Defining what is God.

[grover]

how so.

The point I was making is that some things are self-evident. You seem to have conceded that point.

Religous experience is self-evident as well. One must learn to have religous experiences too. Thats why people (monks) spend years meditating (observing the mind). What is universally reported by people that undergo the necessary mental training is the perception of a self-evident truth which is beyond description by language. The similiarity of the reports across cultures and times lends further credibilty to their experience (mystic christianity's "description" of God is identical to buddhist or Hindu descriptions of "buddha-nature" or "Brahman") The doctrinal differences among these religions are of academic importance only, people who have experienced it firsthand all acknowledge that what is written in books does not even come close to the truth which can only be known through direct experience. I know I'm going to get alot of mockery for saying this but the only things humanity can agree upon is math and religion.

 

[geeser]

The point I was making is that some things are self-evident. You seem to have conceded that point.

dont know where you got that idea, I've not conceded anything.

Religous experience is self-evident as well.

impossible, as it is only subjective.

One must learn to have religous experiences too.

no need to learn just use your imagination.

Thats why people (monks) spend years meditating (observing the mind). What is universally reported by people that undergo the necessary mental training is the perception of a self-evident truth which is beyond description by language.

whatever these monks imagine can be easily be narrated, to each other.

as The similiarity of the reports across cultures and times lends further credibilty to their experience

not credibility, just hear say, any subjective experience is not evidence.

(mystic christianity's "description" of God is identical to buddhist or Hindu descriptions of "buddha-nature" or "Brahman") The doctrinal differences among these religions are of academic importance only,

this is most probably because, the religious idea started at the same source.
and the reason theres doctrinal differences is, humanity has expand since the first man. different cultures, different languages, etc etc. chinese whispers make for unusual changes.

people who have experienced it firsthand all acknowledge that what is written in books does not even come close to the truth which can only be known through direct experience.

what direct experience there is none only the imaginations of a few shamen.

 

[swivel]

Swivel:



See my "A Justification of Time", currently existing as a sticky in philosophy for my argument against any necessities of a finite past.

I just replied to that thread. I do not think you have a very good grasp of what "time" is. My point still stands, and none of your points resonate with me as of yet.

 

[grover]

Geeser,
-So are you saying that 2+2=4 is self-evident or not? yes or no?
-Religous experience has nothing to do with imagination. If that's all it was then why spend years in monastic training? The discipline rivals that of military training.
-You can't objectively prove the truth of any subjective experiences. You can't prove that you have a stomach ache. You can't prove that you are thinking what you claim to be thinking. You can't prove that you love someone. Just because you cant objectively prove that these subjective experiences are occuring does not mean they are not occuring.
-If everyone were blind could someone with sight prove that what they were seeing was real? No. Could that person in any meaningful way convey to blind people what things look like? No. Once again, a subjective experience can not be proved but that in no way means that it is the pure fiction of imagination.

 

[geeser]

Geeser,
1, So are you saying that 2+2=4 is self-evident or not? yes or no?

yes of course it is now, but was it before you learnt that 2+2=4, the answer no. it's only self-evident because you have gained knowledge of it.

2, Religous experience has nothing to do with imagination.

then show us how it is different.

If that's all it was then why spend years in monastic training? The discipline rivals that of military training.

because they were indoctrinated, and believe like you that they can converse with there subjective fantasies, as if it was objective reality.

3, You can't objectively prove the truth of any subjective experiences.

exactly, so the monks were wasting there time.

4, You can't prove that you have a stomach ache.

yes you can. you can test for a temperature, and elevated stomach acids, etc..

5, You can't prove that you are thinking what you claim to be thinking.

this is the same as question as number 3.

6, You can't prove that you love someone.

yes you can, love is a chemical reaction, with heightened hormone levels.

7, Just because you cant objectively prove that these subjective experiences are occuring does not mean they are not occuring.

nobody doubts they are occuring, it's that they are just fantasies, that all.

8, If everyone were blind could someone with sight prove that what they were seeing was real?

yes, but what relevance does that have, they can still make the blind aware of it, by the other four senses

9, Could that person in any meaningful way convey to blind people what things look like?

relevance! yes by use of the other four senses.

10, Once again, a subjective experience can not be proved but that in no way means that it is the pure fiction of imagination.

well you welcome to show how it isnt if you like.

 

[grover]

1. If things can be self-evident once you have gained knowledge of it then it is possible that knowledge of God, once gained, is self-evident.
2. I can't show you. You would have to see it yourself. I can say that meditation is training the mind in concentration and observing the mind. It in no way has to do with imagination.
-I never said I could converse with anything (that comment alone shows how many assumptions you are making).
3. Only things which can be objectively proven are worthwhile?
4. Wrong. There is no test for a stomachache.
5. Your missing the point. The point is that subjective experiences can not be objectively proven to be occuring, that does not mean they don't exist.
6. That's not proof.
7. Where not talking specifically about religous experiences here, we're talking about the nature of subjective experience in general. You're not claiming all objective experience is fantasy are you?
8. In your paradigm why should the blind believe the person with sight, since the sighted person can provide no objective evidence that what they are experinecing isn't pure fantasy, which is also according to you "not worthwhile" since it cant be objectively proven.
9. Wrong.
10. Again, are you actually claiming that all subjective experience is fantasy?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic:



From empirically verified things: Basically, the scientific method.

For matters of reason: Philosophical reasoning.

given the problems with these processes of acquiring knowledge mentioned previously, would you care to elaborate a bit more

 

[geeser]

1. If things can be self-evident once you have gained knowledge of it then it is possible that knowledge of God, once gained, is self-evident.

no because no knowledge of could be learnt objectively.

2. I can't show you. You would have to see it yourself. I can say that meditation is training the mind in concentration and observing the mind. It in no way has to do with imagination.

meditation is just another name for sitting and envisioning/imagining/fantasising/halucinating etc etc.
so what your saying is, I need to go into my subconscience and day dream, thats the only way I ever know.

-I never said I could converse with anything (that comment alone shows how many assumptions you are making).

then perhaps I should have said believe your own fantasies.

3. Only things which can be objectively proven are worthwhile?

of course, all else is baseless.

4. Wrong. There is no test for a stomach ache.

common tested causes of stomachache:
Milk intolerance, Changes in diet, Lead poisoning, Gas, Indigestion, Stomach ulcer, Irritable bowel syndrome, Food poisoning, Abdominal disorders, Ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, Gallbladder disease, Appendicitis, Pancreatitis, Diverticulitis, Amphetamine abuse, Anaphylaxis, Behcet's Disease, Bowel Obstruction, Brainerd diarrhea, Constipation, Cyclosporiasis, Depression, Depressive disorders, Diverticular Disease, Dysthymia, Ebola, Esophagitis, Gastritis, Heart attack, Heartburn, Hookworm, Intestinal obstruction, Intestinal pseudo-obstruction, Trichinosis, Ulcerative colitis, Viral gastroenteritis, Whipworm.
are you absolutely sure theres no test.

5. Your missing the point. The point is that subjective experiences can not be objectively proven to be occuring, that does not mean they don't exist.

but they only exist in the subjective mind, it's that simple.

6. That's not proof.

how so please, show us how it's not.

7. We're not talking specifically about religous experiences here, we're talking about the nature of subjective experience in general. You're not claiming all objective experience is fantasy are you?

never once made that suggestion, but subjective experience, are pure fantasy they have no basis in reality.

8. In your paradigm why should the blind believe the person with sight, since the sighted person can provide no objective evidence that what they are experinecing isn't pure fantasy, which is also according to you "not worthwhile" since it cant be objectively proven.

do these blind people have hands to feel, a nose to smell, a tongue to taste, and ears to hear, if so unless the sighted person, was seeing something that could not be smelt, could not be tasted, could not be heard, and could not be felt, then the sighted person could not provide any objective evidence, it would be purely subjective.

9. Wrong.

see above answer, in that instance and only that instance, you would be right.

10. Again, are you actually claiming that all subjective experience is fantasy?

of course how can it be deemed anything else.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Yes.
The internal cause and effect has internal composition of A as the cause of internal composition B - the effect.
At the point of the A he lacks B, and when he has B he lacks A.

So you affirm that God cannot exist in a pantheistic model by virtue of the necessary change inherent in non-eternal, non-infinite, things?

Ah - the dive into mathematics.
0.99999.... recurring - do you agree that this is infinitely close to 1? (i.e. that there is an infinitely small number between this and 1.0)

Okay, let 0.999999... recurring = X

10X = 9.999999.... recurring.

10X - X = 9.99999.... recurring minus 0.999999.... recurring = 9

Therefore X = 1 = 0.99999.... recurring.

Thus, the infinitely small = 0.
This is a mathematical proof only - and is merely the unreachable limit of the infinitely small.

I do believe there has been a thread on this topic. Anyway, my response is thus:

9 + 9 = 18. In fact, any form of 9 + any other form of 9 = a number ending in 8. Of course, this changes if that number is then added to by 9, but then it simply follows the same pattern as the multiplication table of 9.

In .999... every digit shall be 9. Accordingly, even though it has no end - by virtue of it being an infinite series - if it were to have an end, or any point whatsoever were picked at random - it would be 9.

Thus the value of this sequence, though it does not have an ending, must be accorded to a similar status as every single one of its parts. Lest we violate according it a value of .999...

Ergo .99... *9 = 8.99999.........1.

Also, you fail to recognize that the "proof" you give for .99999 equalling 1 also does not work for .000.......1 (the infinitely small).

.1 * 10 = 1.
.01 * 10 = .1

.000000000...1 * 10 = one space over from .0000000000....1

And if you affirm that 0 = infinitely small, then you get: Infinity/infinity = 0. Yet 0 cannot be the answer to any division problem, as zero cannot be a part of anything.

Appropriately, this shows that both the infinitely small and infinitely large have no finite value, which is utterly in accords with what the word "infinite" means in the first place.

There are an infinite number of infinitely small points between 1 and 2. And there are an equally infinite number of infinitely small points between 1 and 10, or 1 and 10^10^20.

I agree.

Funny, this is actually similar to my proof of the rationality of infinite time. Distance to any infinity is equal at any point, as by definition one can only ever be infinitely far from infinity.

One away from an unreachable limit is unreachable - otherwise you could reach the "one less" limit and then add one - and thus "reach the unreachable". Absurd.
And not true.

I think we've found the equivalent to a 5th Paradox of Zeno if what you say is true.

Consider the ramifications of what you say:

There exists an unreachable.
The point immediatly before the unreachable is also unreachable.
There is no distinguishing factors that would make the second point away from the unreachable, reachable.
Nor the 3rd point...ad infinitum.
Ergo, all points, even an infinite distance away from the unreachable, are themselves unreachable.
Thus, time and space cannot exist.

Now we can acecpt this, and accordignly discuss things from what amounts to an Eleatic Idealist standpoint, but I rather think Zeno is wrong, as are you.

I base my argument on what can be considered a crude analogy and a more rigorous disproof. The crude analogy first:

I can either slide off a cliff or stand an inch away from the cliff's edge.

The more rigorous:

The quality of "unreachable" can only be ascribed to the infinite.
The infinite - x != infinite.
Ergo, no number which is not infinite has the quality of "unreachablility", including infinity - 1.

Infinite does not mean ALL.
It merely means "not ending".
If you take the numbers from 1 to INFINITY - there are an INFINITE number of ODDS and an INFINITE number of EVENS.

The process you describe with the erasure of the number would turn the system from being "an accurate recording of an infinite process", to "a system which goes on for an infinite period of time but which gives no proof".

If the list is supposed to be "an infinite list displaying all whole numbers sequentially", then it also fails.

In either case, you do not decrease infinity, nor if this is held to be spatially extended do you make the line less than infinite after that point. Before the point you have made it finite (as it ends). However, as the line progresses on after the break for infinitely, that new line is infinite. Although if you are dealing with such a system, at no point in finite time will it be infinite.

They are only tend to 0 when compared to the whole - not in isolation. As you look closer and closer at the infinite whole, any finite constituent part tends to 0 in comparison.

As I have argued elsewhere, the ratio of any finite part to infinity as one looks deeper and deeper at infinity, would diminish to the infinitely small, but not to 0. For once again, if it is a part, it cannot have a value of zero, as zero * x = 0.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

You give a good example where a mental consideration did not recall the property of the object. Two drops of water will merge together and thus become inseperable, even if their total volume will be equal to the sum of both drops.

This is all fine and good and can occur. The idea of "water" should have been clarified, including the placement of the drops and the nature of water when met with another drop of water.

On the other hand, your "two bank notes but 11 dollars" is a matter of two different things being confused, namely, the physical reality of the bank notes and the value of the money together. In one case, one does in fact have two separate bank notes. On the other, the combined value of these bank notes is 11 dollars when judged together, 10 and 1 when judged apart. Accordingly, the answer is: The value of the money taken together is 11 dollars, separated physically into two bills.

 

[Sarkus]

So you affirm that God cannot exist in a pantheistic model by virtue of the necessary change inherent in non-eternal, non-infinite, things?

No - I affirm that the "superior" God - as sought by LG's opening post (so long ago) and in line with his reasoning - can not exist AND be responsible for us - in that the "superior" god would not create.

So either the methodology described in the opening post is flawed in trying to define god, or else the theist who holds to the methodology in the opening post to define "god" must accept that we are part of / the work of an inferior god. Which would suggest a pantheistic view - there being both a superior and an inferior god.

I do believe there has been a thread on this topic.

There has.
And it is all to do with the nature of infinity - and what some people accept of it and others don't.

9 + 9 = 18. In fact, any form of 9 + any other form of 9 = a number ending in 8. Of course, this changes if that number is then added to by 9, but then it simply follows the same pattern as the multiplication table of 9.

...

Also, you fail to recognize that the "proof" you give for .99999 equalling 1 also does not work for .000.......1 (the infinitely small).

.1 * 10 = 1.
.01 * 10 = .1

.000000000...1 * 10 = one space over from .0000000000....1

This is merely you taking "infinity" as a number.
It can not nor should not be treated as such.

.00000....1 (i.e. infinitely small) has as many zeroes before the 1 as 10-times that number.

If you think otherwise it is because you are ascribing a property of the finite on the infinite.

And if you affirm that 0 = infinitely small, then you get: Infinity/infinity = 0. Yet 0 cannot be the answer to any division problem, as zero cannot be a part of anything.

No - Inf/Inf is an absurd idea.
Infinity is NOT a number - it is a concept.
To try to calculate Inf / Inf is absurd.

2/Inf = 3/Inf
So 2 = 3

You can do this for anything if you treat infinity as a number.
Absurd, I'm sure you'll agree.

If you keep sticking to Infinity being anything other than a concept, and keep treating it like a finite number we will continue to disagree on this.

Consider the ramifications of what you say:

There exists an unreachable.
The point immediatly before the unreachable is also unreachable.
There is no distinguishing factors that would make the second point away from the unreachable, reachable.
Nor the 3rd point...ad infinitum.
Ergo, all points, even an infinite distance away from the unreachable, are themselves unreachable.
Thus, time and space cannot exist.

How do you get to this conclusion (bolded by me)???

There are some significant assumptions in this that you have made, probably without realising.
First - you are starting at the unreachable and working back. You can not do this - as the "unreachable" point is just that - unreachable. So how can you start there? You must start at a reachable point - otherwise you are already defying what you are arguing for.

Second - your conclusion assumes that space and time are infinite.
Where is this proven? Why assume it?

The quality of "unreachable" can only be ascribed to the infinite.

Agreed, in the context we speak.

The infinite - x != infinite.

Don't agree - as you are assuming, as I've pointed out above - that you are starting at the unreachable point. Not possible.
One less than infinity IS infinity - even if you accept infinity as a number.

If you know a road is infinitely long - then while you can happily walk along it you will always be infinitely far from the end.

You can NOT start at the end and work back - the idea of reaching the unreachable and starting from there is just... wrong.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

No - I affirm that the "superior" God - as sought by LG's opening post (so long ago) and in line with his reasoning - can not exist AND be responsible for us - in that the "superior" god would not create.

Both miraculous creation and causal necessity? Or just one?

I want to make sure I have your stance grasped.

This is merely you taking "infinity" as a number.
It can not nor should not be treated as such.

.00000....1 (i.e. infinitely small) has as many zeroes before the 1 as 10-times that number.

If you think otherwise it is because you are ascribing a property of the finite on the infinite.

Which property is that?

You can do this for anything if you treat infinity as a number.
Absurd, I'm sure you'll agree.

It would seem that I just stumbled upon a realization:

Numbers share in a quality which I talk about in "A Justification of Time". When relating to the infinite, all numbers are equally distant. Only relative to one another can measurement that is not the same for anything can take place.

There are some significant assumptions in this that you have made, probably without realising.
First - you are starting at the unreachable and working back. You can not do this - as the "unreachable" point is just that - unreachable. So how can you start there? You must start at a reachable point - otherwise you are already defying what you are arguing for.

I had thought we agreed that infinity is defined as unreachable?

Perhaps I took it one step further to go and say "there is in fact an infinity that is unreachable".

Here's a question, then: Do you accept the notion of an infinity? Even if you claim it is not a number?

And do you agree with the general line of the argument judging from that?

Second - your conclusion assumes that space and time are infinite.
Where is this proven? Why assume it?

My argument for an infinity of time can be found in "A Justification of Time" and (one of) my argument for the infinity of space can be summarized as:

There can either be something of nothing.
If somethingness were to cease, nothingness would prevail.
Yet in order to prevail and act as a boundary to somethingness, nothingness must be substantial in some sense.
Yet to be substantial is not to be nothing - but to be something.
Ergo, somethingness must prevail forever, as nothingness cannot exist.

Don't agree - as you are assuming, as I've pointed out above - that you are starting at the unreachable point. Not possible.
One less than infinity IS infinity - even if you accept infinity as a number.

If you know a road is infinitely long - then while you can happily walk along it you will always be infinitely far from the end.

You can NOT start at the end and work back - the idea of reaching the unreachable and starting from there is just... wrong.

Well it depends: If there is an unreachable. Does not it imply that there is a point before the unreachable? And a point before that? And a point before that?

 

[grover]

so what your saying is, I need to go into my subconscience and day dream, thats the only way I ever know.

You have a subconscious mind? Can you provide objective evidence of this?

 

[qwerty mob]

That's a rather loaded request, since the theories of personality and behavior in Psychology are studied indirectly.

As for the subconscious, recall Freud's Iceberg Model of Consciousness...

 

[qwerty mob]

 

[grover]

Geeser is claiming that only things that can be objectvely proven are true and "worthwhile". He goes so far as to say that ALL subjective experience is fantasy. If you want to interject a comment please read the entire discussion for context.

 

[qwerty mob]

Heh, it's like 35 pages of mush now, forgive my loss of attention, grover.

 

[Sarkus]

Both miraculous creation and causal necessity? Or just one?

I want to make sure I have your stance grasped.

Both.
But be careful - this is only my stance with regard to LG's search for the "superior" god, and all I am doing is following the logical path from the assumptions and the methodology ascribed. I myself am an agnostic atheist.

Which property is that?

That is has an end digit.
An infinitely small number does not.
If you think it does - what is it?
If you think it is 2, then this can be reduced to 1 and the number is smaller.
If you think it is 1 then this can be reduced by making it 01.
Ad infinitum

Numbers share in a quality which I talk about in "A Justification of Time".

Well plugged, that man.
Oops - just realised it's another thread. Thought you'd written a book!!

When relating to the infinite, all numbers are equally distant. Only relative to one another can measurement that is not the same for anything can take place.

Yes - I would concur (if I understand you correctly)

I had thought we agreed that infinity is defined as unreachable?

We had.
But the implied assumption in your analysis was that it was reachable - i.e. by starting at the final digit and working to the first.
With the infinite you can NOT reach the final digit and can not start from there.

Here's a question, then: Do you accept the notion of an infinity? Even if you claim it is not a number?

I accept it as a concept, a notion, sure.
I do not know if it is possible in anything other than a concept.
I do not know it anything physical can be infinitely large (e.g. the Universe).
There are possibly limitations to the smallest size of "thing" to prevent things being infinitely small (e.g. Planck lenght etc).

My argument for an infinity of time can be found in "A Justification of Time" and (one of) my argument for the infinity of space can be summarized as:

There can either be something of nothing.
If somethingness were to cease, nothingness would prevail.
Yet in order to prevail and act as a boundary to somethingness, nothingness must be substantial in some sense.
Yet to be substantial is not to be nothing - but to be something.
Ergo, somethingness must prevail forever, as nothingness cannot exist.

This has the implied assumption that outside our Universe is "nothingness".
Since we can not progress from the inside of our Universe this claim can never be proven.

To claim as fact anything about that which is not within our universe is erroneous. At best we can but imagine.

But then this would also depend upon what you define as the Universe? And that is a whole other topic.

 

[geeser]

You have a subconscious mind? Can you provide objective evidence of this?

yes place electrodes on someone sleeping, ie in rem sleep and then tell me thats not objective evidence.

 

[swivel]

Sarkus,

You should check out PJ's sticky on Time, he makes many of the same mistakes that people were making in the "God is Illogical" thread. I'm trying my best to clear things up for him in that thread, but at least you can see where PJ is going wrong when it comes to the infinite, the infinitesimal, and time.