The Creation

[lightgigantic]

I'm not teaching - and if you are learning, you hide it well.

Are you are raising criticism of a claim of knowledge?
If you are, it might be helpful to take advantage of the language of pedagogy.

If you're simply giving vent to an unsubstantiated opinion, please continue.

In particular, examining your claims for their inveterate framing in bogus "normative" assumptions, such as the existence and nature of entities whose existence and nature is the matter of discussion.

What is called "begging the question", in actual argument.

You misunderstand my use of the word normative.

It simply means that behind any claim of knowledge lie ways that one is expected to act in order to be acquainted with it.

For instance the normative use of binoculars to see something in the distance prefers looking through one end over the other.

I'm going to consider the normative issues surrounding your claims to be the ones appropriate in situations of human claiming and assertion, barring discovery of some other status of yours.

Then it might pay to examine the pedagogical issues that frame those claims.
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

You misunderstand my use of the word normative.

It simply means that behind any claim of knowledge lie ways that one is expected to act in order to be acquainted with it.

Note the passive voice, the dissembler's friend.

Your attempts to insert your claims and conclusions into arguments as assumptions do not create "normative issues" that the rest of us must deal with under your assumptions and framing.

Nor must we "act" according to your "expectations" in order to evaluate your claims of knowledge.

You beg the question, obfuscate with irrelevant and inappropriate terminology, and dissemble with rhetorical questions. The normative issues involved in that kind of behavior are not arcane matters of specialized investigation or expertise.

I'm telling you that the means for measuring god is not the same means we adopt for the study of things inferior to us (such as dull matter for instance).

I even posted an example of how we don't even adopt such a means for approaching those on the same standing as us (such as our neighbours) .... what to speak of entities credited as being vastly superior.

Until they have some other existence than their appearance in a "crediting", we have no honest way to speak of them except as appearances in a "crediting".

I see no reason to accept your creditings as actual entities "superior" (whatever that means in such a context) even to my own creditings, let alone all of humanity and reason itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Note the passive voice, the dissembler's friend.

Your attempts to insert your claims and conclusions into arguments as assumptions do not create "normative issues" that the rest of us must deal with under your assumptions and framing.

Nor must we "act" according to your "expectations" in order to evaluate your claims of knowledge.

You beg the question, obfuscate with irrelevant and inappropriate terminology, and dissemble with rhetorical questions. The normative issues involved in that kind of behavior are not arcane matters of specialized investigation or expertise.

fine then.

I will leave you to look through the wrong end of binoculars and wonder why on earth they are credited with making objects appear closer than what they are.

Until they have some other existence than their appearance in a "crediting", we have no honest way to speak of them except as appearances in a "crediting".

Unless you get an X-ray of your neighbour's head (since self hood arises from the brain), you're already there.

I see no reason to accept your creditings as actual entities "superior" (whatever that means in such a context) even to my own creditings, let alone all of humanity and reason itself.

Fine.

Buy your child a dead dog to play with, since all issues of material variety are inconsequential.
:shrug:

 

[nietzschefan]

Lol Mormons are RIGHT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE&feature=related

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Its not so much that I can't explain it but that you can't understand it.

I don't pretend to. What is it about something incomprehensible that one can understand? The only thing you understand about the god you seek is that He can't be understood. However the proper management of a meditative discipline will enable me to understand something that can't be understood. I'm not sure if that's a worthwhile endeavor.

Using this approach I would eventually bump into God. Somehow I would recognize this God without knowing what to expect, then not really being able to describe Him later on. From your previous posts I could say He has form if I drew a picture of a blue skinned 4-armed widget waving herpetologist. How would anyone know God has form anyway, wouldn't this take some understanding?

What if I just drew a picture of a regular human instead? Would you believe it as a fair representation of the entity I experienced?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't pretend to. What is it about something incomprehensible that one can understand? The only thing you understand about the god you seek is that He can't be understood. However the proper management of a meditative discipline will enable me to understand something that can't be understood. I'm not sure if that's a worthwhile endeavor.

I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that it requires proper management of a meditative discipline ... much less the idea that it culminates in a lack of comprehension on the subject.

Using this approach I would eventually bump into God. Somehow I would recognize this God without knowing what to expect, then not really being able to describe Him later on. However I could say He has form if I drew a picture of a blue skinned 4-armed widget waving herpetologist.

As you illustrate, attempting application divorced from a suitable theoretical foundation is a waste of time. This of course doesn't mean there is no scope for successful application ... merely that it has certain prerequisites to meet.

Or to say in short, you are simply laboring under the duress of proactive interference.

What if I just drew a picture of a regular human instead? Would you believe it as a fair representation of the entity I experienced?

And this further illustrates the absurdity of attempting a conclusion while bypassing the issues of application.

Congratulations you've just done a full house.

First you stumble at the point of theory, next, at the point of application, and finally at the point of conclusion, all by bypassing the predecessor that frames it.

No wonder you are confused.
:shrug:

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

No wonder you are confused.

However in no way shape or form does it make you any less confused than I am.

I think you are trying to tell me that because God is in theory, incomprehensible, and if I approach the question of His existence with every bit of knowledge in the known universe then I still won't be able to make a concrete conclusion about God's existence thus confirming the fact He is beyond all understanding. Somehow, because my conclusion supports the beyond all human understanding theory of God it means He exists.

This is by far the most bizarre approach to establishing God's existence I'll probably ever come across. But it's a good one as long as God doesn't show up in person some day, but if that happens then who would care about any old theory anyhow? This theory should pass every test before that day occurs.

Now I ask: why would God want to be beyond our comprehension?

 

[lightgigantic]

However in no way shape or form does it make you any less confused than I am.

It's got everything to do with why you in particular are completely confused. Screwing up at the point of theory, application or conclusion (what to speak about all three simultaneously) is what confusion is all about.

I think you are trying to tell me that because God is in theory, incomprehensible, and if I approach the question of His existence with every bit of knowledge in the known universe then I still won't be able to make a concrete conclusion about God's existence thus confirming the fact He is beyond all understanding. Somehow, because my conclusion supports the beyond all human understanding theory of God it means He exists.

The theory is that god remains totally incomprehensible for as long as one insists that his prowess be totally defined within the parameters of material energy (since the theory is that the material manifestation is a contingent potency of his). Kind of like the theory that sunlight is a contingent potency of the sun allows for a more thorough investigation of the sun (as opened through application) which in turn leads to a greater analysis of the properties of the sun (as opened up by conclusion)

Now I ask: why would God want to be beyond our comprehension?

Beyond the comprehension of persons working solely within the field of the material energy? Because god is the potent force that drives it.
Ordinarily of course an investigation of the potency would lead to an investigation of the source, but if one was sold out to the ideology that the buck stops at the potency. issues of proactive interference take the saddle.

 

[iceaura]

And when investigating the energetic potency that forces the material drive field , you need a - - whoops - - I meant the potency field energy that materializes the driving force - - no, wait, I got it, the field of driving force that energizes the material potency - - damn, I'm so close to figuring this out, missing a word or something, where's my thesaurus - - - - proactive material energy field interference saddle source investigations are not for the fainthearted, apparently.

 

[lightgigantic]

And when investigating the energetic potency that forces the material drive field , you need a - - whoops - - I meant the potency field energy that materializes the driving force - - no, wait, I got it, the field of driving force that energizes the material potency - - damn, I'm so close to figuring this out, missing a word or something, where's my thesaurus - - - - proactive material energy field interference saddle source investigations are not for the fainthearted, apparently.

As mentioned previously, unless you require an X ray of your neighbours head to establish that they have a brain(since all issues of self hood arise from the brain) before you start communicating with them, you're already there.

Its the very nature of interacting in a world that has both matter and spirit that we already adopt different means for dealing with both. It begins with a recognition that there is some inherent value with life that demands it be treated in a different manner to matter (and the further you go down the social/food chain, the less remarkable examples you find of it)

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Beyond the comprehension of persons working solely within the field of the material energy? Because god is the potent force that drives it.
Ordinarily of course an investigation of the potency would lead to an investigation of the source, but if one was sold out to the ideology that the buck stops at the potency. issues of proactive interference take the saddle.

Convenient. Is it only good potency?

 

[Repo Man]

Now I ask: why would God want to be beyond our comprehension?

And of what possible use would such an entity be? If there is a god, the net result in our everyday lives seems to be indistinguishable from what we might expect if there were not. If the Cthulhu Mythos turned out to be true, I seriously doubt it would be of much comfort to the theists who insisted that there is some sort of god, even if they didn't know what sort.

 

[lightgigantic]

Convenient.

Proactive interference is generally seen to side more to level of inconvenience

Is it only good potency?

Generally it is credited as merely being inferior, in the sense its not the real McCoy.

 

[iceaura]

Convenient. Is it only good potency?

I fear that if you are truly incapable of distinguishing the inferior potency (potencies?) of the field of material energy, from the far superior potency of the field of soporific immateriality, proactive interference will ensure that the Real McCoy will forever be beyond your Ken.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

All I really wanted to know was how did God's space to exist in get here and how could it not precede Him? Apparently I'll never understand the answer but I think God could at least try and explain it. Somehow I get the feeling that He does not talk through LG.

Since that answer was not forthcoming I thought it might be a good idea to know why God is incomprehensible to us. In penning that question I couldn't help but think what a stupid question to ask because if what LG says is true then there really is no answer that I will understand. Again I appeal to God to at least let us give it a go.

Do I think it silly to even talk about something no one will ever understand? You're damn right I do. This brings me back to my mantra, the same thing I've been spewing since I got here. It makes more sense to just say yes or no to a god and leave it at that. If we could establish that culture and have it accepted globally then a major source of antagonism in the world is lost and SciForums can stick to science. Unfortunately the perception is that this is an evil atheist platform worthy of elimination.

I'll get off my soapbox now and feebly wade back into the topic. There are still a couple of questions I would like to hear opinions on. First: Is God alive? Second: Was life created? I see a potential conflict here. How can a God who is alive actually create life? I could extrapolate and say gods that exist cannot create existence for the obvious reason they already exist. I guess I'm right back to how did God who exists create his own life and existence? And I do believe the answer lies directly in the field of incomprehensibility because it is impossible to answer....that's where all tough deity questions go anyway.

 

[earth]

All I really wanted to know was how did God's space to exist in get here and how could it not precede Him? Apparently I'll never understand the answer but I think God could at least try and explain it. Somehow I get the feeling that He does not talk through LG.

The reason God is incomprehensible is because he must be a raving lunatic. We are not nearly as stupid as those people claiming God is all knowing yet express verbally he can’t communicate to us comprehensibly.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The reason God is incomprehensible is because he must be a raving lunatic.

Lunatics have been a primary driving force for most religions, proving that somebody understands them. No, I don't think theists believe God is nuts. On the contrary I think God's smarts make Him incomprehensible. IOW, having too much knowledge confuses the Hell out of everybody else.

I'd like to focus on this God attribute if I may, omniscience. Previous posts have heard me mention that God could not have existed unless He had a place to exist. How does He make a place for Himself before He even exists? Along the same lines, if God is alive then how can He make Himself so or even be credited with creating life? The same goes for omniscience.

Just how does a god come into existence with a complete knowledge pack of everything without ever learning or without anything to learn from? Whether God popped into existence or was there all the time, how does He gain the knowledge of everything? Again I expect the supporters of God to repeat that the only way to explain it is to not explain it since no one will understand the explanation. Only because this is the material world and as such has nothing to do with God personally.

Well, if I am to accept that incomprehensibility is the answer then I cannot ever accept any explanation of all things pertaining to God by any theist. Because God is beyond all understanding for us mere mortals then there is nothing worth discussing about God because anyone who tries is obviously full of shit. This is a direct result of God's incomprehensible nature which completely renders unusable any description, account or material object related to God. It's purely speculative and imaginary. No words from a theist can explain God if He cannot be explained.

 

[lightgigantic]

All I really wanted to know was how did God's space to exist in get here and how could it not precede Him? Apparently I'll never understand the answer but I think God could at least try and explain it. Somehow I get the feeling that He does not talk through LG.

Answer - Space is a contingent potency of god, much like sunlight is a contingent potency of the sun. Asking how space precedes god is kind of like asking how sunlight precedes the sun.

Since that answer was not forthcoming I thought it might be a good idea to know why God is incomprehensible to us. In penning that question I couldn't help but think what a stupid question to ask because if what LG says is true then there really is no answer that I will understand. Again I appeal to God to at least let us give it a go.

Answer - Its not so much a question why god is incomprehensible to you, but rather, why a question that screws up at the point of theory suffers serious problems at the point of application (what to speak of conclusion). For instance inquiry into the property and nature of the sun built on the (theoretical) assumption that sunlight is not a contingent property is a similar sojourn into stupidity. Your q suffers the same fate.

Do I think it silly to even talk about something no one will ever understand?

I think it is silly to try expect any great understandings to be forthcoming from persons insisting on operating out a screwed up theoretical foundation

You're damn right I do. This brings me back to my mantra, the same thing I've been spewing since I got here. It makes more sense to just say yes or no to a god and leave it at that. If we could establish that culture and have it accepted globally then a major source of antagonism in the world is lost and SciForums can stick to science. Unfortunately the perception is that this is an evil atheist platform worthy of elimination.

lol
Fancy that eh?
You would prefer to eliminate philosophy from the discussion without going through the really tough stuff of lodging a philosophical argument (which is the standard means to eliminate a philosophy)

I'll get off my soapbox now and feebly wade back into the topic. There are still a couple of questions I would like to hear opinions on. First: Is God alive?

Second: Was life created? I see a potential conflict here. How can a God who is alive actually create life? I could extrapolate and say gods that exist cannot create existence for the obvious reason they already exist. I guess I'm right back to how did God who exists create his own life and existence? And I do believe the answer lies directly in the field of incomprehensibility because it is impossible to answer....that's where all tough deity questions go anyway.

You would probably be better off trying to lodge an argument why god must be subservient to linear time (since that's the theoretical foundation that you use in practically all of your problematizing of theistic issues).
Unfortunately, this will probably require a philosophical argument from you to begin .....

 

[iceaura]

For instance inquiry into the property and nature of the sun built on the (theoretical) assumption that sunlight is not a contingent property is a similar sojourn into stupidity.

So the way to avoid stupidity is to make the correct theoretical assumptions before beginning one's investigations - sunlight is obviously a contingent property of the sun, moonlight of the moon, werelight of the weres, floodlight of the floods, etc.

And that is how the proper normative principles for investigation of deity are established, and proactive interference from energy material fields of material energy potency is kept at bay.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think it is silly to try expect any great understandings to be forthcoming from persons insisting on operating out a screwed up theoretical foundation

If God is incomprehensible then any theory of yours is dubious at best. Just saying God is beyond our understanding is a conclusion anyone can reach if faced with incomprehensible data. Your whole approach could be 100% wrong, only because you are dealing with things that cannot be understood. The idea of incomprehensibility is that you or anyone else can offer up a perfectly logical argumentative hypotheses and it wouldn't matter one iota. I for one see no reason for God to be this mysterious but your beyond all understanding in a material world theory is subject to the incomprehensible element contained within it. Therefore yours or anyone else's theories about God mean diddly-doo.