philosophical starting points

[True Scotsman]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm off to work now but I wanted to let you all know that I have read them and I'll interact later today.

Keep 'em coming. This is fun.

Robert

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

ViaCrucis provided some good thoughts in post #39 that you might want to read, for I'm in much the same camp as he.

Asking to define "God" (a person - or rather, 3 persons in one essence) is, for the most part, a meaningless question to me. I can see defining a "god" (a class of being), and I would use Luther's definition from the large catechism: "A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress."



I see "physical" and "material" as two different things. The first asks if God can interact with us, and the answer is yes. The second asks if God has become incarnate, and again the answer is yes, per Jesus.

There is a whole school of approach called ignosticism that basically states without a functionally correct definition of God, no statement towards His existence or non-existence can be made.


Is there any other physical presence of God besides Jesus?

 

[Resha Caner]

There is a whole school of approach called ignosticism that basically states without a functionally correct definition of God, no statement towards His existence or non-existence can be made.

OK, but that misses the point of what I was saying. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "father" to convince me of the existence of the person I call Dad. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "orange" to know it tasted good and sated my hunger.

Ignosticism may be part of some people's philosophy, but in my philosophy experience precedes definition.

Is there any other physical presence of God besides Jesus?

To make sure we're clear, are we speaking to my usage of "physical"? If so, note I said the incarnation answers the material question. In that regard, I can't think of another material manifestation of God.

There are, however, other physical manifestations. In Lutheran parlance that is termed the "Word and Sacraments".

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are, however, other physical manifestations. In Lutheran parlance that is termed the "Word and Sacraments".

And insofar as Christ is present in His Word and Sacraments, being Himself truly there corporeally in the Supper, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Word and Sacrament are an extension of the material presence of God in Christ the incarnate God-Man. When we hear the Word, it is Christ's Word, in Baptism it is into Christ, in the Supper it is the very flesh and blood of Christ materially present for us "in and under" the bread and wine.

To be certain, when the bread and wine are administered, that is Jesus Himself personally, it is God real and present, actually.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

I didn't mean to make it sound as if I don't believe in Real Presence. I do.

 

[Gladius]

Most of how I engage with matters of my faith and in that relate to the world around me is theological, not philosophical. As my intro to philosophy instructor put it (well, paraphrasing), theology is based on revealed knowledge, it assumes a revelation of some sort; philosophy is inquiring of knowledge. Theology presumes, philosophy inquires.

As such the foundational presupposition for how I engage the world around me is a theological one. It begins with the presumption of God and that this God has been made known, in particular, through the person of Jesus of Nazareth, confessed to be the Christ. Etc.

Which isn't to say that I don't "philosophize", I do that plenty. Getting into the how and why of what I believe is as much philosophical as it is theological.

So for example I'm not particularly convinced by philosophical "proofs" of God. While I find certain arguments interesting, for example the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments, they are less groundwork for believing and more interesting things to think about. And as such I'm more likely to think of my how/why of faith in the Kierkegaardian (and no, I'm not particularly knowledgeable of Kierkegaard's body of work) language of a "leap to faith", that faith fundamentally can't be found in reason, that faith isn't rational; it is a non rational leap.

I'm less likely therefore to think in Scholastic terms of the interplay of reason and faith. And more likely to think of reason and faith as independent; reason addresses the world that I can know rationally and empirically, faith addresses the world I can't know empirically or rationally, and which may not exist at all. So calling faith unreasonable, irrational or (as I prefer) non or trans-rational isn't bothersome to me.

It's why I'm a stickler for being exceedingly rational in my approach to matters such as science, history, etc; and simultaneously believe in those things pertaining to my religion even though there is a recognizable absence of empirical data by which to verify that such things are, in fact, objectively true.

I understand that some would call that cognitive dissonance. And maybe it is.

-CryptoLutheran

There's no maybe.

I'm always fascinated by intelligent people such as yourself consciously preventing their skills of reason from engaging on their supernatural belief system. Putting up a mental wall which you will not even attempt to climb over.

You have just posted that you have no logical reason to believe in a God, but you don't care because it would be impossible to believe in God if you try and find one (because it doesn't exist).

You have chosen to be ignorant of reality in just this one area.

Why?

I'm assuming you were indoctrinated into theism as a youth?

 

[Gladius]

And insofar as Christ is present in His Word and Sacraments, being Himself truly there corporeally in the Supper, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Word and Sacrament are an extension of the material presence of God in Christ the incarnate God-Man. When we hear the Word, it is Christ's Word, in Baptism it is into Christ, in the Supper it is the very flesh and blood of Christ materially present for us "in and under" the bread and wine.

To be certain, when the bread and wine are administered, that is Jesus Himself personally, it is God real and present, actually.

-CryptoLutheran

Funny, he still tasted like bread and wine to me.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

OK, but that misses the point of what I was saying. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "father" to convince me of the existence of the person I call Dad. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "orange" to know it tasted good and sated my hunger.

Ignosticism may be part of some people's philosophy, but in my philosophy experience precedes definition.



To make sure we're clear, are we speaking to my usage of "physical"? If so, note I said the incarnation answers the material question. In that regard, I can't think of another material manifestation of God.

There are, however, other physical manifestations. In Lutheran parlance that is termed the "Word and Sacraments".

So the experience of the thing gave you a definition. Have you experienced God?

One physical description of God is an all-consuming fire.

 

[Gladius]

OK, but that misses the point of what I was saying. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "father" to convince me of the existence of the person I call Dad. I didn't need a functionally correct definition of "orange" to know it tasted good and sated my hunger.....

Oh, I disagree here. Without a functionally correct definition of father, you wouldn't know that human as anything other than another human. He would no more be your "dad" than I am. He would exist as a human, not as your father.

You don't need a functionally correct definition of an orange to enjoy eating it, but if you want to convince anyone else it exists as an orange, and not as a porcupine, you will first need to functionally define it as a type of human edible fruit.

If you want to claim a God exists, then you will need to do likewise, otherwise I can equally logically claim you are experiencing an obtuse physical force (like in Star Wars), a flying spaghetti monster, or a mental delusion, or any other of an infinite number of alternatives.

 

[Resha Caner]

So the experience of the thing gave you a definition. Have you experienced God?

Yes.

One physical description of God is an all-consuming fire.

Why is that relevant?

 

[ViaCrucis]

.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oh, I disagree here. Without a functionally correct definition of father, you wouldn't know that human as anything other than another human. He would no more be your "dad" than I am. He would exist as a human, not as your father.

Disagree all you like. I learned "Dad" as a name of an individual before I knew "Father" as a title. My experience with that individual defined for me what the the title should entail.

You don't need a functionally correct definition of an orange to enjoy eating it, but if you want to convince anyone else it exists as an orange, and not as a porcupine, you will first need to functionally define it as a type of human edible fruit.

If you want to claim a God exists, then you will need to do likewise, otherwise I can equally logically claim you are experiencing an obtuse physical force (like in Star Wars), a flying spaghetti monster, or a mental delusion, or any other of an infinite number of alternatives.

When did I say I wanted to convince you of anything? Or that I could? That wasn't the question I answered from the OP.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yes.



Why is that relevant?

Was Jesus an all consuming fire?

 

[True Scotsman]

Have you explored quark matter? It is billions of times hotter and denser than atomic stuff we call solid. It is an infinitely superconductive Fermi liquid and excludes magnetic fields.

If you have a hydrogen proton the size of an orange, the electron is like the orange seed flying around 2.5 miles away.

Quark matter is that entire 5 mile sphere filled with boiling hot electrified orange juice lava!

Gad Zooks! Can you say yottajoules.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Gad Zooks! Can you say yottajoules.

There was fear that particle collisions in Cern would create a stranglet: a drop of quark matter. Because quark matter is billions of times denser, hotter and more stable than atomic matter it would have promptly begun consuming the entire earth.


All consuming fire.

 

[True Scotsman]

There was fear that particle collisions in Cern would create a stranglet: a drop of quark matter. Because quark matter is billions of times denser, hotter and more stable than atomic matter it would have promptly begun consuming the entire earth.


All consuming fire.

Yikes! I really, really didn't need to hear that.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yikes! I really, really didn't need to hear that.

Don't worry, the lofted bends of space-time we are within does not support quark matter cohesion.

Same reason is does not support an anti-matter configuration of the atom.

 

[Gladius]

Disagree all you like. I learned "Dad" as a name of an individual before I knew "Father" as a title. My experience with that individual defined for me what the the title should entail.

So you defined your dad/father into existence. I do not mean he didn't physcially exist, I mean that until you had a frame of reference (i.e. functional definition) for "dad/father" that man was just another friendly human.

Or is there no difference between your father and any other human to you?

When did I say I wanted to convince you of anything? Or that I could? That wasn't the question I answered from the OP.

I took your example of eating an orange to be an argument for its existence as an orange (not as anything) being independent of any functional definition for an orange. That looked like you trying to convince all the readers (including me) of something.

I was merely arguing the opposite.

 

[Gladius]

Don't worry, the lofted bends of space-time we are within does not support quark matter cohesion.

Same reason is does not support an anti-matter configuration of the atom.

OK, I'm going to call you on this one.

I'm not a theoretical physicist but I know one.

Please provide your peer reviewed calculations for this assertion.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

OK, I'm going to call you on this one.

I'm not a theoretical physicist but I know one.

Please provide your peer reviewed calculations for this assertion.

Look up matter asymmetry and multiple articles that Cern and other particles colliders have published.

The heavy super symmetric partners of matter and anti-matter both decay rapidly but anti-matter is faster. There have been confirmed creations of QCD matter but this too evaporates extremely quickly.

I cannot post links because I am not in the +50 post club.

edit: strike that, I am in the club! But still...the info can be readily found.