|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2002 : 21:54:57
|
All,
This is going to sound a little out-there, but please indulge me. I've been mentally kicking around something I call extrapolated or approximated concepts. Now, all the kicking has given me brain damage, so I can't really flesh this out as much as I would like. So let me preface by saying any commentary is constructive at this point. Now then...
Previously, I have made the distinction between concrete things and abstract things. Concrete things are patterns of matter. Patterns of matter, huh, say that five times fast. Anyway, abstract things are patterns of thought. Now, I take it a priori true that abstract things are always representative of either existing concrete things or potential concrete things. That is, there exist no abstract things that cannot also exist concretely without logical contradiction. Blue pigs with yellow feathery wings may not actually exist but they are not logically contradictory. Thus, my concept of blue pigs with yellow wings represents a valid abstract thing. From this, I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions, hopefully justifying my dismissal of "God" as an invalid abstract thing. I not only don't believe "God" represents a concrete thing, I don't believe it represents an abstract thing (concept) either. Okay so far.
I have begun, in something of a contradictory manner, calling 'extrapolated' or 'approximated' any concept in which the conceptual system/framework is fundamentally incapable of fully describing the concept itself. Thus, "God" is now an extrapolated concept. I felt comfortable assuming there wasn't another similarly extrapolated concept, until someone mentioned "infinity."
Okay, now wake up. To make a long lullaby short, the upshot was infinity represents necessarily an approximation of an abstract thing because the concept of infinity can be meaningfully discussed. Similarly, "God" is also a legitimate approximation of an abstract thing, it also being inadequately described within the describing system. Anyway, I don't think the two concepts are analogous, but I'm not yet sure why. Thoughts?
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 08:57:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
..., I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions, hopefully justifying my dismissal of "God" as an invalid abstract thing. ... Thoughts?
Two questions: - Must all God-concepts be logically contradictory?
- Is logical contradiction a prerequisite for dismissal?
I see nothing necessarily contradictory about leprechauns or deism. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/07/2002 09:00:46 |
 |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 09:40:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer wrote:
"Thus, my concept of blue pigs with yellow wings represents a valid abstract thing. From this, I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions...."
Firstly, I don't understand the "thus". I can't see the implication.
Secondly, I have always taken "God" to be the Universes; that is, the physical Universe that people like the Bad Astronomer, L. Pasteur, and A. Einstein studied (and, perhaps, still study) as well as any other "universal" things----such as "the class of all thoughts" being given the name of the Universe of thoughts.
The notion of "universe" is a common one in mathematics and is well studied. Do you have trouble with the concept and its logical implications?
"Infinity" is also a common concept in mathematics and is also well studied (--although perhaps not as well, nor as universally, accepted as is the concept of "universe"). I don't understand why you reject the concept of "infinity" as being logically contradictory.
(For whatever it is worth, I am one of those who are skeptical of the concept of "the infintesimal"--which is sort of a version of "infinity".)
PostScript: Unlike you, PhDreamer, I have given only cursory thought (--if that--) to my view of what "God" is or means; it is just the way I think of "God", whether as an abstract concept or a reality.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 12/07/2002 09:59:41 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 10:02:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
..., I have always taken "God" to be the Universes;
Why, then, add a superfluous term? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 10:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
..., I have always taken "God" to be the Universes;
Why, then, add a superfluous term?
Because of the "s" that I added to the usual "Universe". How many? I named two. How many others? Who could know other than "God". |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 11:28:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Because of the "s" that I added to the usual "Universe". How many? I named two. How many others? Who could know other than "God".
Slapping your head makes it no less superfluous. What you know or do not know is irrelevant: you don't know the flight vector of every flying moth in Lichtenstein, but that understandable ignorance hardly warrants a new word, much less the curious reuse of an old one.
What addition information is added by replacing the term 'Universes' with the term 'God'? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 16:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer: Now, I take it a priori true that abstract things are always representative of either existing concrete things or potential concrete things. That is, there exist no abstract things that cannot also exist concretely without logical contradiction.
So, does that invalidate a "square circle" as an abstract thing? I am still unsure of your exact criteria for a "thing." Does one need to develop a mental image, or can one just think of the properties this thing would need? quote:
From this, I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions, hopefully justifying my dismissal of "God" as an invalid abstract thing.
I seem to be mimicing RD's questions here, but isn't that entirely dependant on your "god" definition? quote:
To make a long lullaby short, the upshot was infinity represents necessarily an approximation of an abstract thing because the concept of infinity can be meaningfully discussed.
What's your beef with infinity? I guess this ties back to my first questions....quote:
Anyway, I don't think the two concepts are analogous, but I'm not yet sure why.
I don't think they are, either. Infinity is a number (actually, infinity is an entire class of numbers, but we probably don't need to get into that), god is a mythical entity. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 17:41:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Two questions: Must all God-concepts be logically contradictory?
No. But I would use the phrase [little 'g']god-concepts. When I use the word "God," I refer exclusively to those religions that apparently claim to have a god named God.
quote:
Is logical contradiction a prerequisite for dismissal? I see nothing necessarily contradictory about leprechauns or deism.
Agreed. Logical contradiction is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition for dismissal. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 17:57:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
quote:
PhDreamer: Now, I take it a priori true that abstract things are always representative of either existing concrete things or potential concrete things. That is, there exist no abstract things that cannot also exist concretely without logical contradiction.
So, does that invalidate a "square circle" as an abstract thing? I am still unsure of your exact criteria for a "thing."
By my criteria, a "square circle" would not be a valid abstract thing. A thing must be existing (concrete) or potentially existing (abstract).
quote:
Does one need to develop a mental image, or can one just think of the properties this thing would need?
I would say a mental image is necessary. I can assign as many non-contradictory properties to a 'piflitz' as I want but I must be able to describe the thing, otherwise I am assigning properties to nothing.
quote:
quote:
From this, I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions, hopefully justifying my dismissal of "God" as an invalid abstract thing.
I seem to be mimicing RD's questions here, but isn't that entirely dependant on your "god" definition?
Indeed. See my reply to RD for clarification.
quote:
What's your beef with infinity? I guess this ties back to my first questions....
Understand, I'm not a math theorist so this is probably all wrong... I don't know if infinity is actually what we think it is because we lack the system to describe it. We have mathematics that gives weird answers sometimes, like division by zero, non-terminating, non-repeating decimals. We say an asymptote can only get infinitely close to a reference line, but we have to say that because our system fundamentally can't deal with asymptotes. We use the word "infinity" to mean, "something that happens when we plot an asymptote but that we can't observe."
quote:
quote:
Anyway, I don't think the two concepts are analogous, but I'm not yet sure why.
I don't think they are, either. Infinity is a number (actually, infinity is an entire class of numbers, but we probably don't need to get into that), god is a mythical entity.
If you are correct about infinity being an actual number, then my entire premise is superfluous.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 19:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
But I would use the phrase [little 'g']god-concepts. When I use the word "God," I refer exclusively to those religions that apparently claim to have a god named God.
Name one.
You justify your dismissal of God on the grounds of logical contradiction. You then restrict God-constructs to those which insist upon, or result in, logical contradiction. What have you accomplished? More importantly perhaps, how (if at all) do you justify your dismissal of Unicorns and the Faerie Kingdom? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 20:07:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
But I would use the phrase [little 'g']god-concepts. When I use the word "God," I refer exclusively to those religions that apparently claim to have a god named God.
Name one.
Um, Christianity? The word "God" is apparently a name. Why else would it be capitalized and used sans article?
quote:
You justify your dismissal of God on the grounds of logical contradiction. You then restrict God-constructs to those which insist upon, or result in, logical contradiction. What have you accomplished?
I'm defining my terms, like any quasi-philosopher would. The fact that the God-constructs in question result in logical contradictions doesn't seem to phase apologists.
quote:
More importantly perhaps, how (if at all) do you justify your dismissal of Unicorns and the Faerie Kingdom?
Depends on how they are defined. If they have logically contradictory properties, I would treat them like [big-G]God. Otherwise, I would use skepticism. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 07:57:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
The word "God" is apparently a name. Why else would it be capitalized and used sans article?
Etymology of the Word "God" |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2002 : 18:28:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer: A thing must be existing (concrete) or potentially existing (abstract).
Are you saying that freedom, morality, etc. are not abstract things? I am not trying to be a smart ass here (I just noticed it might seem that way), I just want to be sure we are all discussing the same thing.
quote:
I don't know if infinity is actually what we think it is because we lack the system to describe it.
This is no longer true. Georg Cantor was the first to show there are differing levels of the infinite. Since then, other mathematicians have run with the idea.
quote:
We have mathematics that gives weird answers sometimes, like division by zero, non-terminating, non-repeating decimals.
Division by zero does not yeild an infinite answer. It is undefined. If, however, we divide by increasingly small values (approaching zero) our answer will approach infinity. quote:
We say an asymptote can only get infinitely close to a reference line, but we have to say that because our system fundamentally can't deal with asymptotes.
Functions get infinitesimally close to asymptotes, while extending toward infinity. This infinity is added to both ends (positive and negative) of the set of real numbers to make it a closed set (easier to work with). quote:
We use the word "infinity" to mean, "something that happens when we plot an asymptote but that we can't observe."
This is only partly true. The word "infinity" has been as corrupted in the vernacular as has the word "theory." quote:
If you are correct about infinity being an actual number, then my entire premise is superfluous.
I am not sure about this. If, by "infinity," you mean "the limit as a real function approaches its asymptote," it may still be valid. It is extraordinarily difficult to perform any arithmetic operations on transfinite numbers, since their theorems are still being developed. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 09:04:13 [Permalink]
|
Phd states:Thus, my concept of blue pigs with yellow wings represents a valid abstract thing. From this, I observe that the concept "God" contains logical contradictions, hopefully justifying my dismissal of "God" as an invalid abstract thing. I not only don't believe "God" represents a concrete thing, I don't believe it represents an abstract thing (concept) either. Okay so far.
On strictly logical level you are comparing apples and oranges.First, you correctly state even though your "blue pigs" are not necessarily a contradiction they are hard to empirically find (even on the internet).However,when you try and say "God contains logical contradictions,hopefully justifying my dismissal of 'God' represents a concrete thing" you just created a brain fart(ie what "working definition of the concept of God" are you starting with?).Secondly,unless I'm mistaken doesn't light have what appear to be "contradictory characteristics"(wave vs particle)? Would you then want add light to the list of things that you can dismiss as a "concrete thing"? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 14:40:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
On strictly logical level you are comparing apples and oranges.First, you correctly state even though your "blue pigs" are not necessarily a contradiction they are hard to empirically find (even on the internet).
It's not strictly necessary that I am able to "empirically find" blue pigs with yellow wings, only that I can conceive of them.
quote:
However,when you try and say "God contains logical contradictions,hopefully justifying my dismissal of 'God' represents a concrete thing" you just created a brain fart(ie what "working definition of the concept of God" are you starting with?).
That's just it. When I think about "God," I picture a guy who looks like a character from a painting on a certain chapel ceiling. But a physical apprearance is something a non-physical entity cannot have, by definition.
quote:
Secondly,unless I'm mistaken doesn't light have what appear to be "contradictory characteristics"(wave vs particle)? Would you then want add light to the list of things that you can dismiss as a "concrete thing"?
No. Light duality describes behavior. It is not the case that we can say, "light physically exists as a wave and as a particle." We call photons particles because it is currently impossible to "see" the physical structure of light. Wave behavior describes a function of the Uncertainty Principle, rather than a wave of liquid as is commonly misconceived. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 17:56:58 [Permalink]
|
When I think about "God," I picture a guy who looks like a character from a painting on a certain chapel ceiling. But a physical apprearance is something a non-physical entity cannot have, by definition.
You have to realize, PhD that Yahweh evolves as his story goes on. He starts out as a physical, albeit magic, entity. We know that he looks just like a human. We also know that he had a separate "spirit," just as humans, because we are told that his spirit was upon the waters. In some translations it's his breath that's on the waters but then spirit and breath are the same thing. A "spirit" is a misinterpretation of the respiratory system. Spirits and breath were the same thing until the seventeenth century when the science of anatomy finally began. Yahweh would take walks in the Garden of Eden and hang out with the people.
By the time you get to Moses Yahweh has become like Zeus (in the Semele myth) you can't even look at him without being blasted.
The Christians drop Yahweh altogether, his name is never mentioned in the NT. They pick up a version of the Dionysian trinity, father/son/holy spirit--only changing the holy spirit so that it no longer incorporates the Virgin Mother; who, in turn, becomes a separate entity.
God, at this point, is still a physical entity who lives in a magic kingdom on the other side of the sky. But problems arise again with science. The definition of "spirit" has to be changed when we find what "breath" actually is. Churchmen swear up and down that this isn't so, although, humorously, we still bless people when they sneeze. And when it was found that the sky isn't solid, that it has no other side, the attributes of god had to be changed. God only now becomes a spirit--in the new definition of the word--and heaven is moved from the sky (still called the heavens) to a spirit world. That leaves us with the problem of "if Yahweh is a spirit then what the hell is the holy spirit?" It can no longer be god's spirit if god is already a spirit and pretty much mucks up the idea of the monotheistic trinity. That, in turn, becomes a "mystery" which fouls up the christian boasts of superiority over the mystery religions.
That leaves us with today where christians will not define what they mean by god…mostly because they can't. The story is one jury-rig after another. You now need bible scholars to tell you what it really means as opposed to what it says, because even a 21st century child can see that what it says is stupidity itself.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
