Defining what is God.

thats my point - the atheist thinks it is sufficient to simply listen and not put anything into practice, whereas the theist thinks it is sufficient to listen and put in to practice, thus you end up with two disparate view points

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if by knowledge you mean pratyaksa (direct perception), yes.
(there are other processes of acquiring knowledge (or pramana), namely, anumana (inference) and sabda (word) referenced previously)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Draqon:

God is more like crack, I'd imagine: Shorter high for a cheaper amount of money (tithes, after all, aren't too expensive).

But yes, apparently some people would argue that God becomes a bit like a drug.

Qwerty Mob:

I have considered infinite regress, but mostly as it regards to Aristotle's Prime Mover argument and whether or not it is rational to affirm that a causal chain must have a non-infinite past source.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus:

Most creations seem to imply an intelligent cause, however. Certainly this does not need to be the case in any system tha thas laws which govern it.

It is not a proper number, correct, as it does not have a finite definition, nor can there be something properly right infront of it, nor anything after it.

Not at all. For an infinite anything cannot be considered to exist apart from its constituent parts. To take away even one single thing from it implies that there is something which was previously within infinity, now is not. This affirms that what was once infinite now is no longer infinite, as one can speak of something which is not part of it. In essence: One has created a boundary in infinity by removing from it something.

We can agree there is no limit to infinity, but this does not imply that its parts are irrelevant. Infinity cannot be such a gestalt that it transcends every single one of its constituent parts. This would negate the very concept of infinity if this implies that the removal of all of infinity would not diminish the infinity.

We're getting into other discussions, but I think it important to remain on topic with this as it si so wedded to concepts of God, specifically omnipresence and eternity.

 

Swivel:

See my "A Justification of Time", currently existing as a sticky in philosophy for my argument against any necessities of a finite past.

Lightgigantic:

I meant direct perception, yes.

 

2+2=4 is self-evident.

 

Grover:

Do you argue, ala Kant, that mathematical computations are examples of synthetic a priori?

 

-Yes, I believe so. Why, has it somehow been disproven?

-Other things I wonder would consider as self-evident are all mental events. As are many physical things (i.e., if you go to the doctor and tell him you have stomache there are no tests he can perform that proves you do in fact have a stomachache. In other words, there are subjective truths which can be known directly but impossible to prove objectively. Religous experience also falls within this category.

 

Some would disagree. All who attend church on Sunday share their religious experience with the congregation. The Bible, assuming it is the "Word of God" is read and experienced by all who read it. Yes, in different ways. Yet how does one get the idea of God in the first place? Many cultures don't have any god(s).

Either way, God, by definition, is transcendental. So if God is transcendental to man, then he/she cannot be defined by man. Any definition would have to be transcendental to our experience and abilities. Nor can we say that "God is Perfect," because the idea of perfection lies only within the human mind, not necessarily in that of the transcendental God. Who are we to say?

 

Hi. Excellent post, allow me to engage your attention for a moment however, and disagree on a couple of details.

Does

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

mean anything to you? =P

Allow me to disagree, since it isn't within the nature of an enlightened mind to surrender vague or difficult concepts to others even more abstruse, or to mere ineffibility, consider this one:

"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings."

It solves the "Problem of other Gods" and the lack of any objective evidence. Besides, even monotheists have to lend such a definition some currency, since it is useful to distinguish their god from all others; to which, one can suggest- that "Monotheists are atheists too, they just believe in one more god than I do."

No, that won't stop the collection plate right away; depatterning takes time. *grin* There are other grounds on which to disagree that a definition of (even) a transcendental god would itself necessarily be transcendental, but I won't argue the double-negative case, much less- "preach" your way (suffice to say, the typical monotheist would argue that "people understand god implicitly because they have faith" -or some such illogica).

However, the failure of the classic Teleological argument hinges on the incompatibility of the "complete" attributes themselves (Incoherency Apologetics), and though I agree that any modern "harmonization" of monotheisms' "perfect God" is purely imaginary, the faithful would criticize such a postulation; they, and others (monists, deists, etc.), believe that perfection is an intrinsic quality of their deities, and to some degree of nature itself- that "because things are so, they must be so deliberately-- therefore could be no other way--- therefore perfect."

It is an unshakable syllogism (and equivocation of language) to believers of any variety.

Let's find out.
Greetings

 

The fundamental problem of beliefs is that they lead to further beliefs, and so is the least desirable means of validating experience. Another is that beliefs do not lead one to knowledge or to truths, instead they are simply placeholders for both. The tired allegory of "beliefs are just like hypotheses" is just such a "belief" (of beliefs themselves, no less)- and demonstratably false, in that, to one with a scientific world view, hypotheses are part of a larger method; they do not exist alone, or without rigor- they are tied to something objective which is to be characterized (even if abstractly) and tested, even if indirectly. Beliefs, on the other hand, are usually tied to nothing objective (though they can be caused by confabulation or illusion; where the stimulus is objective but not understood or perceived accurately), and therefore cannot be checked.

One cheap allegory is that of the believer whose mind is "so open, as to be spilling out"- given that one believes in devils and angels, what is to stop them from believing in anything else, more or less far-fetched? When a similar person realizes why they (might) believe in a "Deistic God" but NOT space-alien-abductions, one can show that they are not discrete beliefs, but instead segments of a larger continuum- that of unchecked (or uncheckable) belief.

Summarizing beliefs in this way is not fashionable, no, and I've never been content with the phrase "infinite regress" on grounds other than philosophical, though it is undenably useful in giving inquisitive persons a starting point for understanding the flaws of belief systems, objectively.

As for Aristotle, I'm content that the Cosmological Argument simply reduces to absurdity, therefore explains nothing.

Greetings

 

Qwerty Mob:

I would agree with you. What you say is essentially right: Uncheckable beliefs lead to a whole slurry of nonsense.

Accordingly, I try to limit "beliefs" personally and suggest others do the same, whilst similarly accumulating as many facts as one can.

 

how do you propose to or what is the standard for one to accumulate facts with inference and direct perception?

 

of course, but was it before you learnt it.

 

Remember, we're talking about the "God the creator" here - and whether such a god can be the "superior" one to the one that lacks nothing and thus does not create.
The initial creator in this instance would be that god intelligent or otherwise - whether the things he creates are through cause / effect or through *poof*-style creation.

True - but there are an infinite number of them - and as such their individual value compared to the whole is infinitely small = 0.

Not true.
Infinity is a limit that is never reached.
Remove 1 from it and it is still a limit that is never reached.
It is STILL infinite.

By that I mean if you have something that "never ends" then to remove just one item from it would not impose a finite-ness to the thing - it would not create and end.

Hypothetically - if you had an infinite amount of time and I asked you to write down a number infinitely long... you would keep going - and going - and going etc.

While you were several Googleplexes of digits along, if I ERASED just one digit you had already written - would this make your inifinitely long number finite?

No.

I know - I was being facetious when I made the comment - and was merely playing with "infinity".

i.e. Infinity - 1 = Infinity
Thus 1 = 0
It is absurdist - as Infinity is not a number - merely a concept.

The individual parts - when compared to the infinite whole - are infinitely small - no matter how large the finite individual part.

Now one individual finite part compared to another individual finite part does have relative value - but they are the same when compared to the infinite whole - i.e. NIL.

One could suggest that anything that is truly infinite would see no value in its constituent parts - that it can only see itself as the whole.

No - to remove ALL of inifinity would diminish the Infinity absolutely to NIL.
To remove any LESS than ALL would not diminish the infinity.

Ok.

 

Sarkus:

WEll tell me this: Do you find a God lacking who internally has cause and effect acting on the finite parts that compose his infinite whole?

0 is not infinitely small. The infinitely small is just that: Infinitely small.

0 times infinity would remain zero. A non-zero infinitely small times infinity would equal infinity. Accordingly, the latter must be the value of the infinitely small.

Incorrect. It is certainly now reachable, as infinity - 1, despite it not producing an answer aside from "infinity - 1" - is finite.

One away from a limit never reached is certainly reachable, as it is only unreachable at that limit - not at one before.

Yes.

The equivalent of one second's work would be forever lacking, thus it would never have taken space over an infinite period of time. Or rather, the number would no longer reflect this.

Infinity may not be a number in the sense of having af inite value, but it is certainly a number in the sense that it does have value, just one which is infinite. Accordingly, it cannot be zero.

This is inconsistant with your notion that the infinitely small = 0.

IF all the parts of infinity are equal to 0, than an infinite amount of 0 cannot take away even a single thing from an infinite series. 0 * infinity = Zero.

 

Lightgigantic:

From empirically verified things: Basically, the scientific method.

For matters of reason: Philosophical reasoning.

 

Irrelevant

 

how so.

 

Yes.
The internal cause and effect has internal composition of A as the cause of internal composition B - the effect.
At the point of the A he lacks B, and when he has B he lacks A.

Ah - the dive into mathematics.
0.99999.... recurring - do you agree that this is infinitely close to 1? (i.e. that there is an infinitely small number between this and 1.0)

Okay, let 0.999999... recurring = X

10X = 9.999999.... recurring.

10X - X = 9.99999.... recurring minus 0.999999.... recurring = 9

Therefore X = 1 = 0.99999.... recurring.

Thus, the infinitely small = 0.
This is a mathematical proof only - and is merely the unreachable limit of the infinitely small.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The part in bold is not true.
There are an infinite number of infinitely small points between 1 and 2.
And there are an equally infinite number of infinitely small points between 1 and 10, or 1 and 10^10^20.

Your understanding of the infinite is, I feel, flawed.

One away from an unreachable limit is unreachable - otherwise you could reach the "one less" limit and then add one - and thus "reach the unreachable". Absurd.
And not true.

Infinite does not mean ALL.
It merely means "not ending".
If you take the numbers from 1 to INFINITY - there are an INFINITE number of ODDS and an INFINITE number of EVENS.

They are only tend to 0 when compared to the whole - not in isolation. As you look closer and closer at the infinite whole, any finite constituent part tends to 0 in comparison.

We need to stop looking at Infinity as a number - as it isn't. It is a concept - an unreachable limit.
To start using it as a number generates real headaches (1/Inf = 0 = 2/Inf thus 1 = 2, etc).
You can not take away an element and suddenly make it finite.
It just doesn't work like that - hopefully shown by the examples I have given.