RE: Your position on naturalism
November 25, 2016 at 4:31 am
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2016 at 4:33 am by Ignorant.)
(November 24, 2016 at 8:56 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: 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? [1]
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? [2] Is it possible that this thing can be understood, but we just lack the knowledge and development to understand it? [3] Could the god of humanity's theists be a commonplace being to another sentient life-form much more advanced than us? [4] How would we know the difference? [5]
I appreciate your kind words and polite questions, Kernel. Thank you. Great name by the way.
1) Yes, god cannot be anything finitely intelligible. As for the word "concrete", I do not think it is the best word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment that similarly resembles finite intelligibility. I intended it as just such a synonym, but I certainly recognize its limitations and ambiguity. In short, finite intelligibility is a via negativa.
2) I personally can't even begin to imagine or propose what that sort of encounter would even be like. Even so, if we were to encounter something like this, I imagine we would be quite puzzled, and wonder if we've encountered anything at all.
I don't think we could rationally conclude that it is "a deity" given the information so far (and perhaps, in principle, we never could).
3) Certainly. That is a possibility.
4) There are a few senses I could understand this question, so I am gonna choose to go with the sense that does not involve "revelation".
If the god of humanity's theists is understood to be "being, itself", then it cannot be "one being among many". Any "being", however advanced, is existentially related to "being, itself", even if that relationship is a "more advanced" one than the human relationship with "being, itself". It doesn't get more "commonplace" than that, i.e. "being, itself" is "common" to all places and all beings. They may be more aware of it. They may understand it more than we do. But they would still rely on it existentially in the same way we do. That is what "being, itself" means... it is common to all "beings".
5) Like I said, something about being human knows the difference between a "true thing" and "truth, itself". We don't tend to confuse an individual truth with the "truth, itself". That may mean that, even if we did "encounter" truth-itself, we would have no positive way of knowing what we've encountered as truth-itself.
May I ask a question? Suppose there is no positive way to determine that something we've encountered IS being-itself. Would that make my view of the world, as presented earlier, inconsistent/inadequate/etc.?
