Ignorant, first off, I want to thank you for taking the time to give a very intelligent and well-thought out response to my questions. IMO, your conduct in this discussion is quite admirable. With that said, If I've understood you correctly, then god cannot be anything concrete or finitely intelligible. Is this correct?
What happens when we do encounter something which does not seem concrete and appears to have no intelligible finitude? Do we conclude that this is a deity? Is it possible that this thing can be understood, but we just lack the knowledge and development to understand it? Could the god of humanity's theists be a commonplace being to another sentient life-form much more advanced than us? How would we know the difference?
Ignorant Wrote:If "a being" IS that act, I'm not sure the experience would be finitely intelligible like the rest of our experiences. The intelligible finitude of "things" (or "beings") is enough to know that it is not god.
Think of it this way: Imagine what it would be like to "discover" something as abstract as "being, itself". Imagine discovering "love, itself" or "truth, itself" or "beauty, itself" or "goodness, itself". Anything discovered as even remotely "concrete" is enough to tell you that it isn't god, or being, or love, or truth or beauty or goodness.
What happens when we do encounter something which does not seem concrete and appears to have no intelligible finitude? Do we conclude that this is a deity? Is it possible that this thing can be understood, but we just lack the knowledge and development to understand it? Could the god of humanity's theists be a commonplace being to another sentient life-form much more advanced than us? How would we know the difference?
