Outranking Reality

[Nostromo]

How convenient to skip over the rest of the content:

"That would mean that God is outside of, and independent of, the continuum (time, space, matter).

The continuum, as I have pointed out before, is a triad of triads:
time: past, present, future
space: length, width, height
matter: solid, liquid, gas
God is outside of, and not a part of any of this whatsoever.

If He was confined to His own continuum, then how can He be the Creator of everything?

Earlier in the thread he implies that he considers God to be transcendent, separate from the 'continuum' of spacetime.

Then in this post he asked variant whether he wanted to include Gods and angels in the "continuum" of spacetime and matter. He says this would be in agreement with the Bible, something which seems to contradict the first statement about God being transcendent.

At no point is it made clear what AV considers "reality", and if we did take it from the post above that he considers God part of reality, what exactly does "outranking reality" mean?

It's just contradiction at every turn with him.

 

[razeontherock]

I was trying to follow your line of reasoning.

If God exists it does so from within reality. If not, it doesn't exist.

This is simple materialism. The world we live in is not that simple.

Why would we expect God to not interact with the physical universe when, according to your theology it has done so on any number of occasions?

Perhaps you need to work out your own ideas a bit.

No one said He would not interact.

 

[Freodin]

This is simple materialism. The world we live in is not that simple.

Perhaps it is just that English is not my native language. Perhaps I am just plain stupid.

Yet it seems to me that both you and AV define "reality" as "our world". But that would remove everything that "transcends" it to unreality.

Everyone else seems to go with "reality" is "that what really exists", and here it is quite irrelevant whether this is material or immaterial.

 

[razeontherock]

Earlier in the thread he implies that he considers God to be transcendent, separate from the 'continuum' of spacetime.

Then in this post he asked variant whether he wanted to include Gods and angels in the "continuum" of spacetime and matter. He says this would be in agreement with the Bible, something which seems to contradict the first statement about God being transcendent.

At no point is it made clear what AV considers "reality", and if we did take it from the post above that he considers God part of reality, what exactly does "outranking reality" mean?

It's just contradiction at every turn with him.

Well I can offer some clarification:

what AV said to variant that you summarize here, AV was saying God and angels would be included in reality. He didn't specify about the continuum of time, space and matter (physical Universe)

While I've never seen a Holy Angel and don't know too much about any of that, I do perceive their existence as sometimes having been within the physical Universe, and I cannot say if that is direct physical manifestation of G-d Himself or not. It almost seems to me that it must be, but that is just me trying to wrap my head around a concept

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps it is just that English is not my native language. Perhaps I am just plain stupid.

Yet it seems to me that both you and AV define "reality" as "our world". But that would remove everything that "transcends" it to unreality.

Everyone else seems to go with "reality" is "that what really exists", and here it is quite irrelevant whether this is material or immaterial.

No, you're not stupid And I see no evidence of a language barrier hampering us here. (I'll try to keep that in mind and make allowances though)

"Transcendence" (not a term I often use but I do think I know what the C's are getting at by using it) does not remove anything to unreality. (Yes, that is a naked assertion)

What you are asserting is materialism. Not all atheists are materialists by default, but it does seem to be a strong trend. Actually it kinda boggles my mind how a non-materialist could be an atheist, but some insist they are.

I think a sensible conclusion to draw, is that you have no direct experiences with anything to make you think in terms of anything other than materialism.
And i don't hold that against you, or anyone else. But when one enters into a discussion about non-material things, I might expect they'd consider the topic?

 

[Freodin]

No, you're not stupid And I see no evidence of a language barrier hampering us here. (I'll try to keep that in mind and make allowances though)

"Transcendence" (not a term I often use but I do think I know what the C's are getting at by using it) does not remove anything to unreality. (Yes, that is a naked assertion)

What you are asserting is materialism. Not all atheists are materialists by default, but it does seem to be a strong trend. Actually it kinda boggles my mind how a non-materialist could be an atheist, but some insist they are.

I think a sensible conclusion to draw, is that you have no direct experiences with anything to make you think in terms of anything other than materialism.
And i don't hold that against you, or anyone else. But when one enters into a discussion about non-material things, I might expect they'd consider the topic?

This seems to be a quite large strawman. Perhaps you shouldn't try to draw reasonable conclusions until your mind has stopped boggling.

 

[razeontherock]

So if something has no matter, and you conclude that means it is not real, how does that differ from materialism?

 

[Tiberius]

There's plenty of clarification in that post, and AV agrees with it 100%. So much for your pet theory that Truth isn't knowable ...

What are you going on about?

I asked AV what he meant by reality. I provided two different options and asked him whether one of those options was what he meant when he said "reality". That was in post 144 of this thread.

Then you tell me I am starting with a flawed premise, in post 151.

Now, I was very clearly asking for clarification, not stating a premise. Since however, you don't agree with that, I want to ask you what premise I was stating that you think was flawed. What was my flawed premise in post 144, Raze?

That's not at all what he said, so what good did it do to tell you?

Yes it was.

I asked AV if he was using the term "reality" to define everything that exists, or whether he was using it to refer to only those things created by God. AV gave me a link to post 114, which said, "The continuum, as I have pointed out before, is a triad of triads:

time: past, present, future
space: length, width, height
matter: solid, liquid, gas

God is outside of, and not a part of any of this whatsoever.

If He was confined to His own continuum, then how can He be the Creator of everything?"

Now, call me crazy, but this sure seems to me that AV is saying that he views reality to be those things that were created by God, and that he does not see God as part of reality (since he doesn't think that God was created).

Now, if I am wrong, AV is more than welcome to come in here and correct me, but I stated that, in post 158, and he hasn't said otherwise, has he?

Indeed, in post 161, you quote the very part of AV's post which shows that he doesn't think God is part of reality, and that he views reality to be those things created by God! So why are you disagreeing with me?

 

[razeontherock]

I asked AV what he meant by reality. I provided two different options

Then you tell me I am starting with a flawed premise, in post 151. What was my flawed premise in post 144, Raze?

Your flawed premise was that reality had to be either of the two option you presented. It was a heads I win tails your wrong type of thing, that made no allowance for Truth. Here it is for convenience: (and btw, it's Ray)

AV, you want to define reality? Do you mean reality as "everything that is real and exists" or do you mean reality as "everything that was created by God"?

God is a part of the first reality (from a believer's point of view) by the first definition, but not by the second.

Now, call me crazy, but this sure seems to me that AV is saying that he views reality to be those things that were created by God, and that he does not see God as part of reality (since he doesn't think that God was created).

Now, if I am wrong, AV is more than welcome to come in here and correct me, but I stated that, in post 158, and he hasn't said otherwise, has he?

Indeed, in post 161, you quote the very part of AV's post which shows that he doesn't think God is part of reality, and that he views reality to be those things created by God! So why are you disagreeing with me?

Nowhere did AV state or even imply anything like what you're asserting here. My post 161 is at the top of this page, so I haven't re-posted AV's original statement here. You're saying that what AV termed "a triad of triads," includes all of reality. I disagree, and I'll betcha AV does to. Again, you're thinking like a materialist; that's a premise rejected by any kind of theism I can fathom.

Have I clarified the issues here?

 

[Tiberius]

Your flawed premise was that reality had to be either of the two option you presented. It was a heads I win tails your wrong type of thing, that made no allowance for Truth. Here it is for convenience: (and btw, it's Ray)

<snip>

Nowhere did AV state or even imply anything like what you're asserting here. My post 161 is at the top of this page, so I haven't re-posted AV's original statement here. You're saying that what AV termed "a triad of triads," includes all of reality. I disagree, and I'll betcha AV does to. Again, you're thinking like a materialist; that's a premise rejected by any kind of theism I can fathom.

Have I clarified the issues here?

Not really.

You see, I was asking AV a simple question. Does reality include everything including God, or does reality include everything except for God. That is, is God in the group of things labelled reality or not? He can be in or he is out. Call me crazy, but I see those as the only two options. If you can think of another option, I'll be glad to accept it. But if you are going to accuse me of a false duality (which is a logical fallacy, not a flawed premise, fyi), you'd better be able to provide a third alternative.

And AV's triad nonsense didn't come into it until later, and I've already shown that it is bunk anyway.

 

[razeontherock]

Well this would be a first for somebody complaining I did not mention false dichotomy

G-d is real. Therefore He is part of reality.

Hope that helps

 

[Freodin]

So if something has no matter, and you conclude that means it is not real, how does that differ from materialism?

Did I say anywhere that something that has no matter is not real?

No, I didn't.

Quite contrary I said, it is irrelevant whether "that what exists" is material or immaterial.

So it seems that you turned my position by 180 degrees, just in order to keep attacking the strawman you build.

G-d is real. Therefore He is part of reality.

So does he outrank himself or not?

 

[razeontherock]

Did I say anywhere that something that has no matter is not real?

No, I didn't.

Ah, using the little blue arrows I see I was addressing variant and what he had said, when you stepped in. So you're not a materialist, and yet you are an atheist. Why does that pose no contradiction?

 

[Tiberius]

Well this would be a first for somebody complaining I did not mention false dichotomy

G-d is real. Therefore He is part of reality.

Hope that helps

Fine. you think God is part of reality.

Now, if you don't mind, I was asking AV...

 

[quatona]

So you're not a materialist, and yet you are an atheist. Why does that pose no contradiction?

Maybe you could go ahead and explain where you see a contradiction in that - so that your point and concern can be addressed.

 

[Freodin]

Ah, using the little blue arrows I see I was addressing variant and what he had said, when you stepped in. So you're not a materialist, and yet you are an atheist. Why does that pose no contradiction?

I have to second quatona's request: you have to explain the contradiction you see first before I can adress this question.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I have to second quatona's request: you have to explain the contradiction you see first before I can adress this question.

Let me know how this turns out for you.

 

[razeontherock]

I have to second quatona's request: you have to explain the contradiction you see first before I can adress this question.

Something that exists without matter; I don't know what you might call that, but the word the Bible uses for that is "Spirit." Yet by declaring yourself an atheist, you are saying there is no such Spirit. This seems to be a contradiction. Why is it not, for you?

 

[Tiberius]

What about light? magnetic fields? Do they exist? But are they made of matter? And finally, are they spirit?

 

[razeontherock]

What about light?

Matter and energy are interchangeable, and photons are still matter even w/ 0 mass. And if we can detect waves, you're really not out of the realm of being physical

magnetic fields? Do they exist? But are they made of matter? And finally, are they spirit?

You may have snuck one past me there ...