Is God a "square circle"?

[Neithan]

How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

This premise is false in view of the concept of Actus Purus, i.e. pure actuality, which is identified with the Supreme Cause (see Aristotle, Metaphysics).

Action does not presuppose change in the cause, where there is no potentiality.

This is really not difficult to imagine even with natural examples. Such as how the total energy of a system does not change with time, though it effects changes within it.

 

[eliasaph99]

Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

This is where I believe your error lies.

Why does action presuppose change? This is your perception of what action presupposes from the perspective of a being which exists in time. You act and there is a change.

But what if you exist outside of time? For want of a better manner of stating it, then all your moments are one moment. There is no change. That which I have done, I am doing, and will do, always.

If I painted a picture, then I am painting the picture, and will paint always.

Or, to put it slightly different, I never stop experiencing the painting of the picture. There was never a moment when I was not experiencing it, and there never will be a moment when I am not experiencing it.

Likewise, I will never stop appreciating the beauty of the completed picture. There was never a moment when I did not appreciate its beauty, etc.

To a being trapped in time, this may appear like an ordered sequence: The picture begins, it is painted, it is completed. To me outside of time, I see it all at once.

So there is no change.

By supposing that action brings change, you are bringing God into time. But this is incorrect, God is outside. To Him, the universe always existed. He has always experienced it.

As to the effectors issue, I just want to say that there is no issue. A being which exists outside of our universe may have many ways of interacting with our universe which are, at this moment, beyond our capability of imagining.

As an example of this, yesterday I was reading some of the history of the development of the theory of gravity. Early on a French mathematician described a mysterious force emanating from the Sun which affected the planets. He said it acted as the Sun’s hands. But he had no idea how. It was at the edge of his imagining.

God’s ability to affect the universe is certainly much more mysterious than gravity.

 

[Brady]

Wow, philosophy.

Time is a man made concept.

Matter is a God made concept.

Life is a dream (a puff of smoke)

We ants assume if something exists out of time it is stasis, if I could understand God I most certainly wouldn’t worship him.

 

[itinerant1]

The fundamental errors of Ateista’s argument are a logical fallacy with the use of the term “act”, and a conclusion that does not follow from a notion of God involving a logical contradiction. I have listed the key statements of his argument as follows:

(1) To act necessarily involves change.
(2) God is unchangeable and acts.
(3) Therefore, the notion of God is involves a logical contradiction.

(4) The notion of a square circle involves a logical contradiction.
(5) Therefore, a square circle cannot exist.

(6) If a square circle cannot exist because the notion involves a logical contradiction,
(7) Then God (or any god) cannot exist because the notion of God involves a logical contradiction.

The 1st statement is true in regard to the “acts” of physical beings. The 2nd statement uses “acts” in the same sense (univocally), as is used in the 1st statement. The 1st and 2nd statements intend “acts” in a univocal or synonymous sense. However, when the theist says “God acts” he is not using “acts” univocally or synonymously with the “acts” of physical beings. Nor is the theist’s usage of “acts” equivocal. “Acts” appears to be used of God in an analogical sense.

Therefore, the 1st statement, “To act necessarily involves change” is not absolutely true. It is only true concerning physical beings. Hence, it is evident that Ateista’s conclusion in (3) does not follow from his premises due to the logical fallacy involving univocal usage of “acts”.

Concerning the 6th and 7th statements, when we undersand the meaning of the terms “square” and “circle”, the logical contradiction is self-evident. The conclusion follows that square circles do not exist in the mind, (as no one can conceive what is logically contradictory), or in reality. The conclusion of the 7th statement does not necessarily follow from statements (4) and (5).

Ateista’s derives his conclusion in (7) from the false assumption of a certain likeness between two contradictory notions: “square circle” and “God”. That is, suppose our concept of God involves a logical contradiction. God’s (or any god’s) non-existence is not demonstrated from a contradictory notion of God. That is, we can think that God does not exist, but His existence is not dependent on what we think. The only conclusion we can legitimately draw from a contradictory notion of God’s nature is that a God cannot exist as we have conceived Him.

We say that a square circle does not exist because the attributes of the geometrical figures are known to us. On the other hand, everyone may not correctly conceive the attributes of a supreme being, because we do not perceive him. This indicates a problem with how a supreme being ought to be conceieved, and nothing more.

Hence, the non-existence of a supreme being does not follow from anyone’s erroneous conception of Him, any more than the existence of a supreme being follows from anyone’s correct conception of Him (eg. the error of Anslem’s ontological argument).

Does this mean that Ateista’s argument is an ontological argument in reverse?

Supplementary Note: In post 65, I presented the this same argument but with a different emphasis. I also tied the concept of the “unchanging acts” of God to the prime mover. However, the errors of the God as a Square Circle argument remain independent of Aetista’s assumption of a fallacy in the philosophical arguments for the existence of a prime mover.

 

[itinerant1]

I did not have time to read all the reply’s to this question…but I think it is important to realize what an unmoved-mover is. It is an entity within itself that does not change but effects change in others. How can this happen. We all have desire to know “the good”, (ie ultimate knowledge, ultimate justice, ultimate beauty…basically God) But the key here in discussing movers is the word desire. We all have desire or some emotion which makes us move to do something. (ie A man sleeping on railroad tracks as a train is approaching would most likely move us to go wake him up and get him off the track. That sleeping man was our unmoved mover in this instance. It was our own desire to save him, or fear of what would happen etc that caused us to move. ) What moves us to do anything? Fear, anger, compassion, or love…true agape and eros love…nothing makes us do more ridiculous things than eros love (unless it is ordered). This, I believe, is how an unmoved-mover works…and helps us to prove the existence of a God!

I just started reading other responses in this thread, myself, and decided to comment on your your post. I think you have a good perspective on the matter and it is illustrated with good examples. It sounds, if you don’t mind me saying so, like a mother’s perspective.

God has created us with an innate orientation toward Him. We are moved by the desire for the “good in general”, which is God Himself. St. Augustine said “You have made us for Yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until we rest in You.” Thus the Unmoved Mover moves us by our desire for Him. In an analogical sense, all of creation desires God.

Now, there is another side to this coin. It pertains to the direct action of the Unmoved Mover. The first action of this kind is the act of creation, creatio ex nihil. This is an action by the Unchanging Creator that does not involve desire on the part of creatures, since creatures are being brought into existence itself by this act.

So, I just thought I would drop that little tidbit as a supplement to your perspective.

Peace & Good Will

 

[ateista]

Explain in detail what you mean you mean by “fallacy of composition” in the context of philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God.

All the cosmological arguments rely on the following reasoning: The indivdual objects in the universe have a certain attribute (for example: “they require an external cause for their existence” - btw which is only an assumption!) and therefore the universe also must have the same attribute.

This generalization from the particular to the whole is called the fallacy of composition.

True, in some cases it is correct that one may properly generalize from the individual to the whole. Example: “all the bricks in the wall are red, therefore the wall is red”.

However, it is not always true. Example: “all the tiles in the floor are square, therefore the whole floor is square”. Clearly false.

The fallacy is to posit that for every set “S”, which is composed of elements “e1, e2, e3, …” and where each element has an attribute “A” the set “S” also has the attribute “A”.

Furthermore the proponents mistakenly assert that the universe is an object, rather than a set of objects. A set may have an emerging attribute (which cannot be reduced to the elements) or may lose individual attributes (even if that attribute is present for all the elements of the set). The rules for “sets” is completely different from the rules of “objects”.

 

[abucs]

Atiesta,

the universe may in fact be an object. I can see how you would see is as a set. It is easy to do, especially with the success of materialistc reductionism over the last century.

You may be interested in reading in quantum mechanics and Bells theorem. they seem to suggest that all matter is in fact a wave, an object of overlapping waves that only come into existance as a set of particles upon observation. Bells theorem suggests, no actually proves, that reality is non local, although its workings appear to us to work in a cause and effect local way.

To me, and to many scientists, quantum mechanics has invalidated the materialistic philosophy through scientific experimentation.

If you haven’t studied it, i think you will find it very interesting.

bottomlayer.com/

drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

xoomer.alice.it/baldazzi69/papers/mermin_moon.pdf

btw, thanks for creating the thread, it has made many people think which is why we all come on here. While i see things differently to you, i am interested in listening to your thinking, and thankyou for that.

 

[Preacher_Vern]

Are you a square circle, he made you?

 

[ateista]

Atiesta,

the universe may in fact be an object. I can see how you would see is as a set. It is easy to do, especially with the success of materialistc reductionism over the last century.

You may be interested in reading in quantum mechanics and Bells theorem. they seem to suggest that all matter is in fact a wave, an object of overlapping waves that only come into existance as a set of particles upon observation. Bells theorem suggests, no actually proves, that reality is non local, although its workings appear to us to work in a cause and effect local way.

Yes, I am familiar with the Bell-theorem, and I find it fascinating. If nothing else, it opens our eyes and forces us to realize how much we don’t know about reality. Is the world beautiful, or what?

To me, and to many scientists, quantum mechanics has invalidated the materialistic philosophy through scientific experimentation.

Well, I would not know about that. To me it is a very strong argument against the traditional definition of God - namely his alleged omniscience. If reality is truly random on the quantum level (as it seems to be) and only the observation of the event collapses the wave-form, then it makes no sense to say that God already “knows” the future, until it actually happens.

And it does not help to say that God is outside time. The wave-form is in this universe with its time, and its collapse cannot have happened and did not happen yet - at the same time.

btw, thanks for creating the thread, it has made many people think which is why we all come on here. While i see things differently to you, i am interested in listening to your thinking, and thankyou for that.

You are most welcome. And I thank you for your kind words. I wish I had more time to devote to these threads. Funny stuff is that with retirement I have less time to spend here… isn’t that annoying?

 

[eliasaph99]

Well, I would not know about that. To me it is a very strong argument against the traditional definition of God - namely his alleged omniscience. If reality is truly random on the quantum level (as it seems to be) and only the observation of the event collapses the wave-form, then it makes no sense to say that God already “knows” the future, until it actually happens.

And it does not help to say that God is outside time. The wave-form is in this universe with its time, and its collapse cannot have happened and did not happen yet - at the same time.

In the above paragraph, you’re assumptions about what is it like to exist outside of time are showing through. Also, you have written an absurdity by stating that if I observe an object from outside of time and that object is in two different states, then I have observed the object at the same time.

This seems to me to be incorrect. From outside of time, it would seem that I can make observations of the same object at different times without myself being affected by time.

 

[ateista]

In the above paragraph, you’re assumptions about what is it like to exist outside of time are showing through.

I am sure they do.

Also, you have written an absurdity by stating that if I observe an object from outside of time and that object is in two different states, then I have observed the object at the same time.

This seems to me to be incorrect. From outside of time, it would seem that I can make observations of the same object at different times without myself being affected by time.

Sorry, it is not clear what you mean. I said that the existence of an object cannot be contingent upon from which vantage point we look at it. If it does not exist in our world (with time) it cannot exist even if viewed from the “outside” (without time). Of course I maintain that the concept of “outside” time is without meaning.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

Let me attempt to resolve this dispute:

Whatever is “immutable” in the absolute sense of the term is not subject to change. There is no physical object within human experience that is absolutely immutable. If we think there is some object in our experiece that can be said to be immutable, then we are not using “immutable” in an absolute sense. If we adopt this non-absolute sense of immutable, i.e. to refer to anthing existing in the physical universe or cosmos, then the term “immutable” when used of God is being used in an analogical sense with something existing in the physical universe that is immutable.

It follows from this that any being that is said to be absolutely immutable cannot be said to be in a condition or state of statis, since stasis or static are concepts whose meaning is based on physical matter and energy. The sense of “immutable” is analogical, while the sense of stasis is literal and physical. Hence, whatever being is said to be absolutely immutable, is absolutely incapable of change. And this is a being to which the term “stasis” remains inapplicable.

Furthermore, “change” is a concept based on our experience of physical motion. Non-physical reality cannot be said to change in this emprical sense of the term. However, we can posit the existence of non-physical beings whose substances include an admixture of potentiality. Such beings are capable of change, but it is not motion in the sense of physical change, it is rather, change or motion after a manner proper to non-physical being.

Hence, your argument cannot hold since “change” and “immutable” are not univocal when used of God and physical reality. The argument rests on a subtle occurence of the fallacy of equivocation. While the terms are not univocal, as you have used them, neither are they are they properly equivocal. They are properly analogical, which seems to qualify the argument under the fallacy of equivocation. In any case, it is a clear example of some type of fallacy of ambiguity. The conclusion here applies directly to the main argument in this thread, the God is a square circle argument. This argument likewise fails due to its fallacy of ambiguity.

Note: There may be other senses of “immutable” not discussed here, as they do not seem directly relevant to the discussion at hand, such as when someone asserts that a “triangle” is immutable. It is in incabable of changing and remaining the same triangle, (change in ratio), or remaing a triangle at all (absolute change in configuration). Triangles exists physically, conceptually, and if you are an old Academy (old school) Platonist, triangle is said to exist in itself, non-materially, as well: the Ideal triangle. If you are new school Platonist, neo-Platonist, then the Ideal triangle exists in the mind of the absolutely immutable, changeless God.

~The End~

 

[Nino]

Our little adopted granchild from Colombia is amazing…her verbal talents,she can reason,smiles like an angel…looks like Dora with curls…but she is still a child…compared to me who has lived a long and active life…knowing how to understand cause and affect! I have had so many wonderful things happen to me down thru the years…hints,warnings,suggestions on what to say or do etc…saving me much anquish and my life as well…all of this comes from Prayer…prayer is conversation with my Creator…this spirit is quite profound in so many ways…and I am so lucky that unlike all of the other creatures my GOD created…only I as a human have free will…the ability to choose right from wrong! Before Christianity there were no hospitals ,the lame and injured had to make it on their own…no homes for the aged…the old people were left with a bowl of corn and a pen knife as the tribe moved on…charity wards…only cruelty…Jesus introduced what God is really like…a loving Father…complex yet simple…majestic yet down to earth…I have gone thru all of these ‘proving there is no god’ bits in college years ago…Marxists love to smirk and see…religion is the drug of choice for the masses…worship the state with folks like us in charge" I take my place with the underground church in China then the secular one running the show…anytime my God is like a father to me…not an out-dated cornball sqaure circle …this title is like the old chestnut…can God make something so heavy that even He cant lift it…duh…

 

[ateista]

Let me attempt to resolve this dispute:

Whatever is “immutable” in the absolute sense of the term is not subject to change. There is no physical object within human experience that is absolutely immutable. If we think there is some object in our experiece that can be said to be immutable, then we are not using “immutable” in an absolute sense. If we adopt this non-absolute sense of immutable, i.e. to refer to anthing existing in the physical universe or cosmos, then the term “immutable” when used of God is being used in an analogical sense with something existing in the physical universe that is immutable.

It follows from this that any being that is said to be absolutely immutable cannot be said to be in a condition or state of statis, since stasis or static are concepts whose meaning is based on physical matter and energy. The sense of “immutable” is analogical, while the sense of stasis is literal and physical. Hence, whatever being is said to be absolutely immutable, is absolutely incapable of change. And this is a being to which the term “stasis” remains inapplicable.

Furthermore, “change” is a concept based on our experience of physical motion. Non-physical reality cannot be said to change in this emprical sense of the term. However, we can posit the existence of non-physical beings whose substances include an admixture of potentiality. Such beings are capable of change, but it is not motion in the sense of physical change, it is rather, change or motion after a manner proper to non-physical being.

Hence, your argument cannot hold since “change” and “immutable” are not univocal when used of God and physical reality. The argument rests on a subtle occurence of the fallacy of equivocation. While the terms are not univocal, as you have used them, neither are they are they properly equivocal. They are properly analogical, which seems to qualify the argument under the fallacy of equivocation. In any case, it is a clear example of some type of fallacy of ambiguity. The conclusion here applies directly to the main argument in this thread, the God is a square circle argument. This argument likewise fails due to its fallacy of ambiguity.

Ok. This argument is based on the concept of analogy. A usual way to put it could be to speak of “loyalty” as applied to dogs. We agree that the “loyalty of a dog” is not the same as a “loyalty of human”. It is commensurate to the dog’s nature, just like the loyalty of a human is commensurate to the human nature.

At first glance there is nothing wrong with this argument. However there is a big problem with it. When we speak of the four entities here: 1) human, 2) loyalty of humans, 3) dogs, and 4) loyalty of dogs, we have three well defined concepts here (human, loyalty of humans and dogs) with one unknown (loyalty of dogs).

Formally, it is an equation with 3 known values and 1 unknown. Such equations can be solved and they have one solution.

However, with God, we have 2 known and 2 unknown variables. God and God’s attributes are the unknowns and the immutable, action, change, etc in human relationship are the known ones.

Formally, it is an equation with two variables, and such equations cannot be solved, they do not have one solution.

Therefore to refer to the problematic words as analogies (commensurate to God’s nature) do not give us any solution as to what do these words mean, when applied to God. Therefore, either the words immutable, action, etc. mean the same thing when applied to God and we have unsolvable dilemmas, or they do not mean the same thing, and then we have no idea what they mean. We could just as well substitute them with gobbledegook, made up words.

Note: There may be other senses of “immutable” not discussed here, as they do not seem directly relevant to the discussion at hand, such as when someone asserts that a “triangle” is immutable. It is in incabable of changing and remaining the same triangle, (change in ratio), or remaing a triangle at all (absolute change in configuration). Triangles exists physically, conceptually, and if you are an old Academy (old school) Platonist, triangle is said to exist in itself, non-materially, as well: the Ideal triangle. If you are new school Platonist, neo-Platonist, then the Ideal triangle exists in the mind of the absolutely immutable, changeless God.

Triangles or other geometric concepts do not exist in the real world, their approximations do. Needless to say, I am not a follower of Plato.

 

[itinerant1]

Triangles or other geometric concepts do not exist in the real world, their approximations do. Needless to say, I am not a follower of Plato.

I think it is clear that I did not say geometrical concepts exist in the world.

However, the unintentional misstatment is problematic for reasons other than the fact that it is a misstatement. I will flesh out this matter because it bear an interesting relevancy to the God is Square Circle argument, which should be evident as my discussion proceeds.

First, geometrical concepts do in fact exist in the real world, if (a) they exist in the human mind and (b) the human mind is said to exist in the real world.

I don’t think any one will want to deny “a”.

If one chooses to avoid agreeing with the statement that says “geometrical concepts exist in the real world” by denying “b” then he must demonstrate that the human mind exists elsewhere than in the real world. This could be very difficult to do since the real world that exists externally to man is the same world in which man exists.

Second, in case anyone is experienceing angst because the conclusion above that says geometrical concepts exists in the real world, seems inescapable, then I can ease your mind by assisting you with logically avoiding this conclusion.

When we reflect on geometrical concepts we grasp their perfect nature. We can conceive of the perfect circle, the perfect triangle, etc. On the other hand, no geometrical object existing in the external world can be said to be perfect. So, what is the origin of our ideas of perfect geometric figures?

One answer is the Platonic position that ideas are innate. Another solution is the Aristotelian position that says all knowledge originates with the senses: there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses.

I’ll go with Aristotle on this one. If all knowledge originates in the senses, and perfect circles do not exist in the external world for our senses to perceive, then how do we account for the intellect’s idea of a perfect circle? The mind abstracts the universal attributes from the particular, imperfect circles in the world that are perceived by the senses. Particular circles perceived by the sense vary in circumference, color, and so on. But there is something common to all circles that makes them circles and accounts for the reason why they are referred as circles despite their accidental variations.

The mind’s concept of circle is not of this or that particular circle but of circle itself, or we can say the concept is of circleness. It is a universal and applies to all particular circles as pertains to what is required of a circle to be a circle: its essential attributes.

In comparison, the senses perceive directly the particular circles in their particularity or individuating qualities. The sense do not know the universal. Nothing that exists in the external world is a universal. There is no universal circle existing in the physical world.

Particular and Universal
Everything that exists in the physical world is a particular thing, this atom, this tree, this dog, this triangle. It would be an absurdity to think of a physical object as a universal. Universal is radically contrary to the physical, which everyone agees can only be particular in nature.

However, as we have seen, the concepts in the mind must be universals. If they were not, it would be impossible to have a discussion about perfect geometric figures, or any anthing else whatsoever.

From the facts that everything physical must be a particular thing, and that geometrical concepts are universals, it necessarily follows that geometrical concepts are non-physical.

Accordingly, we can say that geometrical concepts do not exist in the real world in the same way that a tree exists in the world.
So, there it is. I fulfilled my offer of showing the way out of having to maintain that perfect geometric figures in the real world.

The word “in” is a spatial concept based on physical reality. When we say the the mind or its concepts are “in” the world or “in” this or that man, we are not using the word in the sense as when we say that a tree exists in the real world, because the mind, of which concepts are modifications, are not physical or spatial, they are ‘above’ the physical. They are metaphysical reality. What is metaphysical can be said to be in the real world, in the sense that metaphysical nature really exists. In fact it has more reality than does physical reality.

 

[itinerant1]

Ignore my post just prior to this one. I got locked out editing mode and was forced to jump ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateista
“Triangles or other geometric concepts do not exist in the real world, their approximations do. Needless to say, I am not a follower of Plato.”

Response:
It is clear enough that I did not say geometrical concepts exist in the world. I listed various way that triangles are said to exists:

“Triangles exists physically, conceptually, and…”

Neither did I equate “Triangles” with “geometric concepts” as your quoted words above imply.

However, mis-statment is problematic for some very interesting reasons other than the fact that it is a mis-statement. I will flesh out this matter because it bear an interesting relevancy to the God is Square Circle argument, which should be evident as my discussion proceeds.

First, geometric concepts exist in the real world, if (a) they exist in the human mind and (b) the human mind is said to exist in the real world.

I don’t think any one will want to deny “a”.

If one chooses to avoid agreeing with the statement that says “geometric concepts exist in the real world” by denying “b” then he must demonstrate that the human mind exists elsewhere than in the real world. This could be very difficult to do since the real world that exists externally to man is the same world in which man exists.

Second, perchance anyone is experienceing angst because the conclusion above that says geometric concepts exists in the real world, seems inescapable, then I can ease your mind by providing you with a logical way of avoiding this conclusion.

When we reflect on geometric concepts we grasp their perfect nature. We can conceive of the perfect circle, the perfect triangle, etc. On the other hand, no geometric object existing in the external world can be said to be perfect. So, what then is the origin of our ideas of perfect geometric figures?

One answer is the Platonic position that ideas are innate. Another solution is the Aristotelian position that says all knowledge originates with the senses: there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses.

I’ll go with Aristotle on this one. If all knowledge originates in the senses, and perfect circles do not exist in the external world for our senses to perceive, then how do we account for the intellect’s idea of a perfect circle? The mind abstracts the universal attributes from the particular, imperfect circles in the world that are perceived by the senses. Particular circles perceived by the sense vary in circumference, color, and so on. But there is something common to all circles that makes them circles and accounts for the reason why they are referred as circles despite their accidental variations.

The mind’s concept of circle is not of one of this or that particular circle but of circle itself. Or, we can say the concept is of circleness. It is a universal and applies to all particular circles as pertains to what is required of a circle to be what it is: its essential attributes.

The senses perceive directly particular circles in their particularity or individuating qualities. The sense do not know the universal. Nothing that exists in the external world is a universal. There is no universal circle in the physical world.

Particular and Universal
One more time for emphasis: Everything that exists in the physical world is a particular thing, this atom, this tree, this dog, this triangle. It would be an absurdity to think of a physical object as a universal. Universal is radically contrary to the physical, which everyone agees can only be particular in nature.

However, as we have seen, the concepts in the mind must be universals. If they were not, it would be impossible to have a discussion about perfect geometric figures, or any anthing else whatsoever.

From the facts that everything physical must be a particular thing, and that geometric concepts are universals, it necessarily follows that geometrical concepts are non-physical reality.

Accordingly, we can say that geometric concepts do not exist in the real world in the same way that physical things in the world.
So, there it is. I fulfilled my offer of showing the way out of having to maintain that geometric concepts exists in the real world.

The word “in” is a spatial concept based on physical reality. When we say the mind or its concepts are “in” the world or “in” this or that man, we are not using the word “in” the same sense as when we say that trees exists “in” the real world, because the mind, of which concepts are modifications, are not physical or spatial, they are ‘above’ the physical. They have metaphysical existence. What is metaphysical can be said to be “in” the real world, in the sense that metaphysical nature really exists and acts or is acted upon by physical reality.

 

[itinerant1]

Ok. This argument is based on the concept of analogy. A usual way to put it could be to speak of “loyalty” as applied to dogs. We agree that the “loyalty of a dog” is not the same as a “loyalty of human”. It is commensurate to the dog’s nature, just like the loyalty of a human is commensurate to the human nature.

At first glance there is nothing wrong with this argument. However there is a big problem with it. When we speak of the four entities here: 1) human, 2) loyalty of humans, 3) dogs, and 4) loyalty of dogs, we have three well defined concepts here (human, loyalty of humans and dogs) with one unknown (loyalty of dogs).

Formally, it is an equation with 3 known values and 1 unknown. Such equations can be solved and they have one solution.

However, with God, we have 2 known and 2 unknown variables. God and God’s attributes are the unknowns and the immutable, action, change, etc in human relationship are the known ones.

Formally, it is an equation with two variables, and such equations cannot be solved, they do not have one solution.

Therefore to refer to the problematic words as analogies (commensurate to God’s nature) do not give us any solution as to what do these words mean, when applied to God. Therefore, either the words immutable, action, etc. mean the same thing when applied to God and we have unsolvable dilemmas, or they do not mean the same thing, and then we have no idea what they mean. We could just as well substitute them with gobbledegook, made up words.

All very interesting, indeed, with notable logical progression. However, I fail to see what “analogical” has to do with something being “commensurate”. If something is commensurate then that relationship cannot be said to be analogical. This is especially obvious when something of metaphysical reality is said to named or understood in an analogical sense with something in physical reality. Any such term is not use univocally of both realities. Nor is it equivocal. The commensurate is ruled out in consideration of the term’s relationship to a negative way of knowing involved in analogical knowledge.

Further, analogical relationship in theology cannot be analyzed by means of an equation. An equation seeks to make equal or balanced. The use of an equation is merely one way of assuming that if an argument is valid an equality or balance must be demonstrated. However, this approach does not apply to theolological terms that name God’s attributes.

Trying to equate with an equation on an analogical relationship is form of the fallacy of ambiguity, in that it assumes a sense to the term “analogical” that is other than the sense in which it is used to describe the type of knowlege we have of God.

So, we havent yet moved beyond fallacies of ambiguity, which is the original problem with the use of the terms “act” and “immutable” in your argument. Equations and assumptions about commensurate relationship is merely a continuation of the same fallacy by other means and terms.

In my next post, I will elaborate on “analogical” and the type of knowledge that have when naming God’s attributes.

 

[geekborj]

I would like to note the following point by point. (#N) added for reference.

(#1) Obviously, it cannot be a material entity. It cannot be just a concept, since concepts are “passive” things, they are unable to act.

This being is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. That already brings up a serious problem. How can an immaterial entity interface with a material one? Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. Action without effectors is not something we are familiar with, we cannot even imagine anything like that.

(#2) This being is obviously cannot be constrained by space and time, since space and time are not independent of matter and energy. We are not familiar with such existence. But we can say that a timeless existence can only be one thing: “total stasis”. Without “time” there is only an unchanging existence.

(#3) Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. What kind of existence is that? We cannot imagine.

(#4) Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to “act”? Any action presupposes a “change”. Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a “before” the change (or action) and an “after” the change (or action).

(#5) But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of “timeless” and “active” existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a “square circle” cannot exist.

(#6) So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

#1. There are “concepts” that do act on matter. Where did the term “energy” came from? Is that just a concept? What about fields (magnetic, electric, etc), are they not just concept? But we all know that magnetic and electric fields do produce change! Isn’t these just “mystery” as well for science?

The concept of fields and energy are the very main essence of the logic that one thing must be caused by another. Nevertheless, Science does not define the very cause of these fields and energy stuffs (and possibly space and time themselves).

#2. Logically, this being should exists beyond the space-time fabric. However, i do think that it is just absurd to use the very same space-time logic to understand what is beyond space-time. We can never and should never use the idea of “time” outside space-time and therefore can never ever imagine how “timeless” this “being” is.

#3. Truly, we can never imagine. That is the pure essence of “mystery.” In this regard, how can we ever imagine light to be BOTH a particle and a wave? Some say that light only manifests itself as both and thus, until now, we don’t know what it is really but just call it “light” anyway.

#4. Indeed! And the question begs the answer. Note that the “action” being referred to here is not ON THE CAUSE but rather ON THE EFFECT. Therefore it is just logical for this “being” to first create the very fabric of change – space-time so that he/it can bring forth change TO IT (not to him-/it-self). I think that the problem is in the perspective of what changes.

#5. First, there is no contradiction to “timeless” and “active” existence. Timeless is a description pertaining to being outside this space-time (or Universe). Active is a description pertaining to the continuous cause of the existence of this space-time (or Universe) and the further cause-effect relation within this Universe.

#6. Even if I assume that your arguments are correct (say, ignore #1 - #5 rebuttal above), the conclusion should instead be: God is not proven. This does not necessary mean disproved – it only does not offer a proof.

Just as the term “square circle”, the statement begs to disagree itself and therefore a fallacy. However, as to the question of the existence of a God, there is no contradiction as per “timeless” and “cause of change” is concerned. The problem lies in the perspective.

May this God bless us and continue to unfold his greatness through this Universe.

 

[ateista]

#1. There are “concepts” that do act on matter. Where did the term “energy” came from? Is that just a concept? What about fields (magnetic, electric, etc), are they not just concept? But we all know that magnetic and electric fields do produce change! Isn’t these just “mystery” as well for science?

Matter and energy are not two “things”. The concept of “energy” does not act on anything, nor does the concept of “matter”.

#2. Logically, this being should exists beyond the space-time fabric. However, i do think that it is just absurd to use the very same space-time logic to understand what is beyond space-time. We can never and should never use the idea of “time” outside space-time and therefore can never ever imagine how “timeless” this “being” is.

So on what grounds do you speak of "spaceless-timeless existence? If we cannot “imagine” what it is, how come you say that it exists?

#3. Truly, we can never imagine. That is the pure essence of “mystery.” In this regard, how can we ever imagine light to be BOTH a particle and a wave? Some say that light only manifests itself as both and thus, until now, we don’t know what it is really but just call it “light” anyway.

So the terminology of “particle - wave” was incorrect when it tried to describe the reality of the elecromagnetic form of energy. The existing concepts were insufficient to describe reality, and they were updated. There is no “mystery” there.

#4. Indeed! And the question begs the answer. Note that the “action” being referred to here is not ON THE CAUSE but rather ON THE EFFECT. Therefore it is just logical for this “being” to first create the very fabric of change – space-time so that he/it can bring forth change TO IT (not to him-/it-self). I think that the problem is in the perspective of what changes.

I have no idea what you try to say here.

#5. First, there is no contradiction to “timeless” and “active” existence. Timeless is a description pertaining to being outside this space-time (or Universe). Active is a description pertaining to the continuous cause of the existence of this space-time (or Universe) and the further cause-effect relation within this Universe.

My friend, I did not say that God “acts”, the theists do. All I did was to point out that “acting” needs time, and “acting” without “change” and “change” without “time” is sheer nonsense.

#6. Even if I assume that your arguments are correct (say, ignore #1 - #5 rebuttal above), the conclusion should instead be: God is not proven. This does not necessary mean disproved – it only does not offer a proof.

No, it does not “disprove” it. It merely shows that the words “describing” God are meaningless / nonsensical in that respect. Apologists could change their vocabulary to better suit the subject. If that is impossible, then they should admit that they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[itinerant1]

Ignore my post just prior to this one. I got locked out editing mode and was forced to jump ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateista
“Triangles or other geometric concepts do not exist in the real world, their approximations do. Needless to say, I am not a follower of Plato.”

Response:
It is clear enough that I did not say geometrical concepts exist in the world. I listed various way that triangles are said to exists:

“Triangles exists physically, conceptually, and…”

Neither did I equate “Triangles” with “geometric concepts” as your quoted words above imply.

Addendum:

I overlooked mentioning a particular point in this post. It is a point that is necessarily implied by what I said in regard to the various type of existence geometric figures have, but it should be stated explicitly, for the sake of clarification.

I had said that imperfect geometric figures exist in the physical world and the intellect abstracts the essential characteristics from what is known of these physical objects by the senses. The intellect knows the essence of a perfect geometric figure, while the senses know the imperfect physical object or figure.

Moreover, this necessarily implies that the essential attributes of geometric figures, or the perfect geometric figure, exists in the external, physical world before it exists in the mind. For example, there are imperfectly round objects, such as pearls and round, water carved stones, and so on. Yet the shape of these objects reveals the presence of perfect three-dimensional roundness, which enables us to know and refer to these diverse objects as round or spherical.

Perfect spheres exist both in nature and in the intellect as regards their essential characteristics. In each situation, though, the perfect sphere has a different type of existence. The same reality exists in external objects, where it has a physical, material mode of existence, and in the intellect where it has an immaterial, universal, and intentional mode of existence.

Hence, in this manner, we can correctly say that perfect geometric figures exist in the external world as well as in the human intellect.