(December 10, 2021 at 9:01 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: ...
Thank you DLJ, that makes sense and is a 'keep it simple stupid' explanation that I can latch onto.

btw - this is anjele from TTA.

Hope you are well.

Oh hi!

Not bad considering (stuck in a barely English speaking part of the planet for nearly 2 years because the world shut down; officially an adult now; studying black swans and blue bees and all that).

Hoping you are well too.  Wassup?

(December 10, 2021 at 9:47 pm)DLJ Wrote:

(December 10, 2021 at 9:01 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: ...
Thank you DLJ, that makes sense and is a 'keep it simple stupid' explanation that I can latch onto.

btw - this is anjele from TTA.

Hope you are well.

Oh hi!

Not bad considering (stuck in a barely English speaking part of the planet for nearly 2 years because the world shut down; officially an adult now; studying black swans and blue bees and all that).

Hoping you are well too.  Wassup?

I work part time from home now...bookkeeping...I really like it.

My age is showing...I am now busy making quilts. COVID has me pretty much confined to home but at least I like my office mates...my four legged and feathered crew...yeah, I still have a house full of critters. LOL

Other than that, I keep busy getting rid of spam bots around here.

Belecqua and I were focusing on the category error of comparing material things within the universe to immaterial things that transcend the universe, in the same way that it is a category error to ask for the size of an idea. It may very well be that our responses are not landing because we are not properly hearing the objection, not just here but in an adjacent thread about God and Science. I will try to steel man this particular skeptical objection to belief in God as the best I can.

Whereas Belacqua and I are saying it is irrational compare immaterial things with material things, the competing claim is that there are no things that are immaterial to begin with. If God were real then He would have physical effects because everything real is material. As such if there are no credible examples of God’s material affect, then God seems, at best, like an “unnecessary hypothesis”. So main challenge is something like, “Give me an example something immaterial.”

But does that objection apply to the fundamental claim of the theist? The theistic claim is that God is a common feature of all material reality. Not just parts of reality; the whole of reality. God is the reason material reality even exists.  As such, it seems irrational to binary sort the material universe into “god” and “not god” piles. (Christology deals with this apparent paradox but obviously is well beyond the scope of this discussion.)

In reply though, I would offer a counter challenge to the idea that everything is material. Show me anything that is material. What do you really know about matter? Things are solid? Apparently, their mostly empty space. And then when you get right down to it, it seems fundamental reality can be credibly described as “structured nothingness”. In truth, idealism remains a credible metaphysical option.

IMHO a complete picture of reality not only describes its contents but also accounts for our ability to make sense of it. I believe the universe is intelligible because reason transcends physical universe. For example, imagine there was some truly irrational anomaly in the universe, perhaps some effect that defied the very laws of known physics. Would we restrict our reasoning to known physics? No.  More than likely, we would expand our notions of what is possible in physics to discover the larger reality. I am not saying then expand and use god to explain the anomaly. No. The point is this: Reason must be valid. And that warrants giving primacy to mind rather than to matter, or at least taking it seriously.

Now, sure, a theologian might be referring to the Ground of Being but the faithful pray to Jesus. Again, Christology is complex…and there is a point. The central claim Christianity is Jesus crucified and risen from the dead. But that’s another discussion, for another day.

A big wall of the same Tripe 

You should have saved yourself the finger motions 

(December 11, 2021 at 12:01 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Belecqua and I were focusing on the category error of comparing material things within the universe to immaterial things that transcend the universe, in the same way that it is a category error to ask for the size of an idea. It may very well be that our responses are not landing because we are not properly hearing the objection, not just here but in an adjacent thread about God and Science. I will try to steel man this particular skeptical objection to belief in God as the best I can.

Whereas Belacqua and I are saying it is irrational compare immaterial things with material things, the competing claim is that there are no things that are immaterial to begin with. If God were real then He would have physical effects because everything real is material. As such if there are no credible examples of God’s material affect, then God seems, at best, like an “unnecessary hypothesis”. So main challenge is something like, “Give me an example something immaterial.”

But does that objection apply to the fundamental claim of the theist? The theistic claim is that God is a common feature of all material reality. Not just parts of reality; the whole of reality. God is the reason material reality even exists.  As such, it seems irrational to binary sort the material universe into “god” and “not god” piles. (Christology deals with this apparent paradox but obviously is well beyond the scope of this discussion.)

In reply though, I would offer a counter challenge to the idea that everything is material. Show me anything that is material. What do you really know about matter? Things are solid? Apparently, their mostly empty space. And then when you get right down to it, it seems fundamental reality can be credibly described as “structured nothingness”. In truth, idealism remains a credible metaphysical option.

IMHO a complete picture of reality not only describes its contents but also accounts for our ability to make sense of it. I believe the universe is intelligible because reason transcends physical universe. For example, imagine there was some truly irrational anomaly in the universe, perhaps some effect that defied the very laws of known physics. Would we restrict our reasoning to known physics? No.  More than likely, we would expand our notions of what is possible in physics to discover the larger reality. I am not saying then expand and use god to explain the anomaly. No. The point is this: Reason must be valid. And that warrants giving primacy to mind rather than to matter, or at least taking it seriously.

Now, sure, a theologian might be referring to the Ground of Being but the faithful pray to Jesus. Again, Christology is complex…and there is a point. The central claim Christianity is Jesus crucified and risen from the dead. But that’s another discussion, for another day.

I agree with Professor Richard Dawkins -- God if he/she/it exists, is complex, more so than an amoeba. We do not observe God, nor do we observe complex things that do not arise from simpler things unless those things are specially created, namely, by Us.

As for comparing God to Santa and/or the tooth fairy, I think that the concept of God is even more absurd. For starters, believers ascribe to God infinite attributes, but, as Cantor proved, there are an infinite number of infinite sets, only one of which is countable, namely, the set of natural numbers and those sets that have a bijection with the natural numbers, and hence, the same cardinality. No one imputes infinite attributes to Santa and/or the tooth fairy. For instance, does God know all the digits of the number pi? It's like asking if God can make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Paradoxes, such as these, are never discussed about Santa and/or the tooth fairy.

Religions exist because they meet the psychological and social needs of their adherents.

It wouldn't be a category error to ask for the size of an idea. They do have a size. At the risk of repeating the obvious..there's nothing particularly wrong with comparing these characters - christians just don't like it, and come up with the most ludicrous explanations for why it's double plus ungood.

Think about the strange way this progressed - we're at the point were we shouldn't compare these things because..what, solid things are mostly empty space? Yeah, so's a net..it's not that hard to wrap your head around....so if the idea is to flit off to something truly bizarre and inexplicable as though that mattered to whether or not we could compare any given fairy tale creatures, we'll have to do better than that.

(December 10, 2021 at 3:28 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Well, just think about it...

There is some supernatural guy who has you under surveillance 24/7.
He is everywhere at once.
He knows if you been good or bad.
He dishes out rewards or punishments on the basis of his judgement of your actions.

Is that god or santa? Seems the same to me.

Yet, religious folks will flare up at the mere suggestion of a comparison. Somehow, the religious have decided that god is different and the "rules" do not apply.

Blatant special pleading.

(December 10, 2021 at 6:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Blatant category error.

And on cue...

I think Neo is wrong, but I don't care enough to argue about it.

(December 11, 2021 at 12:01 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Belecqua and I were focusing on the category error of comparing material things within the universe to immaterial things that transcend the universe, in the same way that it is a category error to ask for the size of an idea. It may very well be that our responses are not landing because we are not properly hearing the objection, not just here but in an adjacent thread about God and Science. I will try to steel man this particular skeptical objection to belief in God as the best I can.

Is Vishnu in the immaterial things that transced the universe column or the Santa Claus column?

(December 7, 2021 at 3:49 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(December 7, 2021 at 3:47 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Innovation.  Reindeer are unreliable and expensive.

So's the USPS.

The gifts that were supposed to arrive in SC on Friday arrived today. They were guaranteed two day delivery...that's what I paid for...last Tuesday.

geez...

Now if I would just get the stamps I ordered - from the fucking post office - they were supposed to be here last Thursday.

What a way to run an operation.