Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:36:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > You're forcing a Christian God into something that it
> > doesn't need to be. Certainly there are *some* sects of Christianity that
> > would require it as you say, but again, they don't disprove the whole of
> > Christianity.
>
> In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a
> receding target:
That's ok. I think the subject of debate in this thread is James' (pick one)
view on Christianity. You'll have to take the battles as they come. Certainly I
could try the turn-around on you:
- Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat.
- That's not *real* science, that's been disproven
- Ok then, science is wrong because it professes the existance of ether.
- Well, that's not *real* science either because that's similarly been
disproven.
Etc. Just because you're eager to debate someone who believes in these ideals
doesn't mean that the person you *are* debating clings to them.
> > --- Existing as 1 and as 3 ---
> > If you can define existance for me, go for it. I doubt you can. That's the
> > crux of the problem, I think.
>
> As a working (though admittedly not infallible) definition, how about
> this: "I" am the unique sum of unique experiences, and the unique interplay
> of those experiences, such that what is called "I" is distinct from any
> other sum of experiences able to be called "I."
Not quite-- which experiences are unique to *you*? How do you decide which
experience relates to you, and which relates to a part of you? And provided
that, would another being be capable of sharing certain experiences? Or does
perspective matter? And if perspective matters, then we're presupposing an
existance of something to perspect to, hence circular reasoning. Ick!
> > But here goes. Are you one being? Or are you millions of beings, IE cells?
> > Would you be you without one of them? Would you be you with only half of
> > them? But that's the easy explanation.
>
> I'm afraid that analogy fails because any comparision between an infinite
> God and any finite entity is invalid. However, I would still be "me"
> without a cell, but that cell would not still be "me."
Ooo, I tried to make you avoid the trap, but you walked in. How many cells do
you need to lose before you're no longer you? Which cells? In what grouping?
> > --- Existing before time ---
> > The easy answer is that the question is faulty. For something to be "before"
> > time, one requires time to judge whether it's "before".
>
> I admit that completely; however, I've heard it said many times by many
> different Christians (who, of course, do not represent *all* Christian
> thought) that God has always existed, the universe has not always existed,
> therfore God existed before the universe.
Again, I think you're focusing on Christianity in general rather than James's
view on it, which I thing "should" be the subject at hand. Doubtless I agree
that certain sects of Christianity are wrong. But in order to disprove
Christianity at large, you'll have to pick it apart to its bare bones and
disprove one or all of them, not idle on the specifics which aren't universal
for Xtianity.
> > Anyway, long story short, there is no "time before time" for
> > anything to exist outside of. It's just a different way to perceptualize the
> > universe. And of course we can go further with this with the
> > 3-existing-as-one deal as well, but I'll stop.
>
> Alas, I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity as a quantumized Divine
> Three-Card Monty; there's no reason why any infinite being would have to (or
> why he would reasonably choose to) play this now-you-see-us-now-you-don't
> trick on his faithful. And, before anyone suggests it, "His ways are
> mysterious" isn't an adequate answer, either.
No, it's that our definition of "existance" doesn't really apply to the
entirety of God. "To exist" presupposes both time and the antithesis of "to
*not* exist". So when we apply "exist" to God, we get problems because it's not
really the right concept to use. Hence, (as I might posit were I a believer in
the Trinity as you put forth) there are 3 different ways to interpret God's
'existance', depending on the event/time/subject/etc in question.
> I expect you mean that there's nothing that could "prove" his existence to
> you in just the same way that the guy sitting next to you can't "prove" his
> existence to you. If you mean "prove" with 100% accurate, infallible
> certainty, then you might be right, but I think such a feat would be well
> within the abilities of an infinite being. And, if he can't prove it to
> you, then I can imagine a more infinite being who can...
Which is exactly why it was phrased (and I tried to repeat it as such) as an
"event" which would "prove to me" that God existed. Clearly, an 'ultimate' God
could simply make me think something if He wanted to, and resultantly simply
"make me" have 100% faith in God. But that's not really an event which spawns
the reaction in me to have 100% faith.
> But in any case, that's not what James is saying; he's referring to
> "belief that God is greater than human understanding." That sounds like a
> hedged bet to me--is God infinite or not: yes or no? Many things are
> "greater than human understanding" either temporarily or permanently, such
> as what's going on at the center of a singularity, the precise velocity and
> position of an electron, and why Jennifer Lopez is considered talented.
> It's not enough for God the Infinite to be thrown in a box with other things
> beyond our ability to comprehend.
Yes, (that's James(B?)'s specific point) in explanation to certain things, not
necessarily as evidence that God is infinite. There may be other evidence (aka
faith) that's not considered by looking solely at this aspect.
> > ? I really don't understand why you are intent on God being necessarily
> > capable of performing the logically impossible. Why is such a necessity?
>
> Because (assuming the "greater than which nothing can be thought"
> notion), I can conceive, even in principle, a being that *can* commit the
> logically impossible, so God *must* be greater than that.
Eh, I dunno. 1st off, I dunno whether James (S) would stick to the premise, and
further, I kind of envision it like "Well how about God+1?" ad infinitum. IE I
can envision any sort of God as having been "created", even without the
presupposition that He can't perform the logically invalid. Hence, either
you're right, but only insofar as God+1, or you're wrong insofar as "greatness"
and/or "be thought" don't apply to the logically flawed.
> > It's harder to judge our accuracy on morality than it is
> > on gravity, given. But should we disregard morality if it's not empirical?
>
> Certainly we shouldn't discard it, but I maintain my assertion that it's
> not as conclusively useful as something that can be demonstrated
> empirically, like gravity.
Change "useful" to "reliable" and I'll agree.
> > But honestly, I think it *IS* empirical. We just don't have any good or
> > highly reliable means of studying it.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how that's not a contradiction. If it's
> empirical, then we can observe it, and if we can observe it, then we can
> study it. Or am I misreading you?
No, you're reading me fine. But that's my own cup of tea. I'll leave my moral
developmental theory by the wayside at the moment though. Suffice to say that I
think it may be eventually possible to examine the human brain to the extent
that morality can be "tangible".
> > I think James S. is arguing #1. And I think a proper rebuttal would be that
> > God is only subject to morality as you are subject to mathematics. People
> > invented mathematics yet are still subject to it. IE you can't suddenly
> > say "1+5=23" because that's not the system you invented. It's not math
> > unless 1+5=6. You can't *break* the laws of math and have it still be math,
> > even though you created it. You COULD (if you wanted) design a completely
> > *NEW* system, but it wouldn't be math.
>
> I see what you're saying, but how can an infinite (ie limitless) being be
> bound by his own creation? It's not like he's a guy building a cage to
> enclose himself.
Answer #1: Limitless isn't necessarily applicable, see above
Answer #2: He is arguably restraining himself-- again, it's to say that if He
wanted for any reason to make 4+3=32, then why bother creating math? Math is no
longer math if 4+3=32-- it's something different. If God *wanted* to do
something differently, then He would've created a different system.
> It's Occam's Razor, but Hume was borrowing it. In an open debate among
> faithful and non-faithful, then faith is absolutely not enough to defeat the
> above, and that's the whole point.
Not really. It's merely a non-empirical answer. It can't be tested, and as
such, isn't indismissable, but it's a disagreement point. If the faithful says
we get knowledge of morality through God (unemperical), all the non-faithful
can say is "no, I don't buy that". But it doesn't disprove the unempirical
response. The response is still enough to defend itself, because faith hasn't
limited itself to empirical reasoning.
> > Point being that via faith (which is how Christians even believe in God's
> > existance) we are to have *faith* in the fact that He's good. We're not
> > expected to judge God, perhaps one reason being that we're unable to.
>
> Okay, now we're getting somewhere, and I think you've stated it exactly
> for a whole bunch of believers. However, if the infinitude of the Christian
> God can be demonstrated to be false, then that faith is poorly placed.
Well, if you can disprove God, then sure-- but good luck :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
