God's Thoughts

[TillICollapse]

This would suggest God is basically a ghost; which would clearly not be in keeping with Christian teaching. God is God, which makes God entirely other. In the Gospel of John Jesus does indeed say "God is spirit", but it's probably a good idea we don't start thinking that "spirit" here is a kind of "stuff" and God is that "stuff"; Jesus' point seems to be about not locking God down in any one place, as evidenced by the context that it doesn't matter whether God is worshiped at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (as Judaism said) or Mt. Gerizim (as Samaritanism said); but that God "is spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and truth"--God can't be locked down in this or that place, true worshipers of God will be found everywhere vis-a-vis the future pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost, the going forth of the Gospel, the establishment and spreading out of the Church throughout the world, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

So you don't believe that "spirit" is a "kind of stuff" ?

 

[Received]

This would suggest God is basically a ghost; which would clearly not be in keeping with Christian teaching. God is God, which makes God entirely other. In the Gospel of John Jesus does indeed say "God is spirit", but it's probably a good idea we don't start thinking that "spirit" here is a kind of "stuff" and God is that "stuff"; Jesus' point seems to be about not locking God down in any one place, as evidenced by the context that it doesn't matter whether God is worshiped at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (as Judaism said) or Mt. Gerizim (as Samaritanism said); but that God "is spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and truth"--God can't be locked down in this or that place, true worshipers of God will be found everywhere vis-a-vis the future pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost, the going forth of the Gospel, the establishment and spreading out of the Church throughout the world, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

This is why I think it's best to equate God with what we otherwise conceptualize as nothingness. I.e., the fact that we can conceptualize nothingness, even if only metaphorically, gives us a good conceptual grasp also of how spirit (understood as nothingness) works. Interestingly, Jean-Paul Sartre, a big fat amazing atheist, once concisely defined consciousness as "nothing".

 

[BL2KTN]

This is why I think it's best to equate God with what we otherwise conceptualize as nothingness.

I think the atheists agree with you.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think the atheists agree with you.

Beat me to it.

 

[Received]

So conceptualizing something as such means it is such? Epistemological dictates the ontological?

 

[TillICollapse]

So conceptualizing something as such means it is such? Epistemological dictates the ontological?

Who said this ?

 

[Received]

Who said this ?

That's what I'm asking.

And I should clarify that conceptualizing God as nothingness makes more sense to my point if I added the "metaphorical" part to this key sentence like I did the other. Understanding God as spirit is a lot easier (maybe the only way) if you understand as being metaphorically like (welp, that's a simile) nothingness.

 

[BL2KTN]

I should clarify that conceptualizing sprites as nothingness makes more sense if I add the metaphorical part of this key sentence. Understanding sprites is a lot easier (maybe the only way) if you understand them as being metaphorically like nothingness.

 

[Received]

I should clarify that conceptualizing sprites as nothingness makes more sense if I add the metaphorical part of this key sentence. Understanding sprites is a lot easier (maybe the only way) if you understand them as being metaphorically like nothingness.

Which reminds me: I haven't had my heels nipped in a while.

 

[BL2KTN]

Do you really want that at the same time you're mentally flogged?

 

[Received]

Do you really want that at the same time you're mentally flogged?

Lol, mentally flogged. So that's what it looks like to the heel-nipper.

You're silly.

The only thing that would make this exchange better is me knowing your blood pressure right now.

 

[TillICollapse]

That's what I'm asking.

And I should clarify that conceptualizing God as nothingness makes more sense to my point if I added the "metaphorical" part to this key sentence like I did the other. Understanding God as spirit is a lot easier (maybe the only way) if you understand as being metaphorically like (welp, that's a simile) nothingness.

When I first read your statement, I thought, "Take it a step further and one could conclude that God, in your context, has squeezed into the most basic of gaps, and is nothing more than a conceptualized concept in and of itself. Or the equivalent of the concept of meaningless." I was going to make a comment/joke about how many an atheist may agree with your statement, but was beaten to the punch.

I wasn't seeking a discussion, however speaking to your own point: why nothingness and not ... something-ness ?

[/runs from circular-ness]

 

[BL2KTN]

Lol, mentally flogged. So that's what it looks like to the heel-nipper.

You're silly.

The only thing that would make this exchange better is me knowing your blood pressure right now.

My blood pressure is likely 115/72, which is about where it stays except when I drink my iced coffees in the morning. Posting on here while simultaneously flipping games on eBay and enjoying the beautiful day does not raise my blood pressure. If it did I wouldn't be here lol.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you don't believe that "spirit" is a "kind of stuff" ?

I don't.

Especially in regard to the Divine Being.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Received]

My blood pressure is likely 115/72, which is about where it stays except when I drink my iced coffees in the morning. Posting on here while simultaneously flipping games on eBay and enjoying the beautiful day does not raise my blood pressure. If it did I wouldn't be here lol.

 

[Received]

When I first read your statement, I thought, "Take it a step further and one could conclude that God, in your context, has squeezed into the most basic of gaps, and is nothing more than a conceptualized concept in and of itself. Or the equivalent of the concept of meaningless." I was going to make a comment/joke about how many an atheist may agree with your statement, but was beaten to the punch.

I wasn't seeking a discussion, however speaking to your own point: why nothingness and not ... something-ness ?

[/runs from circular-ness]

Because God, if we're going to have any real use for him, has to be "that being which transcends the physical universe." What does that mean? That God is everywhere, and that God is therefore nowhere. The latter sense of "nowhereness" fits my attempt at describing God as metaphorically nothingness. God is something, and you might even call him a (metaphysical) substance; but because he's so fundamentally different than all other some-things (which implies thingness, physicality, this universe) given his transcendence, our minds can best grasp this transcendence of the physical by metaphorically understanding him as nothingness. Nothingness, after all, is a type of something, just a something that is fundamentally different than all other somethings (which have positive substance in a physical way), which is why we're able to conceptualize it.

It's complicated, sure.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You need a brain for thinking and thoughts. But assuming consciousness isn't reducible to brain activity (and so far, at least according to the good neuroscientist Sam Harris, it isn't), you don't need a brain to be aware of things in the present moment. ...

Could you please provide a link to where Sam Harris says you don't need a brain to be aware of things in the present moment.

Thanks.

 

[BL2KTN]

Because God, if we're going to have any real use for him, has to be "that being which transcends the physical universe."

Nope. Axioms are not God.

What does that mean? That God is everywhere, and that God is therefore nowhere.

Equivocation fallacy. You're just taking the term "God" as you have improperly defined it, then using it to provide additional qualities to the term.

God is something, and you might even call him a (metaphysical) substance; but because he's so fundamentally different than all other some-things (which implies thingness, physicality, this universe) given his transcendence, our minds can best grasp this transcendence of the physical by metaphorically understanding him as nothingness.

Reification fallacy. You don't get to make up new substances that are completely unproven, unseen, and pretend they are real.

Nothingness, after all, is a type of something, just a something that is fundamentally different than all other somethings (which have positive substance in a physical way), which is why we're able to conceptualize it.

Proof by Assertion fallacy. You can assert nothing is something all you want, but it still isn't. The conception of nothing is something, but actual nothing remains actual nothing. Elementary mistake on your part.

It's complicated, sure.

Only if you don't understand fallacies.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't.

Especially in regard to the Divine Being.

-CryptoLutheran

Why not ?

I've often wondered if believers who make "God" out to be "the stuff of nothing," do so because they actually don't WANT God to be real.

Because God, if we're going to have any real use for him, has to be "that being which transcends the physical universe." What does that mean? That God is everywhere, and that God is therefore nowhere. The latter sense of "nowhereness" fits my attempt at describing God as metaphorically nothingness. God is something, and you might even call him a (metaphysical) substance; but because he's so fundamentally different than all other some-things (which implies thingness, physicality, this universe) given his transcendence, our minds can best grasp this transcendence of the physical by metaphorically understanding him as nothingness. Nothingness, after all, is a type of something, just a something that is fundamentally different than all other somethings (which have positive substance in a physical way), which is why we're able to conceptualize it.

I see this as word salad. No offense.

To be fair, when a kid has that moment where they think, "Aw man ... what if, what if ... what if nothing, was actually something ? Whoaaaaaa bro ..... " I get that this is actually a line of thought. I think it's quite a common line of thought at some point with a thinking person, whether one ascribes "God" to that concept or not. It's the meta-dog potentially chasing it's own tail, but believes that in so doing it's actually found Schrodinger's Cat. So I get that it's a line of thought. I just don't see that it goes anywhere. The going in circles with the tail isn't necessarily evidence

It's complicated, sure.

Depends on one's point of view.

 

[TillICollapse]

Oh and side note: thanks to those who posted in my "point of no return" thread. They have removed it for the time being and placed it under review, though I haven't been told why.