jamest wrote:

campermon wrote:

jamest wrote:

campermon wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

That's not a square-circle. It's a shape with some properties of a square and some properties of a circle.

Yes, its a square circle and perfectly logically consistent to boot!

No, it's not. It's a shape with just some properties of a square and some properties of a circle. For example, it has no corners.

campermon wrote:

jamest wrote:
No, it's not. It's a shape with just some properties of a square and some properties of a circle. For example, it has no corners.

I'm not getting into an argument with you on this. Logic pwns your claims of the non-existence of a square circle.

Fallible wrote:

jamest wrote:

OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

Oh, I seeeeeee. So when you say your concept of God is consistent with reason, what you mean is that when your god and reason fall short of each other, you bridge the gap with "I don't see why not".

jamest wrote:This thread is a consequence of a discussion in the nontheism forum. This post might explain:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1772567

The pertinent point from that post:

To devise a conception of God consistent with reason is not an argument for that God's existence. But it does enable logical arguments for its existence. If a concept is not consistent with reason, then it's a nonsensical concept - and one cannot produce logical arguments for the existence of a nonsensical entity.


So, philosophy can only entertain arguments for God's existence if its conception is consistent with reason. One couldn't consistently state that God was a square circle, for instance.

Another aspect of consistency here, is that God must be markedly distinct to all other things. There would be no consistency, for instance, in claiming that God was my neighbour's hamster. Why? Because:

a) Hamsters are part of 'the universe', and we're looking for the creatOR thereof.

b) Hamsters are finite entities possessing only finite powers to effect change. There is no reason (remember, consistency is the name of the game here) to accept one finite entity over any other. This rule would apply even for entities such as 'Superman'.

Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being. That is:

God must be omnipresent.

Many religions seem to state or imply that their God (or whatever they call it) is indeed omnipresent, but the behaviour and narratives of the believers thereof is not consistent with such a claim. Jews and Xians, for instance, treat man as being distinct to God (and it would be heresy to suggest otherwise, in their eyes). But the obvious [logical] fact is that if God is (must be) omnipresent, then nothing else can exist. That is: God is the totality of existence.

This presents philosophy with a quandary, for if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.

This post is getting quite long, so discussion of other qualities of God consistent with reason will have to wait. But just from this post, you should be getting an idea of how the concept of God can become coherent to philosophy.

jamest wrote:

Fallible wrote:

jamest wrote:

OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

Oh, I seeeeeee. So when you say your concept of God is consistent with reason, what you mean is that when your god and reason fall short of each other, you bridge the gap with "I don't see why not".

The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

Goldenmane wrote:If (some bullshit we define as god) therefore (god exists).

Try harder, jimmy.

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:

Fallible wrote:

jamest wrote:
Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

Oh, I seeeeeee. So when you say your concept of God is consistent with reason, what you mean is that when your god and reason fall short of each other, you bridge the gap with "I don't see why not".

The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

What would you, jamest, know about God's experiences, or if she has indeed any?
Oh, right, you are God's experience. Now what's that called in polite society?

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

What would you, jamest, know about God's experiences, or if she has indeed any?
Oh, right, you are God's experience. Now what's that called in polite society?

SpeedOfSound wrote:But you jamest do not hold to your own conception above when it comes to god. You separate him out as the xtians do as the experiencer of the world or experience. You have two things. You always have two things. There can be only One.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:But you jamest do not hold to your own conception above when it comes to god. You separate him out as the xtians do as the experiencer of the world or experience. You have two things. You always have two things. There can be only One.

An exercise in consistently conceptualising God has nothing to do with what you think I always do.

jamest wrote:Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being.

OlivierK wrote:

jamest wrote:

OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

As far as I can see, then your argument rests on God and every person, and indeed everything in the universe being "one and the same thing". There's no reason to believe that's true, other than apologetics. Would you even consider that such a proposition were true if it wasn't required to make your pre-determined conclusion true?

Using reason, we in fact come to the following argument:
P1) God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
P2) Man and God are not the same thing.
C) God does not make sense.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:But you jamest do not hold to your own conception above when it comes to god. You separate him out as the xtians do as the experiencer of the world or experience. You have two things. You always have two things. There can be only One.

An exercise in consistently conceptualising God has nothing to do with what you think I always do.

But it does have to do with you answering to this issue here jimmy. You do make that separation seemingly out of the blue. Now logical deduction has this little diddy called entailment. Premises have a relationship. They can't just appear out of nowhere, disjoint and random.

I was following you until you got to god experiencing things. Did he tell you that or what?

jamest wrote:Only philosophy can prove or disprove the existence of a God that is not a nonsensical concept.

That's significant.

redwhine wrote:

jamest wrote:Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being.

Therefore that god cannot exist. If it existed, it would be part of everything, but it would have had to pre-exist in order to create itself.

Can we all go home now?

jamest wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:If (some bullshit we define as god) therefore (god exists).

Try harder, jimmy.

Read harder, G:

To devise a conception of God consistent with reason is not an argument for that God's existence. But it does enable logical arguments for its existence. If a concept is not consistent with reason, then it's a nonsensical concept - and one cannot produce logical arguments for the existence of a nonsensical entity.

Nothing in this thread amounts to a proof of God's existence. Rather, it amounts to a proof that God is a concept consistent with reason... and, therefore, philosophy has the capacity to argue for or against the actual existence of that concept.

Only philosophy can prove or disprove the existence of a God that is not a nonsensical concept.

That's significant.

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:Only philosophy can prove or disprove the existence of a God that is not a nonsensical concept.

So only philosophers can really know about god, and mere mortals have to take it on faith.

jamest wrote:

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

What would you, jamest, know about God's experiences, or if she has indeed any?
Oh, right, you are God's experience. Now what's that called in polite society?

More grumpiness. Look, it doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't know about God's experiences. What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

This is merely an exercise of conceptualisation, Regina. Please wake up to what's going on here.