hey krimel and marsha et al, firstly i want to partially agree with marsha. god is an inadequate label for what i am discussing, but it does happen to be the closest generally recognisable term for most people in our 'culture'.
okay now to krimel... --- Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [gav] > before i go on a clarification: > 'god' here refers to any transcendent, eternal '> aspect > of the universe, personified or not. this aspect may > be taken as an implicate order that informs the > explicate order of the temporal universe. > > [Krimel] > How does this clarify anything? What suggests that > anything in the universe > has the properties of transcendence or eternal > aspect? What is meant by > these terms? 'transcendent': as opposed to immanent, not subject to the limitations of the material, temporal universe. a common philosophical term. 'eternal' suggests *outside of time*, atemporality as opposed to everlasting. what suggests the existence of any 'thing' with these properties....i get to that later. > [gav] > this clarification moves us closer to a better > understanding of the question. firstly it allows for > a > more exact logical positing of the problem by > letting > us imagine the possibility of the existence of such > a > thing as 'god'. > > [Krimel] > Lack of clarity aside, why would any of this lead to > thinking about a > "thing"? because the term 'god' by itself conjures up gandalf for most i imagine and doesn't move us any closer to a higher understanding of existence, which is the point of philosophy. by describing the characteristics of a 'thing' (which is no-thing-at-all of course) we are closer to imagining it (try imagining 'sky' without designating it a colour) > > [gav] > secondly it allows us to logically deduce the > methods > by which we may gain the knowledge necessary to > confirm or deny the proposition. > > [Krimel] > After 3,000 years of haggling finally the answer so > many have sought! > > [gav] > if god is atemporal, eternal, then he/she/it is > unknowable in time. time is a function of conscious > awareness. therefore it is logically impossible to > grasp 'god' through the mind, the psyche, the > limited > consciousness of the self. we cannot logically > comprehend 'god' as we would comprehend that which > is > temporal. mathematics is the formal language of the > temporal, of nature, of manifest reality. > > [Krimel] > "If?" By what stretch of the imagination have we > arrived at an "if" > statement? How does it follow even given your "if" > that whatever the if is > it is unknowable? If it is unknowable who gives a > crap? > > If you construct your if statements properly it is > possible to logically > conclude whatever you like. Especially if there is > no way to verify the > conclusion. i don't understand your objection here. you don't like the word 'if'? i don't know if i can make it any clearer. that which is outside of time is not able to be grasped in time. reason, whose purest distillation is mathematics, operates in time, it cannot do otherwise. one thought follows another. > > By the way mathematical statements are not limited > to the temporal or even > to the manifest. There are branches of mathematics > that deal with time and > transcend time and there are branches that deal > totally with abstractions > that have nothing whatever to do with manifest > reality. > > [gav] > but we have more options. firstly we can suggest > that > the existence of immaterial forces acting upon > matter > is a scientific given. secondly we can add that > because these energies travel at the speed of light > they are therefore atemporal. > > [Krimel] > Immaterial forces? What forces to you mean? Unless > you mean the forces > identified in nature already, what effect could they > have on matter. If they > had an effect, the effect would already be > identified. Not all of the forces > of nature travel at the speed of light. Gravity > seems to be instantaneous. I > don't think the weak force or the strong force > travel far enough to have > their speed measured. light travels at c in a vacuum. electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light, as does gravity in general relativity theory. to travel at this speed is to be outside of time, or on the very edge of it, according to einstein's musings. in any case the existence of the atemporal has been demonstrated, in line with relativity theory. > > It is always a pleasure to have you chime in, gav. > Not trying to piss you > off but this needs clarification. no worries. > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > _________________________________________________________________________________ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
