To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14705
14704  |  14706
Subject: 
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:06:54 GMT
Viewed: 
1108 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:

I can conceive of such a being in at least abstract terms, such as "that
being which is not bound by our definition of logical impossibility."

So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible.  You are
restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference".

  What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can
perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical
impossibility.  I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding
others is a restriction on impossibility.

A:  "God is infinite and can do anything."
B:  "Can he create a rock he can't lift?"
A:  "No, but that doesn't count."

You're giving the wrong answer from A.  The correct answer is "if it can be
done, yes.  It seems paradoxical to me, but I have a finite frame of reference."

  But that's an escape clause for any conceivable question to which you
don't currently have an answer, and so is the same as having no answer at all.

If he's simply beyond our ability to comprehend, then he's not necessarily
infinite, so he's hardly the absolute being.

Not necessarily, but that doesn't also mean he isn't, does it?  You're
making a leap that isn't logically present.  From the premise (God is beyond
our ability to comprehend), you conclude God is limited.  That's the logical
equivalent of:

I am 5 feet tall.
You are taller than I am.
Therefore, you are 6 feet tall.

  But you're saying:

I am 5 feet tall.
God is taller than I am.
Therefore, God may be infinitely tall.

  Sure he can, in that case, but if we can't extrapolate a precise answer
from an unknown, we certainly can't extrapolate infinity from that same
unknown.  And "may be" isn't any more helpful, either, when we're speaking
about absolutes.

  From the premise "God is beyond our ability to comprehend," I conclude
that we cannot therefore declare him to be absolute or infinite.

I would say that the empirical one is not necessarily superior,
but is merely more empirical.  You are comparing apples and oranges, I think.

  I am comparing apples that we can verify and oranges that we cannot.  As a
system of understanding, explanation, and prediction, I maintain that
empirically demonstrable phenomena are greatly preferable to those that are
not empirically demonstrable.
  If God could be empirically demonstrated, wouldn't that be better then the
current situation, in which he cannot?  Surely more people would be "saved,"
and that would seem to me a fine means of determining superiority of method.

I would further add that most christians (who thought about it this much)
would ammend it to say "...but chooses to be".

  Again, non-falsifiable and therefore of no predictive value and limited
descriptive value.

We might also invoke Hume and point out that if we can get to morality
without the need of a god, then it's preferable to do so, since we don't
therefore have to posit the existence of any other being, much less an
infinite being.

Probably true, but I would cynically answer that I don't think humanity (as
an aggregate, not necessarily as individuals) has pushed social evolution to
a point where a moral code can easily be seperated from a higher authority
conceptually.

   Maybe not, but even with the supposed moral absolute of Christianity, few
people indeed lead a perfectly moral life.  Pragmatically speaking, is an
unachievable but perfect morality any better than an achievable but
incomplete morality?

    Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
 
(...) We're arguing semantics, I think, over the meaning of "impossible". I am suggesting that if there are absolute limits, they limit everything (including God). You are stating that if there are are absolute limits, God can't exist. That doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
 
(...) So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible. You are restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference". (...) Dave E addressed this more eloquently than I can, I suspect, so I will only comment that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR