Does God occupy any room?

[Bahman]

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.

Lets call X as the space that all knowledge of a person resides within. This space should exist as knowledge is simply set of structured concepts within X.

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.

Brain together with sensory system to me is like a bridge between X (please see last comment) and physical.

 

[Bahman]

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.

I was not arguing that God occupy physical space.

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.

I have to correct myself. Knowledge is structured and exist in space, lets called it X.

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

I don’t think that anybody in this forum agree with you.

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

Please read previous comments.

 

[Gorgias]

I was not arguing that God occupy physical space.

Then what, pray tell, does your conclusion “God occupies room” mean?

I don’t think that anybody in this forum agree with you.

Aquinas does:

In God there exists the most perfect knowledge. … Since therefore God is in the highest degree of immateriality as stated above (Question 7, Article 1), it follows that He occupies the highest place in knowledge.

Reply to Objection 1. Because perfections flowing from God to creatures exist in a higher state in God Himself (4, 2), whenever a name taken from any created perfection is attributed to God, it must be separated in its signification from anything that belongs to that imperfect mode proper to creatures. Hence knowledge is not a quality of God, nor a habit; but substance and pure act.

(ST I.14.1)

Knowledge is not a quality of God’s (that is, He does not ‘possess’ it in the way humans ‘possess’ it), but it is God’s substance.

 

[Bahman]

Then what, pray tell, does your conclusion “God occupies room” mean?

I believe that there exist a world of knowledge in which all concepts resides.

 

[porthos11]

Lets call X as the space that all knowledge of a person resides within. This space should exist as knowledge is simply set of structured concepts within X.

Yet another artificially built premise; making an assumption that is not proven and presenting it as a premise. If this were a court of law, the opposing attorney would object to you appealing to facts not in evidence, and he would be sustained.

Brain together with sensory system to me is like a bridge between X (please see last comment) and physical.

What it is to you doesn’t matter. You don’t get to invent definitions to suit your argument.

You still have not proferred a valid premise, and therefore your argument still falls apart.

 

[porthos11]

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

We can grant that. It still does not absolve the OP from inventing his own definition and then trying to use that as a premise in an argument about God.

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

Yes, you are actually correct. I used “invalid” in the looser sense, when unsound is more precise.

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

I agree and all I can say to that is

 

[Bahman]

Yet another artificially built premise; making an assumption that is not proven and presenting it as a premise. If this were a court of law, the opposing attorney would object to you appealing to facts not in evidence, and he would be sustained.

Concepts are immaterial hence X should exists as immaterial world in which we have access to it.

What it is to you doesn’t matter. You don’t get to invent definitions to suit your argument.

You still have not proferred a valid premise, and therefore your argument still falls apart.

I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine but anyhow lets divide cosmos into material and immaterial among which our sensory systems, brains and all objects belong to material part and concepts belong to immaterial part. Lets see if we could agree upon so we can see whether anything is wrong with OP.