Is God a "square circle"?

[BlaineTog]

What you say is true. However, emotions and feelings are subjective. When it comes to reality, you are not restricted to everyday words. The word “electron” was concocted at a point of time, and it gained meaning when the physicists were able to describe its attributes. You can also use other ways of sharing information: symbols, mathematics, drawings, etc…

The human experience of God, however, is also subjective. Though even if he were simply an objective fact of human knowledge, he would still be impossible to adequately describe with words. How does one adequately describe even a human being with words? Well, you can certainly try to relate what they look like to other things the listener might be familiar with, but meeting the person and hearing about the person are two completely different things.

This thread is a great example of what happens when a serious conversation is attempted between a believer and an atheist, and it is kept at purely rational level, without referring to revelations or other mysticims.

And it’s because one cannot use reason to get to God, any more than you can use reason to get to, well, pretty much anything. Belief in God is just that – a belief. Beliefs are things you start with in a rational argument, not something you arrive at. Gaining a belief is a holistic, all-inclusive experience in which you sum all your experiences and use all your faculties to try to see what’s there.

 

[ateista]

You claimed that you weren’t speaking of any specific deity, however your statements only apply to the Abrahamic deity. I was pointing that out, so the exercise was not futile.

There is no reason to argue about it. The non-faith, non-revelation, purely philosophical types of arguments posit a “neutral” deity, who is arguably the cause of the universe.

I disagree. The language used to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God Himself is not. The “God of the gaps” (the god who is appealed to solely to explain something unknown) is attractive to those who want to discuss the origin of the universe, but the God of the gaps is not the God of Abraham.

God is not an invention made to explain how the universe exists. Even the earliest concepts of God betray an assumption that He already exists; people thus believed in Him long before they started trying to understand how the world came to be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Bible start with the Genesis? Sure it is more than that, but that is how it begins: a description of how God “created” the universe. “Let there be light” - said God.

I am not using them epistemologically. I am using them anthropomorphically. Thus I didn’t even claim to have a right to use them epistemologically, so your objection is moot.

I though that we are conducting a philosophical discussion, where epistemology (“how do we gain knowledge”) is a perfectly suitable framework.

Words like “create” etc. are used in a context, and in their proper context they are not confusing. E.g., “Create” as applied to God was used in the context of teaching that we are contingent on Him for existence. In that context, it is not confusing. It is when you strip the word of its proper context and apply your own - as you have done - that it becomes confusing.

The phrase “contingent on him for existence” is only syntactically different from “create”. Stripping the verb “create” does not alter it at all.

So really it is your fault: words like “create” are all used in their respective contexts, none of which have to do with God’s atemporality. When you applied them to His atemporality and noted that they lead to contradiction, you were simply stating the obvious: those words don’t belong in that context.

If asking for clarity in a discussion is “fault”, then I will gladly declare myself “guilty”.

The phrase “God created the universe” does have meaning and does convey understanding: that we need God. They are thus proper to explain that Truth.

“Need”? As in emotional need? Or “cause”?

I suppose I did say that any choice of human words is inherently inadequate to fully express the attributes of God. Sorry for that oversight. However no choice of words can adequately express love as well, and yet people understand it.

Surely we understand “love”. It is an emotion, a state of mind, which expresses feelings toward someone or something else. It is supposed to be expressed in actions, otherwise it is an emtpy phrase.

There is no such attribute.

Well, I think that the offical Catholic teaching is totally different. Many times have I seen that the teaching of the church is that God is knowable by rational means.

But, be as it may, a timeless existence is stasis. Nothing “happens” in a timeless existence. As a matter of fact it is not distinguishable from nonexistence. So the two possible propositions: “God exist in a timeless manner” and “God does not exist” are functionally identical.

 

[ateista]

The human experience of God, however, is also subjective. Though even if he were simply an objective fact of human knowledge, he would still be impossible to adequately describe with words. How does one adequately describe even a human being with words? Well, you can certainly try to relate what they look like to other things the listener might be familiar with, but meeting the person and hearing about the person are two completely different things.

This is not what I was alluding to. To adequately describe a human being all I have to do is say: “look in a mirror”. A human being is someone who has a working brain. I am not asking to describe the “features” of God, just would like to find out what do you mean by the word “God”?

And it’s because one cannot use reason to get to God, any more than you can use reason to get to, well, pretty much anything.

I have to disagree with the second part, and the Catholic Church disagrees with the first part.

Belief in God is just that – a belief. Beliefs are things you start with in a rational argument, not something you arrive at. Gaining a belief is a holistic, all-inclusive experience in which you sum all your experiences and use all your faculties to try to see what’s there.

I agree with the “belief” part. All I am asking here is: “what do you believe in”? After all there are almost innumerable god-concepts humanity came up with. Some are natural, some are anthropomorphic, etc…

The Christian God has some attributes. These attributes are described in human terms. What are those attributes and what do they mean?

 

[dmar198]

There is no reason to argue about it. The non-faith, non-revelation, purely philosophical types of arguments posit a “neutral” deity, who is arguably the cause of the universe.

Agreed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Bible start with the Genesis? Sure it is more than that, but that is how it begins: a description of how God “created” the universe. “Let there be light” - said God.

You will notice that it mentions God before it mentions the creation; He is assumed before any mention of Creation. Many translations make this even more explicit: the NAB (for example) says, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”, showing that He is assumed before any talk of creation. Thus the concept of the “God of the Gaps” is unnecessary for the God of Abraham; He was not invented to explain how the world got here, because His existence was assumed before it talks about that.

I though that we are conducting a philosophical discussion, where epistemology (“how do we gain knowledge”) is a perfectly suitable framework.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, especially its limits. You were making an epistemologically-based imperative when you said that Catholics ought to refrain from teaching with such words as “create” and “act” because they mislead students into thinking that God is temporal, and thus are not conducive to gaining knowledge.
But we do not use them with the purpose of studying their utility towards learning, and neither do we use them to limit what we can know about God. Rather, they are used simply to say that our existence is contingent on God, i.e. we would not exist if it weren’t for Him.
So there can be no substantial epistemological objection to their use.

The phrase “contingent on him for existence” is only syntactically different from “create”.

It is quite different: it allows for the possibility that the greater universe is non-temporal, which is one of the Christian claims. Something can be the source for another thing without “creating” it in the temporal sense; imagine, for example, that a light-bulb has been turned “on” for eternity. Assuming the bulb is functioning properly, the light which it produces is co-eternal with itself, because a light-bulb cannot both function properly and be “on” without producing light. However, even given this non-temporal state, the light is still contingent on the bulb for its existence.
I am claiming that the universe (in only one dimension: time) is co-eternal with God, but still has Him as its source (kind of like the light and the bulb). Thus we may say that we are contingent on God for our own existence, without rejecting the doctrine of His immutability, as this allows us to affirm that God exists from all eternity as the Being Who has “created” the universe.

If asking for clarity in a discussion is “fault”, then I will gladly declare myself “guilty”.

My mistake. I thought you were objecting to the use of such terms as “create” and “act” as applied to God; apparently, however, you were merely asking for clarification. I’ll make note of that.

“Need”? As in emotional need? Or “cause”?

As in contingency. We need to consider Him as existent in order to consider ourselves as existent.

Surely we understand “love”. It is an emotion, a state of mind, which expresses feelings toward someone or something else. It is supposed to be expressed in actions, otherwise it is an emtpy phrase.

“Love” is not quantifiable; it goes deeper than we can objectively verify. You cannot adequately describe the loving emotion in human language; it is ineffable.

Well, I think that the offical Catholic teaching is totally different. Many times have I seen that the teaching of the church is that God is knowable by rational means.

That is perfectly compatible with my statement. I was not speaking of existence as if it were an attribute.

a timeless existence is stasis. Nothing “happens” in a timeless existence. As a matter of fact it is not distinguishable from nonexistence. So the two possible propositions: “God exist in a timeless manner” and “God does not exist” are functionally identical.

This is ludicrous. A .jpeg file exists in complete stasis; would you say that it’s existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence?

 

[BlaineTog]

This is not what I was alluding to. To adequately describe a human being all I have to do is say: “look in a mirror”.

That’s not a description of a human being. That’s an approximate description of an action one might take if one wanted to see what one side of a human being looks like when reflected in a mirror, but even then, the description requires the reader to make a number of unspoken assumptions (such as “look in” meaning “to look at the image being reflected off the surface of” a mirror, as opposed to trying to analyze the mirror itself. And I’m not even being exhaustive here).

I am not asking to describe the “features” of God, just would like to find out what do you mean by the word “God”?And we can give you an approximate description of what we mean. For example, “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” Or “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and John the Baptist.” Or “Jesus son of Mary the Virgin.” Or “an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, perfectly loving, just, and merciful presense which does not exist in time and moves without being moved.” But these are all merely approximate, just like all language is approximate. That no one here on Earth has seen God as he really is only makes the descriptions that much less precise.

I have to disagree with the second part, and the Catholic Church disagrees with the first part.

Give me an example of something which can be believed without requiring any beliefs whatsoever, and show me where in the Catechism it says you can reason your way to God without any leaps of faith.

 

[dmar198]

show me where in the Catechism it says you can reason your way to God without any leaps of faith.

Your posts are great! I think she is referring to this: CCC 31-32 -

Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.​

 

[ateista]

You will notice that it mentions God before it mentions the creation; He is assumed before any mention of Creation. Many translations make this even more explicit: the NAB (for example) says, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”, showing that He is assumed before any talk of creation. Thus the concept of the “God of the Gaps” is unnecessary for the God of Abraham; He was not invented to explain how the world got here, because His existence was assumed before it talks about that.

We don’t have to go into the theory of how the concepts of gods evolved, at least not in this thread.

But we do not use them with the purpose of studying their utility towards learning, and neither do we use them to limit what we can know about God. Rather, they are used simply to say that our existence is contingent on God, i.e. we would not exist if it weren’t for Him.

Do you mean that you subscribe to the “sustaining cause” argument? That is quite different from the “first cause” argument.

It is quite different: it allows for the possibility that the greater universe is non-temporal, which is one of the Christian claims.

I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “greater universe”.

I am claiming that the universe (in only one dimension: time) is co-eternal with God, but still has Him as its source (kind of like the light and the bulb). Thus we may say that we are contingent on God for our own existence, without rejecting the doctrine of His immutability, as this allows us to affirm that God exists from all eternity as the Being Who has “created” the universe.

Interesting, but it leads to another problem: If God exists in a timeless manner then he is immutable and therefore static. The universe is definitely dynamic. The contingency of something dynamic on something that is static makes no sense. By the way even the word “eternal” presupposes time.

“Love” is not quantifiable; it goes deeper than we can objectively verify. You cannot adequately describe the loving emotion in human language; it is ineffable.

I did not say that “love” can be measured, I simply said that it can be adequately defined.

That is perfectly compatible with my statement. I was not speaking of existence as if it were an attribute.

I agree that “existence” is not an attribute. I am just questioning the meaning of the propostion: “God exists”.

This is ludicrous. A .jpeg file exists in complete stasis; would you say that it’s existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence?

Oops! Misunderstanding! The word “stasis” and “static” are not interchangeable. The file is a static object, but it does not exist in stasis. It has been created, it may be erased.

Existence in a timeless manner, unchanging and unchangable is definitely a static existence. But it is more than that. It cannot have any interaction with anything outside. There can be no actoin, no thought in such an existence. I am questioning that “existence” can even be used for it. Any existence we know of is within time, it is dynamic.

 

[jkarp]

Interesting, but it leads to another problem: If God exists in a timeless manner then he is immutable and therefore static. The universe is definitely dynamic. The contingency of something dynamic on something that is static makes no sense. By the way even the word “eternal” presupposes time.

Oops! Misunderstanding! The word “stasis” and “static” are not interchangeable. The file is a static object, but it does not exist in stasis. It has been created, it may be erased.

You have a similar problem with your argument, the words “immutable” and “static” are not interchangeable. Immutable means “cannot be changed” or “not subject to change,” static means “lacking movement” or in a “stationary condition.”

This is the third time I’ve said this on this thread, each of which you have ignored, your arguments are based on innaccurate or incomplete information, research before you post.

 

[abucs]

The first thing to say is that there are mysteries we cannot answer.

The second is the acknowledgement from Godel that logic is incomplete for us in describing reality.

That’s not a for or against God arguement but a humble starting point for discussion.

I would ask - what is the definition of time ?

It’s easy to think of it as an overarching phenomena that we are all subject to, but as Einstein showed - time is relative. I have my time, you have yours. It is only because our speeds are so closely matched through space that we can talk as if there is a ‘neutral’ time.

Secondly, time is a factor of space. In our understanding, you can’t have any time (as we know it) without space. We define time by a change of conditions within an expanding space. We can’t even really understand (properly) what time is in our universe let alone postulate it’s necessity somewhere else.

We have not come to the stage (and perhaps we can’t) of understanding at a fundamental level what time is, so it is a little difficult to call upon it to prove or disprove things outside our universe.

I agree we should try. Christianity has been at this for over a thousand years and helped to shape mankinds thought on what might be possibile and what is unlikely. But we have insufficient knowledge.

Of course if your definition of God was also to incorporate ‘time’ (whatever that is) it might suggest a new way of looking at things.

So from John’s perspective if you add TIME to the Greek definition of LOGOS we have :

In the beginning there was TIME, and the TIME was with God, and the TIME was God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

That TIME then could have created out time.
But still when we get down to it, time (let alone TIME) is a slippey thing to define.

Who knows ? I as sure don’t.

Respect.

 

[ateista]

That’s not a description of a human being. That’s an approximate description of an action one might take if one wanted to see what one side of a human being looks like when reflected in a mirror, but even then, the description requires the reader to make a number of unspoken assumptions (such as “look in” meaning “to look at the image being reflected off the surface of” a mirror, as opposed to trying to analyze the mirror itself. And I’m not even being exhaustive here).

I was very short and so probably unclear. What I meant was that we are all human beings and conscious of being humans. Looking into a mirror was not intended as a definition of a human being, it was supposed to convey the fact that we are all humans and know this. I had quite a long thread about this subject.

And we can give you an approximate description of what we mean. For example, “that than which nothing greater can be thought.”

That is somewhat vague, and also ambiguous. “Greatness” is a subjective assessment. What I consider “great” may very well be different from what you consider great.

Or “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and John the Baptist.” Or “Jesus son of Mary the Virgin.”

That is not a good definition in my eyes. It does not help at all those who do not consider the Bible as an authoritative book.

Or “an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, perfectly loving, just, and merciful presense which does not exist in time and moves without being moved.”

Now this one is something we can work with. I would like to explore the ramification of this definition.

I suggest the following method:

1. we can try to come to mutual understanding about each of these attributes - that is decide what they mean.
2. If this is successful (which is far from certain) then we can try to evaluate if they are coherent as a set of attributes, in other words if they are without contradicting each other.
3. Finally we can try to see if these attributes contradict our knowledge about the real world. I hope you can agree that our knowledge about reality is far more substantial that our hypothetic knowledge of God.

Would you do the honor of starting (maybe in a separate thread)?

But these are all merely approximate, just like all language is approximate. That no one here on Earth has seen God as he really is only makes the descriptions that much less precise.

I am perfectly willing to accept the last definition as an approximation.

Give me an example of something which can be believed without requiring any beliefs whatsoever, and show me where in the Catechism it says you can reason your way to God without any leaps of faith.

One example is our own existence. It does not require any belief. As for the Cathecism, I am not in the position to answer - due to my complete ignorance. All I meant was referring to innumerable posts on this board, where the posters asserted and brought forth quotations that the Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God can be known by purely rational reasoning, without appealing to faith.

 

[ateista]

You have a similar problem with your argument, the words “immutable” and “static” are not interchangeable. Immutable means “cannot be changed” or “not subject to change,” static means “lacking movement” or in a “stationary condition.”

I don’t know what your point is. Something that is immutable is also static. If something is currently static, but can change then it is not immutable. If God is immutable, then he is also static.

 

[dmar198]

We don’t have to go into the theory of how the concepts of gods evolved, at least not in this thread.

Alright.

Do you mean that you subscribe to the “sustaining cause” argument? That is quite different from the “first cause” argument.

I suppose that would be correct; although I refer to the “sustaining cause” argument as the “contingency” argument, and the “first cause” argument as the “cosmological” argument.
I think that you are saying that the “cosmological” or “first cause” argument makes no sense because it implies that God changes. I am saying that it does make sense, but only if it is used with the understanding of the “contingency” or “sustaining cause” argument.

I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “greater universe”.

The system of all existent things, whether in this universe or outside, natural or supernatural. That is the “greater universe”. This “lesser universe” which we live in - its nature - is temporal; but it exists as an extension of the greater universe - which is supernatural -, which is atemporal or eternal. So this system of things in which we live is kind of an aberration, our existence being measured in four dimensions (three spacial, one temporal). But the greater universe is dimension-less.

If God exists in a timeless manner then he is immutable and therefore static. The universe is definitely dynamic. The contingency of something dynamic on something that is static makes no sense.

I don’t agree that the universe is really dynamic. It only appears to be because we look at it from our position in time. If you were to look at the universe from outside of time, it would not appear dynamic at all: it would be like looking at a time-line in a book, where you could see a series of causal events that would take place in a chronological succession, if you cycled through them. But such a time-line cannot be properly called “dynamic”.

By the way even the word “eternal” presupposes time.

Egad! You’re right! Please replace all references to God as “eternal” with God as “atemporal”. I thought they were synonyms.

I did not say that “love” can be measured, I simply said that it can be adequately defined.

That depends on what you consider an “adequate” definition; i.e. it is subjective. I say nothing can be adequately defined in any objective fashion.

I agree that “existence” is not an attribute. I am just questioning the meaning of the propostion: “God exists”.

How would you answer if someone questioned the meaning of the proposition “Ateista exists”?

Oops! Misunderstanding! The word “stasis” and “static” are not interchangeable. The file is a static object, but it does not exist in stasis. It has been created, it may be erased.

“Stasis” is just the noun form of the adjective “static”. If something has a “static” existence it exists in “stasis”. The .jpeg exists in stasis for as long as it does exist; if you deleted it it would be improper to say that it exists either “statically” or “in stasis”.

Existence in a timeless manner, unchanging and unchangable is definitely a static existence. But it is more than that. It cannot have any interaction with anything outside. There can be no actoin, no thought in such an existence. I am questioning that “existence” can even be used for it.

Why is that questionable? Suppose that the .jpeg was suddenly raptured out of this world and into timelessness. Would you then question the properness of calling it “existent” as well? If so, then what exactly are the dimensional criteria that you are defining “existence” by? I don’t think a supernatural deity can be defined according to dimensional criteria, because the supernatural (in Christian theology) is dimension-less.

 

[abucs]

dmar198,

i agree with your view of our time only being dynamic from our point of view but not from outside.

Your analogy of the book with a time-line is a good one.
Did you get that one from the book of revelation ?

Both Daniel and John claim to be having their visions from Heaven (beyond time and space) and both claim to be seeing past, present and future events ‘all at once’.

I find that interesting.

Thanks.

 

[jkarp]

I don’t know what your point is. Something that is immutable is also static. If something is currently static, but can change then it is not immutable. If God is immutable, then he is also static.

My point is that you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about, your logic skills are severely lacking. Static refers to motion, not change (and no, they are not the same things). It is true that something can be both immutable and static but not all immutable things are static and not all static things are immutable. You make a point of consistenly shrugging off the posts that you cannot reasonably answer instead of refuting them (and no those two things are not the same either).

 

[ateista]

My point is that you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about, your logic skills are severely lacking.

Nice point, very politely put. I am most happy to have someone who takes time and effort to to point out one of my several shortcomings. How can I complain at such erudite observations? Now if you would point out just how such wise remarks pertain to the topic at hand, I would be even more grateful…

Static refers to motion, not change (and no, they are not the same things).

Motion can be physical and temporal. Static refers to the lack of either one of them. Change is the same.

It is true that something can be both immutable and static but not all immutable things are static and not all static things are immutable.

Example of something that is immutable and not static (dynamic)?

You make a point of consistenly shrugging off the posts that you cannot reasonably answer instead of refuting them (and no those two things are not the same either).

Mea culpa. I do not answer all posts. Interesting as these conversations may be, I cannot devote all the time I would like to them. I especially disregard those posts which are written in a childish, challenging and rude manner. I am sure you understand, having displayed such a vastly superior intellect. I beg forgiveness if I happen to overlook some of your upcoming educationally intended remarks. Even if I do not happen to have time to answer them I will follow your admonishments with proper humility and hope to grow in understanding to reach a level of your superior plateau.

 

[ateista]

I suppose that would be correct; although I refer to the “sustaining cause” argument as the “contingency” argument, and the “first cause” argument as the “cosmological” argument.

I am curious. Do you mean that the universe is sustained by God’s constant attention? I met people who believed that we are God’s “dream”, that without God’s continuous “support” the universe would cease to exist?

The system of all existent things, whether in this universe or outside, natural or supernatural. That is the “greater universe”. This “lesser universe” which we live in - its nature - is temporal; but it exists as an extension of the greater universe - which is supernatural -, which is atemporal or eternal. So this system of things in which we live is kind of an aberration, our existence being measured in four dimensions (three spacial, one temporal). But the greater universe is dimension-less.

Now that is interesting. In another thread I expressed that the word “universe” means everything that exists, and used the term “physical universe” for our (3 spatial + 1 temporal) existence. I got some serious “flak” for arbitrarily redefining the concept of “universe” - even though the word “universe” literally means “everything that exists”.

I sure have a problem with postulating that something “dimensionless” can have a subset with “dimensions”.

I don’t agree that the universe is really dynamic. It only appears to be because we look at it from our position in time. If you were to look at the universe from outside of time, it would not appear dynamic at all: it would be like looking at a time-line in a book, where you could see a series of causal events that would take place in a chronological succession, if you cycled through them. But such a time-line cannot be properly called “dynamic”.

Why not? That is what “dymanic” means. Something that changes over time.

By the way, your picture of viewing consecutive events brings up another point: something that had not happened yet, cannot be seen even if viewed “outside” time.

That depends on what you consider an “adequate” definition; i.e. it is subjective. I say nothing can be adequately defined in any objective fashion.

That sounds pretty nihilistic to me. I consider a definition adequate if it allows mutual understanding. A great counterexample is “pornography”. Now that concept cannot be adequately defined. One person’s porn can be someone else’s mildly interesting entertainment.

How would you answer if someone questioned the meaning of the proposition “Ateista exists”?

The meaning of a proposition is whatever that the receiver on a communication channel percieves it to be. If the intended meaning (by the originator of the communication) and the perceived meaning is not the same, we have a miscommunication. Happens quite frequently.

“Stasis” is just the noun form of the adjective “static”. If something has a “static” existence it exists in “stasis”.

This could be yet another instance of miscommunication. I use the word “stasis” as a synonym for “atemporal”. If you happen to be familiar with Larry Niven’s science fiction novels, he speaks about “stasis-boxes”, which preserve anything inside them from decay, since time does not affect them.

The .jpeg exists in stasis for as long as it does exist; if you deleted it it would be improper to say that it exists either “statically” or “in stasis”.

True, but the file exists as a set of magnetic information on a disk. The magnetic material of the disk is subject to decay as time goes by, and thus the file is not in “stasis”, since its bits may deteriorate overtime. But as long as this decay in too small to detect, it is a static information.

As for the possible “rapture”, I do not think that “supernatural” existence is meaningful. We are familiar with two types of existence: physical existence and abstract (or conceptual) one. Physical existence we are all familiar with. The existence of concepts or abstractions is contigent upon the intellect of a conceptualizing agent. Abstract concepts are “inert”, they cannot be causative agents.

The “existence” of supernatural is not supposed to be physical, nor it is supposed be an abstraction and it is supposed be “active”. That is a type of “existence” we are not familiar with. Being an atheist it is simply a nonsensical hypothesis for me.

 

[jkarp]

Nice point, very politely put. I am most happy to have someone who takes time and effort to to point out one of my several shortcomings. How can I complain at such erudite observations? Now if you would point out just how such wise remarks pertain to the topic at hand, I would be even more grateful…

Mea culpa. I do not answer all posts. Interesting as these conversations may be, I cannot devote all the time I would like to them. I especially disregard those posts which are written in a childish, challenging and rude manner. I am sure you understand, having displayed such a vastly superior intellect. I beg forgiveness if I happen to overlook some of your upcoming educationally intended remarks. Even if I do not happen to have time to answer them I will follow your admonishments with proper humility and hope to grow in understanding to reach a level of your superior plateau.

My point is that you are making posts based on reason and logic, yet within your reason and logic there are flaws. This is relevent to the point at hand because the arguments you make contain error and thus invalidate themselves, proving nothing.

My comment was that you need to work on your logic skills, this is objectively true, you have flaws within your logic (a good place to start would be by taking a basic course in logic, you will see that of which I speak). Your comments are nothing but sarcastic insults. If your response to someone pointing out the flaws within your arguments is anger, derogation, and insulting comments perhaps philosophical debate is not your calling.

Motion can be physical and temporal. Static refers to the lack of either one of them. Change is the same.
Example of something that is immutable and not static (dynamic)?

The soul.

 

[peso73]

Being an atheist it is simply a nonsensical hypothesis for me.

Being an athiest is simply a nonsensical hypothesis for me.

I’ve got to figure out how to get off the notifications of additional comments to this “thread” it is like a tennis match in hell with neither player percieving the same court lines as the other :hypno:

 

[jkarp]

I’ve got to figure out how to get off the notifications of additional comments to this “thread” it is like a tennis match in hell with neither player percieving the same court lines as the other :hypno:

Try these steps:

1. 
   *]Profile (Main Menu)
   *]List Subscriptions (from the Control Panel Menu)
   *]Check the box for the thread from which you want to unsubscribe
   *]Dropdown List at the bottom of list of threads:
   1. 
      *]Delete Subscription or
      *]No email notification, etc
      
      *]Go button

 

[peso73]

THANK YOU!!!
GOD bless you!
:hug1: