Defining what is God.

[lightgigantic]

Hence, we reach the very foundation and basis of your entire argument, or lack thereof. Thanks.

The basis of my argument is that there are a class of persons who apply knowledge to determine the existence of something (in this case god)

Your argument is that you can deride the claim by remaining ignorant of the determining qualities of both a person established in the field of knowledge and the foundation of knowledge ... which certainly indicates a lack on your behalf

 

[Sarkus]

Frankly I am surprised that you can't conceptualize eternity (or feel the burning need to determine how others conceptualize it) - this is the concept "something that will never not exist in the past and will never not exist in the future"

Most people will be able to give lip service to the ideas of "infinity" and "eternity" without ever actually understanding, and thus accepting, what it truly means.

I am merely trying to get you to explain how you can conceptualise and accept the notion of something never being created. The question must always exist "What was there beforehand".

The way you are currently explaining how you conceptualise it is merely describing what you mean by it.

lol- well this is the first time I have ever been brow beaten by someone who wants to know how I conceptualize of eternity

It is an important point - as many will merely accept the idea without actually thinking about it and conceptualising it fully. I am trying to make sure you do not fall into the former category.

most people understand what eternity is straight off the bat

Most people know what is meant by eternity - but not how to conceptualise it.

Infinity has no end - do you also struggle conceiving of that as well?

Yet again you are again falling into the trap of assuming a questioning of your ideas / thought process is a rebuttal of the idea.
This is despite me saying in that same post that this was the trap you were falling into to - yet still you fall.

Its the nature of concepts that they can be beyond one's personal experience or extrapolilated from existing phenomena - like one can conceptualize a mountain of gold after seeing a mountain and a golden necklace.

Conceptualising a mountain of gold is relatively easy - one sees gold - one sees a mountain - one combines the two.
Conceptualising an infinitely tall mountain, on the other hand, is not so easy to truly comprehend.

Concepts don't necessarily require proof (after all, the ability to perceive eternity is fully dependant on one's ability to refrain from illusory ideals) - concepts however do enable discussion, which is why they form an integral aspect of philosophy.

I agree - but you need to be doing more than offering lip service to the notion of eternity and infinity.

And as yet, due to your continued and dogged resistance to answering the question put before you, I fail to see anything but lip service.

 

[Sauna]

deleted

 

[lightgigantic]

Most people will be able to give lip service to the ideas of "infinity" and "eternity" without ever actually understanding, and thus accepting, what it truly means.

I am merely trying to get you to explain how you can conceptualise and accept the notion of something never being created. The question must always exist "What was there beforehand".

The way you are currently explaining how you conceptualise it is merely describing what you mean by it.

It is an important point - as many will merely accept the idea without actually thinking about it and conceptualising it fully. I am trying to make sure you do not fall into the former category.

Most people know what is meant by eternity - but not how to conceptualise it.

Yet again you are again falling into the trap of assuming a questioning of your ideas / thought process is a rebuttal of the idea.
This is despite me saying in that same post that this was the trap you were falling into to - yet still you fall.

Conceptualising a mountain of gold is relatively easy - one sees gold - one sees a mountain - one combines the two.
Conceptualising an infinitely tall mountain, on the other hand, is not so easy to truly comprehend.

I agree - but you need to be doing more than offering lip service to the notion of eternity and infinity.

And as yet, due to your continued and dogged resistance to answering the question put before you, I fail to see anything but lip service.

maybe you could help me answer by determining what it is that a conception has that a definition lacks

 

[Sarkus]

maybe you could help me answer by determining what it is that a conception has that a definition lacks

I define a "Square-Circle" as a 2-dimensional shape that has all the properties of both a square and a circle.

Please conceptualise what it looks like.

Just because one can state what the definition is does NOT mean one can conceptualise it.

But please, try to do so and answer the original question.

 

[lightgigantic]

I define a "Square-Circle" as a 2-dimensional shape that has all the properties of both a square and a circle.

Please conceptualise what it looks like.

Just because one can state what the definition is does NOT mean one can conceptualise it.

But please, try to do so and answer the original question.

than the concept of eternity is that it has been in existence for an infinite amount of time in the past and will continue to exist to the same degree for the future

BTW - its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who advocates that there are eternal elements in the manifested world (they will contend whether such 'elements' are conscious however)

 

[swivel]

I define a "Square-Circle" as a 2-dimensional shape that has all the properties of both a square and a circle.

Impossible. A Circle has all points equidistant from a central point. A square has four points that must be further from the center than all other points, but the same amount as each other.

And here you have the point of your example. You can say something, like "God is eternal and he created the universe", but if you don't know the meaning of those words (like ETERNAL and TIME and UNIVERSE and CREATE), then it is hard to know if you are even making sense. Just as I can disprove a Square-Circle in a single line, I can disprove an Eternal, Thinking, Creator. Both are logically inconsistent, but only if you know what in the world you are talking about when you use those words.

LG has no clue what he is talking about. He is brainwashed and too scared to doubt, to think clearly. He is no different than the people that worshiped the Greek and Norse gods. He is just doing what his parents told him to do. Sad, really.

 

[Sauna]

deleted

 

[Sarkus]

than the concept of eternity is that it has been in existence for an infinite amount of time in the past and will continue to exist to the same degree for the future

This is still only a definition of "eternity".

BTW - its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who advocates that there are eternal elements in the manifested world (they will contend whether such 'elements' are conscious however)

Red herring - please stick to the question posed.

 

[RoyLennigan]

what about this definition for god:
that which upon the entire existence of the universe hinges.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is still only a definition of "eternity".

I just gave you an image of what eternity is - if a person cannot form a concept of eternity from that then they also struggle to form a concept of infinity - all of which seems to indicate that they are not very philosophically astute, ... after all eternity (unlike the circular square which innvolves two contradictory definitions) is simply the unending existence of something

Red herring - please stick to the question posed.

It does however indicate that the concept of eternity finds its way into both atheistic (most atheists advocate that time is an eternal feature of the cosmic manifestation) and theistic dialectics (acccording to the BG time is advocated as being eternal yet contingent on god) - so if a person has difficulty conceiving of it it says more about their ability to enter into philosophical discourses rather than particular camps of theism/atheism.

 

[lightgigantic]

what about this definition for god:
that which upon the entire existence of the universe hinges.

certainly is an exclusive position - it doesn't allow the conception of anything equal to or greater than that - so I guess it fulfills the necessary criteria to be a quality of god

 

[Sarkus]

I just gave you an image of what eternity is - if a person cannot form a concept of eternity from that then they also struggle to form a concept of infinity - all of which seems to indicate that they are not very philosophically astute, ... after all eternity (unlike the circular square which innvolves two contradictory definitions) is simply the unending existence of something

I am asking you to explain your conceptualisation.
I am saying nothing about whether or not you can, nothing about whether or not I can, nothing about whether or not anyone else can. I am asking you to fully explain how you conceptualise eternity - ensuring you are doing more than paying lip service via a definition.

By saying "if a person cannot form a concept...." is irrelevant as it is NOT answering the question. And a logical fallacy to boot.

All you have done thus far is provide definitions.
It shows nothing of your understanding, your ability to fully conceptualise what it is you are actually saying.

Please answer the question I posed.

It does however indicate that the concept of eternity finds its way into both atheistic (most atheists advocate that time is an eternal feature of the cosmic manifestation) and theistic dialectics (acccording to the BG time is advocated as being eternal yet contingent on god) - so if a person has difficulty conceiving of it it says more about their ability to enter into philosophical discourses rather than particular camps of theism/atheism.

As I said - irrelevant to the question in hand.

Now please answer the question.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am asking you to explain your conceptualisation.
I am saying nothing about whether or not you can, nothing about whether or not I can, nothing about whether or not anyone else can. I am asking you to fully explain how you conceptualise eternity - ensuring you are doing more than paying lip service via a definition.

By saying "if a person cannot form a concept...." is irrelevant as it is NOT answering the question. And a logical fallacy to boot.

All you have done thus far is provide definitions.
It shows nothing of your understanding, your ability to fully conceptualise what it is you are actually saying.

Please answer the question I posed.

As I said - irrelevant to the question in hand.

Now please answer the question.

you indicated that a concept is a clear definition that doesn't innvolve contradictions (like say the contradiction of defining something as a square circle).

I have met your requirements by providing two non contradictory qualities for eternity - something that exists without having undergone a creation or facing the prospect of undergoing an annhilation.

Maybe you should clarify what you are looking for in a concept that you can't find in a definition because from what you have given, I have met your criteria for establishing a concept

 

[Sarkus]

you indicated that a concept is a clear definition that doesn't innvolve contradictions (like say the contradiction of defining something as a square circle).

Your misunderstanding - my point of that example was that it is possible to define things but not be able to conceptualise them.
Your misunderstanding has thus led you to your incorrect conclusion.

I have met your requirements...

Not my requirements... see above.

*THUD*

Never mind LG.

You win.

I give up.

 

[audible]

Your misunderstanding - my point of that example was that it is possible to define things but not be able to conceptualise them.
Your misunderstanding has thus led you to your incorrect conclusion.

Not my requirements... see above.

*THUD*

Never mind LG.

You win.

I give up.

lets just say LG does'nt understand it. and is only giving lips service.
much like everything else, he tries to posit.
he's so full of BS he moos.

 

[lightgigantic]

Your misunderstanding - my point of that example was that it is possible to define things but not be able to conceptualise them.
Your misunderstanding has thus led you to your incorrect conclusion.

Not my requirements... see above.

and the problem with conceiving a square circle is that it innvolves two contradictory references of information - the definition of eternity I gave does not suffer from that problem

*THUD*

Never mind LG.

You win.

I give up.

then you have to establish what are the problems of conceptualizing eternity - BTW it seems you want to discuss "what is your evidence for eternity" which is slightly different from "what is your conception of eternity"

 

[TW Scott]

Any universe capable of creating a god is capable of creating itself without one. Its far more likely that the existence of the universe is what's eternal and, therefore, a god becomes unnecessary. Although, I can see why the credulous and those heavily indoctrinated in theological superstitions would find it necessary to continue belief in something "greater than themselves."

Though what if God and the Universe were one and the same. Or like humans the universe is the body and God is the attached mind.

 

[geeser]

The basis of my argument is that there are a class of persons who apply knowledge to determine the existence of something (in this case god)

then your arguement is flawed, they can determine anything they like, without a factual basis it's worthless.

Your argument is that you can deride the claim by remaining ignorant of the determining qualities of both a person established in the field of knowledge and the foundation of knowledge

of course, (repeating myself), without a factual basis it's worthless.
but I would say it is most certainly is not ignorance, but reason, we can deride the claims based on reason alone.
faith is worthless, no matter how knowledgable you may be on the subject, it is all subjective.
it's like saying that somebody who has a vast knowledge of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle works, can claim Sherlock Holmes is real.
if he did he would get ridiculed.

 

[lightgigantic]

then your arguement is flawed, they can determine anything they like, without a factual basis it's worthless. of course, (repeating myself), without a factual basis it's worthless.
but I would say it is most certainly is not ignorance, but reason, we can deride the claims based on reason alone.
faith is worthless, no matter how knowledgable you may be on the subject, it is all subjective.
it's like saying that somebody who has a vast knowledge of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle works, can claim Sherlock Holmes is real.
if he did he would get ridiculed.

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying

I am saying that there is a class of person who directly perceives something and on top of that provides the means to enable others to come to/progress towards that direct perception.

the only faith required is the faith one requires to advance in any field of knowledge - namely to have the initial impetus to apply the process

your argument is that once a man wrote a book (which he intended to be a fiction) which innvolved characters which nobody has apparently seen - this is overwhelming evidence that when saintly persons and scriptures lay claim to the direct perception of god they are also equally fictitious ..... I think the general principles that your argument functions on require a bit of work