User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 249

  1. #11
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I can't evaluate your position properly, Mr. Wing, because your thesis as you've expressed it is a tautology. Your axiom presupposes your conclusion.

    Much depends on your definitions, and it appears at first glance that yours have been specifically structured in such a way as to preclude the existence of a deity. It's a pretty exercise in semantics thus far.

    Let us not forget... we are homo adorans, the Worshiping Man. We will worship something. In presenting a mental exercise that proposes to dispense with the concept of deity, you implicitly state that the power of your intellect is sufficient to dispense with deity.

    In other words, you have committed an act of self-worship.
    This is how every argument works. A conclusion is always presupposed in the thesis. As Kant's famous denotation of 'analytic' shows that 'analytic' is not a discovery of something new but a review of what we have already discovered in order to get a more clear idea of what we have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    At least we won't agonize it for long, since I think the universe will collapse into a black hole when we put together the longest serious laborious poster and the shortest tongue-in-cheek sound-bite poster.



    Questions:
    - Is God personal?
    - Does the 'self' (i.e., separate entities) actually exist or is it a construct?
    - Or do these answers depend on one's frame of reference / the parameters of the discourse?

    Interestingly, the Judeo sense of God seemed to involve those paradoxes. JHVH was supposedly personal and separate, yet every aspect of the universe was actively being upheld (i.e., was involved with) by him, flying against a "watchmaker pov" ... he was considered to actively hold the stars in their patterns in the sky and make nature work the way it did, etc.

    If we take the Bible for what it says. Yes, God is personal. Yet, if we assume that it is to be interpreted allegorically and start inferring things from what has been written, perhaps not. If we did that, we would discover a myriad, maybe even thousands of ways to read the text. As it is not surprising at all that there are thousands of religious groups who claim to be Christian and have their own way of reading the text and insist that their way is the only correct way.

    Thus when we have a discussion with someone on this board who makes an ambiguous or a seemingly absurd statement, we should take it for what it is. If we are to infer plausible arguments from what he said, we are dealing with the possibilities of how his thought could have advanced and not with his thought itself. We should simply tell him, 'clarify, I do not understand' or 'what you have stated is absurd, and here is why, restate if this is not what you had in mind.' Same approach is needed for the Bible and analysis of all literature.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    *starts slow-clap, awaiting others to join and to increase the rate and volume of the claps*

  3. #13
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Axiom: the set of natural numbers is infinite, therefore the existence of Bluewing is impossible independent of the set of natural numbers

    Premise: Bluewing is not a natural number

    Therefore: Bluewing does not exist
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #14
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    ^Ha. But that doesn't really follow the form of BWs argument, since he defined God differently than you defined Bluewing

  5. #15
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Axiom: the set of natural numbers is infinite, therefore the existence of Bluewing is impossible independent of the set of natural numbers

    Premise: Bluewing is not a natural number

    Therefore: Bluewing does not exist
    Natural numbers are not entities of the natural world like stones and trees. They are merely abstract symbols representing what we observe.


    Whatever is infinite cannot be observed in our finite world of experience, however, necessarily exists in the world that we observe. It exists by virtue of our unconscious apriori representation, as established by Kant earlier.

    BlueWing is an observable phenomenon of this world, therefore he is a 'natural number'.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #16
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    The infinte-ness of the universe is irrelevent.

    Just because something is infinite doesn't mean that nothing can exist outside of it, unless that 'it' in question is defined as 'everything'. However, if the universe is defined as everything, then it hardly matters whether it is infinite or not, nothing could exist outside of it, by definition, and so nothing could have created it, God or not.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Lee makes an interesting point.

  8. #18
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    The infinte-ness of the universe is irrelevent.

    Just because something is infinite doesn't mean that nothing can exist outside of it, unless that 'it' in question is defined as 'everything'. However, if the universe is defined as everything, then it hardly matters whether it is infinite or not, nothing could exist outside of it, by definition, and so nothing could have created it, God or not.
    You missed the point. The infiniteness of the universe matters most with respect to the impossibility of a creator which is an essential aspect of the Judeo-Christian divinity. Moreover if the universe is defined as everything it does indeed matter if it is infinite or not. Because if it is infinite, it is necessarily everything. If it is finite, it means it is not everything, it was created by something else, because it could not have been created by itself (nothing comes from nothing). Therefore, the only way the universe could be defined as everything is if it is infinite.

    Just because something is infinite does indeed mean that nothing exists outside of it, as infinite is synonymous with ubiquitous. It means it covers all things. If something is all things, than nothing but this entity that is all things could exist. Something could inhere within the infinite essence, but this is the same thing as being part of that essence that comprises all things, therefore such an existence is not to be considered as seperable from that infinite entity.

    For this reason, in Spinoza's philosophy the infinite substance is deemed to be one thing and in itself inseparable. Nearly identical element is referred to as the Will in Schopenhauer, Zeitgeist in Hegel, the Noumena in Kant, and Aristotle's God as well (famously ridiculed by Bertrand Russell in the Unpopular essays as the God who only thinks about himself.)

    Therefore God must be part of all things if he exists. We do not see him as part of the world that we know. Because he can only exist by virtue of being part of the world, and he does not, he does not exist at all.

    It should be clearly noted once more, that we do not have access to the infinite world. As famously evinced by Kant, we only have access to the finite representation of this world. Very importantly, this is not solipsism because the ultimate essence of the universe is the one infinite substance. Thus whatever we see in our finite world is not a concoction of our imagination, but a translation of the ultimate essence into our transfigured representation.

    As once more, everything that we know and can possible know inheres in this representation. Because God does not, he does not exist. One may say, perhaps he exists in the noumenal world. This is not possible because noumenal is undefinable or infinite, which means we cannot attribute any definable quality (one of which is God) to such an entity.

    In summary, the term infinite is relevant in the following regards.

    1)God cannot exist seperately from the world.
    2)He cannot be a creator
    3)He cannot be omnipotent because all things that exist are necessarily part of the system, therefore obey the laws of the system they inhere in.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #19
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    does existing infinitely into the past and future necessarily equate to complete omnipresence? parallel lines go on forever but never cross

  10. #20
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Just because something is infinite does indeed mean that nothing exists outside of it, as infinite is synonymous with ubiquitous. It means it covers all things.
    Sorry dude, but no. The set of all even numbers is infinite. Are you implying that there are no odd numbers?

Similar Threads

  1. Why Do People Believe in Ghosts?
    By Tellenbach in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 09:16 AM
  2. Do you believe in a God?
    By ADISCIPLE in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 08:51 AM
  3. Do you believe in hope without despair?
    By Zrenn in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 09:45 PM
  4. Do you believe in natural rights?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
  5. Do you believe in a higher power?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO