> [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?
[gav] '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. [Krimel] But why would anyone be interested in basing anything on something that is purely hypothetical and without consequence? Isn't there enough temporal, physical stuff in your neighborhood to hold your interest? What closure can you get from this? The problem is that when you accept the idea that pure speculation is meaningful there are no criteria by which to judge between high quality ideas and low quality ideas. You can not discriminate the possible from even the remotely probable. You wind up like Ham, being able to state what you think but not why anyone else should agree with you. > [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"? > [gav] 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) [Krimel] Gandalf is a personal friend of mine. We used to do jello shots from nubile woodelf navels and thump orcs in Kithacor when I was level 42. He was decidedly un-Godlike in those days and would never have suggested understanding existence in terms of things that did not nor had ever existed. I will ask him if he has changed his tune next time I run into him. > [gav] > secondly it allows us to logically deduce the > methods by which we may gain the knowledge necessary > to confirm or deny the proposition > [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. [gav] 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. [Krimel] My point was that we are no where near ready to jump to a conclusion and yet you present it right there in your "if" statement. If we assume... is a preface to random thinking in my book. > [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. [gav] 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. [Krimel] Ok so you are not talking about immaterial extra forces like consciousness or Spirit of anything like that. You are certainly welcome and capable to pursue this line of inquiry but I personally don't think it leads anywhere. I think there are much more interest questions like: Why to people believe and believe strongly in things that they have no way to verify? What function to such belief serve psychologically and socially? Since such beliefs seem to be universal in our species is this evidence for the validity of the beliefs or that the function served is important? As Campbell points out the origins of these beliefs is very ancient what function was served by them in the past and is it the same today or has it changed? Anyway, you know stuff which at least has the potential to be answered. 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/
