Does God occupy any room?

[porthos11]

No, I defined Mind as space that all ideas reside within.

I have to agree with you partially. Knowledge in human case also exist in Mind. The duty of brain is to prepare the knowledge for our internal mental state (part of Mind) where all our ideas reside.

Please read previous comments.

No, you inventing definitions is not valid, logically. There is an accepted philosophical definition of a mind and that is the only one we should accept, therefore, I reject your invented definition.

You cannot just say “read previous comments.” I have addressed YOUR argument and its premises. If you say “read previous comments” again, I will take that as a concession on your part, and the discussion is over.

You tried to weasel your way out of your first premise by equating knowledge with the brain itself so as to give knowledge spatial dimensions. That does not work because the brain is not the knowledge and the neurons are not the knowledge and the electrical impulses are not the knowledge. If you can look into a living brain, you will “see” neurons and electrical impulses but you will not see the knowledge. Because the brain is the material, but the knowledge is the immaterial. The mind is not the brain either. One cannot see the mind, which makes sense because knowledge is a function of the mind.

Therefore, you have only succeeded in proving the brain is material, but that’s something we already all know anyway. Where the material meets the senses, you can only perceive brain and its visible processes. You can therefore only see those parts occupying space, but that is not the Idea, that is not the Knowledge. Those are merely cells and electrical currents.

The primary premise therefore remains false and unproven. The argument remains invalid.

 

[porthos11]

Unfortunately, conceding the argument this way does not help this thread because by merely affirming the conclusion (even though it can be arguably orthodox), affirms the invalid argument laid down by the OP, leading to an arguably orthodox conclusion but due to heretical premises.

Just look at his preceding response. Can’t say I blame him for it.

 

[Bookcat]

I am wondering how two Catholics (you and bOOKcat) could have different opinions in one notion.

I am noting that your premises - especially your understanding of God are incorrect. And so your question is coming from the incorrect idea that God is like a creature in creation.

The good Deacon is noting the reality that God is present to all his creation but as God not like a creature!. Which too is the case. God is present to all of creation. All of creation is indeed has its existence from God and is held in being by God. The room is because of God. But God is not a creature “located” in space and time like say a book or me. Space and time are by God.

 

[porthos11]

I am noting that your premises - especially your understanding of God are incorrect. And so your question is coming from the incorrect idea that God is like a creature in creation.

The good Deacon is noting the reality that God is present to all his creation but as God not like a creature!. Which too is the case. God is present to all of creation. All of creation is indeed has its existence from God and is held in being by God. The room is because of God. But God is not a creature “located” in space and time like say a book or me. Space and time are by God.

Yes, but he’s trying to prove his incorrect notions of God through his premises. At least, in that case, he’s not begging the question. Because his incorrect notions of God are not the premises, we therefore cannot blame him for that. Where he’s going off-base are with the premises themselves, and THOSE are what can be attacked, so that the conclusion can then be shown as false, or the argument invalid (which makes the conclusion irrelevant).

If WE begin by assuming that the OP is incorrect about his notions of God and use that in our counter-arguments, WE are begging the question and guilty of a logical fallacy, which makes OUR arguments or counter-arguments invalid. We should not fall into that trap.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

“With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

The room exists by God…and continues to exist by God.

 

[porthos11]

Catechism:

“With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

The room exists by God…and continues to exist by God.

The problem is, he does not accept this the authority of the Catechism. It therefore cannot be used as a premise to a counter-argument.

 

[Bookcat]

The problem is, he does not accept this the authority of the Catechism. It therefore cannot be used as a premise to a counter-argument.

Look I am giving him what we believe. He is coming to a Catholic forum with wrong ideas about we believe…I am giving him and readers what we believe…what is coming from Revelation from God and our reasoning about it. Tis a Catholic Forum.

 

[Gorgias]

Not physical form in general.

Good answer. In other words, ‘form’ does not imply ‘physical form’. Therefore, ‘form’ does not necessarily imply ‘occupies physical space.’ As a result, it does not follow that God occupies physical space. Therefore, your argument fails.

For human the knowledge is structured inside the brain.

No; for humans, knowledge is represented in the operation of the brain. When one learns a fact, he does not increase in weight – that is, there is no additional physical extension that is gained.

God however is not material yet he has knowledge which means that this knowledge occupy some room somewhere.

God does not “have” knowledge; He is the source from which all knowledge proceeds. Big difference.

‘Knowledge’ is not a physical construct, and therefore, it does not imply that God has physical extension. QED.

 

[Gorgias]

Bookcat:

no

What are you doing in philosophy forum when you wouldn’t provide an argument?

Refuting others’ invalid arguments. That’s reasonable enough.

 

[porthos11]

Look I am giving him what we believe. He is coming to a Catholic forum with wrong ideas about we believe…I am giving him and readers what we believe…what is coming from Revelation from God and our reasoning about it. Tis a Catholic Forum.

Yes, and that’s all good. He should know what we believe.

But we must keep fast to the principles of logic. There’s a reason Logic is Philosophy 101. A review of this fellow’s posting patterns will tell us that he is trying to attack/debunk what we believe. We therefore cannot appeal to what we believe to argue against what he’s trying to attack. He is trying to use logic, and we Catholics have THE handle on logic.

For us, trying to disprove his point by citing our authoritative texts does not help from a logical standpoint because we are appealing to the conclusion he is trying to disprove. This is unsound, and therefore makes us guilty of logical fallacies. It does not forward the discussion and does not help us prove our point.

You’re right it is a Catholic forum. Which is why we use the proper Catholic tools. For this particular thread, it’s not the Catechism. It’s the proper use of logic.

 

[Bookcat]

Y
.

I am not planning to get too much into this thread or too long into all this thread. So no need for us to go back and forth on this or anything else here…or to get into if his is the way or that …

You can respond to him as you will…and I will as I will when I have time. You can choose your means and I will choose mine. You can think this or that is not the best way or I may think this or that is not the best way…we may disagree with each other as to what that ought to be …but I do not want to get into a long discussion here.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Time Present occupies space as we know it. The self-activity of Eternal Time, however involves its presence in the manifest reality in motion and not in location. The motion of Eternal Time involves its travel through pure space, and yet, Eternal Time is isolated from objective reality as a cosmic principle since Eternal Time travels in a space of its own making. The everyday space we call “space” is three-dimensional. The space through which Eternal Time travels occupies no space whatsoever. Since it does not, it does not infringe on the state of pure space that provides the Space for the entire Cosmos.

Human beings live in Time Present and occupy space. God lives in Eternal Time, and as such, occupies no space whatsoever.

I’m not planning to get into a back-and-forth with the OP, or anyone else, either. Too busy.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Time Present occupies space as we know it. The self-activity of Eternal Time, however involves its presence in the manifest reality in motion and not in location. The motion of Eternal Time involves its travel through pure space, and yet, Eternal Time is isolated from objective reality as a cosmic principle since Eternal Time travels in a space of its own making. The everyday space we call “space” is three-dimensional. The space through which Eternal Time travels occupies no space whatsoever. Since it does not, it does not infringe on the state of pure space that provides the Space for the entire Cosmos.

Human beings live in Time Present and occupy space. God lives in Eternal Time, and as such, occupies no space whatsoever.

I’m not planning to get into a back-and-forth with the OP, or anyone else, either. Too busy.

Commenting to say how articulately that was worded. I wish you taught at my university.

 

[utunumsint]

Time Present occupies space as we know it. The self-activity of Eternal Time, however involves its presence in the manifest reality in motion and not in location. The motion of Eternal Time involves its travel through pure space, and yet, Eternal Time is isolated from objective reality as a cosmic principle since Eternal Time travels in a space of its own making. The everyday space we call “space” is three-dimensional. The space through which Eternal Time travels occupies no space whatsoever. Since it does not, it does not infringe on the state of pure space that provides the Space for the entire Cosmos.

Human beings live in Time Present and occupy space. God lives in Eternal Time, and as such, occupies no space whatsoever.

I’m not planning to get into a back-and-forth with the OP, or anyone else, either. Too busy.

Quick question. Can you tell me where I can find out more about this theology? I’m not familiar with these concepts from my own reading.

God bless,
Ut

 

[You]

Yes, and that’s all good. He should know what we believe.

But we must keep fast to the principles of logic. There’s a reason Logic is Philosophy 101. A review of this fellow’s posting patterns will tell us that he is trying to attack/debunk what we believe. We therefore cannot appeal to what we believe to argue against what he’s trying to attack. He is trying to use logic, and we Catholics have THE handle on logic.

For us, trying to disprove his point by citing our authoritative texts does not help from a logical standpoint because we are appealing to the conclusion he is trying to disprove. This is unsound, and therefore makes us guilty of logical fallacies. It does not forward the discussion and does not help us prove our point.

You’re right it is a Catholic forum. Which is why we use the proper Catholic tools. For this particular thread, it’s not the Catechism. It’s the proper use of logic.

Yes, I agree, but he/she should just give up the ghost of threads past and say that they do not believe in God. Instead of picking on aspects of him.
If he/she wants to know if God is true or not then its as easy for them to know as asking him.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Commenting to say how articulately that was worded. I wish you taught at my university.

Thank you. I usually teach Christology. I wish all my students were as appreciative as you and wanted to learn. Some just fritter away their time.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Quick question. Can you tell me where I can find out more about this theology? I’m not familiar with these concepts from my own reading.

God bless,
Ut

It’s actually from an upper level philosophy class I took. I can’t remember the name of the textbook we used, but you might try Teilhard de Chardin, though I don’t think he wrote any part of the book. If I remember, or can find it, I’ll PM you with the title.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes, I agree, but he/she should just give up the ghost of threads past and say that they do not believe in God. Instead of picking on aspects of him.
If he/she wants to know if God is true or not then its as easy for them to know as asking him.

I agree with you. If the OP doesn’t believe in God, he doesn’t believe in God. I’m not going to argue with him about his beliefs, but I remembered that from a philosophy class and couldn’t resist answering.

 

[Rhubarb]

No, you inventing definitions is not valid, logically. There is an accepted philosophical definition of a mind and that is the only one we should accept, therefore, I reject your invented definition.

You cannot just say “read previous comments.” I have addressed YOUR argument and its premises. If you say “read previous comments” again, I will take that as a concession on your part, and the discussion is over.

You tried to weasel your way out of your first premise by equating knowledge with the brain itself so as to give knowledge spatial dimensions. That does not work because the brain is not the knowledge and the neurons are not the knowledge and the electrical impulses are not the knowledge. If you can look into a living brain, you will “see” neurons and electrical impulses but you will not see the knowledge. Because the brain is the material, but the knowledge is the immaterial. The mind is not the brain either. One cannot see the mind, which makes sense because knowledge is a function of the mind.

Therefore, you have only succeeded in proving the brain is material, but that’s something we already all know anyway. Where the material meets the senses, you can only perceive brain and its visible processes. You can therefore only see those parts occupying space, but that is not the Idea, that is not the Knowledge. Those are merely cells and electrical currents.

The primary premise therefore remains false and unproven. The argument remains invalid.

Just a couple of nitpicks. There is no one accepted definition of mind in the field of philosophy. It’s a hotly contested topic.

An argument from false premises is called unsound, not invalid. (though an invalid argument can also be unsound)

And I agree with you, the premises of the OP argument is hinky, at best.

 

[Gorgias]

If I remember, or can find it, I’ll PM you with the title.

Could you provide the title here, in this thread? Thanks!