God proof

[variant]

But that doesn't change the ability of people to accept it, even in the presence of it. In fact, their inability to fully understand it is a tool in their toolbox for accepting it.

-Lyn

I am not of the opinion that a person can accept something they do not really understand, especially when they have not given it thorough consideration.

It is definitely an interesting psychological phenomena that people feel can accept something as truth when they do not come close to understanding it, comprehending it, or having the least little knowledge of it.

And yes "It's a mystery" is, in fact, a copout.

 

[quatona]

Standards of human interaction have differed among cultures and times.

Yes, sure. But they have never involved eternity - simply because eternity is not available as a basis for interaction in finite existence.

That's what I used to think, until I realized that you don't have to accept the eternity of it if you just continually accept each moment of it. A human whose empathy has been reduced by brainwashing and blind obedience will view it as decent, and that has occurred right here on earth. In fact, one could even put it out of sight, and mostly out of mind, if they were of a certain type of character.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the eternity-aspect is practically irrelevant (correct me if I am wrong). I would agree, but I don´t seem to understand how that necessarily is an objection to my line of reasoning.
The fact that people transcend and extend practically relevant notions into a practically irrelevant, inconceivable, unfathomable (entirely abstract) realm is exactly what I am trying to take a closer look at.

Granted, there are things we don´t understand, and that´s why we have a practically relevant concept of "that which cannot be understood", but why would anyone invent a realm or process that´s by definition beyond their understanding?

And that's addressed by realizing that those who profess it perform mental gymnastics to imply that hell is necessary and supported by justice and goodness. Their "need" in this case is a deity that requires perfect justice, even though this conception of justice is the exact opposite of justice.

Recently I have spent quite some time studying the tenets of "non-violent communication" (and I have found them to be pretty convincing). I guess I have already adopted some of its terminology, and that might be the reason why I wouldn´t call this a "need". "Needs", in this understanding, are a handful of basic needs that all humans (except for an extremely small minority of socio- and psychopaths, maybe) have in common (such as bodily integrity, safety, intimacy, autonomy...). What you, however, are describing are strategies (based on thoughts) to fulfill those needs. These strategies can be more or less successful, or even counterproductive.
I´d wager that strategies that require "mental gymnastics" are of the latter kind. The monstrosity of a strategy still does not take away from the fact that there is a positive need behind it.
IOW: The problem are not the feelings or needs of those persons (which are perfectly ok) - it´s their thoughts and strategies.

 

[quatona]

The experience of eternity and the amount of pain Hell would cause are beyond our personal ability to conceive of and react to in a real and understandable way.

This statement makes perfect sense under the premise that there is such a place that defies our concepts and understanding, and we find ourselves clueless, helpless in view of this place that reality prompts us to accept as existing, yet we can´t understand it.
Whilst the notion that we (beings that spend all our efforts to gain understanding, to detect/create order and meaning, to make sense of stuff) have invented such a place that is beyond our concepts and understanding is my focus.

Words on the other hand are "concepts" which have a logical quality that goes beyond our actual preceptive ability.

I wouldn´t put it that way. Words aren´t concepts. Concepts are that which we can conceive of. That which we can´t conceive of is exactly not a concept, it is a non-concept, if you will.
But your objection offers me the opportunity to express my point differently:
Why is it that people invent words for non-concepts (i.e. something non-conceivable) as though the mere existence of a word could force a concept into existence?

I can say things like "twenty trillion light-years across", or "eternity" or "nothingness" but it is essentially meaningless to your actual preceptive existence.

So why would we invent meaningless words like "eternity" or "nothingness", which - apart from merely asking us to accept their absence of meaning - don´t point to concepts?

 

[variant]

This statement makes perfect sense under the premise that there is such a place that defies our concepts and understanding, and we find ourselves clueless, helpless in view of this place that reality prompts us to accept as existing, yet we can’t understand it.

Whilst the notion that we (beings that spend all our efforts to gain understanding, to detect/create order and meaning, to make sense of stuff) have invented such a place that is beyond our concepts and understanding is my focus.

It makes perfect sense in the case that it doesn’t exist as well. Even if Hell is made up.

It means that IF it were real, it's reality would be incomprehensible to the human mind.

If it doesn’t exist it casts a window into the human psyche, because it would have been imagined.

I wouldn´t put it that way. Words aren´t concepts. Concepts are that which we can conceive of. That which we can´t conceive of is exactly not a concept, it is a non-concept, if you will.
But your objection offers me the opportunity to express my point differently:

I haven't been very careful with my language in this thread.

Words point to concepts, but concepts are not limited to that which is realistically conceivable, there are, abstractions that begin within the realm of human understanding and logic, and progress outside of it.

Mathematics gives us one of these numbers. 1, 2, and 3 are easy enough, but they logically progress to numbers like 9X10^99 and on and on, to the point where we can no longer grasp it.

Time gives us another, we can imagine adding one day after another after another until it goes on forever and get the abstraction called "eternity", but the actual experience of such would be inconceivable to a being such as myself that has actually only experienced 29 years.

There are even abstract words that don't point to anything like "nothing" which derives from "thing" and it's logical negation.

Why is it that people invent words for non-concepts (i.e. something non-conceivable) as though the mere existence of a word could force a concept into existence?

So why would we invent meaningless words like "eternity" or "nothingness", which - apart from merely asking us to accept their absence of meaning - don´t point to concepts?

Imagination, consciousness and abstraction taken together have this logical consequence.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, sure. But they have never involved eternity - simply because eternity is not available as a basis for interaction in finite existence.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the eternity-aspect is practically irrelevant (correct me if I am wrong). I would agree, but I don´t seem to understand how that necessarily is an objection to my line of reasoning.

The fact that people transcend and extend practically relevant notions into a practically irrelevant, inconceivable, unfathomable (entirely abstract) realm is exactly what I am trying to take a closer look at.

Granted, there are things we don´t understand, and that´s why we have a practically relevant concept of "that which cannot be understood", but why would anyone invent a realm or process that´s by definition beyond their understanding?

Intelligent people have invented (or defined) the concept of the asymptote. This is, as you are likely aware, where a curve approaches a line, and gets closer and closer, but never touches it. As it approaches infinity, the curve becomes infinitesimally close to the line.

A finite human mind cannot directly understand the concept of something getting closer and closer to something else, forever, while never touching it. It's impossible to imagine an infinitesimally short distance. But, by understanding the broader concept, we can grasp it fairly well, and use it when appropriate.

I don't see how emotions are any different. Conceiving of an eternity of suffering is simply the act of a finite mind approximating an infinite concept so that it can understand. They understand that it never ends. They understand that it's a really, really long time, and then another really, really long time after that, and so on. They grasp it well enough.

Recently I have spent quite some time studying the tenets of "non-violent communication" (and I have found them to be pretty convincing). I guess I have already adopted some of its terminology, and that might be the reason why I wouldn´t call this a "need". "Needs", in this understanding, are a handful of basic needs that all humans (except for an extremely small minority of socio- and psychopaths, maybe) have in common (such as bodily integrity, safety, intimacy, autonomy...). What you, however, are describing are strategies (based on thoughts) to fulfill those needs. These strategies can be more or less successful, or even counterproductive.
I´d wager that strategies that require "mental gymnastics" are of the latter kind. The monstrosity of a strategy still does not take away from the fact that there is a positive need behind it.
IOW: The problem are not the feelings or needs of those persons (which are perfectly ok) - it´s their thoughts and strategies.

Why, in your opinion, do some people desire vengeance? What do you feel is the positive need behind this emotion common to a lot of humans? If, for instance, a serial killer does horrible things to someone, then that person's parents would likely want vengeance against the killer. The positive need, in this case, is some sort of thirst for balance or something.

-Lyn

 

[quatona]

Penumbra and variant,

thanks for your time, effort and patience in helping me with getting these things sorted. It´s very much appreciated.

I think I do understand what you are trying to explain to me, and with most of it I don´t even disagree.

However, I still feel that the very point I am trying to make is not addressed (and this may well be because I am presenting it poorly. It´s also possible that it´s not a valid point at all, but I am not willing to concede that before I get the impression it´s been at least understood.

So let me try again:
There is an essential difference between extremely high numbers/increasingly small distances/extremely long time spans etc. and "eternity"/"nothingness"/"infintity".
While I see how - on a certain level of abstraction - we may extrapolate the latter from the first, this doesn´t do away with that essential difference.

E.g. increasingly high figures are increasingly hard to imagine, but there´s still a chance and methods to imagine them. While an "infinitely high figure" is exactly defined by its unimaginability: Whenever I manage to imagine a figure no matter how high it is, I can be sure it´s not "infinitely high".
While extremely huge or small stuff still refers to the frame of reference of our existence, "eternity"/"infinity"/"nothingness" are defined by exactly denying this very frame.

For clarification´s sake, let´s take that one step further and replace those words by "the unimaginable". By it´s very definition it´s unimaginable. This makes a fundamental difference to "extremely hard to imagine" (which may be extremely hard to imagine, but still respects the frame of the imaginable). I am afraid you won´t be able to convince me that the unimaginable can possibly be imagined.

 

[quatona]

Why, in your opinion, do some people desire vengeance?

I don´t know. I guess the best approach to finding out about the feelings and needs of an individual who seeks vengeance would be to listen empathically to a person.
This usually doesn´t happen (rather, people will confirm that the person is justified in his feelings, needs and strategies, or that he is not), and this is my issue with "ethics". The idea behind ethics is judgement. This is not reconcilable with the empathic approach.
Feelings and needs can´t be discussed or disputed - they are always valid.
Instead of concentrating on the person´s feelings and needs, we tend to immediately jump to judging their strategies (and also tend to conclude from the strategy on their feelings/needs).

What do you feel is the positive need

Sorry to interrupt you, but I don´t think there are positive or negative needs. There are needs. It´s pointless to judge them.

behind this emotion

Sorry to interrupt you again, but I don´t think that "vengeance" is an emotion. It is a strategy in the attempt to deal with one´s emotions.

common to a lot of humans? If, for instance, a serial killer does horrible things to someone, then that person's parents would likely want vengeance against the killer. The positive need, in this case, is some sort of thirst for balance or something.

Maybe it´s just the need to be heard, to be acknowledged in their sadness, frustration, loss.
But I think your idea that it´s about "balance" has something about it. Then again, "balance" is not really a need but an intellectual concept.
Let´s work from there, anyway.
"Balance" makes a lot of sense in material issues. You take somethiing from me, I want it back. Balance.
Now, whatever you do in response to the above scenario in order to gain "balance" will be restricted to an intellectual concept. Intellectual concepts, however, don´t fulfill our needs. I can kill the killer, and his family, and everyone in his nation - this won´t do away with my feelings of loss, of sadness, etc.
I guess you and I agree that it´s a poor and unsuccessful strategy, but it´s still a strategy in the attempt to fulfill one´s needs (i.e. it´s not the need itself).
The frustrating part is that there is no action available that helps him fulfilling his needs in this situation.

However, since his feelings and needs are extreme, and since we are action-oriented in our problem-solving ("I must do something about it!"), he is likely to choose an extreme approach (like vengeance).

The hopeful part is that we are likely to be able to give them what they need. It´s like with a hungry person. Discussing with him whether robbing a store is a good strategy and a justifiable thing to do won´t feed him. Giving him something to eat will.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity

Why do you believe humans will be tortured forever? Have you read the Bible and discovered this fact for yourself, or do you just blindly believe what Christians have told you and therefore made up your mind based on what you were told?

 

[quatona]

Why do you believe humans will be tortured forever?

I don´t believe it. Other people do believe it. The idea is out there, and this fact is the premise of my OP.

Have you read the Bible and discovered this fact for yourself, or do you just blindly believe what Christians have told you and therefore made up your mind based on what you were told?

If I would believe it I would call myself a Christian, wouldn´t I?

It seems you are not familiar with the most common approach in discussing an idea. You start from the premise that it were true, and investigate what follows from the idea in light of reality.

Someone claims "there are green elephants with pink dots."
Regardless wheterh I believe there are such or don´t believe it, when addressing this claim I will have to start with something like "Well, if there were green elephants with pink dots,....". This doesn´t mean I believe there are such.

 

[Penumbra]

Sorry to interrupt you again, but I don´t think that "vengeance" is an emotion. It is a strategy in the attempt to deal with one´s emotions.
Maybe it´s just the need to be heard, to be acknowledged in their sadness, frustration, loss.

I think I disagree that vengeance is not an emotion. It could be better described as "a desire for vengeance" that is the emotion. I think it extends beyond the need to be heard and acknowledge sadness. Someone can be heard, and their sadness, frustration, and loss may all be acknowledged, yet they may still feel the strong desire for vengeance on the killer.

But I think your idea that it´s about "balance" has something about it. Then again, "balance" is not really a need but an intellectual concept.
Let´s work from there, anyway.

"Balance" makes a lot of sense in material issues. You take somethiing from me, I want it back. Balance.

Now, whatever you do in response to the above scenario in order to gain "balance" will be restricted to an intellectual concept. Intellectual concepts, however, don´t fulfill our needs. I can kill the killer, and his family, and everyone in his nation - this won´t do away with my feelings of loss, of sadness, etc.

I guess you and I agree that it´s a poor and unsuccessful strategy, but it´s still a strategy in the attempt to fulfill one´s needs (i.e. it´s not the need itself).

The frustrating part is that there is no action available that helps him fulfilling his needs in this situation.

However, since his feelings and needs are extreme, and since we are action-oriented in our problem-solving ("I must do something about it!"), he is likely to choose an extreme approach (like vengeance).

The hopeful part is that we are likely to be able to give them what they need. It´s like with a hungry person. Discussing with him whether robbing a store is a good strategy and a justifiable thing to do won´t feed him. Giving him something to eat will.

I don't view balance as a strictly intellectual concept. Sometimes I think it could even be the opposite.

I have never been the victim of violent crime, so I can't speak to that specific example, but I, just like most people, have been seriously wronged at one point or another. During such times, my emotions are one of anger and the need for balance against the individual. My intellectual side, on the other hand, bring up the various questions like "what will it solve?" and reminders about an eye for an eye make the world blind and all that. So, at least in my experience, the desire for balance is not very intellectual, but is instead an emotion, and indeed my intellectual side instead critically analyzes and dismantles such emotions.

This is clearly a side-track to your thread, so feel free to not respond if you do not want to. You brought up this aspect of your worldview that you seem to put a significant amount of emphasis on in response to one of my statements, and I responded to it.

Penumbra and variant,

thanks for your time, effort and patience in helping me with getting these things sorted. It´s very much appreciated.

I think I do understand what you are trying to explain to me, and with most of it I don´t even disagree.

However, I still feel that the very point I am trying to make is not addressed (and this may well be because I am presenting it poorly. It´s also possible that it´s not a valid point at all, but I am not willing to concede that before I get the impression it´s been at least understood.

So let me try again:
There is an essential difference between extremely high numbers/increasingly small distances/extremely long time spans etc. and "eternity"/"nothingness"/"infintity".
While I see how - on a certain level of abstraction - we may extrapolate the latter from the first, this doesn´t do away with that essential difference.

E.g. increasingly high figures are increasingly hard to imagine, but there´s still a chance and methods to imagine them. While an "infinitely high figure" is exactly defined by its unimaginability: Whenever I manage to imagine a figure no matter how high it is, I can be sure it´s not "infinitely high".
While extremely huge or small stuff still refers to the frame of reference of our existence, "eternity"/"infinity"/"nothingness" are defined by exactly denying this very frame.

As far as I can tell, at least for me, the issue is that I don't agree that there is something essentially different between those concepts.

Given an infinite concept, a human can grasp to a certain extent by using finite rules to describe the behavior of the given infinite concept. Depending on the nature of the concept, the difficulty will fluctuate.

"Nothingness" is a particularly difficult concept, as it doesn't follow a pattern. We can make finite statements or rules to describe it, like a lack of matter, a lack of energy, a lack of space, and a lack of time, and so forth, but some of those, like the lack of spacetime, are particularly difficult to imagine, as we have no reference for understanding them. We can only understand it to a degree, but it's at least enough of a grasp of the concept to invent a word that has a shared, albeit incomplete, understanding.

"Eternity" is a concept that is a little easier, especially one-sided eternity. Imagining something with no beginning and no end is more difficult than imagining something with a beginning but no end, and the Christian doctrine of hell teaches the latter. This is because it follows a pattern. If one says that some being will be tortured for eternity, starting from this point, it could be rephrased as, "that being will be tortured for an infinite number of time units". In such an example, one merely uses an understanding of a pattern to grasp the concept enough to imagine it. It's no different than using an asymptote to describe an infinitely decreasing distance or to use a knowledge of decimals and fractions to grasp the concept that there exist an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.

If, instead, "eternity" is understood as a timeless state, then the example becomes much like the more difficult concept of "nothingness".

So there are two ways that I answer your original post:

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity is so monstrous and below even the lowest human standards of acceptability (and, btw., beyond their wildest power of imagination, as well), that it´s impossible that humans have invented this idea.
Since there are humans who hold this idea but cannot have invented it themselves leaves no other conclusion that such an entity must objectively exist.

Two ways:

1. The human in question uses a finite pattern/approximation to understand the concept, and therefore, the idea is nearly entirely within the realm of human imagination, and no deity is necessary. Both the person making the statement and the person receiving (listening to) the statement understand the concept to a fairly considerable degree.

2. The human in question is unable to use a finite pattern/approximation to to understand the concept, but is able to make a set of rules or finite statements that at least allow the use of a shared word to describe it, and therefore, the idea is not within the realm of human imagination. Neither the person making the statement or the person receiving the statement truly grasp the concept to any worthwhile degree, but the idea is entirely within the realm of human language, and so the idea has at least been poorly constructed to be imagined and shared, and no deity is necessary.

For clarification´s sake, let´s take that one step further and replace those words by "the unimaginable". By it´s very definition it´s unimaginable. This makes a fundamental difference to "extremely hard to imagine" (which may be extremely hard to imagine, but still respects the frame of the imaginable). I am afraid you won´t be able to convince me that the unimaginable can possibly be imagined.

I don't think that would clarify anything. If you define something as the unimaginable, and say it is not imagined, then you'll merely be constructing a definition as an immediate unquestionable position. The argument I'd have against such an approach is to question whether the defined concept is indeed unimaginable, which is what I've been doing in this thread. In addition, something can be invented and spoken about by means of language even if it cannot be imagined.

-Lyn

 

[quatona]

Penumbra,
thanks for your response and your thoughts.

This is clearly a side-track to your thread, so feel free to not respond if you do not want to. You brought up this aspect of your worldview that you seem to put a significant amount of emphasis on in response to one of my statements, and I responded to it.

Yes, it´s off topic, but since a God-proof is a stupid thing to attempt, anyways, it should be clear that this thread was created to prompt some interesting side-tracks.
Both, the "infiniteness" discussion as well as the "vengeance" topic are highly interesting to me.
I´ll keep them in separate posts, though.
If this part of the discussion is of no or little interest to you, feel free to step out of it any time.

I think I disagree that vengeance is not an emotion. It could be better described as "a desire for vengeance" that is the emotion.

I´d like to avoid spending too much time discussing semantics. The important part is that we use the same terminology. So let´s just say the "desire for vengeance" is an emotion.
Personally, however, I would like to differenciate between "emotions" and "feelings", with feelings being that which can be expressed in a simple "I am [sad/happy/frustrated/enraged/...]" statement, without any explanation, e.g. as to what this feeling seems to invite me to do.
Would you be willing to follow me there?

I think it extends beyond the need to be heard and acknowledge sadness. Someone can be heard, and their sadness, frustration, and loss may all be acknowledged, yet they may still feel the strong desire for vengeance on the killer.

I´m not sure I agree (I tend to think that when the needs of a person are met, they won´t have any desire for vengeance - why would they?).
Please keep in mind, "the need to be heard, acknowledged" were just attempts to answer your question what the needs of a person in that situation might be, not necessarily the correct and complete answer. When listening empathically to them, we are likely to hear what their feelings are and which unfulfilled needs these feelings point to).

In my way of dealing with these things, it´s not really important what the "desire for vengeance" is - what is important to me is that it is neither a feeling (in the above given definition) nor a need.
I´m fine with calling it a "desire" or a "want". (In the way I want candy, but this is neither a need nor a feeling - although this "wanting" might help me to learn more about my feelings and needs)

I don't view balance as a strictly intellectual concept. Sometimes I think it could even be the opposite.

Yes, maybe the term "intellectual" was a poor choice. Maybe "it´s a product of the mind" is more helpful?
In any case, I would insist that it´s not a feeling, and that it´s not necessarily a need.
I guess what I am getting at is that a person whose desire is "I want this guy dead, too, for balance" is extremely out of touch with his feelings and needs. When I am hungry, my needs won´t be met when I make sure that everybody else doesn´t have anything to eat. That would be "balance", but striving for this sort of balance would clearly indicate that I am out of touch with my needs.

I have never been the victim of violent crime, so I can't speak to that specific example, but I, just like most people, have been seriously wronged at one point or another.

Well, when I feel "wronged" I am already in the business of judgement. I am not in touch with my feelings and needs.

During such times, my emotions are one of anger and the need for balance against the individual.

I would consider "I am angry" indeed the expression of a feeling.
"I have the need for balance" is an explanation, a strategy, especially when the way the balance is pursued is stated along with it ("against him").

Whether something is really a need is probably best determined a posteriori:
Once the "balance" of tit for tat is achieved - will the feeling (the anger) go away, pointing to the fact that the need has been met? If it doesn´t "balance" was clearly not the need. Can´t speak for anybody else, but my personal experience is that the anger will persist. I suspect, though, that loss/loss can never be a need.

My intellectual side, on the other hand, bring up the various questions like "what will it solve?" and reminders about an eye for an eye make the world blind and all that. So, at least in my experience, the desire for balance is not very intellectual, but is instead an emotion, and indeed my intellectual side instead critically analyzes and dismantles such emotions.

Yes, I would agree that it is at least not very intellectual, and the considerations you describe here are more intellectual.

However, it´s my conviction that the "desire for vengeance" is a mind thing (which necessarily drives us away from being in touch with our needs and feelings). Further ethical and rational considerations may put the value (also a mind thing) of vengeance into perspective, but they drive us even further away from our feelings and needs. I think a better approach would be to stay in close touch with our needs and feelings from the beginning (which would spare us the entire process).

 

[quatona]

As far as I can tell, at least for me, the issue is that I don't agree that there is something essentially different between those concepts.

I´m pretty sure that there is an essential difference - however, you are entirely free not to consider it relevant for any of your purposes.

If I have an incredibly high number, I can be sure that by counting up I will at some point get there.
Whereas an infinitely high number is exactly characterized by the idea that I can never get there.
I do think that this already constitutes a significant and essential difference. It´s not an extension of a concept that derives its meaning from the frame of reference of our existence, but it´s very negation.

Given an infinite concept, a human can grasp to a certain extent by using finite rules to describe the behavior of the given infinite concept.

I guess a human can grasp the abstraction, but I suspect that that´s it.

"Nothingness" is a particularly difficult concept, as it doesn't follow a pattern. We can make finite statements or rules to describe it, like a lack of matter, a lack of energy, a lack of space, and a lack of time, and so forth, but some of those, like the lack of spacetime, are particularly difficult to imagine, as we have no reference for understanding them. We can only understand it to a degree, but it's at least enough of a grasp of the concept to invent a word that has a shared, albeit incomplete, understanding.

Again: I think "nothingness" is not a concept since it requires us to negate the reality that renders our words meaningful and concepts.

"Eternity" is a concept that is a little easier, especially one-sided eternity. Imagining something with no beginning and no end is more difficult than imagining something with a beginning but no end, and the Christian doctrine of hell teaches the latter. This is because it follows a pattern. If one says that some being will be tortured for eternity, starting from this point, it could be rephrased as, "that being will be tortured for an infinite number of time units". In such an example, one merely uses an understanding of a pattern to grasp the concept enough to imagine it. It's no different than using an asymptote to describe an infinitely decreasing distance or to use a knowledge of decimals and fractions to grasp the concept that there exist an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.

In the case of "eternal suffering" I am wondering the following: Even if "eternity" were meaningful and a concept (as opposed to being merely a negation of that which can be meaningful and a concept, as is my position), why would anyone try to make the monstrosity more imaginable by introducing a concept that requires us to make all those abstractions?

On another note, my experience is that with long lasting pain and suffering we get increasingly accustomed/desensitized to it. Now that we have involved the abstraction "infinity", I´d submit that with eternal lasting of suffering we will get infinitely accustomed and desensitized to it.

1. The human in question uses a finite pattern/approximation to understand the concept, and therefore, the idea is nearly entirely within the realm of human imagination, and no deity is necessary. Both the person making the statement and the person receiving (listening to) the statement understand the concept to a fairly considerable degree.

I must confess that I don´t understand the concept at all. Or, more precise, I do understand the abstract concept, but I don´t understand how it can possibly point to something outside itself.

2. The human in question is unable to use a finite pattern/approximation to to understand the concept, but is able to make a set of rules or finite statements that at least allow the use of a shared word to describe it, and therefore, the idea is not within the realm of human imagination. Neither the person making the statement or the person receiving the statement truly grasp the concept to any worthwhile degree, but the idea is entirely within the realm of human language, and so the idea has at least been poorly constructed to be imagined and shared, and no deity is necessary.

This would be pretty close to the way I tend to see it.
However, I have problems with the term "not truly grasping a concept". It suggest that there is something about it that we cannot grasp (and this part is not a concept).
Assuming that there are concepts we cannot (fully/truly) grasp means entering the metaphysical realm. I would be a concept out there (held by something beyond us) that we do our best to grasp. As opposed to human concepts that are our own making and necessarily grasped by those who hold them).

I don't think that would clarify anything. If you define something as the unimaginable, and say it is not imagined, then you'll merely be constructing a definition as an immediate unquestionable position.

Yes, I see how this could be understood as an attempt to stack the deck.
This was not my intention, though. Rather, my idea was: Let´s forget about "eternity"/"infinity"/"nothingness" for a moment and take a look at "unimaginable", "the ungraspable", "the unfathomable", "the unthinkeable" instead. These are words, we do use them - but do they point to concepts, or are they not rather mere negations of that which can be imagined, fathomed, thought, grasped - without any positive content or definition? Or, if we assume them to be concepts beyond our grasp, doesn´t that necessarily mean we have introduced a metaphysical realm?

In addition, something can be invented and spoken about by means of language even if it cannot be imagined.

Agreed. On top of that, we can even string together grammatically correct sentences consisting of words from the dictionary that make no sense whatsover, nonetheless.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Because people have witnessed suffering right up close on unimaginable scales and have done nothing here on earth, so why would this change anywhere else. Based on brainwashing and authority, some people will advocate for and defend anything, no matter how evil. As I talk to people that support such concepts like hell, and they sit their quoting their memorized spiel of religious dogma, they seem as empty husks, and I do believe they would stand by and be complacent amidst the evil.

I'm not saying all people are like that, I'm saying some people are like that.

-Lyn

I'm curious about your religion and what you believe. Seems like we need to be enlightened by someone like yourself.

 

[Penumbra]

Hi quatona. I've read your latest posts and have most of my answer to them in my head, but due to having really long days at work this week, I'm going to wait until the weekend before I get back in these lengthy responses. With a discussion at this level of abstraction, I want to make sure I word things well, and that takes time.

I'm curious about your religion and what you believe. Seems like we need to be enlightened by someone like yourself.

Sounds kind of sarcastic.

My worldview always has some element of change in it; it's never completely static. None of these icons really fit, so "other religion" is the closest. I considered putting up the humanist icon, but that's not quite right either. The atheist and agnostic icons wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, but I'd rather not define my worldview by what I don't believe.

I follow a philosophy that I have based on books I've read, some secular and some religious. So, it's a philosophically and spiritually inspired lifestyle. I do not currently believe in any deities, nor do I make any positive metaphysical claims.

-Lyn

 

[Greg1234]

I am not of the opinion that a person can accept something they do not really understand, especially when they have not given it thorough consideration.

"Seek, and ye shall find". Those were his words.

 

[variant]

"Seek, and ye shall find". Those were his words.

Yes, people usually do find what they are seeking for, whether it is real or imaginary.

In the concept of hell, humans are looking for a boogie man to scare them into being more virtuous in their own eyes.

Whether the concept itself makes sense, or is gruesome in the end, reflects either on the God that would make such a thing, or the vast array of human emotional needs.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, people usually do find what they are seeking for, whether it is real or imaginary.

In the concept of hell, humans are looking for a boogie man to scare them into being more virtuous in their own eyes.

Whether the concept itself makes sense, or is gruesome in the end, reflects either on the God that would make such a thing, or the vast array of human emotional needs.

Understand yourself in relation to the physical world and the influence of same on the mental aspect of the human. The first cause, the infinite, need not be addressed for a man who has yet to find himself and his relation to the finite.

 

[variant]

Understand yourself in relation to the physical world and the influence of same on the mental aspect of the human. The first cause, the infinite, need not be addressed for a man who has yet to find himself and his relation to the finite.

This could be said of anyone, which means the conclusion is that religion need not be addressed at all.

 

[Greg1234]

This could be said of anyone, which means the conclusion is that religion need not be addressed at all.

Never said religion. I'm guessing when you hear "God" the first thing you think about is the source. Between man and the Father, the amount of information to be acknowledged and applied is insurmountable. How you guys got to the Father without the Son in the first place is the mystery. But that's mankind. Always seeking to carve our own path, to jump the gun.

 

[variant]

Never said religion. I'm guessing when you hear "God" the first thing you think about is the source. Between man and the Father, the amount of information to be acknowledged and applied is insurmountable. How you guys got to the Father without the Son in the first place is the mystery. But that's mankind. Always seeking to carve our own path, to jump the gun.

The one who speaks in riddles wishes to be misunderstood.

The one who speaks in riddles about the divine wishes to have control or power.