senses, I must then concede that faith is a generally valid way of knowing things, even though faith can be used to support mutually exclusive positions with equal validity?
It doesn't seem to me that if faith can be used just as validly to claim that Christianity is true, and that Islam is true, and the two are mutually exclusive, obviously that kind of faith isn't a useful way of knowing things.
The scientific method can't be used just as validly to claim that bloodletting cures strep throat and antibiotics don't as it can to claim the opposite. There is evidence that strep throat can be cured with antibiotics, and not evidence for it being cured by bloodletting. Ergo it is reasonable to believe the medical science about strep throat being cured by antibiotics. The scientific method can differentiate between views - faith, such as the kind used to justify Christianity and Islam, cannot be used to differentiate between the two.
Continue.
Okay, but you didn't personally observe the Holocaust, or George Washington's presidency, or Nero's rule. This isn't an issue of "trusting your senses," it's an issue of heresay.
I would contend that the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Islam and the degree of faith needed to believe in the validity of Christianity are not equal. Likewise are inequal the degree of faith needed to believe in Scientology, and the degree of faith needed to believe that the Great Schism happened in 1054, and the degree of faith needed to believe that man landed on the moon.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying "Since these all require leaps of faith to regard as true, they are all on equal footing." The most generally profitable principle is, if two claims contradict, to trust the one that has the greatest amount of apparent evidence (and thus needs the least amount of faith).
God is depicted in various places as being, in my view, not omnibenevolent, not omnipotent, not omniscient, not the greatest thing conceivable (tied to those, partly), having not actually given us free will (in the sense that he is incapable of subverting our wills), etc. Those things aren't necessarily a problem, depending on what you think about the Bible. Anywho, this is getting off topic. Maybe we could have another thread where we discuss whether the God of the Bible is compatible with such traits.
Well, I can trust my senses and thus collect the evidence, if I were so inclined. I also have inductive evidence of the reliability of such information. And I also know through my experience that people are capable of collecting such evidence, as am I. I also know through science that we can date many artifacts and so forth, etc.
Now, I admit that I could still be wrong, and the justification of belief in historical events would require us to delve into historiography (theories of history). If we accept that logic and observation can give us reliable information, then I feel that history is something that can logically follow from that. History does of course have less certainty than scientific information, which can be replicated here and now. And I apportion the belief to the evidence - hence I believe in many scientific facts with more certainty than many historical facts. The more and better evidence, the more certainty, so you could say I'm opposed to being more certain of beliefs than is warranted. If there is no evidence, then I don't see how you can believe it with any certainty. Faith serves to increase the certainty of belief in something above and beyond the amount of actual support for the belief.
(Note: it's "hearsay")
When I say faith is not a valid way of knowing, I mean to only refer to the type of faith referred to in religion - believing in something that has neither empirical nor logical evidence for its truth. Or even believing in something that has empirical or logical evidence against its truth. I feel that there is some distinction between the two tho, I believe the latter is called Fideism?
Both Christianity and Islam ultimately rely on claims about the existence of God - and neither version of the essentials of God is supported, so I don't see how one can be more valid than the other. If you grant either truth about the essentials of God, it would seem that the amount of faith to believe in the rest of the religion would probably end up in favor of the religion the definition of God came from.
So I don't see that one requires more faith than the other, and certainly both require more faith than not believing in God, or believing in Deism (which, like those, proposes a God, but not a whole attendant list of additional claims).
That would be good.
I agree with this.
Indeed it does. But even beliefs based on reasonability (like "inductive evidence of reliability") or methodology require faith to truly subscribe to. I think we're talking past each other, so I want to draw your attention to the 3rd to the last subresponse.
I know. For some reason, "hearsay" and "heresy" got screwed up in my mind-to-post transfer.
What I'm trying to say is that religion doesn't refer to a "different" type of faith. It refers to the exact same type of faith. As I've said earlier, I consider my religion to be based on a reasonable faith -- one that has observational and logical evidence to support it. I'm not the kind of guy who's going to say, "Well it's religion, so it's invincible." Fideism is terrible.
You can examine any religion's history, its roots, and its internal doctrinal harmony. You can also weigh its practices and beliefs against reason -- something which something like Scientology usually fails to breach.
If there's no evidence against God, and no evidence for God, then they take an equal amount of faith to subscribe to (unless one or the other violates some adopted principle). But, of course, the subscription to theism has much more profound implication, which may be a factor in either direction. The degree of profundity can also invalidate the aforementioned principle.
At any rate, it would seem where we would have more problems is that I don't think that Christianity is consistent with logic or observation And to definitely require more faith than a number of other theological positions. But that's a discussion on Christianity, perhaps a bit too far off topic.
Why do you think Christianity is illogical? Is it just Christianity, or other religions, too?
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
Probably because people don't like to read.
Come on, we've been over this.
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
Let's try this from another angle.
In the game of Magic, there are five colors. A color is a certain quality that "infuses" a card. None of the colors exclude the others. A black card can also be a white card, if it requires both white and black mana to be paid for it, so it is infused with both color qualities at once. This never changes, the card is always infused with those two qualities (barring anything such as Shifting Sky or whatnot).
So we need to take it another step. A mono-color card is one which requires (but can allow) no more than one color of mana to be paid for its cost. So, a mono-black card can't also be mono-white.
We run into a problem. A split card can be both mono-black and mono-white (one side costs B, the other side costs W). It does not require more than color of mana to be paid. And a split card, while it looks like two different cards, is really one physical card.
However, we can say that a split card has two forms - a mono-black form and a mono-white form. It can only be one form at a time - you have to choose which side to play, you can't play both (by the rules). While each of its forms is mono-color, as a whole card it is kind of like being multicolor.
Another problem - hybrid. Which is even sillier. Izzet Guildmage requires only one color color of mana, and only has one form. But it can be paid for with UU, or RR, or UR, and it is infused with two colors. So is it both mono-red and mono-blue at the same time? It is - it is pure red and pure blue at the same time. Gaze of the Gorgon is a better example, since it doesn't have activated abilities that require colored mana. It is exactly as black as it is green, it has only one form, it does not require more than one color of mana to be played.
But it is still infused with two color qualities. Unlike a split card, which is either-or, or a typical multicolor card, which is a combination, hybrid is an overlap.
So we can then define mono-color better as a card that only requires on color of mana, has only one form, and is only "infused" with one color quality (the one matching the color of mana used to pay for it).
And with hybrid we can also show a distinction - Iz Guildmage can be an RR card, or a UU card, but not be both in one given instance of gameplay.
This, not unlike with split cards, is a distinction that is based on time (on an "instance"). Though Iz Guildmage can only be paid with RR or UU, and never both, it is still equally potentially playable with either RR or UU - and it's not set, since if you play a second Iz Guildmage (the same essential object outside of the context of gameplay), it can be paid with RR even if the first was paid for with UU. In the same way, while Night // Day can only be in one form at a time, both forms are part of that card at all times, regardless of which "form" it takes.
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.
This is what you are saying. An A-object cannot also be a non-A-object. You are saying God cannot be everything because to be one thing God must also not be some other thing (God can't be all cards because God can't be a mono-black card and a mono-white card).
Now we come to the real problem, which is with the argument itself. It is true that if one object can be A, and another object be non-A (assuming there is any such thing as non-A outside of abstraction or changing temporal states), then an object can't be both at once.
The problem is that this is irrelevant. It is as if you are saying, "There is no such thing as the game of Magic, because some cards have qualities that are mutually exclusive with other qualities that some other cards have."
It's irrelevant because no one is saying God is a card (in the context of this discussion, anyway), what was said was (analogously) that God is game of Magic itself (or the creator, or the world in which Magic is played, or whatever).
Take the word "God" and replace it with "reality." Now, someone says "reality is everything." Would you also then respond by saying that reality can't be everything, because some states present in everything mutually exclude each other?
Even in the case of two objects, one of which is A and the other non-A, would it really be logical to say that both of those objects can't be contained in the same context, be permeated by the same essence or quality, or have originated from the same source?
Now, about the temporally relevant states I mentioned earlier - I will attempt to explain what I mean when I suggest there may not be any such thing as non-A outside of abstraction or circumstance (a temporal state which can change).
In the context of gameplay (which can represent time, circumstance), Night // Day can only be played as one of its sides, but not both. However, oustide of the game, just sitting on a desk or something (which can represent "out of time," like eternity, or whatever you like), Night // Day is both sides, both "forms" of the physical card at once, with equal potential to take either form, even though each form "excludes" the other. And we don't even have to get into out-of-game here - in the graveyard, library, or hand, Night//Day is considered to be both sides at once, on one card.
What I am getting at is the possibility that there is no object ("card") that really does only have one form, that every object really has more than form, whether we ever see it or not. True, an object may only be in form or another within a specific instant, it does not mean that the object does not equally encompass all of its forms.
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.
Hope that helps clarify what I am saying.
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