Is it?

[Bri]

I don't understand the whole issue with god appearing as a person. If god is an imm-being, what does it mean that he appears as a person?

It seems like talking about a circle "manifesting" or "incarnating" as a square.

That's only because you're hooked on the word "immaterial" for some reason. If your god is truly immaterial by your definition (he cannot manifest or appear material) then your god is more limited than the Christian God or my faerie. So your god isn't perfect.

So the whole issue with Jesus doesn't impress me too much. And neither does your faeri which can choose to be material, or immaterial if it wants to. What about the problem of identity? In what sense can you say than an imm-faeri is the same as an m-one?

Call it whatever you want, it kicks your god's ass.

I feel that there is some misunderstanding for some reason, not sure why.

I'm pretty sure I know why. Because your definitions keep shifting as you need them to in order to attempt to make a point. The problem is that your point is simply wrong.

Again, faeries not the same as god, because they are physical. Don't understand the whole manefestation bussiness. Show me how it works. What does it mean on a practical level for an imm-being to manifest as m-being. What is the speed of transformation of god\faeri to a living being?

What does the speed of transformation have to do with anything? It's as fast as the faerie wants it to be.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

The speed of transformation is important because it is a way to show that the whole bussiness of an imm-being manifesting as an m-being is senseless from a practical point of view. You need to define what physical forces are in process. "Magic" is not really an answer.

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.


An m-bed is waiting for an m-jetleg.

 

[Bri]

The speed of transformation is important because it is a way to show that the whole bussiness of an imm-being manifesting as an m-being is senseless from a practical point of view. You need to define what physical forces are in process. "Magic" is not really an answer.

Oh, so your god is also limited by physical forces? Really sad. Pitiful. So what can your god actually do?

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.

Your description of your god seems limited. Whether you describe something in a more or less beautiful way makes a difference. I would describe my faerie as something that is important to one's life, that makes a difference, that is sublime, is about transcendent and infinite love.

Your god seems rather ... limited in comparison. Your choice of words makes it sound trivial.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Bri, are you christian? The importance of my god is not the physical acts he performs, or doesn't. The importance is the emotional impact.


And you don't address the distinction I make. Imm-beings are in a totally different category than m-beings. You cannot have physical evidence for them. You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

 

[JetLeg]

Not that strange. Holograms are visual, but immaterial. So are reflections in mirrors (which is one reason that they are used world-wide in various magical traditions).

Off - topic (tell me if that is not customary at those forums) :

So you are not a materealist (a person that thinks that all is composed from matter)? You do think that immaterial things exist? (holograms)

How would you classify them? Holograms exist, right? But they are immaterial. In what category would you put them.

 

[drkitten]

So you are not a materealist (a person that thinks that all is composed from matter)? You do think that immaterial things exist? (holograms)

How would you classify them? Holograms exist, right? But they are immaterial. In what category would you put them.

In the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the same category into which I put sensations like hunger, ideas like honor, or abstractions like the three-ness that three apples and three monkeys share, or patterns like the face-ness people see in badly fried tortillas.

What an odd question. Did you expect me to deny the existence of holograms, or did you expect me to reverse myself and say, "oh, no, holograms are material after all"?

 

[drkitten]

You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

Fairies don't fossilize. They're immortal (check the specs), so they don't die -- and only dead things fossilize.

Just like God, for that matter. Show me a God fossil? Oh, God is immortal, too? How conVENient....

Besides that, you could have physical evidence for God, too. A burning bush that talks, or a rain of manna would be a good start. But the fact that God chooses not to talk through bushes isn't generally held by theists to be evidence against Him -- why the double standard?

 

[JetLeg]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?

 

[Bri]

Bri, are you christian? The importance of my god is not the physical acts he performs, or doesn't. The importance is the emotional impact.

Given your past argument that the majority of people in the world believe in your god, I assumed you were Christian. If not, why did you use that argument since it is clear that very few people in the world believe in your god.

And you don't address the distinction I make. Imm-beings are in a totally different category than m-beings. You cannot have physical evidence for them. You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

Why would you expect to find evidence of the magic faerie? Aside from the fact that it's immortal, it doesn't want anyone to know of its existence, and given that it's magic, it is extremely good at hiding.

Again, can you tell me what your god can do, or is your god incapable of interacting with the world (i.e. inconsequential)? Does your god do anything aside from wanting us all to wear green socks but being entirely unable to communicate that to anyone and just sitting around hoping that it pops into someone's mind by coincidence?

-Bri

 

[Mashuna]

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.

Wait, weren't you trying the ontological argument a few posts ago. You remember, the whole 'imagine a perfect being. . .' post you typed. You're abandoning this line now?

 

[Roboramma]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?

For the same reason that we don't add Fire Breathing Dragons to the category of material things that exist - there's no evidence.

I mean, really... your question doesn't make any sense.

 

[Roboramma]

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.

Okay, so what if I find meaning in the idea of immaterial fairies? Does that mean that they exist?

 

[Bri]

Wait, weren't you trying the ontological argument a few posts ago. You remember, the whole 'imagine a perfect being. . .' post you typed. You're abandoning this line now?

JetLeg also tried the argument that the majority of humanity believed in his god and therefore it must exist. Of course, with these most recent changes in the attributes of his god, he has precluded that argument as well (not that it was any less fallacious than his ontological argument to begin with).

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

Then you thought wrong, didn't you?

And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?

For the same reason I didn't add Iraqi nuclear weapons (or flying unicorns) to the category of material-things-that-exist. No credible evidence to support it.

Just because a category exists doen't mean that every conceivable string of words must exist to fill it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But holograms are material.

 

[drkitten]

But holograms are material.

Really? They do not occupy space, they have no mass, they can be interpenetrated easily by physical objects..... I'm not sure what definition of "material" you're using, but I doubt anyone but perhaps a physicist would find it intuitive or convincing.

 

[slingblade]

I guess I just don't get the point of such a discussion, after a certain point.

I mean, I know to beware of the false dichotomy, the either/or, yes/no limitation, when there are, in actuality, more choices. But sometimes, things do fall into a yes/no, either/or category.

IMO, this sub-forum is often such a place. One is usually here either to get confirmation of his or her ideas, or one is here to find out if his/her ideas can be refuted, and if so, to learn from it. JREF forum is not your typical discussion forum; many of the members are here to learn, and are willing to change their minds. Many people are here because they question the world around them (and within them), and want to learn a better way to deal with life, a more logical, sensible, "oh, no, you can't fool me anymore, I know better now" way.

It's often called a skeptic's forum, and while it's also much more than that, I think skepticism, the "I doubt that" factor as it's often put, is the core of this particular group. As the scorpion said, "It's what I (we) do."

I can't figure out, though, why people who aren't willing to learn, who really and only want confirmation of their particular ideas, come here to get it. This is the last place, I would think, one is going to find blind acceptance of anything. And some of them are so persistent! "Here's my idea. What, it's crap? Okay, let me rephrase it, restructure it, but keep it essentially the same. Is it still crap? It is? Well, how about now? Still? What about when I hold my mouth like this--now do you accept my idea? No? Really? How about now?" and on and on, ad infinitum.

These people aren't learning anything. They don't want to learn anything. They want agreement, right or wrong.

So, JetLeg, my question to you is: are you here to learn something, or to get confirmation of what you think you already know? If the former, you need to try harder. If the latter, you need to know you won't find it here; not for the specific ideas you've expressed so far.

What if there is a god, and he's an immaterial entity? He isn't having any discernable impact on my life, so why should I give it even a moment's thought? Why have you given it so very, very much thought? It seems as if you really need for there to be a god of some kind. Okay. No, really, that's fine. You can have what you want, believe what you want. We aren't trying to take it away from you.

But you came here, and you offered it to us for dissection, whether you knew that or not when you arrived. We've dissected the idea, and largely found it wanting. and yet you keep offering it to us, seemingly without a clue that, until you change the situation, the situation isn't going to change.

I'm a writer. I think part of the reason is that I like sequence and structure. I am comfortable when things in general have a beginning, a middle, and eventually, an end. I get frustrated when the end has arrived (or at least I think it's here) and it goes by unrecognized.

So, I guess I'm asking, "Will that be all, sir?" I mean, what else can we do for you? You asked your question, got answers you didn't care for, and are now stuck on asking the same thing over and over in as many ways as you can think of to ask. That you are getting the same answers isn't helping you, as far as I can see.

So, now what? What do you, in the end, want?

 

[Bri]

slingblade,

Good post. JetLeg is correct on one point: his beliefs may in fact be true. But he's wrong about the most important point: that just because something may be true doesn't mean it is true. Without actual evidence, you simply cannot get around that pesky, ever-present doubt -- if your belief may be true, it also may be false. And to JetLeg, doubt is the enemy. JetLeg doesn't understand is that doubt is a good and healthy thing.

In that vein, JetLeg will probably say that he is neither here to learn nor to confirm his belief. After all, if you're wanting to confirm your belief, that implies that you have some doubt about your belief. JetLeg has yet to admit any doubt, and will probably say that he's here because he thinks other people ought to believe as he does. Of course, we all know that when people want others to believe as they do, it's usually the result of doubt. But JetLeg will likely never admit that.

Instead, JetLeg uses blatantly fallacious logic to proclaim that his belief is irrefutable fact. He thinks his belief can be absolute fact without having any reason for thinking so, and is sincerely surprised when it's pointed out that such thinking is indeed irrational and in his case possibly delusional. As you point out, he throws out all sorts of weird arguments, not to have them validated (again that would imply doubt on his part), but to convince others that he is right. When the blatant flaws in his arguments are pointed out, he has and will throw out a new ones, all a careful and delicate dance to allow him to continue to think that his belief is fact.

The good news is that JetLeg very likely does have doubt, otherwise he wouldn't be here trying to convince us to believe as he does. And I suspect that the discussion has more affect on his beliefs than he will admit.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? They do not occupy space, they have no mass, they can be interpenetrated easily by physical objects..... I'm not sure what definition of "material" you're using, but I doubt anyone but perhaps a physicist would find it intuitive or convincing.

I didn't say anything about them being solid. They are most definitely material. And it matters not that only a physicist would find the argument convicing if it is correct.

Holograms are "composed" of laser light. Light has a material basis. For the same reason a reflection in a mirror is also material. Energy and matter are interchangeable -- one can be converted into the other. So the "stuff" we call energy is material.

 

[JetLeg]

....

Hi,

I have certain beliefs. I understand that most people here not only hold these beliefs, but simply think they are wrong. So, I do want my beliefs to be dissected by them. But, I will try and hold by them, until the last defense line falls. The idea of a consequent-being is a hard one to defend, since consequence implies evidence. I think that this line can fall pretty quickly. So, I am trying to hold the line of defense of immaterealism.