Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bowser, Mar 1, 2018.
God does not require to wear one of these :
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
God is fully independent and thus has no requirement to wear a spock helmet.
Why did you change the subject?
Follow the discussion:
• Proposition: Is it possible that God is irrational because life has always been such?
• Response: God is irrational compared to our finite minds that cannot comprehend infinite reality; that is why we invent godlings and redemptionist faery-tale holy scriptures.
• Counterpoint: However, to think the infinite is necessarily incompatible with sentience represents yet another type of rhetoric/shoebox thinking.
• Response: I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the proposition, but at some point we encounter a threshold of applicability versus a range of potentials evading actualization; as Sideshowbob↑ reminds, there is a question of faculty. Much like whether or not we have the technology to accomplish certain feats otherwise likely permissible according to physics, it is difficult to conceive of the scale at which sentient compatibility with infinitude is possible without invoking unknown physics. In terms more philosophical, something about Augustine and a rock goes here.
• Counterpoint: The very presence of sentience already establishes unknown physics. No need to invoke infinity. Infact you could even say the presence of physics already establishes unknown physics.
(Boldface accent added)
In discussing "God", as such, infinity is inherent, else God is not God.
When I say you're not following yourself from post to post, it is because your statement, "No need to invoke infinity", seems irrelevant or a change of subject. The other possibility, of course, as River↑ notes, is a different definition of "God" than the monotheistic godhead usually associated with the term. And that godhead is infinite; it's one of the classic stumbling blocks of proud faith.
As to the rest:
The first part of that, about excluding comparative clauses, does not necessarily follow. The second part is certainly interesting, but only you know whence it comes. For our purposes, Augustine's rock reminds that any human has a finite number of brain cells that operate in finite manners for finite periods, and thus cannot comprehend something infinite.
This question of comprehension derives from the proposition noted above. The perceived irrationality of God is just that, perceived. That reality fails to make rational sense according to our human irrationality is not any great mystery. To the other, proposing that God is irrational is perfectly human, and doing so because God fails to satisfy a human even more so. And all throughout, infinitude is inherent; in the end, regardless of whether or not one "believes in God", it makes no sense to require that something be something else before we can analyze the something that it is.
Technically speaking, you are correct to say we need not invoke infinity; however, you are wrong about what the words mean; we need not invoke infinity because it is already inherently part of the consideration.
And, yes, in the context of "God", it is somewhat irrational to regard multiple omnipotent agencies. It might also be inherently improper. But this is in part because it also implies a certain manner of infinitude, and there can only be one proper infinitude.
Descartes actually answers Augustine properly, but it's not in the explicit parts about God Itself; rather, it's in Cartesian conservation. By the time we get to C.S. Lewis, the argument is a complete disaster. Wittgenstein, functionally speaking, is correct to note semantics, but like given the inevitable choice 'twixt blithering and surrender, he wisely chose the latter.
The answer is actually, "No, God cannot create a stone too heavy to lift". What complicates the answer is that a truly infinite God does little to swell our passions. As Write4U put it:
The biggest challenge about explaining God might be the question of will. After all, if God is infinite, then what is all the differentiation we experience? Perhaps it is an act of will, but acts of will imply finitude; time itself is differentiation.
The resolution has to do with God being God. Without the passage of time, there is no change; if there is no change, there is no Will; the passage of time is itself a matter of differentiation.
All of which leads back to certain obvious point: God is not irrational, people are.
Can you give us some repeated quotes?
Sure it can. Why are there perturbations in the orbits of planets? The mathematics of gravity.
"Important questions" sounds like woo to me.
(And mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The very presence of sentience already establishes unknown physics. No need to invoke infinity.
Infact you could even say the presence of physics already establishes unknown physics.
On the contrary, it necessarily does.
If you want to start talking about a God creating something greater than Himself, you are taking away necessary exclusive conditions for defining God (in the strict monotheistic sense).
The problem shares the same flaws of asking a person in a circular room to stand in the corner. We can understand the flaws of this scenario even though circles only exist as abstractions outside "reality" according to the finite resources of our brains.
Any relationship that requires a constant reminder of the status quo is dry and usually comes about because one party keeps stepping over the line. Its not so much that God requires constant attention to his omnimax status, but rather that forgetting our finite status awards us so much trouble, muscling in on things we really have no business with.
The very fact that we experience our Will as singular in this maelstrom of fluctuation indicates there is some error in your reasoning.
At least He provides brilliant facility for our self inflicted requirements for madness.
Maintain this discussion long enough and I am confident you will provide us with some
Let's see your answer why .... as distinct from how.
How did you come to class?
Why did you come to class?
Are the answers the same?
Don't cop out. You claimed that it has been said repeatedly in the past. Show us.
I came to class because:
1. I need the credit to graduate.
2. I like that cute blonde chick who sits in front of me.
3. I might actually learn something.
"How" was not the question. "Why" is easily answered - unless you're asking why in the woo-woo world I came to class.
Write4u says it at least 3 times per paragraph.
Why are there perturbations in the orbits of planets?
I just gave the class examples to help you distinguish how from why .... since I figured they were clear and easy to answer.
I don't think Write4U says that mathematics is the "only" language. I think his position is that mathematics is the fabric of the universe.
Because of the gravitational effects of other bodies, as predicted by the mathematics and eventually confirmed by observation. Did you want me to say it's because God likes wiggly orbits?
No, I wanted you to answer why, not how.
Do you understand the difference between language and fabric?
Then you have to explain what you mean by why. Are you talking about some "eternal truth" why? Because that's woo.
If you are trying to allude to a difference between calling mathematics the fabric of the universe and the essential language for establishing truth, you are not succeeding.
You've already established you understand the word "why".
Can you also answer "How did you come to class?"
At the moment I am just talking about going to class.
I agree (see post 148 , last line.
I might make this clearer, "And that would satisfy the OP question. Yes , an abstract mathematical God could be rational, but not sentient."
I never said that.
Let me clarify the "how" and "why".
My position is that the fabric of the universe is mathematical in essence. i.e it functions in accordance to mathematical permissions and restrictions.
No, I have proposed the "how". i.e. the universe functions mathematically.
The "why" is that it can only do so. If we admit that all things, including the fabric of the universe have inherent potentials, values, and patterns, then the only way it can function is in accordance to those potentials, values, and patterns, which we have named "mathematical functions".
The "why" is that it cannot function (perform work) otherwise. No magic waving of hands by an unseen, undefinable sentient force.
The universe has a mathematical (orderly) structure. Therefore it must act in accordance to specific mathematical functions associated with these potentials, values, and patterns of that mathematical order.
That's the "why".
Please do enumerate—
—because the follow-up only begs the question: To what degree does who require that the circle have corners, as such.
So, generally speaking, we don't disagree; there is a question, though, of articles of faith. The attribution "his", while common and, therefore, an entirely understandable error, a more proper attribution would be "its", which is at least one valence less limiting.
Setting aside that nit, you are correct, as we see in application to the topic proposition: If "God is irrational", it is because people presume too much.
Please, do go on; that sounds fascinating.
"Whether God exists or does not exist," wrote Diderot, "He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."
A line like yours really does make the point.
A simple Yes or No question;
Do you believe we (or god) can "Will" something which is mathematically impossible?
Aside from thread...
Math my prove the philosophy of logic, illogical simply with number sets - Two imaginary multiplied to become a real number. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i*i
Doesn't the uncertainty principle mean we can't describe the universe mathematically with any precision?
Philosophically that may be true (I don't know), but in physical reality we are not speaking about "imaginary numbers".
We are talking about real values, which interact to produce a result. This result cannot be willed to produce a different result.
Does the uncertainty principle matter? As I understand it, the uncertainty principle merely means that we can't measure position and speed at the same time.
That does not necessarily mean that what actually happens in reality is uncertain.
I find that one of the simplest concepts to understand.
If I take a still picture of a race horse 100 ft from the finish it will show the horse being 100 ft from the finish line. But a still picture tells me nothing about how fast the horse is moving, or if it is moving at all.
OTOH, if I pan my camera to record the speed of the horse, its position (in relation to the background) becomes blurred and uncertain.
It's mathematically impossible to measure the speed of a thing, when the measurement is a still picture of its position, and vice versa..
Separate names with a comma.