Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities? Given the fact that it is entirely absurd to posit the existence of a God outside of spacetime, how can it be any less absurd to posit the existence of abstract entities as somehow subsisting in a non spatio-temporal realm of Being?

YanShen wrote:Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities? Given the fact that it is entirely absurd to posit the existence of a God outside of spacetime, how can it be any less absurd to posit the existence of abstract entities as somehow subsisting in a non spatio-temporal realm of Being?

There might be a technical term for "a person who resists the temptation to talk nonsense", but "atheist" ain't it.

All theists are woo-heads, but not all woo-heads are theists. Woo sits on a bell curve, like the results of intelligence tests. Certainly there is a state of having zero "woo quotient", but it is like being dead. I think that's the state of Absolute Unitary Being (non-spatio-temporal Being) that somebody like pl0bs or UE likes to talk about. Then there is no woo. But come back and try to tell me about it, and suddenly one has a head full of woo.

Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say. I think Wittgenstein said that. Woooooooooooooo!

Cito di Pense wrote:
Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say. I think Wittgenstein said that. Woooooooooooooo!

If he did he stole it from Buddha.

Animavore wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say. I think Wittgenstein said that. Woooooooooooooo!

If he did he stole it from Buddha.

Well, you can always name somebody to go to who says "the buck stops here". I think Harry Truman said that. But he wasn't the first.

For some people, Plato is their go-to guy. Or Wittgenstein. For others, it's Buddha or Jesus. My point is that the decision is somewhat arbitrary, if all you want to do is recycle somebody else's woo, which is all that comprises the game of philosophy.

Somebody else may have said that the secret to great writing is hiding your sources.

Cito di Pense wrote:Somebody else may have said that the secret to great writing is hiding your sources.

That was me.

YanShen wrote:Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities? Given the fact that it is entirely absurd to posit the existence of a God outside of spacetime, how can it be any less absurd to posit the existence of abstract entities as somehow subsisting in a non spatio-temporal realm of Being?

Circles do not exist in spacetime; rather, they are abstract entities. So should atheists believe in circles? Are circles absurd? Should atheists refuse to use or acknowledge circles, given that they are abstract entities?

I have no qualms over positing the existence of circles as abstract entities. I know they do not exist in spacetime, but I can still use them in ways to model or describe spacetime. Circles exist within a set I have labeled "useful coherent axiomatic abstract concepts." I have looked in that set ("set" = yet another abstract entity) and cannot see any god/s. There are triangles and lines in there, though.

You see, circles can be precisely defined. They are axiomatic. It is not claimed that circles are supreme manipulators of spacetime, nor are circles asserted to be the creators of spacetime. Circles are not judgmental, omnipotent, or omniscient, and cannot punish me with eternal damnation. I know exactly what circles are, and I know they can be useful to me.

In contrast to circles, God is semantically incoherent (undefined; perhaps even indefinable). God is not axiomatic. Even still, many baseless claims about the properties/characteristics of god are posited by theists. Of course, I do not accept their claims, as they are baseless and serve no use to me; hence I am an atheist.

Gods and circles are both abstract entities, but gods and circles are obviously quite different.

monesy wrote:

YanShen wrote:Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities? Given the fact that it is entirely absurd to posit the existence of a God outside of spacetime, how can it be any less absurd to posit the existence of abstract entities as somehow subsisting in a non spatio-temporal realm of Being?

Circles do not exist in spacetime; rather, they are abstract entities. So should atheists believe in circles? Are circles absurd? Should atheists refuse to use or acknowledge circles, given that they are abstract entities?

That which the concept of "circle" attempt to represent do exist in space time. They are patterns of matter that is perceived by living organisms. The mathematical concept of a circle is an attempt to encompass all of these, just as "chair" is a term that tries to include all chairs, even if they are different. Does this mean that the concept of chair does not exist in space time? No.

To say that something is an abstract entity just means that they exists as patterns or approximate patterns in the real world and exists in some capacity in a material brain, in whatever medium the material brain represents and/or stores these.

monesy wrote:
Gods and circles are both abstract entities, …

No, if God existed, he would not live in space or spacetime but still be a concrete entity, because no abstract entity has mental properties and causal powers.

Teuton wrote:

monesy wrote:
Gods and circles are both abstract entities, but gods and circles are obviously quite different.

No, if God existed, he would be a concrete entity, because no abstract entity has mental properties and causal powers.

Keep in mind that I am working with the God described in the OP, which according to the OP, is an entity that transcends space and time.

Yup, however God is often described as a entity transcending physical space-time, though it should be noted that he would also be a concrete entity.

monesy wrote:
Keep in mind that I am working with the God described in the OP, which according to the OP, is an entity that transcends space and time.

Yes, according to theism, God doesn't exist in space or spacetime, but he is an immaterial substance with mental properties and causal powers, i.e. a mighty spirit; and that's what makes him concrete.

Teuton wrote:

monesy wrote:
Keep in mind that I am working with the God described in the OP, which according to the OP, is an entity that transcends space and time.

Yes, according to theism, God doesn't exist in space or spacetime, but he is an immaterial substance with mental properties and causal powers, i.e. a mighty spirit; and that's what makes him concrete.

Lol. Riiiiight. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! God transcends space and time, but does not transcend space and time. Let's say s/he is partially transcendent, some of the time, but only when time exists for god to be non-transcendent, because time needs not exist for god to exist in his/her transcendent state. God is abstract concrete.

Idea: I could probably use a series of circles to model this insanity....

Monesy, the entire point of my post is the point out that most of us dismiss a concrete God transcending space-time as being utterly absurd, but are quite content to posit the existence of of transcendent abstract entities. You seem to be arguing for the claim that all transcendent entities can only be abstract. This is in direct contention with the standard theistic claim.
Teuton is correct to point out the standard accepted definition of an abstract entity as being non spatio-temporal and causally inert.

However, since the entire discussion revolves around hopelessly confused concepts and linguistic terms, I doubt we'll reach any common ground.

YanShen wrote:Monesy, the entire point of my post is the point out that most of us dismiss a concrete God transcending space-time as being utterly absurd, but are quite content to posit the existence of of transcendent abstract entities. You seem to be arguing for the claim that all transcendent entities can only be abstract. This is in direct contention with the standard theistic claim.
Teuton is correct to point out the standard accepted definition of an abstract entity as being non spatio-temporal and causally inert.

However, since the entire discussion revolves around hopelessly confused concepts and linguistic terms, I doubt we'll reach any common ground.

Yeah...this is a deep one that is hard to express/understand so forgive me if i have done this.

Transcend: To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe).

God is transcendent (as per OP); circles are transcendent (as per Platonist).

A Platonist acknowledges the existence of circles as transcendent abstract entities. In other words, they acknowledge that circles do not (and can not) exist in spacetime. While non-transcendental things may resemble the concept "circle", these are not truly circles, but merely representations of a concept.

Teuton is most correct to point out that an abstract entity is transcendental (and this is exactly how a Platonist regards abstract objects). Teuton is also most correct to point out that god, according to theists, is not really transcendental in the same sense that circles are transcendental to the Platonist.

So it seems we are comparing apples to drum kits...

I think I am getting where you are coming from though. I think your issue may really be with the *Platonic doctrine of recollection* more than with "forms". Now that is an "elephant in the room" to point at.

Anyways, sorry for derailing the thread. That was not my intention. I will behave!!

Talking about what would happen "if" something, if that something breaks the laws of the universe, is a pointless endeavor. Just like one cannot possibly know what would happen if you traveled faster than the speed of light, as it is impossible, one cannot know what a non tangible but tangible god would be like.

As for god being a circle,

YanShen wrote:Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities?

Yes, he can, because platonism is independent of theism.
(But an atheist who is also a naturalist arguably can't. But this is a highly contentious issue. Maybe one can draw a defensible distinction between natural abstracta and supernatural abstracta.)

For those interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects

Teuton wrote:(… Maybe one can draw a defensible distinction between natural abstracta and supernatural abstracta.)

One thing seems clear: a naturalistic platonism could tolerate only abstract (or, to use a more traditional term, ideal) entities which are dependent on and somehow generated or constructed by natural minds (in the non-Cartesian sense of "mind"), and which are thus not atemporal, not eternal, even though they may lack a determinate or determinable location in space.
For example, in semiotics and particularly in linguistics there is a standard distinction between types and tokens. But it is arguable that abstract or ideal sign-types wouldn't exist if no human minds (or human-like minds on other planets) existed, and if they hadn't been brought into existence by the activities of human minds (or human-like minds on other planets).

Somewhat related to the issue at hand is an essay by Rudolf Carnap entitled Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. In it he makes the distinction between an internal and an external question and argues that we can accept a certain linguistic framework allowing us to converse about certain kinds of entities, without necessarily making an ontological commitment to such entities in the broader external sense.

http://www.ditext.com/carnap/carnap.html

Teuton, you're right. An atheist who embraces metaphysical naturalism should by all accounts be a nominalist or anti-realist. However, in reality you often find that many metaphysical naturalists are also Platonic realists.

YanShen wrote:Can an atheist remain consistent if he also embraces Platonic realism with respect to abstract entities? Given the fact that it is entirely absurd to posit the existence of a God outside of spacetime, how can it be any less absurd to posit the existence of abstract entities as somehow subsisting in a non spatio-temporal realm of Being?

Yes.

Atheism is ONLY about the (lack of) belief in the existence of a god.

That's it.

End of story.

Nothing else.

Teuton wrote:immaterial substance

**snicker**

Does he drink dry water?