God's Thoughts

[BL2KTN]

I find that when we make good points, our threads tend to have a short shelf life.

 

[TillICollapse]

I actually noticed it a lot more when I first signed up ... it seemed like about half the threads I would go to post in, would get closed or vaporize. Seems to be happening more lately imo.

Actually one of my pet peeves about this forum, is the ability one has to edit their post such a long time after posting. I get the ability to edit within like 15 min to an hour or so. Grammar mistakes, or to clarify something. But more than 24 hours later ? Lends to intellectual dishonesty imo.

 

[Received]

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.

That's my contention. The parenthetical part on consciousness not (known to) being reducible to brain activity is Harris' belief.

 

[Received]

dp

 

[Received]

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.

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

Depends on one's point of view.

If you're using "word salad" because you don't understand what I'm saying, that's not a proper use of "word salad".

 

[Received]

Nope. Axioms are not God.

How does this apply to my post?

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.

What constitutes proper definition and according to whose authority?

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

What do you mean by "make up" here? All philosophy of religion involves assumptions about certain definitions. Justify your reification fallacy: what would a "concrete" God look like, and how am I treating him like an abstraction?

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.

Dude, that second sentence is exactly what I hold; it's precisely our conceptualization of nothingness (which is different than actual nothingness, and I didn't equate the two in my post) that allows for the metaphorical comparison to God. Let's not self-apply fallacies, now.

Only if you don't understand fallacies.

That would be you and your use of fallacies, because not one of them have been justified, just arbitrarily thrown down. And with a nice fat subtext beyond your use of them, too.

 

[Received]

I actually noticed it a lot more when I first signed up ... it seemed like about half the threads I would go to post in, would get closed or vaporize. Seems to be happening more lately imo.

Actually one of my pet peeves about this forum, is the ability one has to edit their post such a long time after posting. I get the ability to edit within like 15 min to an hour or so. Grammar mistakes, or to clarify something. But more than 24 hours later ? Lends to intellectual dishonesty imo.

Do you think mistakes can't be realized after 15 minutes?

I tend to respond very quickly on this forum (such as now because I'm at work taking a little break), and not uncommonly I realize later when I'm able to breathe more that I made a few mistakes, that my viewpoint wasn't properly elucidated, etc.

 

[TillICollapse]

If you're using "word salad" because you don't understand what I'm saying, that's not a proper use of "word salad".

I did get what you are saying ... my use of "word salad" is a more fun, common, and less disrespectful way of saying, "you're not saying anything here." To me saying I viewed it as non-sense in such context would have been offensive, actually.

I will admit though, that another pet peeve is when someone claims that another person doesn't understand their point, when that person actually does but it's dismissed for other reasons. Like solipsism ... when someone first discovers it, for whatever reason, they seem to act as though they've discovered some amazing extreme truth. When another person who has already considered it dismisses it, they may respond as though, "Ha, it's too deep for them." Pet peeve and unnecessary.

I will avoid the going in circles at this point, though I may jump back in later lol, hopefully I won't ...

Do you think mistakes can't be realized after 15 minutes?

I tend to respond very quickly on this forum (such as now because I'm at work taking a little break), and not uncommonly I realize later when I'm able to breathe more that I made a few mistakes, that my viewpoint wasn't properly elucidated, etc.

Yes mistakes can be realized after 15 min. I just asked for an entire thread I started the other day to be removed within about 3 min of starting it, because I didn't want to go where it likely would have lead. But I've seen people delete entire strings of posts in conversations before, or flip stances on a matter. Just make a new post lol. I'm just pointing out my personal preference here is all ... no hard and fast rules, no black and white, just subjective personal preference.

 

[Received]

I did get what you are saying ... my use of "word salad" is a more fun, common, and less disrespectful way of saying, "you're not saying anything here." To me saying I viewed it as non-sense in such context would have been offensive, actually.

And I would respond: what evidence do you have I'm not saying anything?

I will admit though, that another pet peeve is when someone claims that another person doesn't understand their point, when that person actually does but it's dismissed for other reasons. Like solipsism ... when someone first discovers it, for whatever reason, they seem to act as though they've discovered some amazing extreme truth. When another person who has already considered it dismisses it, they may respond as though, "Ha, it's too deep for them." Pet peeve and unnecessary.

In this case, you stated word salad without justification. The problem with using a phrase like "word salad" is that it implies that to you the things the other person is saying not just don't make sense to them, but are nonsensical. Hence my attempt to distinguish between things not making sense to you vs. not making sense at all.

ETA: sorry for the possible brusqueness, TIC. I guess my style of responding to BL is generalizing here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

I don't think God is made out of "the stuff of nothing".

I'm made out of "stuff", specifically I'm made out of physical, material stuff--matter. Atoms and the basic subatomic building blocks of all matter.

We could even say that angels are made of "angel stuff" though I have no idea what "angel stuff" is or if it is even in anyway meaningful to say. The author to the Hebrews calls them "ministering spirits", but to what end that is particularly helpful I have no idea. The basic idea behind the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew ruach is wind or breath--invisible, lively, movement.

But "stuff" insofar as such is applicable, is applicable only to the created, not the uncreated. The unmade can't be made of something, be made of "stuff", such is inherently contradictory.

-CrytpoLutheran

 

[Received]

But "stuff" insofar as such is applicable, is applicable only to the created, not the uncreated. The unmade can't be made of something, be made of "stuff", such is inherently contradictory.

-CrytpoLutheran

And this is why I think it's potentially helpful to think of God as metaphorically like nothingness. Because if you're made up of a substance that doesn't involve anything physical, you can't wrap your head around it, because lack of physicality is nothingness; therefore we should speak of God "like" he's nothingness, but knowing full well that the "like" here refers to a metaphor (or simile, whatever) that helps us speak about him.

 

[TillICollapse]

And I would respond: what evidence do you have I'm not saying anything?

When I said, "I see this as" it's referring to my subjective take on it. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking evidence for ... you *literally* saying nothing ? Because I have evidence you actually did type out words: your words. So literally, you did say something. If you mean what you conveyed by conceptualizing nothing-ness as something-ness and vice versa ? Are you asking me the equivalent of providing evidence there isn't an invisible and undetectable pink unicorn running around your room right now ? I can't do that, I'm assuming you know why. The concept that nothingness is actually something ... is contradictory. It would therefore be something, not nothing. If you don't accept that premise, then the conversation will go in circles, which I already tried to run from now a couple of times lol

In this case, you stated word salad without justification. The problem with using a phrase like "word salad" is that it implies that to you the things the other person is saying not just don't make sense to them, but are nonsensical. Hence my attempt to distinguish between things not making sense to you vs. not making sense at all.

ETA: sorry for the possible brusqueness, TIC. I guess my style of responding to BL is generalizing here.

No problem ... and I wasn't trying to come off brusquely with "word salad" either. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you ever feel the need to question whether I'm trying to be a jerk or not in a response, just ask. I can be a ball-buster, but I try not to do so too much on these forums because it gets lost in translation.

I don't think God is made out of "the stuff of nothing".

I'm made out of "stuff", specifically I'm made out of physical, material stuff--matter. Atoms and the basic subatomic building blocks of all matter.

We could even say that angels are made of "angel stuff" though I have no idea what "angel stuff" is or if it is even in anyway meaningful to say. The author to the Hebrews calls them "ministering spirits", but to what end that is particularly helpful I have no idea. The basic idea behind the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew ruach is wind or breath--invisible, lively, movement.

So would you say that pneuma/ruach is possibly "stuff" ?

But "stuff" insofar as such is applicable, is applicable only to the created, not the uncreated. The unmade can't be made of something, be made of "stuff", such is inherently contradictory.

-CrytpoLutheran

Do you think it's possible you are incorrect here, and that God may be made of some kind of "stuff" after all ? Perhaps even stuff that is "applicable" ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So would you say that pneuma/ruach is possibly "stuff" ?

Sure, but it's also possible that dumbledovens have flammerfloves. That is, I don't see what possible meaning it would have to speak of "spirit" as a kind of "stuff" in the first place, what actual meaning does that have?

Do you think it's possible you are incorrect here, and that God may be made of some kind of "stuff" after all ? Perhaps even stuff that is "applicable" ?

A central Christian belief about God is that God involves God being uncreated, indivisible, and ineffable. Since God is uncreated to say God is "made" of anything amounts to nonsense. Since God is indivisible there remains no way to break God down into constituent parts. God is ineffable and thus as pertains to the Divine Essence itself unknowable and incomprehensible, all language about God is fundamentally inept. To say "God is <blank>" is to try and say the least wrong thing about God--historically Christian theology is apophatic, speaking in negatives, most early Christian theologians spoke in what God is not. That's how most of the major Theological and Christological controversies were engaged and more-or-less settled in antiquity; by negating error.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And this is why I think it's potentially helpful to think of God as metaphorically like nothingness. Because if you're made up of a substance that doesn't involve anything physical, you can't wrap your head around it, because lack of physicality is nothingness; therefore we should speak of God "like" he's nothingness, but knowing full well that the "like" here refers to a metaphor (or simile, whatever) that helps us speak about him.

I don't think that this is particularly helpful either. We can say what God isn't, we can't say what God is; or at least what the Divine Essence is. That is we must ultimately just say God is God, that is the most true thing we can say about God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure, but it's also possible that dumbledovens have flammerfloves. That is, I don't see what possible meaning it would have to speak of "spirit" as a kind of "stuff" in the first place, what actual meaning does that have?

Because it may help a person to identify it, or the lack thereof, if it was "stuff".

A central Christian belief about God is that God involves God being uncreated, indivisible, and ineffable. Since God is uncreated to say God is "made" of anything amounts to nonsense. Since God is indivisible there remains no way to break God down into constituent parts. God is ineffable and thus as pertains to the Divine Essence itself unknowable and incomprehensible, all language about God is fundamentally inept. To say "God is <blank>" is to try and say the least wrong thing about God--historically Christian theology is apophatic, speaking in negatives, most early Christian theologians spoke in what God is not. That's how most of the major Theological and Christological controversies were engaged and more-or-less settled in antiquity; by negating error.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm aware of main Christian beliefs about uncreated, etc.

 

[Received]

I don't think that this is particularly helpful either. We can say what God isn't, we can't say what God is; or at least what the Divine Essence is. That is we must ultimately just say God is God, that is the most true thing we can say about God.

-CryptoLutheran

I guess I'm speaking more of what spirit is than what God is when I refer to nothingness. God is spirit. We're also spiritual beings, but because we're physical as well we can understand the spiritual aspect to ourselves a little better, e.g., by saying that we're made up of something that isn't physical but still is a substance, that we have freedom (spirit, at least in Kierkegaardian terms, is that which is our freedom).

So maybe this: nothingness is to the physical as the physical is to God (spirit).

That said, I'm down with negative theology, but I think we can speak about God, just only metaphorically. To me, speaking of something literally means we can see it before us, and obviously you can't do that with God or spirit.

 

[BL2KTN]

How does this apply to my post?

You said that which transcends the universe is God. Philosophical axioms transcend the universe but are not gods. Therefore your statement is false.

What constitutes proper definition and according to whose authority?

That's not the issue. The issue is you have defined God as that which transcends the universe, and yet we know of things which transcend that are not gods. Therefore your definition was false, and your argument based on it a fallacy.

What do you mean by "make up" here? All philosophy of religion involves assumptions about certain definitions. Justify your reification fallacy: what would a "concrete" God look like, and how am I treating him like an abstraction?

You have invented a non-existent, non-necessary, non-evident substance to support your fallacious argument, itself based upon a false definition. It's not my job to tell you what your Trinity is made of, but a concrete god would likely be made of concrete.

Dude, that second sentence is exactly what I hold; it's precisely our conceptualization of nothingness (which is different than actual nothingness, and I didn't equate the two in my post) that allows for the metaphorical comparison to God. Let's not self-apply fallacies, now.

The concept of nothing is a reflection of non-existence. Is your concept of God, then, a reflection of non-existence? If so, the atheists beat you to it.

That would be you and your use of fallacies, because not one of them have been justified, just arbitrarily thrown down. And with a nice fat subtext beyond your use of them, too.

They are all justified. You seem to think yourself smart when in fact your positions are largely fallacious.

 

[Received]

You said that which transcends the universe is God. Philosophical axioms transcend the universe but are not gods. Therefore your statement is false.

I don't understand how axioms transcend the universe, and I don't understand how God is comparable in this sense. And saying X (e.g., God) has Z quality (e.g., transcending the universe) and Y (philosophical axioms) has Z quality (transcending the universe) means X is Y is fallacious. Just like a red balloon and a red guitar doesn't mean the balloon is the guitar.

That's not the issue. The issue is you have defined God as that which transcends the universe, and yet we know of things which transcend that are not gods. Therefore your definition was false, and your argument based on it a fallacy.

Okay, so any response here is related to the above.

But I would say that yes, it still is an issue: you're the one who made the statement that I've "improperly defined" something (here God), which means the burden is on you to state what proper definition is.

You have invented a non-existent, non-necessary, non-evident substance

Justify your points!

to support your fallacious argument, itself based upon a false definition. It's not my job to tell you what your Trinity is made of, but a concrete god would likely be made of concrete.

Nice. But seriously, you're the one who threw down the reification fallacy without justification. Since God is by definition abstract (in the sense that he's metaphysical, etc.), then what does it mean to say that God should look concrete (which is the opposite of abstract)? You need to justify this, because I don't know how you're using this fallacy. If only things literally made of concrete counted as concrete things, then anything abstract would fall into the real of the reification fallacy, and this includes things way outside the gates of theism, such as with anything related to quantum physics.

The concept of nothing is a reflection of non-existence. Is your concept of God, then, a reflection of non-existence? If so, the atheists beat you to it.

The concept of nothing is a reflection of nonexistence, indeed. But I'm not saying that God is nothingness. I'm saying that God is metaphorically like (the concept of) nothingness. I.e., imagine nothingness, such as a black hole and its relation to the universe. God (spirit in general) is like a positive version of the nothingness a black hole represents.

They are all justified. You seem to think yourself smart when in fact your positions are largely fallacious.

What does justified mean to you, then? Because to me it means backing up any fallacy, etc., you throw down with reasons. All I'm seeing are throwdowns without reasons, and actually improper use of fallacies precisely because my statements don't ostensibly fit the definitions of the fallacies you've thrown down. Think they do? Then justify it.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't understand how axioms transcend the universe, and I don't understand how God is comparable in this sense. And saying X (e.g., God) has Z quality (e.g., transcending the universe) and Y (philosophical axioms) has Z quality (transcending the universe) means X is Y is fallacious. Just like a red balloon and a red guitar doesn't mean the balloon is the guitar.

I'm in a hurry this morning, so I can't go back to your original quote. However, I believe you said essentially "if it transcends it is God". Thus the mistake. Philosophical axioms transcend because they are true whether there is a universe or not.

Okay, so any response here is related to the above.

But I would say that yes, it still is an issue: you're the one who made the statement that I've "improperly defined" something (here God), which means the burden is on you to state what proper definition is.

Done.

Justify your points!

You've made up some new substance or non-substance that Yahweh is made of. There's no evidence to support this. The original text from where you get your ideas certainly doesn't support it: the bible talks about Yahweh speaking face-to-face with people, appearing, and eve having parts of his body seen.

Nice. But seriously, you're the one who threw down the reification fallacy without justification. Since God is by definition abstract (in the sense that he's metaphysical, etc.)

Unproven. I don't think God is likely abstract or metaphysical.

then what does it mean to say that God should look concrete (which is the opposite of abstract)?

Perhaps God is a physical first cause?

You need to justify this, because I don't know how you're using this fallacy. If only things literally made of concrete counted as concrete things, then anything abstract would fall into the real of the reification fallacy, and this includes things way outside the gates of theism, such as with anything related to quantum physics.

Quantum physics still deal with the physical world. Perhaps God is like that.

The concept of nothing is a reflection of nonexistence, indeed. But I'm not saying that God is nothingness. I'm saying that God is metaphorically like (the concept of) nothingness. I.e., imagine nothingness, such as a black hole and its relation to the universe. God (spirit in general) is like a positive version of the nothingness a black hole represents.

Word salad. A black hole is not nothingness - it is a vast amount of somethingness: namely mass and gravity. This is why multiple people tell you your words don't mean anything. You say "God" but don't define it, "spirit" is undefined, "black hole" is incorrectly defined, etc.

What does justified mean to you, then? Because to me it means backing up any fallacy, etc., you throw down with reasons. All I'm seeing are throwdowns without reasons, and actually improper use of fallacies precisely because my statements don't ostensibly fit the definitions of the fallacies you've thrown down. Think they do? Then justify it.

Done.

 

[bhsmte]

Why do you conclude a brain is always needed to have thoughts ? You're correct that we have evidence that a human needs a brain to think ( and this has implications on the afterlife also ) but we have no evidence of this for a spirt being.

I'm going with you are begging the question and not presenting a valid conclusion from the premise.

What evidence do we have for a "spirit being"?