Jump to content

A God Without Limitations


Aman Uensis
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

Yes, I do keep peddling it.

You should review the rules here on proselytization. 

2 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm touched that you are concerned with how people perceive me. I pay it no mind.

That much has been obvious from the start. You ignore feedback and how your position is being received by the audience with whom you're trying to engage, and that's sad. 

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

I don't care to define God. Doesn't interest me.

Then you cannot claim to be doing philosophy. You're evangelizing and little more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:
11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

What, in your experience, has been the Catholic church's explanation for evolution? Is it that God allowed for evolution to occur, or something such?

 

As far as I know, and pretty sure about, the Catholic church, accepts the scientific concepts of the BB and evolution, because of the overwhelming evidence supporting them. From there though, they depart from science and put both down to the work of God. As science also has not been able to fully explain how both scientific theories came about, or how our the BB banged, or how Abiogenesis arose and started, the church puts both down to the work of God....commonly known as "the God of the gaps" concept. 

Both are notoriously hard concepts to find any validated scientific evidence for, hence the continued clashes of science and the church in those regards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 8:25 PM, swansont said:

Did they object to your faulty logic? Or was it something else?

No it was rather the same reaction as here. They objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

No it was rather the same reaction as here. They objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected.

One of the reactions here was your faulty logic, so that’s not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 8:55 PM, iNow said:

You should review the rules here on proselytization.

It was a sarcastic admission. I don't need to proselytize, because I'm quite secure about my position. People who peddle their view with passion do so because they are rather insecure.

If I'm fairly sure the sun will rise the next morning (barring any catastrophe) I don't need to shout it from the rooftops. I come onto forums to gauge reactions but also to stimulate my mind. While you probably haven't taken anything from this, I have actually been able to advance my inquiry that much more, so thank you.

On 5/6/2022 at 8:55 PM, iNow said:

That much has been obvious from the start. You ignore feedback and how your position is being received by the audience with whom you're trying to engage, and that's sad.

And you all ignore a lot of my more interesting premises and instead choose to try and attack anything else that can be attacked.

Like I said before, poke holes but not the same old holes. I guess you could say my arrogance stems from being rather untouched in these debates, at least concerning the more interesting things I've come up with. In all forums. You chose to try and place this God thing upon me because it was the only way you knew how to play this game.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but if you feel as if you've resoundingly countered every point I've offered up, then take satisfaction in that and move on.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

One of the reactions here was your faulty logic, so that’s not the same.

I'm sorry but I've had to defend from all sides so I lose track. All of my logic is faulty or just on one point? And if it's just one point of failure, please remind me which one?

On 5/6/2022 at 8:55 PM, iNow said:

Then you cannot claim to be doing philosophy. You're evangelizing and little more.

I'm a bit confused. Isn't that an attempt to convert someone to Christianity? How would I do that if my inquiry doesn't depend on any one definition (or a definition for that matter) of God?

And why would I do that if I don't believe in God? Is this you trying to wish me into being a theist again?

On 5/4/2022 at 10:43 AM, Genady said:

I have a candidate answer to this question, Why anything exists at all. Murphy's Law: Whatever can happen, will happen.

I've had a bit of time to think further on this and it actually reminded me of something I had put down on paper quite a few years ago. It was to do with a small inquiry into the relationship between chance and fate which was one of the things that eventually lead me to investigate the structure of existence in general. It read something like this:

If you have no choice but to play the game, is it chance that the ball might land either red or black, or fate that the ball will land either red or black?

I think I came to the conclusion that chance displayed a general elasticity and as a result, wasn't true chance, true chaotic chance. Or something or other.

Thank you for your input in this thread. It's stuff like this that really helps me to reinforce my inquiry/system. Feel free to reach out if you're bored and you want to work on this with me. It's a rather lonely path this inquiry.

On 5/7/2022 at 6:02 AM, beecee said:

As far as I know, and pretty sure about, the Catholic church, accepts the scientific concepts of the BB and evolution, because of the overwhelming evidence supporting them. From there though, they depart from science and put both down to the work of God. As science also has not been able to fully explain how both scientific theories came about, or how our the BB banged, or how Abiogenesis arose and started, the church puts both down to the work of God....commonly known as "the God of the gaps" concept. 

Both are notoriously hard concepts to find any validated scientific evidence for, hence the continued clashes of science and the church in those regards.

Ah yes, the logical disconnect between science to God, God to science. I think that was part of the reason why I said that it was like fighting apples with oranges - there was no compatibility between the two. Thank you for refreshing my memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm sorry but I've had to defend from all sides so I lose track. All of my logic is faulty or just on one point? And if it's just one point of failure, please remind me which one?

Circular reasoning. You assume an attribute and conclude that God has that attribute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

No it was rather the same reaction as here. They objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected.

It's amazing that we can be 4 pages into a discussion where everyone is telling you the same things, that your reasoning is flawed and circular, and they quote the relevant examples, and what YOU take away from this is that "they objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected". Since you don't understand reason very well, it's invisible to you, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I've had a bit of time to think further on this and it actually reminded me of something I had put down on paper quite a few years ago. It was to do with a small inquiry into the relationship between chance and fate which was one of the things that eventually lead me to investigate the structure of existence in general. It read something like this:

If you have no choice but to play the game, is it chance that the ball might land either red or black, or fate that the ball will land either red or black?

I think I came to the conclusion that chance displayed a general elasticity and as a result, wasn't true chance, true chaotic chance. Or something or other.

Thank you for your input in this thread. It's stuff like this that really helps me to reinforce my inquiry/system. Feel free to reach out if you're bored and you want to work on this with me. It's a rather lonely path this inquiry.

In fact, it was a tongue in cheek comment of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Reading the OP, I have to ask if this is anything beyond an ontological word play which rules out pantheism and panpsychism.  OK, god is confined to being god, so it can't be a goat or a 1964 Dodge Dart or a latent consciousness in water molecules. (Sure, god can don those guises as fun party costumes)  It seems as if the assertion here is purely definitional, so there really isn't much to test or contest.  God is a distinct being, somehow separate from goats and people and junk cars, which in a crude circular way just takes us back to western theism (or deism, if the god doesn't get up to much).  The distilled version of my question is: so what?  What are the theological consequences (or logical ones, for that matter) of this ontological stance of limited god-ness?

I hope I've pinpointed my objection to purely ontological arguments.

Start with St. Anselm and work forward.  They just don't prove or even say anything meaningful.  

Edited by TheVat
Fixes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2022 at 9:59 PM, Genady said:

In fact, it was a tongue in cheek comment of mine.

Noted :)

On 5/11/2022 at 8:46 PM, swansont said:

Circular reasoning. You assume an attribute and conclude that God has that attribute. 

Again, perhaps it is a futile distinction, but I don't assume anything. I'm taking theists assumptions about God and applying my system to them.

I know you told me not to jump to conclusions but you seem rather hung up on this one thing. It rather reminds me in a circular way of one of the atheists greatest weapons against theists, or at least very formal atheists. It's to do with the placement of onus of proof, in that the burden falls upon the theist to provide some proof of God before any debate can be entered into by the atheist.

Where the onus is placed is a key clue in whether subsequent proceedings are meant to stymie debate or get to the truth. Regardless, placing the onus all on one party is not a natural thing to do. Rather it is a rule made by man. If I was to go into battle it would be lazy and unwise on my part to go into it without any weapons or to assume my opponent would not be able to hurt me. But if this isn't you then ignore my ramblings.

I can accept this rule of logic. But as I said, my system doesn't depend on God. Although it is hard to see from my original thread question, the strength of my system does not rest on an assumption. I will contend that my inquiry is actually stronger than scientific theory. Cue indignation :)

Why do I say that? Well, I didn't realize this before this thread but the structures I was harping on about were called abstract structures. And I hate to use wikipedia but apparently "an abstract structure has a richer structure than a concept or an idea". In essence, scientific theories are taking observations of patterns of natural phenomena to predict more phenomena. But nothing is set in stone. What applies here might not necessarily apply somewhere else in this universe, in another dimension etc. But the laws of physics, matter itself, depend on the abstract structures I speak of in order to be. So I'm willing to bet that these structures are a constant of existence. Undeniable by any standard. By any side of the science/religion divide.

A leap of faith, yes, but rather more than unicorns no? Argue as you will against the theists. I am not one of them. My inquiry still stands. Unfortunately.

On 5/11/2022 at 11:53 PM, iNow said:

Correct

It would be great if you could actually answer my responses properly rather than ignore what you can't answer. There is no shame in being able to shape a proper comeback. But the fact remains, yes, you've all been able to pick the usual holes regarding God, but nothing about the heart of my inquiry or my other propositions.

Let me give you some advice - as with all the threads I starts, this one is beginning to dwindle. You'll probably say that it's because I'm being proven wrong. But the evidence is here in the thread. I've been courteous enough to try and answer everyone's questions politely. But I can trace every unanswered response of mine, and if that must be the measure of victory then so be it (though I'm not here for that). So maybe do as everyone else does and simply stop responding. This thread will die on its own and you can go back to business as usual and forget I was ever here.

Nevertheless, my inquiry still stands.

On 5/11/2022 at 11:05 PM, TheVat said:

Reading the OP, I have to ask if this is anything beyond an ontological word play which rules out pantheism and panpsychism.  OK, god is confined to being god, so it can't be a goat or a 1964 Dodge Dart or a latent consciousness in water molecules. (Sure, god can don those guises as fun party costumes)  It seems as if the assertion here is purely definitional, so there really isn't much to test or contest.  God is a distinct being, somehow separate from goats and people and junk cars, which in a crude circular way just takes us back to western theism (or deism, if the god doesn't get up to much).  The distilled version of my question is: so what?  What are the theological consequences (or logical ones, for that matter) of this ontological stance of limited god-ness?

I hope I've pinpointed my objection to purely ontological arguments.

Start with St. Anselm and work forward.  They just don't prove or even say anything meaningful.  

Lol I don't understand a third of the words you've used, which reveals my ignorance in these matters. The consequence of all this? As I told Dimreepr, this is a futile inquiry. There are no consequences. We must live life and this doesn't change anything. So why do it? Well, I would rather think that anything that gives any insight into our existence might be of some use? It might give some perspective on the things that we kill each other over. What I'm doing is proposing a model for the construct of existence using undeniable aspects of our existence which include abstract structures and infinity.

As I said before, trying to work around my inquiry with the usual theology or whatnot won't work. Why? Because the fact of existence must come before all else, yes? Anything afterward, ruminations on God, observations of science etc come after. Anything else is the derivative. I'm asking for 1. People are intent on giving me 2, 3, 4, 100 etc.

In summary, there are two directions the human can go. The first, you can try and discover the mysteries of this universe, of God etc and that in itself is a worthy purpose. That will probably last until we are extinct. We all have to play the game after all. But if you're wondering about why anything exists at all? You have to go in the other direction. But ultimately you will come up against a brick wall. So the majority are more inclined to go the other way. To make something useful of their life.

In the end, I'm proposing an examination of our limitations in order to gain insight into other aspects of our lives. Yes, a strange concept. Utterly repugnant, at least to my natural way of thinking. But it's there to be thought of and I thought it. No crime in that :)

Want to know about God? Then you should dive into theology. Evolution? Devour Darwinism. But existence applies to all things equally. So one does not need any in depth knowledge of these other matters to ruminate upon the subject. And if I'm being accused of using wordplay then we can disregard a lot of the studies into existentialism while we're at it (I'm assuming from what little I saw from wikipedia regarding the difference between "something" and a specific name for a thing idk).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2022 at 9:21 PM, Phi for All said:

It's amazing that we can be 4 pages into a discussion where everyone is telling you the same things, that your reasoning is flawed and circular, and they quote the relevant examples, and what YOU take away from this is that "they objected but couldn't quite pinpoint why they objected". Since you don't understand reason very well, it's invisible to you, apparently.

And it's rather amazing that people can be hung up on the one thing, whereby if they took that one thing out they still can't comment on the other aspects of my system

The same response. Across all forums. Christian or Atheist. So right back at ya :)

I accept that you can make the argument against God. Old dead men have made the rules of engagement and we cling to them dearly. Now do it for all my other stuff. I'm still waiting.

1 hour ago, Aman Uensis said:

You assume

So the moral of the story is never assume. But if we assume that scientific observations are supremely constant because we have been able to observe every single instance of those phenomenon and build on top of that then that is acceptable.

At least I can admit my leap of faith. My limitations.

Edited by Aman Uensis
Clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

This thread will die on its own and you can go back to business as usual and forget I was ever here

Too late

3 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

But if we assume that scientific observations are supremely constant

Why would we ever do that? One of the beauties in the scientific method is that all observations and conclusions are only ever at best provisional. It’s self-correcting, not based on ridiculous circular reasoning like “the fact of existence must come before all else.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

Again, perhaps it is a futile distinction, but I don't assume anything. I'm taking theists assumptions about God and applying my system to them.

You, from early in the thread (emphasis added):

if I am to assume God created us then God is able to touch the material world in some manner. I'm going to get slightly theological if I may, but if God created us then all that we are must be, at least, a part of God (but perhaps not its entirety).  "Click-the-fingers" type creation isn't for me, so I'm going to assume that God can get its hands dirty in earthly material to make stuff”

You may wan’t to disavow ownership of the assumptions, but assumptions were made, and it’s still circular reasoning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.