Do you believe that God is omnipotent, which means he can do anything he wanted to do, even the logically impossible? If you do believe then I have a couple of paradoxes that might get you thinking for yourself.
(1) Could God fill a glass with water while keeping the glass empty? If God couldn�t do this then it is obvious that he is not omnipotent because he couldn�t do something and it is easy to understand that a glass can either be full or empty there are no in betweens.
(2) Could God create a stone too heavy for himself/herself to lift? Let�s suppose He can. Then, if He did, He�d have created a stone that He couldn�t lift. Since He couldn�t lift it, He wouldn�t be omnipotent because he couldn�t do something. So let�s suppose He can�t. But then there is something God can�t do, so He isn�t omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible.
(3) Could God create a person who truly does have free will? Let�s suppose He can. Then that person would be a limit to God�s power, He couldn�t control that person because their decisions are theirs alone not God�s. So let�s suppose that He can�t. But then there is something God can�t do, so He isn�t omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible. Maybe omnipotence makes no sense.

God, if you're reading this, I'll bet you couldn't turn yourself into a fly...

Hey, its up to god to find a way to get around logical impossibilities.

How

Its Impossible which means it CANNOT be done

How bout this. Is it possible that some things can't be understood by the human mind but can still be true. Before you knew that 8 x 8 = 64 and understood why, it still did equal that.

God is also omniscient. Are YOU? Chances are good that any logic puzzle you come up with, he already thought of an answer to a long time ago.

[This message has been edited by Nyk (edited 12-18-2002).]

God... he, she or it?


or... he/she/it?

or what?

Nyk there is no way that god could be omnipotent and he could not answer the logic puzzle i stated

if god were to explain himself to you, you would NEVER understand. Its like you explaining yourself to a cockroach, you think its going to understand a thing you say?

You forgot the ancient argument of 'Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?'

(Thought about this from another post)

If god exists outside of our universe, is he bound by our logic? Is our logic a property of our universe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ytrewq:
(Thought about this from another post)

If god exists outside of our universe, is he bound by our logic? Is our logic a property of our universe?

---

Logic is logic, no matter where you look. One plus one equals two and yes is the opposite of no.

unless you've made a mistake in regards to how you use your language...

quote:

---

Originally posted by enterprise1701_d:
Logic is logic, no matter where you look. One plus one equals two and yes is the opposite of no.

---

So these are fundamental rules that extend beyond our universe? I admit that that sounds correct to me, but what proof do we have? Are there any mathematics or science that can extend beyond our universe? I really cannot envision a place where 1 + 1 does not equal 2, but does that mean that it isn't so?

Isn't it possible that god could exist in a place where these paradoxes don't happen. Could there be a place where he could create a rock he couldn't lift and at the same time lift it?

EDIT:

Don't bother replying to this. This isn't something that anyone can answer for me. We can never know anything about an "outside" to our universe so the question is kind of pointless. I'm afraid that this also means god is going to stick around forever in people's minds. ick.

[This message has been edited by ytrewq (edited 12-19-2002).]

Viagra could cure that omnipotence...

--- ---

quote:

---

Originally posted by midas_the_happy_canadian:
Viagra could cure that omnipotence...

---

It was only a matter of time...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ytrewq:
(Thought about this from another post)

If god exists outside of our universe, is he bound by our logic? Is our logic a property of our universe?

---

He's not bound by our logic. Many people that made logic back in the Greek and Roman times, have been proved wrong, such as the Earth was flat.

God is a he, because he created Adam in his image. Then he created Eve in no one in particular's image.

quote:

---

Originally posted by weedman1234:

Do you believe that God is omnipotent, which means he can do anything he wanted to do, even the logically impossible? If you do believe then I have a couple of paradoxes that might get you thinking for yourself.
(1) Could God fill a glass with water while keeping the glass empty? If God couldn�t do this then it is obvious that he is not omnipotent because he couldn�t do something and it is easy to understand that a glass can either be full or empty there are no in betweens.
(2) Could God create a stone too heavy for himself/herself to lift? Let�s suppose He can. Then, if He did, He�d have created a stone that He couldn�t lift. Since He couldn�t lift it, He wouldn�t be omnipotent because he couldn�t do something. So let�s suppose He can�t. But then there is something God can�t do, so He isn�t omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible.
(3) Could God create a person who truly does have free will? Let�s suppose He can. Then that person would be a limit to God�s power, He couldn�t control that person because their decisions are theirs alone not God�s. So let�s suppose that He can�t. But then there is something God can�t do, so He isn�t omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible. Maybe omnipotence makes no sense.

---

1) There is an in between between empty and full. Half-full and half-empty.
2)I'm not sure, but why?
3)He could and has. Everyone has free will.

TreyDay do you think all of the bible is gods word?

If you do the your wrong if god is omniptent then he can control us but we still have free will thats not TRUE!

quote:

---

Originally posted by weedman1234:
If you do the your wrong if god is omniptent then he can control us but we still have free will thats not TRUE!

---

So God is controlling you right now? You don't have free will?

God knows and determines everything in advance an eternity before it happened.

God, when creating the universe, sees everything that will result from his action, and thus, decides on it and makes it happen.

God has the choice in creating a universe where:

A. Joe goes to heaven and Bob goes to hell
B. Joe goes to hell and Bob goes to heaven
C. They both go to heaven
D. They both go to hell

If God chooses to make a universe where D will happen despite the infinitum of alternate options, how could that not be predetermination?

if we have free will then god cannot be omnipotent causing the end of everything

Im saying that we have free will but god is not omnipotent and the world isnt ended yet so it shows the bible is not all true

posted by treyday
--------------------------------------------Many people that made logic back in the Greek and Roman times, have been proved wrong, such as the Earth was flat.
--------------------------------------------
That isn't logic, an opinion based on assumptions isn't logical.

ytrewq
--------------------------------------------
Isn't it possible that god could exist in a place where these paradoxes don't happen. Could there be a place where he could create a rock he couldn't lift and at the same time lift it?

--------------------------------------------
Damn, you got to it before me. Summing up what you said, god exists outside of space time therefor he isn't bound by the rules of space time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Easy Going:
[B] ... then the only way to really describe something is to point to it and say "it is." [B] [QUOTE]

And thats exactly the problem with the objectivism you are describing. What are the characteristics of an observable object which differentiate it from an unobservable one?

---

It is not hard to describe an observable object once you accept the axioms. It is red and bigger than this and smaller than that etc. I just thought you were asking me to do it without having "faith" in the axioms and sensory perception.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by an unobservable one? If you mean things like atoms, they are observable. Not with the naked eye, but it is not really the same as God. If you mean God, there is no description possible. If you are talking about concepts, thoughts and feelings, they are observed thru introspection and you can describe them too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
I can't really argue your point Easy Going as I in part agree with you.
I believe there is a part of us that needs an objective world - I am aware of that need in me. I also believe there is a part of me that realises that the objective world is only okay if you don't dig too deep into your self. Once you really look at yourself you have to believe in a subjective world [b]as well if you are ever to learn any more. Yet I know the two opposing views can work together - and I agree it is a form of doublethink.
[/B]

---

Why do you think subjectivity is needed? Is there a purpose you think it serves that you like or is there some evidence that it is true? Why can't you learn more as an Objectivist? I learn more all the time. I don't know everything and I am incorrect sometimes. I could not even say that I was incorrect ever if I was subjectivist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
The reason you reject this is not because it is impossible in your head but because on paper it doesn't add up... I could give a fuck about that as I am very aware of this duality in my head and in my life. You seem to deny half of your instinct, non-logical passions, and any form of sub-conscious idea that pops its head into your conscious. I really don't think denying it makes it go away, but I may be wrong..?
Oh and in case you haven't realised I am not religious nor have I found a belief system that I totally subscribe to - the idea repels me at the moment.

---

Objectivism does not deny passions. It just finds them logcial. An explination of that would be very long and almost not worth the effort before you "accept" the axioms.

There is no difference between on paper and in your head. Paper does not have consciousness. You can write or think 2+2=5 but it will never make sense on paper or in your head. You can write or think "something from nothing, but it will never make sense on paper or in your head.

As for subconscious thought, that is another long one but briefly: Deep emotions and unconscious thought come from things you have accepted as true at some point or another in your life. You can accept these ideas critically or passivly. It is your choice, but those beliefs will continue to affect your emotions until you change them. I don't ignore these thoughts and feelings. If I have one in conflict with something I believe, I try to identity the conflict and resolve it. Then the feeling goes away and does not come back. It is not too hard to do once you get used to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
It is not hard to describe an observable object once you accept the axioms. It is red and bigger than this and smaller than that etc. I just thought you were asking me to do it without having "faith" in the axioms and sensory perception.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by an unobservable one? If you mean things like atoms, they are observable. Not with the naked eye, but it is not really the same as God. If you mean God, there is no description possible. If you are talking about concepts, thoughts and feelings, they are observed thru introspection and you can describe them too.

---

Your axioms :

"The facts that existence exists and that existence has identity (A=A) are axioms that are the standard of all proof."

This is objectivism. You have assumed objectivism (you're "right" to do so; that is it's "reasonable" to do so) ... my one small quibble is with the word 'exists'. How can you know it exists? Because you observe it, right? Or do you mean you have observed it's identity?

Whatever, the reason I have asked you to describe the attributes of an observable object versus an unobservable one is because as far as I'm concerned there is NO clear demarcation between the two. Now before I go any further and sound like a real "no-it-all" I want to make clear that I will try to explain my interpretation of Alan Musgrave's stance on the subject... and please keep in mind that I was a poor student at best - so I shouldn't be considered representing him or anything. You could perhaps even research what he's got to say; coz I reckon it's extremely pertinant to your metaphysic.

Let's consider "observing" stuff. What do you use to do so? Why, a piece of machinery, of course! A fabulously complex (but probably not conceived by intelligence, we could agree) piece of biological wizardry we take for granted every day... aha! The eye! Is the process of observing happening when light hits our eye? I doubt it, coz if it stopped right there we wouldn't "see" anything... or if you want to be pedantic (feel free, I know I am) we wouldn't be aware of our seeing (observing). No, observing "with the naked eye" is not as simple a description of an observable object you might at first assume. It's gets even more complicated when we introduce more "machinery".

If we accept an axiom of reality which requires we observe reality then what happens to our relationship with reality when we use spectacles? Or a microscope? Or a telescope? Can we know where an electron is, where it's heading and the speed it's heading there at the same time? No, it is acknowledged that we can't do this. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? (Given that we can not observe it... harhar, I know you're wondering if you can get away with saying that reality exists whether we observe it or not... but how could you KNOW about it then?) What about a scientist tracking the anomolies in her calculations regarding the orbits of every planet in her solar system... she might come to grasp that there is a planet there that she hasn't "observed" yet, but she knows it's there through "observing" other planetary bodies.

What about a Quark? (I think thats the smallest bit we claim to know about up until now - if it's not substitute whatever term we use for the smallest bit we think we know about). Now I'm fairly sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that we have never "observed" such an entity under even the most powerful of machinery, but we know it's there through some, no doubt, stunningly intelligent piece of induction...

What about stuff we observe which isn't there? Like hallucinations?

Anyway, I could probably go on but you're getting the drift right? The axioms assume knowledge of reality through observation... but, (and in my experience this is always the case with Philosophy; otherwise it becomes "science") things are not so clearcut and precise. Why? Because we're not sure about the difference between ALL observable objects and ALL unobservable ones. There's no clear demarcation.

Anyway, I'm not trying to explain away reality nor nuffink, I'm just trying to point out that "Realists" make many assumptions about their worldview... and it doesn't matter how clever we get; we can always be wrong. Maybe next time I'll tell my story about Bob Marley and the mosquito; but I've taken enough of your time, this time, already.

The "reason" why you accept existence, identity, and trust your senses is not because you can prove them. ("Reason" is in quotes because there really is no reason, you just do whether you admit it or not.) Asking "how do you know" to these issues just leads to all the questions you raised. The reason you accept them is because you can't reject them. It is as simple as that. You can reject God and be fine. Your mind can do that. You can't reject your mind with your mind because you use your mind to do the rejecting. You still can't step outside your mind to "prove" your mind (using your mind to "prove" your mind is circular) but you are in your mind and that is where you must start if you are to start at all. That is all I do and that is what everyone does. There is no choice in the matter other than suicide.

The questions about subatomic particles etc. are interesting once you agree to start from the premise that you have a mind that can think of such things. We don't even know all the properties of an apple that we hold in our hand. The particle with an imprecise location due to it being smaller than a wave length of light is the same. There is still evidence that is there and we can give a range for its location. Not knowing everything does not invalidate what we know. Just like you may know that you have an apple and a sandwich in your lunch box because you put them in there, but you don't know which is now on top until you open the box. Not knowing the exact location does not mean there is nothing in there or that it will be an orange and a cookie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

Anyway, I could probably go on but you're getting the drift right? The axioms assume knowledge of reality through observation... but, (and in my experience this is always the case with Philosophy; otherwise it becomes "science") things are not so clearcut and precise. Why? Because we're not sure about the difference between ALL observable objects and ALL unobservable ones. There's no clear demarcation.

---

I wanted to answer this paragraph separate because this is important. There is a big difference between not being correct because you don't have all the information, and there actually being subjective truth. You are making what is probably the most common mistake made in philosophical thought. An illegitimate leap from epistemology to metaphysics. (By metaphysics I mean reality or existence independent of knowledge/not the supernatural.) Just because we don't have enough information to be sure about the unobservable objects, that does not mean there is no objective truth about them. 500 years ago, there was no way that we could have information about atoms. Now we do. Right now there is no way we can know the precise location of some particles. We may in the future. That does not mean that right now we can't know that they do have a precise location even if we do not know what it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
I wanted to answer this paragraph separate because this is important. There is a big difference between not being correct because you don't have all the information, and there actually being subjective truth. You are making what is probably the most common mistake made in philosophical thought. An illegitimate leap from epistemology to metaphysics. (By metaphysics I mean reality or existence independent of knowledge/not the supernatural.) Just because we don't have enough information to be sure about the unobservable objects, that does not mean there is no objective truth about them. 500 years ago, there was no way that we could have information about atoms. Now we do. Right now there is no way we can know the precise location of some particles. We may in the future. That does not mean that right now we can't know that they do have a precise location even if we do not know what it is.

---

"Ahar Jim, it seems we're in for a treat tonight... Tim the Toolman Tailor has stepped into the ring against his most formidable opponent yet.. has he bitten off more than he can chew? Has he overstepped his mark? Has he licked before he looked? It has been with a veritable onslaught of windmill fists with which Eddie the EasyGoing Eagle has really put it to his opponent. Taking the opportunity while Taylor is staggering about in a dazed stupor (seemingly unaware of his danger or of the thousands of his screaming fans) - it looks like Eddie is climbing the ropes... and yes! He's leapt off the top rope, his warcry booming forth across the sea of an audience gripped... 'Illegitimate leap between Epistimology and Metaphysiiiiiiiiiiiics!' "

Hang on there Mister! Haul in them horses! If it seems I have made some Metaphysical claims then I DO apologise (upon rereading I can see how you could interpret one of my "cheap shots" in this manner) - I certainly didn't mean to! Let me try to clear up in my poor bewildered, frightfully overextended brain what EXACTLY we're arguing about...

You've said you know God can't exist because it is a concept which contradicts certain axioms which (assumably) we have to accept. Right? These axioms are that stuff exists (A=A) - thats a metaphysical claim... (am I right?)

Now I THOUGHT I was explaining how your relationship to these axioms shows that you can not (necessarily; in the literal sense of the word... and that's important) accept those axioms. Objectivism states that stuff exists (A=A). You know this because you look at it (Or observe; whatever). If you don't look at it you don't know it exists. It may or may not be there (To repeat, I'm not trying to explain away reality nor nuffink) but you can't know it exists. It doesn't disappear if you don't look at it (sorry; my previous post included a rhetorical question which suggested otherwise) but you can't have knowledge of it. The example of the lunchbox doesn't apply coz you looked at the stuff before you put it into the lunchbox. Hmmm, is that then an example of simple induction? Is induction then a kind of observation? Hmmm...

Anyway, God violates axioms which we can only know are valid because we observe stuff. Observing stuff is not straight forward due to no clear demarcation between observables and unobservables. What have I proven? Not much except that your axioms may be false; regardless of whether we tend to accept them or not...

Do you wanna hear about Bob Marley and the mosquito? Do ya!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

You've said you know God can't exist because it is a concept which contradicts certain axioms which (assumably) we have to accept. Right? These axioms are that stuff exists (A=A) - thats a metaphysical claim... (am I right?)

---

The phrase "existence exists" is an epistimolgical axiom but it is a claim about metaphysics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

Now I THOUGHT I was explaining how your relationship to these axioms shows that you can not (necessarily; in the literal sense of the word... and that's important) accept those axioms. Objectivism states that stuff exists (A=A). You know this because you look at it (Or observe; whatever). If you don't look at it you don't know it exists. It may or may not be there (To repeat, I'm not trying to explain away reality nor nuffink) but you can't know it exists. It doesn't disappear if you don't look at it (sorry; my previous post included a rhetorical question which suggested otherwise) but you can't have knowledge of it. The example of the lunchbox doesn't apply coz you looked at the stuff before you put it into the lunchbox. Hmmm, is that then an example of simple induction? Is induction then a kind of observation? Hmmm...

---

Not all of knowledge is based on sensory experience directly. Some is indirectly and uses inductive reasoning. Objectivism holds that inductive reasoning is valid and the only real form of reasoning there is. (All premises in a deductive syllogism are inductive conclusions.) Keep in mind that with the corollary axioms of identity, we can draw conclusions about objects that no one has directly experienced. For example, we can test a telescope to see how much it magnifies an object with objects we can see without it and then use it to see objects that we can't see with the naked eye.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

Anyway, God violates axioms which we can only know are valid because we observe stuff. Observing stuff is not straight forward due to no clear demarcation between observables and unobservables.

---

Not having absolute knowledge about every object whether we can see it or not does not mean that the axioms are not valid. You are doing the illigit leap again. Your claim is since we can not see everything all the time; the axioms are not necessarily true. That just means we don't know everything, it does not leave open the door for contradictions in existence. All you mean by unobservable objects is stuff we don't know by direct sensory perception or don't know at all. Our direct perception of an object does not change its nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

What have I proven? Not much except that your axioms may be false; regardless of whether we tend to accept them or not...

---

You cannot "prove" the axioms are false or that they may be false. "Proof" presupposes they are true. If you are going to use anti-concepts, you are going to have to come up with your own "anti-language." Good luck with that.



[This message has been edited by Easy Going (edited 01-09-2003).]

Hey Easygoing, I'm not really sure I'm following you here. Can you explain to me where exactly I am making the illegitimate leap. It's just that, although I get the impression you've done work on this subject recently and have a fresher grasp of the scenario than I do, I also suspect that you are arguing from a conclusion... ie, that stuff exists (based upon the only to reasonable observation that we all certainly behave like it does)... but I don't see how this qualifies as being a NECESSARY truth. Now, my apologies because I've started this conversation without holding a full grasp of the necessary evidence I need to postulate. That's because I'm trying to dredge up lectures I took about 3 years ago. What I'd like to recommend to you, (even if it does turn out that you can explain your concepts to me in a fashion I can grasp) is if you want a stronger challenge to your epistemological axiom about metaphysics (I'm really sorry - I can't reconcile this idea with my 'illegitimate leap') then you may want to look into researching Alan Musgrave who's a far smarter man than I with a great deal more experience on this topic.

Anyway, I've certainly appreciated your intelligent conversation, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Cheers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
The logic of math is the "identity" of existance. Identity is inherent in existance... Saying that something is outside of logic is just another way of saying that it does not exist.

---

I think this is what I've been putting forth. Try working from the premise that logic, as stated above, 1=1, identity inherent in existence, is only partially right. What is more correct is that there is no absolute identity, except with God, "God is one", and the word God is an insufficient word to describe something that cannot be categorized as being, existing, located etc."'god" is the real logic, "Logos".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
If you are asking me to prove the law of identity, I cannot.

The facts that existence exists and that existence has identity (A=A) are axioms that are the standard of all proof.

If everything were provable, nothing would be provable because all conclusions would be based on dependant premises and all arguments would be circular.
was based on.

---

Identity can't be proven. It would seem that this suggest that nonidentity is true in our world of duality.

These dualities do come together though, in the only identity that is true, God. All reasoning is circular and comes together there, at God.

The reasoning that, all questions have more than one correct answer, expresses this idea of God, or points in the right direction,or puts us on the right track.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
Hey Easygoing, I'm not really sure I'm following you here. Can you explain to me where exactly I am making the illegitimate leap. It's just that, although I get the impression you've done work on this subject recently and have a fresher grasp of the scenario than I do, I also suspect that you are arguing from a conclusion... ie, that stuff exists (based upon the only to reasonable observation that we all certainly behave like it does)... but I don't see how this qualifies as being a NECESSARY truth. Now, my apologies because I've started this conversation without holding a full grasp of the necessary evidence I need to postulate. That's because I'm trying to dredge up lectures I took about 3 years ago. What I'd like to recommend to you, (even if it does turn out that you can explain your concepts to me in a fashion I can grasp) is if you want a stronger challenge to your epistemological axiom about metaphysics (I'm really sorry - I can't reconcile this idea with my 'illegitimate leap') then you may want to look into researching Alan Musgrave who's a far smarter man than I with a great deal more experience on this topic.

Anyway, I've certainly appreciated your intelligent conversation, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Cheers.

---

I understand what you mean about not getting it. There are many different levels of understanding. Once this concept "clicks" for you at a certain level, it will be impossible for you to have the concept of God anymore. That is why I had to give up Christianity when I was 22. I am now 28 and have not done any heavy reading in the subject for years, but after the "click" it makes as much sense as 2+2 for me, and I will never forget it. There are several different ways that I can explain it, and hopefully one of them will help you.

There is a difference between metaphysics and epistemology. In existence things just are. There is no "possible", and no "observable/unobservable". Whatever is, is, regardless of who knows it, if it is perceived, or what anyone thinks.

You cannot use a concept like "something is unobservable" (an epistemological statement) to draw a conclusion that "fact is subjective in reality" (a metaphysical statement.)

In the last paragraph of yours that I quoted saying you made the jump again, you said that �God violates the axioms� (a metaphysical statement) because �there is no clear demarcation between the observable and unobservable� (an epistemological statement).

(Quotes are paraphrases.)

Your whole point, (that I understood) is that since we cannot be aware of everything about reality, there is only subjective truth. That makes the leap from epistemology (awareness) to metaphysics (subjective truth). A subjective truth would be something in reality that is not absolute like an object having more than one size or being two temperatures at once or something like that. We may not know all the objective truth out there, but that does not mean that subjective truth (contradictions in reality) exists.

As far as the issue of necessary truth: This is a concept that blurs the line between epistemology and metaphysics. A truth is something in reality. There are no necessary and unnecessary truths. There is just truth. The idea to split them into two groups comes from the idea that something can be true in our head, but not in reality, and vice versa. This gives metaphysical properties to epistemology since truth just comes from reality. Where would unnecessary truths come from and what would they be? If something is not true in reality, then it is not true in your head either. If it is true in your head (based on how the mind works) there is no reason or method to deny it other than to ignore it.

Why do you accept the axioms? Not because we �tend� to. No matter what you are, or where you are, or when you are, you will always be trapped in epistemology. You always will have a mind of some sort. All thinking starts somewhere that is not proven. The idea that �that start� needs to be proven is an error. A proof is a test of an idea in your mind based on how your mind works. Applying the word �proof� to your mind itself changes the meaning of the word �proof� to nothing. Your mind just works. There is no test or proof involved, possible, or needed for certainty. There is no �possible� scenario where this would not be the case (including the mind of God). Just �thinking� means that there is something that can think, it is aware of something, and that something is something. (Consciousness, Existence, and Identity)

Let me know if I am still being confusing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
God is an insufficient word to describe something that cannot be categorized as being, existing, located etc."'god" is the real logic, "Logos".

---

YES! You had it . . . and then you lost it. If something cannot be categorized as being, existing, located (all true) then the conclusion is that "God" is not a real concept and it does not exist. Not that you have to throw logic out the window and propose a new logic that you can't even make up. Keep it simple stupid. (not calling you stupid or anything)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Identity can't be proven. It would seem that this suggest that nonidentity is true in our world of duality.

These dualities do come together though, in the only identity that is true, God. All reasoning is circular and comes together there, at God.

The reasoning that, all questions have more than one correct answer, expresses this idea of God, or points in the right direction,or puts us on the right track.

---

Where did this idea of a "world of duality" come from?

What is a "proof" to you?

How can opposite answers point in the same direction? Two different answers may point to subjective truth when seen together as a contradiction, but each individual answer points to objective truth.

How can there be a God if there is no objective truth? Is it OK to disagree with Him? Is the opposite of what He says also true?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
Where did this idea of a "world of duality" come from?

What is a "proof" to you?

How can opposite answers point in the same direction? Two different answers may point to subjective truth when seen together as a contradiction, but each individual answer points to objective truth.

How can there be a God if there is no objective truth? Is it OK to disagree with Him? Is the opposite of what He says also true?

---

The duality comes from observing that 1 equals 1, and 1 does not equal 1, both, depending on how it is looked at, even though math usually teaches only that 1 equals 1. We do not observe any absolute truths in the world.

A proof, to me, I think, is if a question is investigated, and only one correct answer to it can be found. Nothing fancy.

I haven't read yet what you said about objective and subjective. I wanted to deal with where you started on the identity subject, before jumping ahead, since that seemed your starting point. But anyay, two different answers to a question would both point to the same "place", that "place" being where all questions have more than one answer. Is that subjective to you? If yes, then I would say all answers are subjective, in that sense, or definition, and there is only one objective truth.

You could say that "God" is the "obective truth" that all questions have more than one answer.

If you disagree with "him", that's "okay", and your disagreement would be your sin, and it would also be your punishment. Maybe to the degree that you disagee, to that degree you would be punished. I.e., you punish yourself.

The word opposite might be problematic, but I suppose the opposite of what "he" says would be this: All questions do NOT have more than one correct answer. This would not be true.

The phrase "all questions", in the sentence "all questions have more than one correct answer", would not apply to questions about the sentence itself. The sentence can be refined to include this exception in the sentence. It can be stated many ways, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
YES! You had it . . . and then you lost it. If something cannot be categorized as being, existing, located (all true) then the conclusion is that "God" is not a real concept and it does not exist.

---

I see it as God being "greater" than the concept of existence, or nonexistence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
The duality comes from observing that 1 equals 1, and 1 does not equal 1, both, depending on how it is looked at, even though math usually teaches only that 1 equals 1. We do not observe any absolute truths in the world.

---

Give me an example of observing one not equaling one. I am only one person in the real world. How is that a subjective truth?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:

A proof, to me, I think, is if a question is investigated, and only one correct answer to it can be found. Nothing fancy.

---

So you cannot ask someone to "prove" their mind by your definition because you use your mind to do the investigation per your definition. You cannot ask someone to "prove" existence based on your definition since you must exist to do the investigating. Your mind and existence and the corollary "identity" are the basis of your "proof," they are not questions to be proved.

If that is not true, come up with a different definition.

Give me an example of something that is proven. Is there such a thing? Is it just the statement that all questions have more than one answer? How is that "proven" other than you just asserting it?

What is the basis of proof? Is anything true but not provable, or is everything circular?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I see it as God being "greater" than the concept of existence, or nonexistence.

---

So does he exist or not. If He is greater than existence (whatever that means), then you should be an atheist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:

But anyay, two different answers to a question would both point to the same "place", that "place" being where all questions have more than one answer. Is that subjective to you? If yes, then I would say all answers are subjective, in that sense, or definition, and there is only one objective truth.

---

Are all answers true, or just more than one?

How do you know which answers are true and which are not?

What is the temperature of a certain object?

2+2=?

What is your last name?

Which two NFL teams are playing as I type this?

What is the 3rd planet from our sun?

Is your mom visible?

How many different answers are possible for these questions?

quote:

---

Objectivism does not deny passions. It just finds them logcial. An explination of that would be very long and almost not worth the effort before you "accept" the axioms.

There is no difference between on paper and in your head. Paper does not have consciousness. You can write or think 2+2=5 but it will never make sense on paper or in your head. You can write or think "something from nothing, but it will never make sense on paper or in your head.

---

Easy Going I don't think I want the philosophy that lets me see things so like a computer... I like to be consumed by my passions and instincts without having to break them down. I enjoy the idea they are before logic, that you base your philosophy on them... not the other way around. Also I refuse to believe logic is all powerful, I mean look at any eastern philosophy as see what it means to them. Communication has put logic on a pedestal not thought or perception.

In the end I think that truth should be associated with what you want rather than the other way around. I mean who cares about objectivity if it means you know an absolute future..? where is the fun in that?

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 01-13-2003).]

Easygoing, I will try to give an example of 1 not equal to 1. I guess I will try to use your example that you are one person.

First of all, that is one way to look at it, that you are one person, and that is correct.

Another way to look at it is that your body has no definite boundaries, and we don't know EXACTLY where it begins and ends, as your molecules mix with the molecules surrounding you.

Or, when you shed skin, are you now less than you were before? Or are you the same? Which way would you say is the correct answer? From the point of view in your question, I would say you are still one. From the point of view of mass, I would say you are now less than one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
So you cannot ask someone to "prove" their mind by your definition because you use your mind to do the investigation per your definition. You cannot ask someone to "prove" existence based on your definition since you must exist to do the investigating. Your mind and existence and the corollary "identity" are the basis of your "proof," they are not questions to be proved.

If that is not true, come up with a different definition.

Give me an example of something that is proven. Is there such a thing? Is it just the statement that all questions have more than one answer? How is that "proven" other than you just asserting it?

What is the basis of proof? Is anything true but not provable, or is everything circular?

---

Yes, the only thing proven is the statement that all questions have more than one answer. It's proven because nothing can be found to refute it.

It's the only example of something proven.

Someone's mind, or existence cannot be proven. They can be seen to be both true, and not true. So you can say my proof is flawed, and I guess I accept that as being consistent with the stated idea. Words and minds will never completely accomplish this, but they will point the way.

Everythhing is ultimately circular, the circle starting and ending with this concept of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:

So does he exist or not. If He is greater than existence (whatever that means), then you should be an atheist.

---

I am an atheist in that sense of considering existence. If God exists, would it be in time or space or something else? The idea of God is greater than all of our ideas and can't be captured.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Easy Going:
Are all answers true, or just more than one?

How do you know which answers are true and which are not?

What is the temperature of a certain object?

2+2=?

What is your last name?

Which two NFL teams are playing as I type this?

What is the 3rd planet from our sun?

Is your mom visible?

How many different answers are possible for these questions?

---

I think it might be said that all answers are both true and false, looked at from different points of view, except answers that contradict the absolute answer. You don't know that anything is absolutely true, except the idea that nothing else is absolutely true.

All of your above questions have more than one correct answer to be found without much difficulty. I suppose they have an infinite number of answers. This would be another way af stating the idea.

How long is a year? This question has not been answered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
How long is a year? This question has not been answered.

---

this long.