P
Pieman333272
Guest
But it can, because that is by definition what God is. What you are essentially asking for is evidence or an equivalent in the natural world for a supernatural trait, which is not necessary.
Can there be a Mind Without Parts (From "the one fact..." thread)
- Status
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Why not? That seems rather arbitrary.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I’ll ignore, for the moment, the fact that you are equivocating between a physical entity discerning truth and making decision verses truth and decision being physical things (which is like confusing the blueprint for the thing )…
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that it is unknown if/how a tangible entity can think, feel emotions, etc. That does demonstrate that there is a non-tangible entity that can think, feel emotions, etc. Your argument comes down to an argument from incredulity. Basically, your argument is: “I can’t think of how a tangible entity could think, feel emotions, or make decisions, therefore an entity that does those things must be intangible.” That’s fallacious.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
If one inserts something, such as “a mind without parts”, into the definition of something, it does not remove the need to explain.
Lets say I insert “self-generating” into the definition of the word “universe”. If someone asked me what created the universe, I could use my word game to say that it is just self-generating by nature. I have not gotten rid of any problems in actuality by doing so, rather I need to demonstrate that the thing I added “self-generating” to actually does exist with that property.
Likewise, adding something like “a mind without parts”, when a person argues that a being that created the universe would require the same explanation in his own right, does not actually get rid of the problem by itself. It rather needs to be demonstrated that an entity with that property exists. The fine-tuning argument (which is what spawned this discussion) does not do that.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
If that’s what you mean, then it is a categorical error to consider “the state of existing” to be a thing that actually manifests in a detectible way in reality, which is what people usually mean by “exist”.
If there is a pen, there is not a pen and the “act of existing”. Rather there is one entity that manifests in reality, not the pen and the manifestation of the pen.
If you want me to elaborate more, then please state what you mean by “act of existing”.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
The difference is, it is not contained in the official definition of the universe you are defending that it is self-caused.
If you want a *definition *of a mind without parts, it is simply that all of the traits and functions are not produced by separate parts (though they may be stored). For instance, there is no part which gives it the function to add 9+9, and another for memory, etc… There may be a place with the trait of adding 9+9, or which holds the trait (i.e. the brain), but that isn’t a part. It is all one mind, thinking together, not made up of separate pieces which each does part of the thought.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
The point is that having some property in the definition of something that is proposed to exist would entail proving that being has that property. People have different definitions of the word “god”. A common denominator between many of them is the first mover. If one were to propose a kind of god as an explanation for organized complexity, such a being would demand the same explanation in his own right. If, like you, someone wants to include “a mind without parts” as part of the definition of a “god”, one would have to demonstrate that that being exists as it is defined before proposing it as an explanation for organized complexity.
Whether there is a universally accepted definition is largely beside the point.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Lets say there is a rock. One would not say that there is a rock and existence. Rather, existence is a word that one uses to say that a rock can be detected and verified in reality.
What in the world are you talking about??? When one speaks of an object such as a pen existing, one means that the pen can be detected in reality.
It seems that by your usage of the word “god” (or “G-d” as you keep writing it) is basically a weird pantheistic view. In which case, why use the word “god” rather than another word or phrase, such as “reality” (if that’s accurate).
T
tonyrey
Guest
D
danserr
Guest
But that’s silly, I don’t first have to prove that God exists to say that He is omnipotent, or a greatest conceivable being. If it helps, then you can think of them as conterfactuals, ie. if God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, very simple. If God exists, then he has certain qualities, we can speak of them without first proving that He exists.
Think of it another way. Some people bring up the problem of God’s foreknowledge, (if God see the future, how can we be free). One theistic response is to suggest that God may be outside of time and therefore sees all moments as now. It is simply not rational for the skeptic to respond (as you are), “ahh, first you must prove that God exists and that He is outside of time.” As long as this is even possible and does not have overriding disadvantages, then this escapes the problem of God’s foreknowledge.
Consider the issue here then. The theist invokes the God’s design to explain the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe for life. The skeptic asks, “who designed God?” The theist replies, "don’t be absurd, God, has always been believed to have been very (Scotus) or absolutely (Aquinas) simple. Hence we have no need to invoke an explanation for God’s supposed complexity, but still need Him as an explanation for the universes.
As long as this is even possible, then this avoids the “who designed the designer” question. For this explanation to fail, it must necessarily be the case that God, if He exists, must be made up of many parts. Hence your objection “who designed the designer” implicitly contains the claim that God is actually very complex. That you try to avoid making the claim explicit is irrelevant. Hence you are in the position of making a very strong claim, that flies in the face of nearly all philosophy, theology, and accepted beliefs about God, and this will require a very strong proof on your part. This we still await.
No, I am afraid that it not what I have said. I have said that the claim “who designed the designer” if taken seriously and applied to other things would make coming to any conclusion impossible. The claim seeks us to prevent accepting an explanation of best, unless we have an explanation of that explanation. But by the same logic, we could not accept that explanation as best until we had an explanation of it. And so on. Thus the claim “who designed God,” would prevent us from every coming to a conclusion about anything. Hence the reason we recognize that to recognize an explanation as best, one need not have an explanation of the explanation.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
1.Existence is in no way logically dependent on being “detectable in nature” 2. I am not a pantheist.
S
shoe
Guest
Merriam-Webster defines God as “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.” And the Bible says that God is self-existent, which means that God has no origins and that His existence doesn’t depend on anyone or anything. We exist because God exists, and God exists because in Him existence and substance are the same: God is His own existence. When Moses asked God His name, God simply answered, “I am that I am.”
P
Pieman333272
Guest
No, it isn’t. In the position I am defending God is defined as simple. There is no definition of the universe from any position (much less one you are defending) where it by default bears the trait of self-causation. Also, many philosophers would object a self-causing universe is incoherent while a simple but necessary being isn’t.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
No you wouldn’t, because demonstrating it as an explanation is part of demonstrating it exists. If I followed your logic I couldn’t accept the existence of many things, including the big bang and plate tectonics.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If the mind does have parts it should be possible to specify what those parts are, how they are related to one another and how they function in conjunction! Until we are presented with that information we are justified in believing the mind is an invisible and indivisible entity without parts or particles… 
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Your assertion that I didn’t identify a fallacy in your thinking does not take away from the fact that I did find a fallacy in your thinking. Going from “I can’t think of how A could be true” to “therefore B must be true” is to make the fallacy of an argument from incredulity even if A or B is a true dichotomy.
I don’t have to answer your ridiculous, never-ending questions about words that you vaguely throw around because I’ve identified a fallacy in your thinking, and if you’re going to assert that the mind is an intangible entity, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
You misunderstood what I meant. Since this is partially my fault because I didn’t do the best job of clearly stating my point, I’ll clarify.
My point is that if a being is defined as having certain characteristics, one cannot say that that being exists unless one demonstrates that a being with the characteristics in the definition exists.
To illustrate my point, lets say that John make up the word “blagu”, and define a “blagu” as a vehicle that can fly in the same place in the sky. Under this definition, helicopters would fit under the definition, so John could justifiably say that “blagus” exist. Now lets say Bob heard of John’s word “blagu”, which had not developed a universally accepted usage of definition yet, and he added “capable of flying to Mars” to its definitional characteristics. Even though John can justifiably claim that “blagus” exist, since he can demonstrate that there are things that meet the definitional requirements, Bob cannot justifiably say that “blagus” (in the sense he is using that word exists) unless he demonstrates that there is at least one entity that can fly in one place in the sky as well as fly to Mars.
Now to apply this to the word “god” with regard to the fine tuning argument. John may use the word “god” to mean “a conscious entity that created the universe”. For John to justifiably claim that a “god”, in the sense that he defines the word, exists, he must demonstrate that there is “a conscious entity that created the universe”. Now if a skeptic comes along and says “what designed god”, the typical thing for most theists to do is say something along the lines of “god is an undesigned being (by definition)”. If John does this, then he needs to demonstrate that “a conscious entity that is undesigned and created the universe” exists in order to justifiably say that a “god” exists. In other words, just like with the made up word “blagus”, if one includes more characteristics into something, more characteristics needs to be demonstrated for a thing that a words represents to be said to exist.
All of that may be a bit wordy, but to put it more succinctly, if one postulates some sort of conscious being that created the universe, as well as say that that being is simple (or has no parts) one would need to demonstrate that rather than just assert it.
The thing I think you misunderstood is that when people say “who designed the designer”, they are objecting to the the idea that it was designed by an non-designed designer, which is claimed to be responsible for the existence of everything.
When I say that an arrowhead was designed, I’m not asserting that it was designed by an non-designed designer, but merely that it was designed by some designer (regardless of whether the designer itself was designed). Whether the designer was designed, in the case of the arrowhead, is largely irrelevant.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I suppose that depends on what one means by “exist.”
What do you mean when you use the word “exist”, and how do you determine whether or not a thing does, in fact, exist?
W
Windfish
Guest
:takethat: TS60 is so much fail. I hope some Steubenville student will straighten him out and get him out of this atheist madness.
- Status