Is it?

[JetLeg]

THAT, however, is an assumption that I don't think JetLeg (yet) accepts. And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance

Eh...


P : An immaterial being exists

Q : An immaterial being does not exist.

I agree they are contradictory.

P seems to be unfalsifiable because there is no way you can demonstrate his non-existance.

Q seems to be unfalsifiable because you cannot demonstrate its existance.

But do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ok, but why do you think so?


For example, you have an idea that Randi exists, though you never saw him. You must have a body to think this idea, so far I agree. An idea of a "being" includes a body. But the idea itself, I don't think of it as something with spatial bounds... Can you measure the velocity of ideas? It sounds absurd?

I'm not sure what you point is. There is a very definite distinction between an idea of something and the something itself. We can assign properties to ideas, but that does not make those properties existent in any real sense. Existence is not a property that a being can 'have'.

In other words, Kant already dealt with the ontological argument more than 200 years ago.

Speaking of ideas as having velocity is simply a category mistake. Ideas only have meaning in their relation to other ideas. The ideas themselves must have some boundary so that they can be compared to those other ideas. They cannot be completely boundaryless. If they are, I don't see how they can ever be defined.

Our only experience with ideas is as instantiations in our brains. We have no other experience to suggest otherwise. If we want to argue for boundaryless thought we can do so only by means of analogy since no one has ever experienced it. We create this concept by shoving together two other concepts -- consciousness and boundary and then removing the idea of boundaries. But if we remove the boundaries, how is any form of thought possible? Ideas themselves only make sense when they take place within a larger context of language game. Now if you want to argue that there is an entirely other level of thought totally beyond anything that we are capable, then that's fine. But we can't discuss it and we could never be sure if such a thing is even possible since we can't really think it, only talk around the edges of it.

 

[Bri]

Eh...


P : An immaterial being exists

Q : An immaterial being does not exist.

I agree they are contradictory.

P seems to be unfalsifiable because there is no way you can demonstrate his non-existance.

Q seems to be unfalsifiable because you cannot demonstrate its existance.

But do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

Given that the only evidence possible would be evidence against the inconsequential being, the more attributes you assign to it to make it "meaningful" the more likely you are to introduce a logical inconsistency, and the less likely it is to exist.

In addition, since the existence of a being matching your description would be entirely coincidental rather than based on any actual evidence, the more attributes you assign to your description of your being, the less likely a being actually exists that falls under that description.

And of course, the fewer attributes you assign to your being, the higher the possibility that more than one being might fit the description, not to mention the fact that if you only describe the being as "inconsequential" you're not really saying much about it or giving anyone any reason whatsoever to care much whether it exists or not. You have previously referred to the inconsequential being that you believe exists as a "god" so what attributes does it possess that makes you think it's a god rather than some more mundane inconsequential being?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

And of course, the fewer attributes you assign to your being, the higher the possibility that more than one being might fit the description, not to mention the fact that if you only describe the being as "inconsequential" you're not really saying much about it or giving anyone any reason whatsoever to care much whether it exists or not. You have previously referred to the inconsequential being that you believe exists as a "god" so what attributes does it possess that makes you think it's a god rather than some more mundane inconsequential being?

-Bri

Alright, I call it a divine-immaterial-inconsequential being.

But, you didn't answer my question :

Do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

 

[slingblade]

There are pink flamingo beings living on the planet Dingo.

You can't falsify that. You can't prove it one way or the other. It might very well be absolutely true.










So what?

 

[Bri]

Alright, I call it a divine-immaterial-inconsequential being.

What do you mean by "divine"? What can your being do that make it divine?

But, you didn't answer my question :

Do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

As described, I don't think we can calculate the probability of a being existing that meets your criteria, which also means that we can't calculate the probability of no such being existing.

Your description is quite vague and so there could be many beings that fit the description, in fact infinitely many. If you believe that there is only one being that fits your idea, you'll have to be more specific as to what attributes your being has that would make it unique.

Only when you've adequately described it can we even begin to consider the probability of a being existing that fits the description.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

What do you mean by "divine"? What can your being do that make it divine?




-Bri

I have to think about it. What does divine even mean?

It feels a bit unfair that I am asked to define these terms, and think about their meaning when so many religious people are totally sheltered from it. When the pope says something about divinity, he is not asked what can his being do that makes it divine, but everyone assumes he is right, and start finding meanings in his words... Not many people of the religious community are asked to defend their views.



As to the question, divine is rather a vague concept. I am not sure what it means. Some options :

-1- Divine is the attribution of god. Being a god is what makes him divine. The nature of a god is being divine.
-2- Divine means the ability to act against the laws of nature.
-3- Divine means nothing. It is simply a feel-good word.

As to 2, my definition of god means he is not divine. As to 3, I can describe 3 to god if I wish to.
As to 1, I am not sure, but something seems wrong with it. I think it is the ordinary meaning of this word, but when I think of it, it is merely a tautology. If the nature of god is being divine, then by saying that god is divine, you simply call god - god.

I think I will stay with 3.

 

[Bri]

I have to think about it. What does divine even mean?

You used the term, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Usually, it just means "godly" which doesn't help us much here, as you point out below.

It feels a bit unfair that I am asked to define these terms, and think about their meaning when so many religious people are totally sheltered from it. When the pope says something about divinity, he is not asked what can his being do that makes it divine, but everyone assumes he is right, and start finding meanings in his words... Not many people of the religious community are asked to defend their views.

The pope believes a lot of things about his God. He believes it created the universe, for one thing. Your "god" cannot have created the universe, since it is inconsequential. The Christian God is generally believed to be able to do anything that can be done and to know anything that can be known. Your being can't and doesn't, since it is inconsequential. So, yes, the pope does use the word "divine" to describe his God, but he also backs it up with a lot of other adjectives which assign various "godly" attributes to God. Can you do the same?

As to 2, my definition of god means he is not divine. As to 3, I can describe 3 to god if I wish to.

I'm willing to accept whatever attributes you assign to your god. But it would seem that in order for anyone else to believe in it (much less worship it) you might want to assign more to it than just "immaterial" and "inconsequential." As it stands, there could be an infinite number of gods that fit your description (or none at all). So why should I believe that exactly one being exists that fits the description?

As to 1, I am not sure, but something seems wrong with it. I think it is the ordinary meaning of this word, but when I think of it, it is merely a tautology. If the nature of god is being divine, then by saying that god is divine, you simply call god - god.

I agree. Without elaboration, saying that the being is divine is the same as saying it's a god since "divine" means "godly." I want to know what "godly" attributes you assign to your being in order to call it a god.

I think I will stay with 3.

Well, then you haven't really added anything to your god by calling it "divine." What other attributes do you assign to your god in order to distinguish it from an immaterial, inconsequential cockroach, for example? Or any number of other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Well, then you haven't really added anything to your god by calling it "divine." What other attributes do you assign to your god in order to distinguish it from an immaterial, inconsequential cockroach, for example? Or any number of other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

-Bri

What do you mean by the need to distinguish him from other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

Posit a few of them for the sake of the discussion, and I will try to distinguish.

It is not a cockroach, because it doesn't have the shape of a cockroach. Actually, how can an immaterial thing have the shape of a cockroach - being immaterial?

 

[Bri]

Well, I can posit that there are thousands of immaterial, inconsequential beings just as the one you describe as easily as I can posit that there are none or one. Why should I believe that there is exactly one? More importantly, why do you believe there is only one?

What do you mean by "immaterial" if it's already inconsequential? It's already clear that we cannot see an inconsequential being, so isn't "immaterial" superfluous? Could your being be seen or otherwise detected by other beings exactly like itself?

By "cockroach" I mean insignificant, weak, small, relatively unintelligent, and perhaps that it crawls around on the ground. But until we clarify what you mean by "immaterial" some of those adjectives might not apply.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Well, I can posit that there are thousands of immaterial, inconsequential beings just as the one you describe as easily as I can posit that there are none or one. Why should I believe that there is exactly one? More importantly, why do you believe there is only one?

By "Why", do you mean the psychological reasons, or the rational ones?

So, you say that there are many imm-inc-beings?

Hm...

10? 100? 750?

Actually, one could say that they have different qualities. My love the human race, but I can think of a one that loves crocodiles only ; another one that loves people whose name begins with R; another one who likes only similar imm-inc-beings ; another one who loves only people that like star trek ; another one that is totally indifferent ; another one that thinks about juggling all the day ; another one who thinks that imm-inc-beings that love crocodiles are immoral, and that they should start loving zebras instead; another one that thinks that all of the person whose names begins with Z are immoral ; another one who fantasises about having sex with rhinoceroses all day long ; another one who is busy calculating the value of PI ; another one who is a secret fan of james randi ; another one who thinks of crocodiles between 2 and 4 pm ; another one who calls himself Jack, and all the other Jack as well ; another one who watches (secretly and unconsequentialy) porn.

How do I decide which one is really existing.
Hm...
Hm...
Hm...

I don't really have a good answer to it.

Could your being be seen or otherwise detected by other beings exactly like itself?

-Bri

Assuming that there are? I can think of a being that is able to detect others, and a being that is not. How am I supposed to find out about my being which one he is ?

 

[Mashuna]

Assuming that there are? I can think of a being that is able to detect others, and a being that is not. How am I supposed to find out about my being which one he is ?

You can't - your being is imm/inc, so there's no way for you to discover anything about it.

 

[JetLeg]

So how am I supposed to answer about his feelings of other imm-inc beings, and whether violet is his favorite color??? Ask a preacher???

 

[Mashuna]

So how am I supposed to answer about his feelings of other imm-inc beings, and whether violet is his favorite color??? Ask a preacher???

You can't answer about his feelings of other imm/inc beings, or whether violet is his favourite colour. You have no way of knowing anything about your being, and it has no way of letting you know. That's an attribute of being imm/inc.

The preacher would be no help either - he's in the same situation as you.

 

[JetLeg]

Hm...

So what do you advise me to do? How would you advise me to answer such questions with regards to my inc-imm being? I feel stupid not being able to provide an answer.

 

[Mashuna]

Hm...

So what do you advise me to do? How would you advise me to answer such questions with regards to my inc-imm being? I feel stupid not being able to provide an answer.

I don't think you should feel stupid, my point is just that if you're defining a being as imm/inc, then by definition you can't ever know anything about it. You can come up with ideas about what such a being might be, but you've no way to confirm or deny any of them. It's no different to just making up stories. Which is fine, I like stories.

 

[JetLeg]

I don't think you should feel stupid, my point is just that if you're defining a being as imm/inc, then by definition you can't ever know anything about it. You can come up with ideas about what such a being might be, but you've no way to confirm or deny any of them. It's no different to just making up stories. Which is fine, I like stories.

Hm...

Can you give me some examples of things that I am not able to know about my being?

 

[Mashuna]

Hm...

Can you give me some examples of things that I am not able to know about my being?

What do you think you could know about it?

 

[JetLeg]

What do you think you could know about it?

I thought I could know its love. But it seems that it doesn't fit with the definition of inc.

 

[Mashuna]

I thought I could know its love. But it seems that it doesn't fit with the definition of inc.

I'm afraid not. Anything you find out about the being has to come from somewhere, in which case the being becomes consequential. Your imm/inc being may exist, but you can't know if it exists, and you can't tell the difference between it existing and not existing.