Does God occupy any room?

[Bahman]

1. Knowledge has a form
2. This means that anything that has form occupy some room
3. God has knowledge
4. From (2) and (3) we can conclude that God occupy some room

 

[Bookcat]

Such would approach God is if God were a creature - a part of creation.

God is God. Not a creature in created space.

The room exists and is held in existence by God.

 

[porthos11]

1. Knowledge has a form

This is a false primary premise.

The whole argument therefore falls apart.

 

[Bahman]

Such would approach God is if God were a creature - a part of creation.

God is God. Not a creature in created space.

The room exists and is held in existence by God.

You need to provide an argument.

 

[Gorgias]

1. Knowledge has a form
2. This means that anything that has form occupy some room

Are you saying that knowledge has a physical form? If so, could you please point to the physical space that the knowledge “the earth is spherical” inhabits?

(2) only follows from (1) if (1) speaks to “physical form”. Unless you establish that – and you cannot do so, since it is not true – then your argument fails.

 

[Bahman]

This is a false primary premise.

The whole argument therefore falls apart.

That is not false. Knowledge is set of concepts which has internal structure hence it has a form. We cannot have formless knowledge since only void is formless.

I also find a mistype in the argument.

1. Knowledge has a form
2. Anything that has form occupy some room
3. God has knowledge
4. From (2) and (3) we can conclude that God occupy some room

 

[Bookcat]

You need to provide an argument.

No I do not. It is your post that made a false assertion…a false premise…misunderstanding of the nature of creation and of God. I do have the time to start discussing that which is false from the get go.

I provided the answer…one can seek out more via the Catechism, Catholic Theology and Catholic Philosophy.

 

[porthos11]

That is not false. Knowledge is set of concepts which has internal structure hence it has a form. We cannot have formless knowledge since only void is formless.

I also find a mistype in the argument.

1. Knowledge has a form
2. Anything that has form occupy some room
3. God has knowledge
4. From (2) and (3) we can conclude that God occupy some room

And you’re wrong. Knowledge is real, it exists, and can even be called a set of concepts with structure. But none of that “proves” that it has form (specifically, spatial form, from the line of your argument). It simply defines what “knowledge” is. The premise therefore is therefore one itself based on an argument—a non sequitur specifically, a logical fallacy.

The premise, therefore remains false. The argument, then, remains invalid.

 

[Bahman]

Are you saying that knowledge has a physical form? If so, could you please point to the physical space that the knowledge “the earth is spherical” inhabits?

Not physical form in general. For human the knowledge is structured inside the brain. God however is not material yet he has knowledge which means that this knowledge occupy some room somewhere.

(2) only follows from (1) if (1) speaks to “physical form”. Unless you establish that – and you cannot do so, since it is not true – then your argument fails.

I had a typo in OP please read post #6 for the corrected argument.

 

[Bahman]

And you’re wrong. Knowledge is real, it exists, and can even be called a set of concepts with structure. But none of that “proves” that it has form (specifically, spatial form, from the line of your argument). It simply defines what “knowledge” is. The premise therefore is therefore one itself based on an argument—a non sequitur specifically, a logical fallacy.

The premise, therefore remains false. The argument, then, remains invalid.

How something which has structure could be formless?

 

[Bahman]

No I do not. It is your post that made a false assertion…a false premise…misunderstanding of the nature of creation and of God. I do have the time to start discussing that which is false from the get go.

You need to provide a counter-argument to show that OP is false.

I provided the answer…one can seek out more via the Catechism, Catholic Theology and Catholic Philosophy.

They could be wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

You need to provide a counter-argument to show that OP is false.

They could be wrong.

1. As I noted - no I do not.
2. Nope - as regards the matter of Revelation: The faith is revealed God who can neither deceive or be deceived. Who IS Truth. And Catholic Theology reasons about such…and thus has very solid foundations …and Catholic Philosophy too has the benefit of the light of Revelation.

 

[porthos11]

How something which has structure could be formless?

Because you’re talking about ideas. And even the very notion of “structure” and “order” are merely ideas. What makes things formless or formed in terms of space is whether something is material or not. You’ve been trying to “prove” that knowledge is material, and failing. Your first premise and attempted supporting argument (structure, therefore, form) is a non-sequitur, because it is possible to have the very idea of structure without having it become material.

Because your initial premise is false (which, stated alternately, is that knowledge is material), the rest of your argument is invalid. We do not even need to address the errors of your secondary premises because the primary one is already false to begin with.

 

[Bahman]

Because you’re talking about ideas. And even the very notion of “structure” and “order” are merely ideas.

So lets call Mind where all ideas are structurally reside.

What makes things formless or formed in terms of space is whether something is material or not.

Not necessary physical. Please read previous comment.

You’ve been trying to “prove” that knowledge is material, and failing.

No, I didn’t. In case human the knowledge is structured inside mater, so called brain.

Your first premise and attempted supporting argument (structure, therefore, form) is a non-sequitur, because it is possible to have the very idea of structure without having it become material.

Please read previous arguments.

 

[Bahman]

1. As I noted - no I do not.
2. Nope - as regards the matter of Revelation: The faith is revealed God who can neither deceive or be deceived. Who IS Truth. And Catholic Theology reasons about such…and thus has very solid foundations …and Catholic Philosophy too has the benefit of the light of Revelation.

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

 

[porthos11]

So lets call Mind where all ideas are structurally reside.

Not necessary physical. Please read previous comment.

No, I didn’t. In case human the knowledge is structured inside mater, so called brain.

Please read previous arguments.

Ah, but now you’ve shifted the first premise now. You’re trying to equate the Ideas with the electrical impulses and neural interconnections with the brain.

But no, you do not get away this. The brain and its interconnections are not the Idea. They are not the Knowledge. It is the brain, and the brain is merely an organ that occupies a specific space, namely, the hollow inside your skull. The interconnections and electrical impulses are just that: interconnections, cells, and impulses. But they are the consequences of the knowledge or Idea, but they are not the Idea. I have an Idea right now. I have knowledge right now. Those things are imprinted as physical manifestations in the brain, but those are manifestations. The Idea itself transcends that.

Take, for example, your own false notion. That’s the Idea. I’m criticizing your Idea, not your brain; I couldn’t care less about your brain. Your neurons are formed one way that makes you express that Idea, but I have no issue with your neurons. I’m addressing your Idea. The Idea occupies no form. Your neurons do. But your neurons are neurons, they are not your Idea.

Further, your counter that “not necessarily physical” does not hold, because your conclusion is specific: God occupies a room, and a room, in terms of occupancy is physical.

What is material then, is your brain. But your knowledge, your ideas, aren’t.

Your primary premise therefore remains false. The argument remains invalid.

 

[Bookcat]

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

Again - I already gave my answer.

What has happened so far? We have pointed to the false premises - the incorrect understandings underpinning your assertions.

There is no need to further discuss - for such would be building on sand not on rock.

If one begins with a false premise one will end up with false assertions.

It can be a misappropriation of time to continue for long when such is the case.

 

[Bahman]

Ah, but now you’ve shifted the first premise now. You’re trying to equate the Ideas with the electrical impulses and neural interconnections with the brain.

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

But no, you do not get away this. The brain and its interconnections are not the Idea. They are not the Knowledge. It is the brain, and the brain is merely an organ that occupies a specific space, namely, the hollow inside your skull. The interconnections and electrical impulses are just that: interconnections, cells, and impulses. But they are the consequences of the knowledge or Idea, but they are not the Idea. I have an Idea right now. I have knowledge right now. Those things are imprinted as physical manifestations in the brain, but those are manifestations. The Idea itself transcends that.

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.

Take, for example, your own false notion. That’s the Idea. I’m criticizing your Idea, not your brain; I couldn’t care less about your brain. Your neurons are formed one way that makes you express that Idea, but I have no issue with your neurons. I’m addressing your Idea. The Idea occupies no form. Your neurons do. But your neurons are neurons, they are not your Idea.

Further, your counter that “not necessarily physical” does not hold, because your conclusion is specific: God occupies a room, and a room, in terms of occupancy is physical.

What is material then, is your brain. But your knowledge, your ideas, aren’t.

Your primary premise therefore remains false. The argument remains invalid.

Please read previous comments.

 

[utunumsint]

1. Knowledge has a form
2. This means that anything that has form occupy some room
3. God has knowledge
4. From (2) and (3) we can conclude that God occupy some room

All beings are ultimately a composite of essence and existence.
God creates common existence through his power.
Therefore God is present in everything through his power.

But God is simple. There is no composition in God.
This includes the composition of matter and form.
This includes the composition of essence and existence.
God’s essence is his existence.
In terms of potency and actuality, God is pure actuality without potency.
There is no movement from potency to actuality in God.
If there were an unfulfilled potency in God, then God would be composite and imperfect.
This does not imply a lack of form, but an unbounded and unlimitedness that only an eternal, omnipotent, infinite, uncreated being could possess.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

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