| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gene Asner" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2003 11:42:40 AM |
| Object: |
A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I think
many members will like. Aside from that, I'd be interested if anyone can
find problems with it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
Here is the idea:
People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is all knowing as such
a basic postulate that they don't think about whether the idea itself is
contradictory. But consider that such a being either couldn't have
existed forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or developed
these attributes. Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else. How could this being have any knowledge
except some sort of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no language because
it wouldn't need any means of communication. It also couldn't communicate
with itself since it would have no need of language. How could it have
any knowledge or why would it need any? It wouldn't have to manipulate
any environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't have to do
anything to survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So it
wouldn't have to know anything. What would there be for it to know even
if it wanted to know something? Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists. We learn because
we live in an environment where there are things to learn about. We
communicate and develop knowledge because it is in our survival interest
to do so. We develop social structures because they are in our survival
interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this nor could he if he
wanted to. So how could God ever even get the idea to create anything
since it knows only that it exists? It doesn't even know this in any
abstract way. All it knows, if it feels any sensation, is that it has
some sort of sensations or sensation and in that sense it knows that it
exists. But this is on the level of the most primitive organism that has
sensation. So the idea of a God that knows or can create anything is a
complete contradiction.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some sort of community
of lesser gods that do have some sort of survival needs and hence could
learn and develop but it completely demolishes monotheism. Others must
have had this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most people, my bet
is including most atheists, have never considered this primary postulate
concerning God because we grow up with it as such a given that it isn't
thought about for its internal contradictions. At any rate, that's my
great idea.
Gene
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
11 Oct 2003 07:31:19 PM |
|
|
"Gene Asner" <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2...
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I think
many members will like. Aside from that, I'd be interested if anyone can
find problems with it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
Here is the idea:
People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is all knowing as such
a basic postulate that they don't think about whether the idea itself is
contradictory. But consider that such a being either couldn't have
existed forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or developed
these attributes. Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else. How could this being have any knowledge
except some sort of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no language because
it wouldn't need any means of communication. It also couldn't communicate
with itself since it would have no need of language. How could it have
any knowledge or why would it need any? It wouldn't have to manipulate
any environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't have to do
anything to survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So it
wouldn't have to know anything. What would there be for it to know even
if it wanted to know something? Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists. We learn because
we live in an environment where there are things to learn about. We
communicate and develop knowledge because it is in our survival interest
to do so. We develop social structures because they are in our survival
interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this nor could he if he
wanted to. So how could God ever even get the idea to create anything
since it knows only that it exists? It doesn't even know this in any
abstract way. All it knows, if it feels any sensation, is that it has
some sort of sensations or sensation and in that sense it knows that it
exists. But this is on the level of the most primitive organism that has
sensation. So the idea of a God that knows or can create anything is a
complete contradiction.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some sort of community
of lesser gods that do have some sort of survival needs and hence could
learn and develop but it completely demolishes monotheism. Others must
have had this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most people, my bet
is including most atheists, have never considered this primary postulate
concerning God because we grow up with it as such a given that it isn't
thought about for its internal contradictions. At any rate, that's my
great idea.
Gene
therefore God is an amoeba. It has no reason to communicate with other
amoebae. Seriously that's why God is in relationship to Manking. Because
only by psosulating a God that relates to manking, does God have any meaning
for Manking. Logical contradictions of God don't disprove God since God has
a logic outside of mathematical logic. The idea of God is a mechanism for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that. An
atheist can use this transformation just as well or maybe better than a
believer. I doubt if many atheists would be interested, however.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
11 Oct 2003 11:04:08 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:rh1ib.7071$av5.6864@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[SNIP]
The idea of God is a mechanism for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that.
I am definitely one of those people. Care to elaborate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
12 Oct 2003 09:16:23 AM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Yo4ib.176996$3o3.13164480@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:rh1ib.7071$av5.6864@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[SNIP]
The idea of God is a mechanism for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that.
I am definitely one of those people. Care to elaborate?
Yes. I do care to elaborate, but it may take some time. In the meanwhile, in
case anyone else knows what I'm talking about, perhaps he/she might want to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
13 Oct 2003 11:32:03 AM |
|
|
"xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Yo4ib.176996$3o3.13164480@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:rh1ib.7071$av5.6864@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[SNIP]
The idea of God is a mechanism for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that.
I am definitely one of those people. Care to elaborate?
Since atheists don't believe in God, there is still no reason not to
experience transformations of a religious sort, since if God doesn't exist,
the transcendence of the self does not depend on God. There is really no
reason why an atheist with a correct understanding of the religious belief
and its associated transformation mechanism can't experience the same
benefits ofsalvation as a believer. I could give an example but time today
does not permit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Asner" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
13 Oct 2003 12:08:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Gene Asner" <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2...
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I think
many members will like. Aside from that, I'd be interested if anyone can
find problems with it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
Here is the idea:
People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is all knowing as
such
a basic postulate that they don't think about whether the idea itself is
contradictory. But consider that such a being either couldn't have
existed forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or developed
these attributes. Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else. How could this being have any knowledge
except some sort of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no language because
it wouldn't need any means of communication. It also couldn't communicate
with itself since it would have no need of language. How could it have
any knowledge or why would it need any? It wouldn't have to manipulate
any environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't have to do
anything to survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So it
wouldn't have to know anything. What would there be for it to know even
if it wanted to know something? Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists. We learn because
we live in an environment where there are things to learn about. We
communicate and develop knowledge because it is in our survival interest
to do so. We develop social structures because they are in our survival
interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this nor could he if he
wanted to. So how could God ever even get the idea to create anything
since it knows only that it exists? It doesn't even know this in any
abstract way. All it knows, if it feels any sensation, is that it has
some sort of sensations or sensation and in that sense it knows that it
exists. But this is on the level of the most primitive organism that has
sensation. So the idea of a God that knows or can create anything is a
complete contradiction.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some sort of community
of lesser gods that do have some sort of survival needs and hence could
learn and develop but it completely demolishes monotheism. Others must
have had this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most people, my bet
is including most atheists, have never considered this primary postulate
concerning God because we grow up with it as such a given that it isn't
thought about for its internal contradictions. At any rate, that's my
great idea.
Gene
therefore God is an amoeba. It has no reason to communicate with other
amoebae. Seriously that's why God is in relationship to Manking. Because
only by psosulating a God that relates to manking, does God have any meaning
for Manking. Logical contradictions of God don't disprove God since God has
a logic outside of mathematical logic. The idea of God is a mechanism for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that. An
atheist can use this transformation just as well or maybe better than a
believer. I doubt if many atheists would be interested, however.
Hello
I shall respond to a number of criticisms of my initial message.
One respondent said that logical contradictions of God don't disprove God
since God has a logic outside of mathematical logic. On the contrary,
whether you speak of logic as mathematical or not, the rules of logic do
not allow for more than one kind. A must be A. It cannot be A and not A.
Any contradiction means that the thing in question cannot exist with that
contradiction. It must either be something else, or limited in such a way
that the contradiction does not occur or it can't exist at all if the
contradiction is basic enough to mean that the thing under discussion
cannot exist in any form if this contradiction exists. God is not exempt
from this rule. If a contradiction is found, then either the nature of
God must be thought of as being different than previously conceived or it
must be abandoned altogether, depending on how basic the contradiction is
to its nature.
Another respondent, Josef, maintains that a lack of language doesn't mean
a lack of knowledge. This is true to a limited extent. If a dog gets hit
by three cars on three different days, it will, without language, still
know that it should avoid objects that look like cars. But this ability
to recognize objects and associate them with certain effects is on such a
low level of abstraction, if it is abstraction at all, that it does not
allow for any understanding except for a cause and effect association
which would rule out any of the kind of knowledge that God is supposed to
have which enables him to be a creator. Indeed, in the dog example, the
dog's association would not be possible if objects and effects of objects
didn't already exist. Knowledge and language cannot exist if nothing
exists to have knowledge about. Knowledge cannot exist as an abstraction.
It must be about something that exists. If nothing exists there is
nothing to know. No being, no matter what its potential to learn or know
cannot possess knowledge if there is nothing to know about because nothing
but the being exists. Knowledge is a word for what we know from studying
what exists. There is no such thing as knowledge aside from this. This
is the same kind of error as asking "What is time." Vikinstein (spelling)
defines this error as finding a substance for a substantive. It is an
error that arises because of the nature of language. Time is the measure
of change. if nothing exists to change, then time doesn't exist. Just
giving something a name doesn't mean that it exists as an abstraction.
Hence, God can't be the source of knowledge if He began by existing alone
because there would be nothing to know.
Ian believes that Christians won't accept my argument because it has a
Darwinian underpinning. As has been seen by my previous comments on
knowledge a Darwinian underpinning is not necessary, though it is helpful
in elucidating the argument. But it is not necessary for the argument.
Simply demonstrating that no knowledge is possible if only one God
existed before all else is sufficient. If no knowledge is possible, then
no creation is possible because such a being wouldn't even know that
anything could be created.
Regarding your invitation, Ian to stick around the group, I'd like to and
I will look at it for a bit, but these sorts of groups take so much time
that I can't do it too long. These sorts of activities just become
overwhelming in their time demands if one wants to give any thoughtful and
meaningful attention to them. but at least briefly, you may see me
responding to other messages that catch my interest.
Gene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
13 Oct 2003 11:52:32 AM |
|
|
"Gene Asner" <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310122331310.15735@shell2...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Gene Asner" <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2...
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I
think
many members will like.
<etc>
therefore God is an amoeba. It has no reason to communicate with other
amoebae. Seriously that's why God is in relationship to Manking. Because
only by psosulating a God that relates to manking, does God have any
meaning
for Manking. Logical contradictions of God don't disprove God since God
has
a logic outside of mathematical logic. The idea of God is a mechanism
for
transforming the individual. Very few people totally understand that. An
atheist can use this transformation just as well or maybe better than a
believer. I doubt if many atheists would be interested, however.
Hello
I shall respond to a number of criticisms of my initial message.
One respondent said that logical contradictions of God don't disprove God
since God has a logic outside of mathematical logic. On the contrary,
whether you speak of logic as mathematical or not, the rules of logic do
not allow for more than one kind. A must be A. It cannot be A and not A.
Any contradiction means that the thing in question cannot exist with that
contradiction. It must either be something else, or limited in such a way
that the contradiction does not occur or it can't exist at all if the
contradiction is basic enough to mean that the thing under discussion
cannot exist in any form if this contradiction exists. God is not exempt
from this rule. If a contradiction is found, then either the nature of
God must be thought of as being different than previously conceived or it
must be abandoned altogether, depending on how basic the contradiction is
to its nature.
If God deos not exist he has no nature. Therefore He is not bound by logic.
More specifically, although if nonexistent, He would have no nature as a
sentient entity, the Nature of God would be as a transforming mechanism and
a psychological cause of various social and individual phenomena. You have
lumped all the replies together to various people, but I will reply to some
of those as well.
Another respondent, Josef, maintains that a lack of language doesn't mean
a lack of knowledge. This is true to a limited extent. If a dog gets hit
by three cars on three different days, it will, without language, still
know that it should avoid objects that look like cars.
If that were going to work then the dog would only get hit by one car. If he
keeps getting hit by cars after the first car, there's little reason to
assume he won't keep getting hit until no longer able to chase cars.
But this ability
to recognize objects and associate them with certain effects is on such a
low level of abstraction, if it is abstraction at all, that it does not
allow for any understanding except for a cause and effect association
which would rule out any of the kind of knowledge that God is supposed to
have which enables him to be a creator. Indeed, in the dog example, the
dog's association would not be possible if objects and effects of objects
didn't already exist.
You're assuming dogs understand cause and effect. Cause and effect is not an
immutable law that's ever been proved. But maybe in the narrow sense of
Newtonian physics etc.
Knowledge and language cannot exist if nothing
exists to have knowledge about.
How do you know? No one has ever observed the result of nothingness, or at
least lived to tell the tale..
Knowledge cannot exist as an abstraction.
It must be about something that exists.
Knowledge can exist about something that does not exist. Something that does
not exist can by its absence affect other things. For instance a vacuum.
If nothing exists there is
nothing to know.
Again an unprovable assertion.
No being, no matter what its potential to learn or know
cannot possess knowledge if there is nothing to know about because nothing
but the being exists. Knowledge is a word for what we know from studying
what exists. There is no such thing as knowledge aside from this. This
is the same kind of error as asking "What is time."
<etc>
Ian believes that Christians won't accept my argument because it has a
Darwinian underpinning.
I haven't had time to read Ian's post, but this looks like you're making him
into a straw man. Why not respond to each individual? Lumping thenm together
is arrogant. So you're busy. You never said what with. If you are an
arrogant jerk, it would surprise me not..
Regarding your invitation, Ian to stick around the group, I'd like to and
I will look at it for a bit, but these sorts of groups take so much time
that I can't do it too long. These sorts of activities just become
overwhelming in their time demands if one wants to give any thoughtful and
meaningful attention to them. but at least briefly, you may see me
responding to other messages that catch my interest.
Gene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Asner" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
16 Oct 2003 12:59:39 AM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet
I have had little experience with news groups. I placed my responses to a
number of messages in one message because that seemed the most efficient
way to respond, especially since some of the points were related and if I
had written independent messages, I would have had to repeat some points
two or three times in two separate messages. If combining responses is
not considered acceptable or if there is a better way to do this, I'd be
happy to know about it. No, I am not arrogant, as you seem to think. I
don't know just what led you to this opinion. Was it my combining
responses into one message? the tone of what I wrote? or something else?
I am willing to state my opinions strongly but that is not arrogance.
Gene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
27 Oct 2003 08:32:16 AM |
|
|
"Gene Asner" <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310160053180.26108@shell2...
Dr. DuFonet
I have had little experience with news groups. I placed my responses to a
number of messages in one message because that seemed the most efficient
way to respond, especially since some of the points were related and if I
had written independent messages, I would have had to repeat some points
two or three times in two separate messages. If combining responses is
not considered acceptable or if there is a better way to do this, I'd be
happy to know about it. No, I am not arrogant, as you seem to think. I
don't know just what led you to this opinion. Was it my combining
responses into one message? the tone of what I wrote? or something else?
I am willing to state my opinions strongly but that is not arrogance.
Gene
Your polite reply indicates you are now on temporaruy probation from
arrogant jerkhood. I don't think on usenet we should lump replies to various
people together, except when one reply seems to fit all. In alt.atheism
this isn't done, by serious posters, to my knowledge. Each point can easily
become a separate thread. BTW I don't understand why you seem to have
rejected an anthropomorphic interpretation of your thesis. How esle can one
understand it, without getting into mystic contemplation?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
16 Oct 2003 01:56:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:59:39 -0500, Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com>
wrote:
Dr. DuFonet
I have had little experience with news groups. I placed my responses to a
number of messages in one message because that seemed the most efficient
way to respond, especially since some of the points were related and if I
had written independent messages, I would have had to repeat some points
two or three times in two separate messages. If combining responses is
not considered acceptable or if there is a better way to do this, I'd be
happy to know about it. No, I am not arrogant, as you seem to think. I
don't know just what led you to this opinion. Was it my combining
responses into one message? the tone of what I wrote? or something else?
I am willing to state my opinions strongly but that is not arrogance.
Gene
Posting all your responses in one message is not a good idea because
most readers do not read every response to every thread, they tend to
focus mainly on the responses given just to their posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
13 Oct 2003 06:17:22 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Gene Asner poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
Another respondent, Josef, maintains that a lack of language doesn't mean
a lack of knowledge. This is true to a limited extent. If a dog gets hit
by three cars on three different days, it will, without language, still
know that it should avoid objects that look like cars. But this ability
to recognize objects and associate them with certain effects is on such a
low level of abstraction, if it is abstraction at all, that it does not
allow for any understanding except for a cause and effect association
which would rule out any of the kind of knowledge that God is supposed to
have which enables him to be a creator. Indeed, in the dog example, the
dog's association would not be possible if objects and effects of objects
didn't already exist.
Nothing in this statement shows the need for language in order to have
knowledge.
Knowledge and language cannot exist if nothing
exists to have knowledge about.
Sure. But this in no way establishes that language is necessary in order
to have knowledge.
Knowledge cannot exist as an abstraction.
It must be about something that exists. If nothing exists there is
nothing to know. No being, no matter what its potential to learn or know
cannot possess knowledge if there is nothing to know about because nothing
but the being exists. Knowledge is a word for what we know from studying
what exists. There is no such thing as knowledge aside from this. This
is the same kind of error as asking "What is time." Vikinstein (spelling)
defines this error as finding a substance for a substantive. It is an
error that arises because of the nature of language. Time is the measure
of change. if nothing exists to change, then time doesn't exist. Just
giving something a name doesn't mean that it exists as an abstraction.
Hence, God can't be the source of knowledge if He began by existing alone
because there would be nothing to know.
Nothing in this statement establishes the need for language. And as you
have pointed out, sometimes language can be an impediment to knowledge.
Regards,
Josef
The difficult part in an argument is not to defend one's opinion, but
rather to know it.
-- André Maurois
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
11 Oct 2003 08:56:43 PM |
|
|
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2:
Hello
Hi...
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had
an idea I think many members will like. Aside from that,
I'd be interested if anyone can find problems with it. I
think it is completely unassailable logically.
An idea can be logically unassailable, simply by being too vague
or ambiguous to pin down.
Here is the
idea: People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is
all knowing as such a basic postulate that they don't think
about whether the idea itself is contradictory.
You seem to be starting off with a contradiction. Unless you
don't count yourself as "people".
But
consider that such a being either couldn't have existed
forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or
developed these attributes.
OK
Let's say that a being existed
or came into existence and existed before anything else.
Does that "before anything else" include time? The phrase
"before time began" has no meaning.
How could this being have any knowledge except some sort of
sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any other
being to communicate with and hence would have no language
because it wouldn't need any means of communication. It
also couldn't communicate with itself since it would have
no need of language. How could it have any knowledge or
why would it need any? It wouldn't have to manipulate any
environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't
have to do anything to survive or continue its existence.
It just exists. So it wouldn't have to know anything.
What would there be for it to know even if it wanted to
know something? Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists.
We learn because we live in an environment where there are
things to learn about. We communicate and develop
knowledge because it is in our survival interest to do so.
We develop social structures because they are in our
survival interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this
nor could he if he wanted to. So how could God ever even
get the idea to create anything since it knows only that it
exists? It doesn't even know this in any abstract way.
All it knows, if it feels any sensation, is that it has
some sort of sensations or sensation and in that sense it
knows that it exists. But this is on the level of the most
primitive organism that has sensation. So the idea of a
God that knows or can create anything is a complete
contradiction.
Why is knowledge necessary to make things happen? Why is
communication with another being so important for knowledge?
Are you just assuming that it is because that's the way we do
it?
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some sort
of community of lesser gods that do have some sort of
survival needs and hence could learn and develop but it
completely demolishes monotheism. Others must have had
this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most people,
my bet is including most atheists, have never considered
this primary postulate concerning God because we grow up
with it as such a given that it isn't thought about for its
internal contradictions. At any rate, that's my great
idea. Gene
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a good chance
that the idea is not logical. All you have to do now is work
out whether lack of logical expression is your problem or the
idea's problem; good luck :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
15 Oct 2003 07:53:26 AM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2:
Hello
Hi...
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had
an idea I think many members will like. Aside from that,
I'd be interested if anyone can find problems with it. I
think it is completely unassailable logically.
An idea can be logically unassailable, simply by being too vague
or ambiguous to pin down.
Here is the
idea: People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is
all knowing as such a basic postulate that they don't think
about whether the idea itself is contradictory.
You seem to be starting off with a contradiction. Unless you
don't count yourself as "people".
But
consider that such a being either couldn't have existed
forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or
developed these attributes.
OK
Let's say that a being existed
or came into existence and existed before anything else.
Does that "before anything else" include time? The phrase
"before time began" has no meaning.
How could this being have any knowledge except some sort of
sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any other
being to communicate with and hence would have no language
because it wouldn't need any means of communication. It
also couldn't communicate with itself since it would have
no need of language. How could it have any knowledge or
why would it need any? It wouldn't have to manipulate any
environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't
have to do anything to survive or continue its existence.
It just exists. So it wouldn't have to know anything.
What would there be for it to know even if it wanted to
know something? Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists.
We learn because we live in an environment where there are
things to learn about. We communicate and develop
knowledge because it is in our survival interest to do so.
We develop social structures because they are in our
survival interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this
nor could he if he wanted to. So how could God ever even
get the idea to create anything since it knows only that it
exists? It doesn't even know this in any abstract way.
All it knows, if it feels any sensation, is that it has
some sort of sensations or sensation and in that sense it
knows that it exists. But this is on the level of the most
primitive organism that has sensation. So the idea of a
God that knows or can create anything is a complete
contradiction.
Why is knowledge necessary to make things happen? Why is
communication with another being so important for knowledge?
Are you just assuming that it is because that's the way we do
it?
He is assuming that consciousness of self would be necessary for God to want
to create something other than self in the sense of creating Adam and Eve,
the universe as the abode of Manking, etc. It is a reasonable assertion,
based on human psychology. If GOd is not subject to human psychology, then
He would be totally incomprehensible as a sentient Being. Many psychologists
and philosophers say that consciousness of the self arises from reflection
of the self by social interactions. IF God was all inclusive, omnivorous and
omniscient and omnipresent, there would be no other to reflect HIs
existence, and hence no self-consciousness, and no motivation to create. HE
would have to postulate the existence of otherness in order to desire it,
but would have no way of imagining other if there is no otherness. In other
words an amoeba.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some sort
of community of lesser gods that do have some sort of
survival needs and hence could learn and develop but it
completely demolishes monotheism. Others must have had
this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most people,
my bet is including most atheists, have never considered
this primary postulate concerning God because we grow up
with it as such a given that it isn't thought about for its
internal contradictions. At any rate, that's my great
idea. Gene
You seem to be requiring him to conform to your type of reasoning. I called
him an arrogant jerk, but it seems that there is competition for that title.
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a good chance
that the idea is not logical. All you have to do now is work
out whether lack of logical expression is your problem or the
idea's problem; good luck :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
16 Oct 2003 01:07:55 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:arbjb.1740$7a4.465@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2:
Hello
Hi...
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently
had an idea I think many members will like. Aside from
that, I'd be interested if anyone can find problems with
it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
An idea can be logically unassailable, simply by being too
vague or ambiguous to pin down.
Here is the
idea: People grow up with the idea of a personal God who
is all knowing as such a basic postulate that they don't
think about whether the idea itself is contradictory.
You seem to be starting off with a contradiction. Unless
you don't count yourself as "people".
But
consider that such a being either couldn't have existed
forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or
developed these attributes.
OK
Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else.
Does that "before anything else" include time? The phrase
"before time began" has no meaning.
How could this being have any knowledge except some sort
of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no
language because it wouldn't need any means of
communication. It also couldn't communicate with itself
since it would have no need of language. How could it
have any knowledge or why would it need any? It
wouldn't have to manipulate any environment for survival
because it just is. It doesn't have to do anything to
survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So
it wouldn't have to know anything. What would there be
for it to know even if it wanted to know something?
Nothing exists but itself so there is no knowledge to
learn or study because nothing else exists. We learn
because we live in an environment where there are things
to learn about. We communicate and develop knowledge
because it is in our survival interest to do so. We
develop social structures because they are in our
survival interest. But God doesn't need to do any of
this nor could he if he wanted to. So how could God
ever even get the idea to create anything since it knows
only that it exists? It doesn't even know this in any
abstract way. All it knows, if it feels any sensation,
is that it has some sort of sensations or sensation and
in that sense it knows that it exists. But this is on
the level of the most primitive organism that has
sensation. So the idea of a God that knows or can
create anything is a complete contradiction.
Why is knowledge necessary to make things happen? Why is
communication with another being so important for
knowledge? Are you just assuming that it is because that's
the way we do it?
He is assuming that consciousness of self would be
necessary for God to want to create something other than
self in the sense of creating Adam and Eve, the universe
as the abode of Manking, etc. It is a reasonable assertion,
based on human psychology.
How do you figure that human psychology is a reasonable tool to
use in this context? The human psyche has evolved over
thousands of generations, in contact with other humans and the
world at large. Why can we use human psychology to estimate the
character of a being who is all alone in an empty universe. If
we are going to go there, then human psychology tells us that
people get lonely when isolated from others. Perhaps your God
creature was lonely.
If GOd is not subject to human
psychology, then He would be totally incomprehensible as a
sentient Being.
So what? Are you trying to suggest that something
incomprehensible is somehow prevented from existing?
Many psychologists and philosophers say
that consciousness of the self arises from reflection of
the self by social interactions. IF God was all inclusive,
omnivorous and omniscient and omnipresent, there would be
no other to reflect HIs existence, and hence no
self-consciousness, and no motivation to create. HE would
have to postulate the existence of otherness in order to
desire it, but would have no way of imagining other if
there is no otherness. In other words an amoeba.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some
sort of community of lesser gods that do have some sort
of survival needs and hence could learn and develop but
it completely demolishes monotheism. Others must have
had this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most
people, my bet is including most atheists, have never
considered this primary postulate concerning God because
we grow up with it as such a given that it isn't thought
about for its internal contradictions. At any rate,
that's my great idea. Gene
You seem to be requiring him to conform to your type of
reasoning. I called
him an arrogant jerk, but it seems that there is
competition for that title.
Don't be silly. His challenge is that his idea can't be
assailed using logic. Of course I'm requiring him to conform to
the style of his chosen arena.
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a good
chance that the idea is not logical. All you have to do
now is work out whether lack of logical expression is your
problem or the idea's problem; good luck :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Asner" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
17 Oct 2003 07:34:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kenneth Doyle wrote:
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:arbjb.1740$7a4.465@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2:
Hello
Hi...
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently
had an idea I think many members will like. Aside from
that, I'd be interested if anyone can find problems with
it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
An idea can be logically unassailable, simply by being too
vague or ambiguous to pin down.
Here is the
idea: People grow up with the idea of a personal God who
is all knowing as such a basic postulate that they don't
think about whether the idea itself is contradictory.
You seem to be starting off with a contradiction. Unless
you don't count yourself as "people".
But
consider that such a being either couldn't have existed
forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or
developed these attributes.
OK
Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else.
Does that "before anything else" include time? The phrase
"before time began" has no meaning.
How could this being have any knowledge except some sort
of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no
language because it wouldn't need any means of
communication. It also couldn't communicate with itself
since it would have no need of language. How could it
have any knowledge or why would it need any? It
wouldn't have to manipulate any environment for survival
because it just is. It doesn't have to do anything to
survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So
it wouldn't have to know anything. What would there be
for it to know even if it wanted to know something?
Nothing exists but itself so there is no knowledge to
learn or study because nothing else exists. We learn
because we live in an environment where there are things
to learn about. We communicate and develop knowledge
because it is in our survival interest to do so. We
develop social structures because they are in our
survival interest. But God doesn't need to do any of
this nor could he if he wanted to. So how could God
ever even get the idea to create anything since it knows
only that it exists? It doesn't even know this in any
abstract way. All it knows, if it feels any sensation,
is that it has some sort of sensations or sensation and
in that sense it knows that it exists. But this is on
the level of the most primitive organism that has
sensation. So the idea of a God that knows or can
create anything is a complete contradiction.
Why is knowledge necessary to make things happen? Why is
communication with another being so important for
knowledge? Are you just assuming that it is because that's
the way we do it?
He is assuming that consciousness of self would be
necessary for God to want to create something other than
self in the sense of creating Adam and Eve, the universe
as the abode of Manking, etc. It is a reasonable assertion,
based on human psychology.
How do you figure that human psychology is a reasonable tool to
use in this context? The human psyche has evolved over
thousands of generations, in contact with other humans and the
world at large. Why can we use human psychology to estimate the
character of a being who is all alone in an empty universe. If
we are going to go there, then human psychology tells us that
people get lonely when isolated from others. Perhaps your God
creature was lonely.
If GOd is not subject to human
psychology, then He would be totally incomprehensible as a
sentient Being.
So what? Are you trying to suggest that something
incomprehensible is somehow prevented from existing?
Many psychologists and philosophers say
that consciousness of the self arises from reflection of
the self by social interactions. IF God was all inclusive,
omnivorous and omniscient and omnipresent, there would be
no other to reflect HIs existence, and hence no
self-consciousness, and no motivation to create. HE would
have to postulate the existence of otherness in order to
desire it, but would have no way of imagining other if
there is no otherness. In other words an amoeba.
Note that this does not preclude the existence of some
sort of community of lesser gods that do have some sort
of survival needs and hence could learn and develop but
it completely demolishes monotheism. Others must have
had this idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere and most
people, my bet is including most atheists, have never
considered this primary postulate concerning God because
we grow up with it as such a given that it isn't thought
about for its internal contradictions. At any rate,
that's my great idea. Gene
You seem to be requiring him to conform to your type of
reasoning. I called
him an arrogant jerk, but it seems that there is
competition for that title.
Don't be silly. His challenge is that his idea can't be
assailed using logic. Of course I'm requiring him to conform to
the style of his chosen arena.
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a good
chance that the idea is not logical. All you have to do
now is work out whether lack of logical expression is your
problem or the idea's problem; good luck :-)
Kenneth
I didn't say that it is not possible to challenge my idealogically. I
don't think it is but that is one reason I posted it here. I should say I
am very confident that it can't be logically disproven but one reason I
posted it is to see if any problems with it can be pointed out. I also
wanted to let people know about the idea because I think it is a very good
one, if I must say so myself. If I see any convincing logical
refutations, I'll certainly consider them.
Having said all that, my argument doesn't rest on applying human
psychology, nor any psychology to the idea of God. My statement is based
on logic and not psychology. God can't be lonely if it exists by itself
with no other being. Indeed, not just with no other being but with
literally nothing but God in existence. This is the state of things that
all major monotheistic religions, at least on Earth, claim existed. It
doesn't matter if we are talking about God or a squirrel. No being can be
lonely or even know that it could be lonely if it exists before any other
being. I would contend, on reflecting on the messages that challenged me
on this point, that believing that one reason God created the Universe is
because he was lonely is an imposition of human psychology on God whereas
my argument imposes nothing on God but the requirement that claims about
this, or any putative being, supreme or not, must be logical. It doesn't
matter how great or small a being is, what material it is made of, or
anything else, if a claim is not logical, then the being in question
cannot possess the attribute being claimed. Even the greatest possible
being must follow rules of logic because a contradiction cannot exist.
Any being, existing alone, can't be aware that the existence of any other
being is possible.
Gene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
17 Oct 2003 10:02:19 PM |
|
|
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310171914390.5771@shell2:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a
good chance that the idea is not logical. All you have
to do now is work out whether lack of logical
expression is your problem or the idea's problem; good
luck :-)
Kenneth
I didn't say that it is not possible to challenge my
idealogically.
That's strange, neither did I.
I don't think it is but that is one reason
I posted it here. I should say I am very confident that it
can't be logically disproven but one reason I posted it is
to see if any problems with it can be pointed out.
So what did you think of my attempts to do just that?
I also
wanted to let people know about the idea because I think it
is a very good one, if I must say so myself. If I see any
convincing logical refutations, I'll certainly consider
them.
Ah, OK then.
Having said all that, my argument doesn't rest on applying
human psychology, nor any psychology to the idea of God.
My statement is based on logic and not psychology. God
can't be lonely if it exists by itself with no other being.
Well, I think I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you
decided that I attempted to refute your argument, using the
judgement that your argument rests on applying human psychology
to the idea of God, becuase I'm not sure if that's what it does
rest upon. While I certainly do remember saying something about
how that would probably be inappropriate, I thought my main
thrust was that your idea is too vague to be grasped with the
tools of logic.
Indeed, not just with no other being but with literally
nothing but God in existence. This is the state of things
that all major monotheistic religions, at least on Earth,
claim existed.
Well, most of them don't mention God's lonliness, as such.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about
God or a squirrel.
No being can be lonely or even know
that it could be lonely if it exists before any other
being.
I think you have major problems talking at all, about a living
creature that exists before anything else (such as time? I seem
to remember asking that in my original reply). I mean, major
philosophical problems. The usual way out of those problems is
to invoke a living spirit type of being, that exists outside of
time. That concept is usually too vague to be of any use in
logical constructions. If you're saying that God is not that
sort of living spirit being, then you're going to have to define
this type of being for me, because the living spirit mythology
is the one I'm most familiar with, and the one I thought you
were referring to.
I would contend, on reflecting on the messages that
challenged me on this point, that believing that one reason
God created the Universe is because he was lonely is an
imposition of human psychology on God whereas my argument
imposes nothing on God but the requirement that claims
about this, or any putative being, supreme or not, must be
logical.
Sure, now what about the other points.
It doesn't matter how great or small a being is,
what material it is made of, or anything else, if a claim
is not logical, then the being in question cannot possess
the attribute being claimed.
Right, which is why I asked stuff like: when you say this being
existed before anything else, does that include time; as in,
the being existed before time began?
Even the greatest possible
being must follow rules of logic because a contradiction
cannot exist.
I would like to think so too.
Any being, existing alone, can't be aware
that the existence of any other being is possible.
Well, see, this is what I mean. You can't possibly have shown
that logically, because we're still in the dark with respect to
some issues I raised in my original reply. What, for example,
does it mean for a living being to exist before anything else?
What would it be made of? If you posit sentience at all in such
a circumstance, then why is it specifically, necessarily
limited, to be unable to conceive of the possibility of another
being just like itself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
20 Oct 2003 08:38:22 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941885ADD4CB7nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310171914390.5771@shell2:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a
good chance that the idea is not logical. All you have
to do now is work out whether lack of logical
expression is your problem or the idea's problem; good
luck :-)
Kenneth
I didn't say that it is not possible to challenge my
idealogically.
That's strange, neither did I.
I don't think it is but that is one reason
I posted it here. I should say I am very confident that it
can't be logically disproven but one reason I posted it is
to see if any problems with it can be pointed out.
So what did you think of my attempts to do just that?
I also
wanted to let people know about the idea because I think it
is a very good one, if I must say so myself. If I see any
convincing logical refutations, I'll certainly consider
them.
Ah, OK then.
Having said all that, my argument doesn't rest on applying
human psychology, nor any psychology to the idea of God.
My statement is based on logic and not psychology. God
can't be lonely if it exists by itself with no other being.
Well, I think I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you
decided that I attempted to refute your argument, using the
judgement that your argument rests on applying human psychology
to the idea of God, becuase I'm not sure if that's what it does
rest upon. While I certainly do remember saying something about
how that would probably be inappropriate, I thought my main
thrust was that your idea is too vague to be grasped with the
tools of logic.
Indeed, not just with no other being but with literally
nothing but God in existence. This is the state of things
that all major monotheistic religions, at least on Earth,
claim existed.
Well, most of them don't mention God's lonliness, as such.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about
God or a squirrel.
No being can be lonely or even know
that it could be lonely if it exists before any other
being.
I think you have major problems talking at all, about a living
creature that exists before anything else (such as time? I seem
to remember asking that in my original reply). I mean, major
philosophical problems. The usual way out of those problems is
to invoke a living spirit type of being, that exists outside of
time. That concept is usually too vague to be of any use in
logical constructions. If you're saying that God is not that
sort of living spirit being, then you're going to have to define
this type of being for me, because the living spirit mythology
is the one I'm most familiar with, and the one I thought you
were referring to.
I would contend, on reflecting on the messages that
challenged me on this point, that believing that one reason
God created the Universe is because he was lonely is an
imposition of human psychology on God whereas my argument
imposes nothing on God but the requirement that claims
about this, or any putative being, supreme or not, must be
logical.
Sure, now what about the other points.
It doesn't matter how great or small a being is,
what material it is made of, or anything else, if a claim
is not logical, then the being in question cannot possess
the attribute being claimed.
Right, which is why I asked stuff like: when you say this being
existed before anything else, does that include time; as in,
the being existed before time began?
Even the greatest possible
being must follow rules of logic because a contradiction
cannot exist.
I would like to think so too.
Any being, existing alone, can't be aware
that the existence of any other being is possible.
Well, see, this is what I mean. You can't possibly have shown
that logically, because we're still in the dark with respect to
some issues I raised in my original reply. What, for example,
does it mean for a living being to exist before anything else?
What would it be made of? If you posit sentience at all in such
a circumstance, then why is it specifically, necessarily
limited, to be unable to conceive of the possibility of another
being just like itself?
And that's why I, for one, pointed out that awareness of the self is based
on social interaction, in the case of humans and what else do we really know
about? And that is why the idea would demolish monotheism based on that
proposition. But if Mr. Asner says that is not the point, then who am I to
argue with whatever the point is? Especially since now what I thought was
my understanding or at least partial, is barking up the wrong tree. This is
all so hypothetical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
20 Oct 2003 09:05:36 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:i60lb.5087$S52.3040@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941885ADD4CB7nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310171914390.5771@shell2:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a
good chance that the idea is not logical. All you have
to do now is work out whether lack of logical
expression is your problem or the idea's problem; good luck :-)
Kenneth
I didn't say that it is not possible to challenge my idealogically.
That's strange, neither did I.
I don't think it is but that is one reason
I posted it here. I should say I am very confident that it
can't be logically disproven but one reason I posted it is to see
if any problems with it can be pointed out.
So what did you think of my attempts to do just that?
I also
wanted to let people know about the idea because I think it
is a very good one, if I must say so myself. If I see any
convincing logical refutations, I'll certainly consider them.
Ah, OK then.
Having said all that, my argument doesn't rest on applying
human psychology, nor any psychology to the idea of God.
My statement is based on logic and not psychology. God can't be
lonely if it exists by itself with no other being.
Well, I think I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you
decided that I attempted to refute your argument, using the
judgement that your argument rests on applying human psychology
to the idea of God, becuase I'm not sure if that's what it does
rest upon. While I certainly do remember saying something about
how that would probably be inappropriate, I thought my main
thrust was that your idea is too vague to be grasped with the
tools of logic.
Indeed, not just with no other being but with literally
nothing but God in existence. This is the state of things
that all major monotheistic religions, at least on Earth, claim
existed.
Well, most of them don't mention God's lonliness, as such.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about
God or a squirrel.
No being can be lonely or even know
that it could be lonely if it exists before any other being.
I think you have major problems talking at all, about a living
creature that exists before anything else (such as time? I seem
to remember asking that in my original reply). I mean, major
philosophical problems. The usual way out of those problems is
to invoke a living spirit type of being, that exists outside of
time. That concept is usually too vague to be of any use in
logical constructions. If you're saying that God is not that
sort of living spirit being, then you're going to have to define
this type of being for me, because the living spirit mythology
is the one I'm most familiar with, and the one I thought you
were referring to.
I would contend, on reflecting on the messages that
challenged me on this point, that believing that one reason
God created the Universe is because he was lonely is an
imposition of human psychology on God whereas my argument
imposes nothing on God but the requirement that claims
about this, or any putative being, supreme or not, must be logical.
Sure, now what about the other points.
It doesn't matter how great or small a being is, what material it
is made of, or anything else, if a claim
is not logical, then the being in question cannot possess the
attribute being claimed.
Right, which is why I asked stuff like: when you say this being
existed before anything else, does that include time; as in, the
being existed before time began?
Even the greatest possible
being must follow rules of logic because a contradiction cannot
exist.
I would like to think so too.
Any being, existing alone, can't be aware that the existence of any
other being is possible.
Well, see, this is what I mean. You can't possibly have shown
that logically, because we're still in the dark with respect to
some issues I raised in my original reply. What, for example, does
it mean for a living being to exist before anything else? What would
it be made of? If you posit sentience at all in such a circumstance,
then why is it specifically, necessarily limited, to be unable to
conceive of the possibility of another being just like itself?
And that's why I, for one, pointed out that awareness of the self is
based on social interaction, in the case of humans and what else do we
really know about?
But nevertheless, your argument is not based on human psychology, right?
And that is why the idea would demolish monotheism
based on that proposition.
Based on what proposition, exactly?
But if Mr. Asner says that is not the
point, then who am I to argue with whatever the point is? Especially
since now what I thought was my understanding or at least partial, is
barking up the wrong tree. This is all so hypothetical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
22 Oct 2003 03:14:05 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941B7C06BF468nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:i60lb.5087$S52.3040@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941885ADD4CB7nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0310171914390.5771@shell2:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94127A76EC544nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
If an idea cannot logically be expressed, there's a
good chance that the idea is not logical. All you have
to do now is work out whether lack of logical
expression is your problem or the idea's problem; good luck :-)
Kenneth
I didn't say that it is not possible to challenge my idealogically.
That's strange, neither did I.
I don't think it is but that is one reason
I posted it here. I should say I am very confident that it
can't be logically disproven but one reason I posted it is to see
if any problems with it can be pointed out.
So what did you think of my attempts to do just that?
I also
wanted to let people know about the idea because I think it
is a very good one, if I must say so myself. If I see any
convincing logical refutations, I'll certainly consider them.
Ah, OK then.
Having said all that, my argument doesn't rest on applying
human psychology, nor any psychology to the idea of God.
My statement is based on logic and not psychology. God can't be
lonely if it exists by itself with no other being.
Well, I think I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you
decided that I attempted to refute your argument, using the
judgement that your argument rests on applying human psychology
to the idea of God, becuase I'm not sure if that's what it does
rest upon. While I certainly do remember saying something about
how that would probably be inappropriate, I thought my main
thrust was that your idea is too vague to be grasped with the
tools of logic.
Indeed, not just with no other being but with literally
nothing but God in existence. This is the state of things
that all major monotheistic religions, at least on Earth, claim
existed.
Well, most of them don't mention God's lonliness, as such.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about
God or a squirrel.
No being can be lonely or even know
that it could be lonely if it exists before any other being.
I think you have major problems talking at all, about a living
creature that exists before anything else (such as time? I seem
to remember asking that in my original reply). I mean, major
philosophical problems. The usual way out of those problems is
to invoke a living spirit type of being, that exists outside of
time. That concept is usually too vague to be of any use in
logical constructions. If you're saying that God is not that
sort of living spirit being, then you're going to have to define
this type of being for me, because the living spirit mythology
is the one I'm most familiar with, and the one I thought you
were referring to.
I would contend, on reflecting on the messages that
challenged me on this point, that believing that one reason
God created the Universe is because he was lonely is an
imposition of human psychology on God whereas my argument
imposes nothing on God but the requirement that claims
about this, or any putative being, supreme or not, must be logical.
Sure, now what about the other points.
It doesn't matter how great or small a being is, what material it
is made of, or anything else, if a claim
is not logical, then the being in question cannot possess the
attribute being claimed.
Right, which is why I asked stuff like: when you say this being
existed before anything else, does that include time; as in, the
being existed before time began?
Even the greatest possible
being must follow rules of logic because a contradiction cannot
exist.
I would like to think so too.
Any being, existing alone, can't be aware that the existence of any
other being is possible.
Well, see, this is what I mean. You can't possibly have shown
that logically, because we're still in the dark with respect to
some issues I raised in my original reply. What, for example, does
it mean for a living being to exist before anything else? What would
it be made of? If you posit sentience at all in such a circumstance,
then why is it specifically, necessarily limited, to be unable to
conceive of the possibility of another being just like itself?
And that's why I, for one, pointed out that awareness of the self is
based on social interaction, in the case of humans and what else do we
really know about?
But nevertheless, your argument is not based on human psychology, right?
How can it not be based on human psycjology? What else is there to base it
on?
And that is why the idea would demolish monotheism
based on that proposition.
Based on what proposition, exactly?
That if God was alone, there would have been no other beings to interact
with. He said himself that his idea would not preclude polytheism. therefore
it demolishes monotheism.
But if Mr. Asner says that is not the
point, then who am I to argue with whatever the point is? Especially
since now what I thought was my understanding or at least partial, is
barking up the wrong tree. This is all so hypothetical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
22 Oct 2003 06:57:57 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:hyBlb.1249$wc3.479@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
That if God was alone, there would have been no other beings to
interact with.
Which doesn't explain how that prevents God from imagining a being to
exist, who would be like himself. The OP said that God would not be able
to imagine such a thing.
He said himself that his idea would not preclude
polytheism. therefore it demolishes monotheism.
It sounds like you're saying that monotheism is demoloshed BECAUSE
polytheism is not precluded. I don't see how that follows. Note that I'm
aware that monotheism is false if polytheism is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
24 Oct 2003 08:46:43 AM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941D6659B456nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in
news:hyBlb.1249$wc3.479@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
That if God was alone, there would have been no other beings to
interact with.
Which doesn't explain how that prevents God from imagining a being to
exist, who would be like himself. The OP said that God would not be able
to imagine such a thing.
Which is why I'm basing my analysis on human psychology, which is consistent
with the OP, although he denies that.
He said himself that his idea would not preclude
polytheism. therefore it demolishes monotheism.
I created that confusion by my words.
It sounds like you're saying that monotheism is demoloshed BECAUSE
polytheism is not precluded. I don't see how that follows. Note that I'm
aware that monotheism is false if polytheism is true.
It follows if you use an anthropomorphic model . I cite anthropomorphism
because it is the only thing that makes any sense in the context of the
speculation, although the OP'er may deny it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
12 Oct 2003 03:12:20 AM |
|
|
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2>...
< SNIP! >
Hello Gene and thanks for your post.
Well, your idea is ingenious and I have no problem with it, but I
can't see it cutting much ice with the Jesus set.
There is an underlying assumption with your arguement, which theists
won't acccept and that is that God is an organism subject to Natural
Selection.
In your essay, you say God doesn't need language, because there's no
one else to talk with, which is unassailable froma Darwinian point of
view. However, theists posit a supernatural God who is not subject to
the usual limitations which afflict natural creations, so questions of
need are irrelevant.
It was a nice try, so why not hang around for a while. That way you'll
be brought up to speed as it were.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
15 Oct 2003 07:53:27 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0310120012.248151c7@posting.google.com...
Gene Asner <gsasner@ripco.com> wrote in message
news:<Pine.GSO.4.58.0310111126260.24321@shell2>...
< SNIP! >
Hello Gene and thanks for your post.
Well, your idea is ingenious and I have no problem with it, but I
can't see it cutting much ice with the Jesus set.
There is an underlying assumption with your arguement, which theists
won't acccept and that is that God is an organism subject to Natural
Selection.
In your essay, you say God doesn't need language, because there's no
one else to talk with, which is unassailable froma Darwinian point of
view. However, theists posit a supernatural God who is not subject to
the usual limitations which afflict natural creations, so questions of
need are irrelevant.
It was a nice try, so why not hang around for a while. That way you'll
be brought up to speed as it were.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
He is right that the idea demolishes monotheism, if you accept the
postulated omniscience and omnipresence of GOd in the beginning of so-called
Creation. The point is, that GOd can't be conscious of the motivation to
create something other than HImself, if HE has no consciousness of self.
The consciousness of self arises out of social contact, in the case of
humans. It gives credence to the idea that GOd is a creation of Manking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
11 Oct 2003 07:25:30 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Gene Asner poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I think
many members will like. Aside from that, I'd be interested if anyone can
find problems with it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
Your modesty is quite charming.
Here is the idea:
People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is all knowing as such
a basic postulate that they don't think about whether the idea itself is
contradictory. But consider that such a being either couldn't have
existed forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or developed
these attributes. Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else. How could this being have any knowledge
except some sort of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no language because
it wouldn't need any means of communication. It also couldn't communicate
with itself since it would have no need of language. How could it have
any knowledge or why would it need any?
Lack of language does not rule out knowledge. Even the amoeba has some
rudimentary knowledge of it's surroundings.
The theist might say that his deity is the source of knowledge. It
doesn't necessarily have to communicate it's knowledge to another mind.
Nor does it need to collect knowledge from others, since it presumably
has all knowledge already.
It wouldn't have to manipulate
any environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't have to do
anything to survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So it
wouldn't have to know anything.
It may not have to know, but this does not mean that it DOESN'T know.
What would there be for it to know even
if it wanted to know something?
Anything that is knowable.
Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists.
But the potential for something else exists.
The deity may not need to learn or study, but this does not rule out the
possibility that it possesses knowledge.
We learn because
we live in an environment where there are things to learn about. We
communicate and develop knowledge because it is in our survival interest
to do so. We develop social structures because they are in our survival
interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this nor could he if he
wanted to.
I agree that the deity does not NEED to do these things. Whether the
deity would want to, or is able to, is another matter.
So how could God ever even get the idea to create anything
since it knows only that it exists?
Actually, it isn't clear that the deity would know of itself. Immanuel
Kant argued that we cannot be self aware unless something exists
external to self that allows us to distinguish self from non-self. If
the deity's mind is the only thing in existence then it is not clear
that it could be aware of itself.
....
So the idea of a God that knows or can create anything is a
complete contradiction.
Your argument does not establish this claim.
....
Regards,
Josef
Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.
-- Plato
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A great idea that demolishes monotheism |
12 Oct 2003 12:58:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:25:30 -0400, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Gene Asner poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Hello
While I generally don't follow this group, I recently had an idea I think
many members will like. Aside from that, I'd be interested if anyone can
find problems with it. I think it is completely unassailable logically.
Your modesty is quite charming.
Here is the idea:
People grow up with the idea of a personal God who is all knowing as such
a basic postulate that they don't think about whether the idea itself is
contradictory. But consider that such a being either couldn't have
existed forever or couldn't have come into existence and had or developed
these attributes. Let's say that a being existed or came into existence
and existed before anything else. How could this being have any knowledge
except some sort of sensation of its existence? It wouldn't have any
other being to communicate with and hence would have no language because
it wouldn't need any means of communication. It also couldn't communicate
with itself since it would have no need of language. How could it have
any knowledge or why would it need any?
Lack of language does not rule out knowledge. Even the amoeba has some
rudimentary knowledge of it's surroundings.
The theist might say that his deity is the source of knowledge. It
doesn't necessarily have to communicate it's knowledge to another mind.
Nor does it need to collect knowledge from others, since it presumably
has all knowledge already.
It wouldn't have to manipulate
any environment for survival because it just is. It doesn't have to do
anything to survive or continue its existence. It just exists. So it
wouldn't have to know anything.
It may not have to know, but this does not mean that it DOESN'T know.
What would there be for it to know even
if it wanted to know something?
Anything that is knowable.
Nothing exists but itself so there is no
knowledge to learn or study because nothing else exists.
But the potential for something else exists.
The deity may not need to learn or study, but this does not rule out the
possibility that it possesses knowledge.
We learn because
we live in an environment where there are things to learn about. We
communicate and develop knowledge because it is in our survival interest
to do so. We develop social structures because they are in our survival
interest. But God doesn't need to do any of this nor could he if he
wanted to.
I agree that the deity does not NEED to do these things. Whether the
deity would want to, or is able to, is another matter.
So how could God ever even get the idea to create anything
since it knows only that it exists?
Actually, it isn't clear that the deity would know of itself. Immanuel
Kant argued that we cannot be self aware unless something exists
external to self that allows us to distinguish self from non-self. If
the deity's mind is the only thing in e | | |
