The Creation

[lightgigantic]

So the way to avoid stupidity is to make the correct theoretical assumptions before beginning one's investigations

Next time you have to shave try assuming that your electric bread knife is an electric razor and get back to us with your results.

- sunlight is obviously a contingent property of the sun, moonlight of the moon, werelight of the weres, floodlight of the floods, etc.

application is often appreciated for its ability to hone down the wide net that theory casts ..... but hey, if you think you are on a good thing with your bread knife, go for it.

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.

Actually you are doing a mighty fine job of giving a text book example of proactive interference,
Keep up the fine work.

 

[lightgigantic]

If God is incomprehensible then any theory of yours is dubious at best.

well thats the point!
Its your theory that god is incomprehensible ... namely because you work out of a means of application that doesn't have the scopee to approach him.

Just saying God is beyond our understanding is a conclusion anyone can reach if faced with incomprehensible data.

If we want to assume that the sun is a contingent property of the sunlight, we also face a similar dilemma.

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.

The general idea is that certain things render certain things understood (or epistemology).

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.

The sun also becomes equally mysterious if we accept that it is a contingent property of the sunlight

Therefore yours or anyone else's theories about God mean diddly-doo.

perhaps in the eyes of persons who don't have a hope in hell of approaching issues of application on the right foot.

 

[iceaura]

The sun also becomes equally mysterious if we accept that it is a contingent property of the sunlight

You mean silly assumptions about "contingent" and "potency" can create mystery where investigation would yield knowledge?

Cool.

Next time you have to shave try assuming that your electric bread knife is an electric razor and get back to us with your results.

We see a pattern with these analogies of yours (the neighbor's X-rayed head impressive among them): they all involve the "potency" or whatever of stuff we don't have to assume exists in the first place, and goals whose criteria of success we have no problem discussing, amending, throwing away if inadequate, etc.

Which makes them - and this is not the first time - question begging. Irrelevant. And deceptive.

 

[lightgigantic]

You mean silly assumptions about "contingent" and "potency" can create mystery where investigation would yield knowledge?

Cool.

actually investigation is all about issues of contingency and potency

We see a pattern with these analogies of yours (the neighbor's X-rayed head impressive among them): they all involve the "potency" or whatever of stuff we don't have to assume exists in the first place, and goals whose criteria of success we have no problem discussing, amending, throwing away if inadequate, etc.

analogies illustrate a general principle by calling upon something that's known ... (If we didn't know about issues of contingency that surround the sun and sunlight an analogy that involves them would be just as bewildering for you as an analogy about god)
:shrug:

Which makes them - and this is not the first time - question begging. Irrelevant. And deceptive.

lol
feel free to offer an example of an analogy (about anything) that calls upon something unknown so we can see what remarkable point you are trying to make.

 

[iceaura]

actually investigation is all about issues of contingency and potency

Hence the harm done by making silly assumptions to begin with - such as the existence of entities whose existence is the very matter under investigation.

analogies illustrate a general principle by calling upon something that's known

The general principle is not usually one completely irrelevant, at best, to the matter under discussion, though.

Unless deception is the intent.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hence the harm done by making silly assumptions to begin with - such as the existence of entities whose existence is the very matter under investigation.

On the contrary its how one (very often) begins investigation - namely by having a clue what one is looking for.

The general principle is not usually one completely irrelevant, at best, to the matter under discussion, though.

Unless deception is the intent.

It seems you have a problem with the use of analogies as a means of communication above anything else
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

Hence the harm done by making silly assumptions to begin with - such as the existence of entities whose existence is the very matter under investigation.
”
On the contrary its how one (very often) begins investigation - namely by having a clue what one is looking for.

Contrary? My own investigation experience is that having clues and making unsupported assumptions quite often exclude each other, and one or the other must be postponed.

When the assumptions include the ostensible matter of the investigation, reason and logic also come into play - on the side of the clues.

Your choice.

It seems you have a problem with the use of analogies as a means of communication above anything else

The use of analogies and your use of analogies are not equally problematical.

 

[lightgigantic]

Contrary? My own investigation experience is that having clues and making unsupported assumptions quite often exclude each other, and one or the other must be postponed.

Oh sorry.

I didn't realize that the topic suddenly changed to unsupported assumptions.

When the assumptions include the ostensible matter of the investigation, reason and logic also come into play - on the side of the clues.

feel free to explain how you can call upon reason and logic without premises first ....

Your choice.

If there are no premises (ie assumptions) its hard to figure out what you would bring logic et al to bear on ...

The use of analogies and your use of analogies are not equally problematical.

[/QUOTE]
As far as I can fathom, the only problem you have with them is that operate out of a known basis (which is indeed what all analogies require to have a hope of conveying meaning)
:shrug:

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Its your theory that god is incomprehensible ...

Why would I theorize about God's existence? Trying to think like a theist is torture enough.

The thread is about creation and once again you have detracted away from my questions. Is God alive?.....I don't want to forget about that. Tell me if he is or isn't. Alive meaning, as in not dead.

How do you know this universe is physical and not just another room in the spiritual mansion?

 

[lightgigantic]

Why would I theorize about God's existence?

If you have an opinion of it, you have a theory about it

Trying to think like a theist is torture enough.

Guess that there are a few issues about being an adamant atheist that makes it a true challenge ....

The thread is about creation and once again you have detracted away from my questions. Is God alive?.....I don't want to forget about that. Tell me if he is or isn't. Alive meaning, as in not dead.

I can't understand (aside from going on a heady Nietzsche trip) why you are asking this. I means its kind of like asking a middle aged person whether they were alive when they were 6 years old .

How do you know this universe is physical and not just another room in the spiritual mansion?

I guess few hints are there - birth, death, old age and disease, sufferings caused by one's body and mind, the bodies of others or the environment in general and the constant challenge to fulfilling desire in a medium geared up for (often quite nasty) conflict ..... are a few that just come off the top off my head

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If you have an opinion of it, you have a theory about it

Fair enough. I guess the incomprehensible theory of God passes the test then.

I can't understand (aside from going on a heady Nietzsche trip) why you are asking this. I means its kind of like asking a middle aged person whether they were alive when they were 6 years old .

Why would I do that? I don't care, I want to know if God is alive. I have heard the description living God before and I wonder if it is true. Surely He's not dead or a zombie, is He?

I guess few hints are there - birth, death, old age and disease, sufferings caused by one's body and mind, the bodies of others or the environment in general and the constant challenge to fulfilling desire in a medium geared up for (often quite nasty) conflict

No bad stuff in a spiritual world then. Is the spiritual world the place one is most likely to bump into a spirit?

 

[lightgigantic]

Fair enough. I guess the incomprehensible theory of God passes the test then.

Well yes of course. You seem to be calling upon it continually to challenge the comprehensible theory of god.

Why would I do that? I don't care, I want to know if God is alive. I have heard the description living God before and I wonder if it is true. Surely He's not dead or a zombie, is He?

whats the "description living god"? What other descriptions do you have under your belt?

No bad stuff in a spiritual world then.

Inasmuch as bad stuff is a consequence of ignorance, no.

Is the spiritual world the place one is most likely to bump into a spirit?

Inasmuch as spirit is a vague indication of more specific terms like atma, yes.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

whats the "description living god"? What other descriptions do you have under your belt?

A blue skinned 4 armed snake sitter maybe? Make one up, doesn't matter.

Is God alive? A good question for you to avoid.

I think God's existence is hanging by a thread. To be what He is makes Him the most astounding quantum fluctuation of all time. One that provided every omni known to man and then some. And then against all odds to have a simultaneous fluctuation provide a place to exist and maybe another to breathe life into Him. An incredible mind numbing rarity. A room full of monkeys could type Shakespeare's sonnets before events like that ever happen again.

Unless God created Himself, unless He created a place to exist before He existed, unless He breathed life into Himself before He became alive, unless He learned everything before there was anything to know, etc. etc...... How is God even possible?

 

[lightgigantic]

A blue skinned 4 armed snake sitter maybe? Make one up, doesn't matter.

well yeah, from an atheist's perspective the issue is moot.
:shrug:

Is God alive? A good question for you to avoid.

The question is so screwed up. I mean if even the living entity has scope for eternal existence, what to speak of god.

I think God's existence is hanging by a thread. To be what He is makes Him the most astounding quantum fluctuation of all time. One that provided every omni known to man and then some. And then against all odds to have a simultaneous fluctuation provide a place to exist and maybe another to breathe life into Him. An incredible mind numbing rarity. A room full of monkeys could type Shakespeare's sonnets before events like that ever happen again.

hmmm ..... its kind of mind boggling to also try and calculate how sunlight could combine to produce a sun

Unless God created Himself, unless He created a place to exist before He existed, unless He breathed life into Himself before He became alive, unless He learned everything before there was anything to know, etc. etc...... How is God even possible?

Oh you mean unless everything operates out of the medium of linear time ..... how quaint.

 

[earth]

hmmm ..... its kind of mind boggling to also try and calculate how sunlight could combine to produce a sun

Your analogy is bizarre. Sunlight does not produce a sun.
Sunlight, in the broad sense, is the total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun.

 

[lightgigantic]

Your analogy is bizarre. Sunlight does not produce a sun.
Sunlight, in the broad sense, is the total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun.

Yes that's the point of the analogy. Mess up the relationship between the potency and the source and it starts to look weird.

 

[earth]

Yes that's the point of the analogy. Mess up the relationship between the potency and the source and it starts to look weird.

Then just as the sun is identifiable and recognizable as the source of sunlight one should be able to identify the source of creation. Where is the source that should be continuing to produce the potency thereby allowing for observation instead of speculation?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then just as the sun is identifiable and recognizable as the source of sunlight one should be able to identify the source of creation. Where is the source that should be continuing to produce the potency thereby allowing for observation instead of speculation?

well yeah , that's my point ... it is identifiable and recognizable ... but since it involves identifying and recognizing an entity who's powers of observation are vastly superior than ours the process entails something slightly different than the standard empirical bag of tricks (which is limited by the 5 blunt senses).

 

[earth]

The bag of tricks you're speaking of is theists explanation of a creator who must violate the laws of physics and nature just to exist.

edit/add: By theists own admission God is the worst law breaker of all time.

 

[lightgigantic]

The bag of tricks you're speaking of is theists explanation of a creator who must violate the laws of physics and nature just to exist.

Actually in order to exist, the laws of physics must be contingent on god

edit/add: By theists own admission God is the worst law breaker of all time.

hehe

much like jail inmates might see anyone who isn't forced to reside behind bars and mortar as defying some established norm ...