Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Copernicus]

Let's start from the end, and work backwards. Incoherence is not a claim based on false presuppostions. If the presuppositions are proven false then the proposition is invalid. Incoherence means the individual ideas do not stick/adhere to each other or to the conclusion that is being attempted.

I don't want to defend a claim that the only thing rendering a claim incoherent is presupposition failure, but I do think that your definition of God as an "infinite" being does contain some false presuppositions that "do not stick/adhere to each other or to the conclusion that is being attempted". Your basic position, as I understand it, is that God is unknowable but understandable. My position is that God is both knowable and understandable, but grounded in contradictory or incompatible claims about his nature.

When I say "If God is understood to be infinite, then God is unknowable." That's not incoherent.

This is the question, so this is little more than question begging at this point.

Understanding does include the things you mentioned, but it does not require knowledge. Understanding is able to derive knowledge as needed. It knows where to look. It knows how to research. It is also able to evaluate relevance ( which evaluates coherence ). And it is also able to locate counter-examples and contradictions ( evaluates rigor ).

Knowledge is able to evaluate true / false, but it's ignorant of what it doesn't know. It doesn't make connections. It's just facts, and it has no method for testing those facts. It will never realize one of those facts is erroneous until it stumbles on updated information.

Sure, knowability entails understanding. But lack of knowability does not entail lack of understanding. The negation of "knowability entails understanding" is "lack of understanding entails lack of knowability". And that negation is false. I know your screen-name. But I don't understand why you chose it.

I find your personification of abstract concepts like knowledge and understanding to be more of a distraction than a help in explaining them. In any case, I don't think you are claiming that my screen name is unknowable. And I do think that you understand what it is perfectly well. The fact that you don't know why I chose it is a red herring. We should really concentrate on why you believe God is unknowable. Screen names are obviously knowable and understandable.

So, there is not a bijunctive relationship between knowledge and understanding. They're very different intellectual phenomena. What's understood is that "knowing" is irrelevant to an infinite being, because infinite means it is never-ending, and the knowing will never complete.

Are we talking about irrelevance to God or to you? I thought that this discussion was about our ability to know what the concept of God means, and I think I know what you mean by "infinite being". I take that to mean that you attribute properties like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to God. These "omni" properties in the definition of the Abrahamic God/Allah are pretty common and well-understood properties. We know what they mean, although it isn't clear that our understanding of the terms are possible attributes of any being, including a divine being. You are following something of a Platonic theme here, assuming that there is some concept of perception that is beyond the capabilities of human perception--the things that cast shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. Plato's gods, of course, were so-called pagan gods, but they posed the same logical conundrums for believers back then that they do now.

If the question is: How do you know that God is infinite? The answer is "I don't know." And that is consistent with my original claim. Because infinity, itself, is not known. It has no borders or boundries.

But infinity itself is a perfectly knowable concept. We certainly know what an infinite loop is. Ask any programmer or mathematician. Its lack of a boundary is part of how we define and understand it. And we know that God is defined as a being with "omni" properties that give it an "infinite" character, if I understand you properly. The problem with the concept of "omniscience" or "all-knowing" is not that we don't understand it, but that it presupposes that knowledge is quantifiable and countable. That is where I think you have a problem, because ideas are not standalone units. Their meaning is a web of associated ideas that are ultimately grounded in the way in which human bodies interact with their environment. What it means to say that we understand something is to say that we relate it to other concepts that it is more or less similar to. Meaning is actually a bundle of associated experiences that we associate with a word. What it means to say that we know something is to say that we expect it never to be contradicted. That it corresponds to something we have good reason to be true. So I "know" who my biological parents are, even though there is at least a logical possibility that I was adopted but never found that out.

I only declared that this is the proper defintion of God.

It is certainly a component of your definition and not an uncommon one. It isn't a very useful definition per se, unless we understand exactly what "infinite being" means. You and other believers say a huge number of other things about God's nature and character, so you aren't claiming that God is totally unknowable. Your difficulty in explaining the concept only applies to certain properties--the "omni" properties.

Regarding infinity, the model you are using is limited, apparently to a single dimension. Keep going... dot to infinite line, infinite line to infinite plane, infinite plane to infinite cube, infinite cube to infinite versions of the cube... 5 dimensions, 6 dimensions, 7 dimensions. The best description I can come up with is an infinite database where infinite objects are connected in many-to-many-relationships with each other. That would be literal infinity. Not metaphor. Literal.

I don't think you know what "model" I am using, and I have no trouble comprehending the literal meaning of infinity. You've said enough about it to convince me that you know what "infinite" and "infinity" means, although I understand why you might have difficulty wrapping your head around "omniscience", since it isn't clear that units of knowledge have discrete boundaries in human minds. There is a certain amount of semantic vagueness associated with the meanings of words. So, even though we can count waves in water and mountains on land, we can't actually count how many waves are in the ocean or mountains in a mountain chain. That's because there are borderline cases where we don't know where one wave ends and another begins, or one mountain ends and another begins. Does this mean that waves and mountains are "unknowable"? Not really.

However, when it comes to justification... well... that's different.

First question... imo... always-always: Is it harmful?

​

Is there any potential harm in defining God this way?​

Not that I can see.

Next question:

​

Is there any contradiction in what I said?​

Not unless you try to elaborate on what you mean by the "omni" properties. I don't think that they represent coherent properties.

Next question:

​

Is anything I said proven false?​

More like "not even false", but I have said what I considered to be false above.

Next question:

Does the conclusion describe real-world phenomena?​

AFAICT, no. There is good reason to believe that gods are highly implausible beings, just like other mythological beings.

It seems like you are focused on what appears to be a contradiction. But I disagree. It's a special case where something can be understood to be unknowable. There isn't a contradiction, it's simply a harmless supposition that cannot be proven false, and has explanatory power.

Oh, I think that the things scripture attributes to God are provably false, given his/her/its definition as an infinite being. For example, omniscience is incompatible with free will, and omnipotence is incompatible with the idea that gods have needs, since needs are vulnerabilities.

 

[Heyo]

I conclude the same thing. That's why I call myself an agnostic. I don't see how "it's not known" leads to Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

Neither do I. It takes a big leap of faith, or as I like to call that vault, a jump to conclusion.

But I don't really care. An agnostic believer is of no danger to me or society. By admitting their ignorance they also admit that from their ignorance no entitlements follow. Most societies grant a right to belief and freedom of religion. And I believe that to be a good thing. Everybody has a right to be wrong.
And that is where the special rights end. Believers who accept that (and agnostic believers implicitly do) are not going to infringe on my rights or demand special treatment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither do I. It takes a big leap of faith, or as I like to call that vault, a jump to conclusion.

But I don't really care. An agnostic believer is of no danger to me or society. By admitting their ignorance they also admit that from their ignorance no entitlements follow. Most societies grant a right to belief and freedom of religion. And I believe that to be a good thing. Everybody has a right to be wrong.
And that is where the special rights end. Believers who accept that (and agnostic believers implicitly do) are not going to infringe on my rights or demand special treatment.

Well, yes. But remember that applies to all believers. Even the believers in this for worth:

Who here believes in "Scientism"?

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering. I've been a member here for...

www.religiousforums.com

So they too have no special rights as them for worth, just because they believe different than the god-believers.

 

[dybmh]

I don't want to defend a claim that the only thing rendering a claim incoherent is presupposition failure, but I do think that your definition of God as an "infinite" being does contain some false presuppositions that "do not stick/adhere to each other or to the conclusion that is being attempted". Your basic position, as I understand it, is that God is unknowable but understandable. My position is that God is both knowable and understandable, but grounded in contradictory or incompatible claims about his nature.

OK

This is the question, so this is little more than question begging at this point.

It was the beginning of my reply. Maybe we'll get to the parts which you think are incoherent.

I find your personification of abstract concepts like knowledge and understanding to be more of a distraction than a help in explaining them. In any case, I don't think you are claiming that my screen name is unknowable. And I do think that you understand what it is perfectly well. The fact that you don't know why I chose it is a red herring. We should really concentrate on why you believe God is unknowable. Screen names are obviously knowable and understandable.

The point I was trying to make is that entailment, Knowability ==> Understandability, doesn't undermine my position. I was thinking that weakening my position would require proving the bijunctive, of which there is are counter-examples. Proving a bijunctive is very difficult, I think that's why people use entailment/implication. It's the weakest logical proof that exists. Maybe there's another construct that would defeat my claim? I don't know for sure. I've stopped considering it, TBH.

Also, I'll try to avoid the anthro-depictions of these intellectual faculites. Sorry for that.

Are we talking about irrelevance to God or to you?

To the infinite-god concept.

I thought that this discussion was about our ability to know what the concept of God means, and I think I know what you mean by "infinite being".

Not to the meaning. To the concept itself.

I take that to mean that you attribute properties like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to God. These "omni" properties in the definition of the Abrahamic God/Allah are pretty common and well-understood properties. We know what they mean, although it isn't clear that our understanding of the terms are possible attributes of any being, including a divine being.

All you're saying here is that this god would be completely unique among all reality?

You are following something of a Platonic theme here, assuming that there is some concept of perception that is beyond the capabilities of human perception--the things that cast shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. Plato's gods, of course, were so-called pagan gods, but they posed the same logical conundrums for believers back then that they do now.

I'm not sure why you're saying that. That doesn't match what I'm intending to do. Maybe it IS what I'm doing, and you are correctly identifying it from an outside perspective? IDK.

But infinity itself is a perfectly knowable concept.

Yes, but infinity itself is unknown. I'll never know the final digit of Pi. I know what these things are, but I don't know them. What ever is known about the content of these concepts is nullified in all that is unknown.

We certainly know what an infinite loop is. Ask any programmer or mathematician.

Yes, but engaging it directly is either a waste of time, a bug, or a system-crash.

It's lack of a boundary is part of how we define and understand it.

understanding... the definition is: whatever is observed of its content is always and forever nullified in comparrison to all that is unknown about the content.

And we know that God is defined as a being with "omni" properties that give it an "infinite" character, if I understand you properly. The problem with the concept of "omniscience" or "all-knowing" is not that we don't understand it, but that it presupposes that knowledge is quantifiable and countable.

No, I disagree. Infinite+omniscient = infinite expanding knowledge including knowledge of the expansion. Knowledge of how it expands AND knowledge of how it doesn't expand AND knowledge of how it didn't expand AND how it did AND how it will AND won't AND could expand.

Was + wasn't + is + isn't + will + won't + could be = infinite+omniscient

"could-be" events result in a multi-verse.

That is where I think you have a problem, because ideas are not standalone units.

They are when they are known by finite beings.

Their meaning is a web of associated ideas that are ultimately grounded in the way in which human bodies interact with their environment.

Yes, that's when an idea is understood.

What it means to say that we understand something is to say that we relate it to other concepts that it is more or less similar to. Meaning is actually a bundle of associated experiences that we associate with a word.

Agreed.

What it means to say that we know something is to say that we expect it never to be contradicted. That it corresponds to something we have good reason to be true.

But.... that requires understanding. Understanding, as you said, is establishing the relationships between ideas that are similar. You bolded understand. This also includes establishing relationships which are dissimilar. ( Otherwise the similarity could be erroneous and irrelevant ). And that includes the extreme case, the contradiction. There is no way to identify a contradiction without understanding relationships. What you're describing IS understanding not knowing.

This is how I would define knowledge, knowing:

1) The knower manufactures borders and boundaries around the content
2) The knower intimately examines the content and the borders which were applied to it

That's it. No relationships. No error checking. And none is really needed, because the knower is placing the boundries around the content, and that defintion ( the borders which establish form and scope ) is somewhat arbitrary at this point.

In this way, knowing is, for lack of better words, god-like. The knower is creating, and in a way dominating, and being intimate with their creation. I think this is why people are drawn to knowledge, and the greek philosophers tended to idolize knowledge. It makes a person feel like a god. And it's powerful. No doubt. Knowledge itself is limited. But the knower... is not.

Eventually, a knower might realize that there are things which lack borders and can't be known intimately and dominated and put in a box. And they experience a feeling. For some that might be an unpleasant feeling. They're not god-like anymore. For some it might be wonderful. Literally full of wonder.

And this leads to a minor problem. I just defined knowledge. I'm playing-god. And if I realize this is a self-imposed definition, do I *actually* know what knowledge is? And around and around a person can go with this until... nap-time. But the problem is minor. If you and I can agree on the definition, then the cycle stops. If not, then we agree to disagree on this, and look for other things to agree on.

 

[dybmh]

So I "know" who my biological parents are, even though there is at least a logical possibility that I was adopted but never found that out.

And this comes from the self-imposed border on the concept of "knowing who your biological parents". And that is a good/useful border based on your understanding.

It is certainly a component of your definition and not an uncommon one. It isn't a very useful definition per se, unless we understand exactly what "infinite being" means. You and other believers say a huge number of other things about God's nature and character, so you aren't claiming that God is totally unknowable. Your difficulty in explaining the concept only applies to certain properties--the "omni" properties.

I think the claims made that you are talking about are interpretting God's actions, or to be very clear, they are the actions in stories. Even if they are observed events in the here and now, if they are conveyed third-hand, they're still stories. God's actions would be expressed-will. Some people, consiouslessly or unconciously, consider God only as expressed will. And from that, yes, claims can be made about God's nature, IF, big if, the stories are true. But really those claims are about actions, and it's the actions that are known.

You mentioned usefulness, for me, I think the definition I brought is proper because it explains both the stories and personally observable phenomena. But, the definition IS assumed. It's not known. Each of the assumptions are unknowable ( no borders and no intimate direct experience ). The only one which is questionable is "solitary before creation", but this follows from infinite.

I agree that it is somewhat difficult to explain the tri-omni properties. But, I think this is resolved if the god-concept is developed from a clean slate, with zero assumptions. No fleshy father-son-king-priest-dying-rising-god hybrids.

I don't think you know what "model" I am using, and I have no trouble comprehending the literal meaning of infinity. You've said enough about it to convince me that you know what "infinite" and "infinity" means, although I understand why you might have difficulty wrapping your head around "omniscience", since it isn't clear that units of knowledge have discrete boundaries in human minds.

My head is intentionally not wrapped around any of these omnis... it's unwrapped. Which is an odd feeling at first. But now it kind of tickles.

Essentially, God is the only thing, if thing is even a proper word, hat can keep up with the expansion of these many-to-many-relaltionships and predict the expansion.

There is a certain amount of semantic vagueness associated with the meanings of words. So, even though we can count waves in water and mountains on land, we can't actually count how many waves are in the ocean or mountains in a mountain chain.

Sure we can! If the borders for waves and mountains are defined we can definitely ount These are defined in relative terms, based on a fixed point. Once everyone agrees on the fixed point of reference... poof! Now people can measure and count.

As long as you and I agree on the meanings, the borders, the definitions, the fixed points, there's no ambiguity. In conversation, we might test each other, because words are just symbols, and the symbol in my brain might *actually* be completely different than yours. Or they could be a perfect match! So we talk, we question, we debate, and hopefully at the end, sooner or later, we agree.

That's because there are borderline cases where we don't know where one wave ends and another begins, or one mountain ends and another begins. Does this mean that waves and mountains are "unknowable"? Not really.

Agreeing on the fixed point of reference solves the problem.

Not unless you try to elaborate on what you mean by the "omni" properties. I don't think that they represent coherent properties.

If you choose to, maybe elaborate on which parts aren't "sticky".

More like "not even false", but I have said what I considered to be false above.

You did? I missed it.

AFAICT, no. There is good reason to believe that gods are highly implausible beings, just like other mythological beings.

I disagree, I think that myth or not is equally plausible/implausible. And from the definition I've brought human behavior and observed phenonmena is better explained by the god concept I am trying to describe.

Oh, I think that the things scripture attributes to God are provably false, given his/her/its definition as an infinite being. For example, omniscience is incompatible with free will, and omnipotence is incompatible with the idea that gods have needs, since needs are vulnerabilities.

Free-will fits when I play the multi-verse card.

"Needs" is resolved when examining eternal+infinite. Basically this god concept is, by defintion, complete. Being complete has needs. It can't be complete without devotion, for example. But also rejection. And also a nation, but also free-agents. It needs "others" for all of these needs.

To be complete, this god's needs include everything, good-bad-and-ugly. An eternal god has these needs already because creation has always, and will always be happening. It's all concurrent for this infinite+eternal being. It needs these things, but because past-present-future are all unified for this being, it already has them. So, it needs, but, it doesn't need. From the finite-time-bound perspective these needs aren't fully met and need to be saticfied. But from the infinite-eternal perspective all needs are met. So this god needs, but not like a time-bound finite being has needs.

This might/probably leads to questioning the omni-good attribute. As long as those bad-ugly things are converted to good, this god is both complete and omni-good. And there's bit of catch when it's considered that that this god does not convert all the bad-ugly to good on its own. And that becomes a bigger / longer discussion. But at the end of the discussion, it's not incompatible, nor incoherent. All the ideas stick together, and explain a lot.

And one of those conclusions is that God is unknowable, and as @Heyo has been pointing out, this idea renders the god-concept safe. At least much much safer than "I'm right, you're wrong, be damned."

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I skimmed most of it and will need to go back to consider responses when I get more time.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think God knew it would happen, but it was needed. And God had a plan. Noah.

But then God says after the Flood that humans will always sin, so God is admitting it didn't do anything to solve anything.

 

[dybmh]

But then God says after the Flood that humans will always sin, so God is admitting it didn't do anything to solve anything.

Well, it doesn't say that humans will always sin. It says that the evil inclination will always exist in the heart. It's captured. Noah was the solution then, and there is always a Noah-type in each generation. A solution was brought.

Proverbs 10:25.

​

As the stormy wind which passes, so is the wicked no more; but the righteous ( literally: the Tzadik ) is an everlasting foundation.​

 

[Kfox]

If you had to choose one, and only one, argument against the God of Abraham as described in the Bible ( both Hebrew and Christian ), what would it be?

Please vote in the poll. I tried to cover all the major objections, and I'm interested to know if I missed anything.

My vote? God doesn't listen. I think that's the single best argument against God.

• No evidence? It's not really an argument against.
• Harsh / evil actions in the bible? The NT and Christian theology explains most of that stuff.
• The bible is unrealistic / fake? It doesn't bother me.
• Suffering / Starvation / Disease / Pests / Pestilence? It's a really good argument, my 2nd choice.
• No intervention against tyrants and the worst of the worst criminals. This is my 3rd choice.

Thank you in advance for your response.

...God never listens ... to what I say... and you don't get a refund ... if you over-pray...

Spoiler: lyrics

Swinging on the lifeline
Fraying bits of twine
Entangled in the remnants of the
Knot I left behind
And asking you to help me make it
Finally unwind

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

And when the line is breaking
And when I'm near the end
When all the time spent leading
I've been following instead
When all my thoughts and memories are
Left hanging by a thread

God never listens...

Stranded on this slender string
The minutes seem to last a lifetime
Dangling here between the light above
And blue below that drags me down

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

The fact that he demands belief via faith instead of verification. In my experience, the truth never asks to be believed, the truth asks to be verified.

 

[Copernicus]

But infinity itself is a perfectly knowable concept.

Yes, but infinity itself is unknown. I'll never know the final digit of Pi. I know what these things are, but I don't know them. What ever is known about the content of these concepts is nullified in all that is unknown.

Why do you think that there must be a final number? We have a way to derive the value of every digit formulaically, and the important thing we know about the meaning of pi is terms of how it is calculated. What we know about infinity is that it involves a repetitive process that has no end point. We can certainly prove claims about steps in the process, and that is why it is a useful logico-mathematical concept.

And we know that God is defined as a being with "omni" properties that give it an "infinite" character, if I understand you properly. The problem with the concept of "omniscience" or "all-knowing" is not that we don't understand it, but that it presupposes that knowledge is quantifiable and countable.

No, I disagree. Infinite+omniscient = infinite expanding knowledge including knowledge of the expansion. Knowledge of how it expands AND knowledge of how it doesn't expand AND knowledge of how it didn't expand AND how it did AND how it will AND won't AND could expand.

Was + wasn't + is + isn't + will + won't + could be = infinite+omniscient

"could-be" events result in a multi-verse.

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense to me. Omniscience is usually defined as a state of knowing everything. Quantification is inherent in its meaning, yet we don't have a clear idea of how to quantify knowledge such that we could be said to "expand" it like we might calculate the expansion of a mathematical function. I understand that the term "infinite" is being used in a metaphorical way, but metaphors are analogies. They always break down at some point.

Could an omniscient being ever really change its behavior? It would know exactly what its future would be, and it wouldn't be able to change that behavior in principle. But what does that say about omnipotence? If it can't actually change its behavior, then it theoretically lacks any will power at all. It seems that God is an ineffable being because of all the cognitive dissonance produced by the excessive aggrandizement of his powers by the beings that created him.

​

...What it means to say that we understand something is to say that we relate it to other concepts that it is more or less similar to. Meaning is actually a bundle of associated experiences that we associate with a word. What it means to say that we know something is to say that we expect it never to be contradicted. That it corresponds to something we have good reason to be true.​

But.... that requires understanding. Understanding, as you said, is establishing the relationships between ideas that are similar. You bolded understand. This also includes establishing relationships which are dissimilar. ( Otherwise the similarity could be erroneous and irrelevant ). And that includes the extreme case, the contradiction. There is no way to identify a contradiction without understanding relationships. What you're describing IS understanding not knowing.

This is how I would define knowledge, knowing:

1) The knower manufactures borders and boundaries around the content
2) The knower intimately examines the content and the borders which were applied to it

That's it. No relationships. No error checking. And none is really needed, because the knower is placing the boundries around the content, and that defintion ( the borders which establish form and scope ) is somewhat arbitrary at this point.

In this way, knowing is, for lack of better words, god-like. The knower is creating, and in a way dominating, and being intimate with their creation. I think this is why people are drawn to knowledge, and the greek philosophers tended to idolize knowledge. It makes a person feel like a god. And it's powerful. No doubt. Knowledge itself is limited. But the knower... is not.

Eventually, a knower might realize that there are things which lack borders and can't be known intimately and dominated and put in a box. And they experience a feeling. For some that might be an unpleasant feeling. They're not god-like anymore. For some it might be wonderful. Literally full of wonder.

And this leads to a minor problem. I just defined knowledge. I'm playing-god. And if I realize this is a self-imposed definition, do I *actually* know what knowledge is? And around and around a person can go with this until... nap-time. But the problem is minor. If you and I can agree on the definition, then the cycle stops. If not, then we agree to disagree on this, and look for other things to agree on.

I honestly don't agree with your attempt to include the concept of borders or limits into the definition of what know and knowledge mean. The concept of infinity is clear and knowable. Part of what we know is that it has no border or limitation, because that is how we define the concept. Ultimately, we ground it in the experience. We observe repetitive processes in nature that have no apparent boundary. They simply repeat. So the concept is both understandable and knowable. Knowledge, like belief, is about the truth of a claim or proposition. That is all. Bringing in boundaries or limits goes beyond normal usage.

And this comes from the self-imposed border on the concept of "knowing who your biological parents". And that is a good/useful border based on your understanding.

As an interesting aside, I like to use this claim because it actually happened to my grandmother. Her biological mother died at birth, and her father committed suicide. She was raised by her aunt, who never wanted to explain what happened with her real parents. My grandmother didn't learn this until her grandfather died late in her life, and she flew to Switzerland to hear the terms of his will. She had thought her aunt was her biological mother.

I think the claims made that you are talking about are interpretting God's actions, or to be very clear, they are the actions in stories. Even if they are observed events in the here and now, if they are conveyed third-hand, they're still stories. God's actions would be expressed-will. Some people, consiouslessly or unconciously, consider God only as expressed will. And from that, yes, claims can be made about God's nature, IF, big if, the stories are true. But really those claims are about actions, and it's the actions that are known.

You mentioned usefulness, for me, I think the definition I brought is proper because it explains both the stories and personally observable phenomena. But, the definition IS assumed. It's not known. Each of the assumptions are unknowable ( no borders and no intimate direct experience ). The only one which is questionable is "solitary before creation", but this follows from infinite.

I agree that it is somewhat difficult to explain the tri-omni properties. But, I think this is resolved if the god-concept is developed from a clean slate, with zero assumptions. No fleshy father-son-king-priest-dying-rising hybrids.

You are trying to make the concept of a divinity as an infinite being work, but I cannot really buy into the kinds of mental gyrations that you describe in order to arrive at the destination you desire. I still think that endless repetition is a perfectly valid process that one can understand and know as one that has no boundary or endpoint. And the god concept is one that has been with humanity for a very long time. You can't ignore all of the baggage it brings with it. Attempts to define the monotheistic god as "infinite" or "unknowable" are not uncommon, but it is not a valid basis for defending the claim that the god actually exists. Such a claim can be rejected for lack of reasonable justification.

​

...There is a certain amount of semantic vagueness associated with the meanings of words. So, even though we can count waves in water and mountains on land, we can't actually count how many waves are in the ocean or mountains in a mountain chain.​

Sure we can! If the borders for waves and mountains are defined we can definitely ount These are defined in relative terms, based on a fixed point. Once everyone agrees on the fixed point of reference... poof! Now people can measure and count.

Your solution doesn't work unless everyone agrees. You can trust me on this one. As a linguist, I know that it seldom works, even in highly technical environments where everyone thinks they are all working with the same concepts. Waves blend into each other, and we always encounter saddle mountains with twin peaks and a dip in the middle. You can get a committee to make arbitrary decisions. I've actually spent a considerable amount of time working in those committees. People bully each other and it can get pretty ugly. I once actually saw a person run from the room crying over a dispute between engineers and pilots over when a landing began and ended.

As long as you and I agree on the meanings, the borders, the definitions, the fixed points, there's no ambiguity. In conversation, we might test each other, because words are just symbols, and the symbol in my brain might *actually* be completely different than yours. Or they could be a perfect match! So we talk, we question, we debate, and hopefully at the end, sooner or later, we agree.

We have different life experiences, so it is a given that we will interpret words differently. We can't seem to agree here on what "unknowable" means, but I at least understand better how you were approaching the concept.

...

This might/probably leads to questioning the omni-good attribute. As long as those bad-ugly things are converted to good, this god is both complete and omni-good. And there's bit of catch when it's considered that that this god does not convert all the bad-ugly to good on its own. And that becomes a bigger / longer discussion. But at the end of the discussion, it's not incompatible, nor incoherent. All the ideas stick together, and explain a lot.

And one of those conclusions is that God is unknowable, and as @Heyo has been pointing out, this idea renders the god-concept safe. At least much much safer than "I'm right, you're wrong, be damned."

Well, my original point was that ineffability was the ultimate defense. I understand why Heyo accepted that as a sufficient defense, but I don't. I don't require arguments to end with a resolution. Sometimes the dialog is worth it just to get a better understanding of the other person's perspective. Regarding much of what you said above, I can't honestly say that it made a lot of sense to me, but I'm not motivated to untangle all of the cognitive dissonance that goes into defending the concept of a perfect god. The ideas stick together for you, and that's fine with me. But I still regard the ineffability defense as actually an admission that one doesn't know what one is talking about.

Shalom.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, it doesn't say that humans will always sin. It says that the evil inclination will always exist in the heart. It's captured. Noah was the solution then, and there is always a Noah-type in each generation. A solution was brought.

Proverbs 10:25.

​

As the stormy wind which passes, so is the wicked no more; but the righteous ( literally: the Tzadik ) is an everlasting foundation.​

The 'evil inclination will always exist in the heart.' is the same as 'humans will always sin.'

 

[dybmh]

The 'evil inclination will always exist in the heart.' is the same as 'humans will always sin.'

No it's not the same don't be silly.

If I walk in front of a bank, and notice that the guard is sleeping, and I have a thought... "wow, somone could rob that place." That's the evil inclination in the heart. It doesn't mean I'm going to steal it. I just noticed for an instant the possibility. So, people can have that inclination, and it can live in the heart, and a person can simply be aware of it, but never submit to it, and... poof, they're not sinning.

Easier said than done, but, having the inclination, is no where near the same as saying people will always sin.

 

[dybmh]

Why do you think that there must be a final number? We have a way to derive the value of every digit formulaically, and the important thing we know about the meaning of pi is terms of how it is calculated. What we know about infinity is that it involves a repetitive process that has no end point. We can certainly prove claims about steps in the process, and that is why it is a useful logico-mathematical concept.

I don't think there will be a final number. I understand that the final number is unknown. Again, the point is that the concept prohibits knowing the content. The content is understood to be unknown.

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense to me. Omniscience is usually defined as a state of knowing everything. Quantification is inherent in its meaning, yet we don't have a clear idea of how to quantify knowledge such that we could be said to "expand" it like we might calculate the expansion of a mathematical function. I understand that the term "infinite" is being used in a metaphorical way, but metaphors are analogies. They always break down at some point.

I'm not using the term infinite in a metaphorical way. I'm using it literally. Quantification is not inherent in the meaning of omniscient. There is no way to calculate this expansion, because a math function is limited in dimension, and literal infinity is not. You see, the dimensions, themself expand. But also the quantity of dimensions is also expanding.

It's expanding in a way that is beyond imagination. This knowledge includes all of the future events that will be, and all the future events that won't be, and all the future events that could be, and all the future events that will be which rely on those could be events, and all the future events that won't be which rely on those could be events, and all the could be events which rely on the future events that will be which in turn rely in the first batch of could be events. And this goes on and on moment to moment, forever expanding.

Then there's the past could-be events. And all the events relying on those which carry on forever. And all the present could-be events, and all the events relying on those events. And each of these brings a chain of could-be events and their corresponding events, and more could-be events... And God knows all of it.

Could an omniscient being ever really change its behavior? It would know exactly what its future would be, and it wouldn't be able to change that behavior in principle.

Each could-be event results in a whole different existence, in each existence God can choose to react. From within that existence it appears that God is changing, but God isn't changing. Its a known reaction to a set of conditions which are known to exist.

But what does that say about omnipotence? If it can't actually change its behavior, then it theoretically lacks any will power at all. It seems that God is an ineffable being because of all the cognitive dissonance produced by the excessive aggrandizement of his powers by the beings that created him.

It is able to react within each timeline, within each existence. Just like an author writing themselves into a story. Here, I'll do it:

Once upon a time, there was a little bird named Andrew. Andrew fell out of its nest. That makes me sad. I got up from my tablet, and walked over to Andrew, and I checked to see if he as OK. Andrew saw me and flew away. Andrew must be fine. Now I am happy.

Nothing changed about me. In an instant, I created an existence. Actually two existences. Actually more than that. But starting with two, in one version, I saw Andrew and he flew away. In another version Andrew was injured and couldn't fly away. Both equally exist. Then there's the versions where Andrew is a dog, a cat, a unicorn, my little brother... etc. it goes on and on. And my reaction was both... happy for Andrew who flew away, and even more sad when he was injured. I had both reactions, but I never changed.

I honestly don't agree with your attempt to include the concept of borders or limits into the definition of what know and knowledge mean. The concept of infinity is clear and knowable.

But knowledge of its content is alays and forever nullified when compared to all that is unknown. So, a person chooses where to stop when considering infinity.

Part of what we know is that it has no border or limitation, because that is how we define the concept. Ultimately, we ground it in the experience. We observe repetitive processes in nature that have no apparent boundary. They simply repeat. So the concept is both understandable and knowable. Knowledge, like belief, is about the truth of a claim or proposition. That is all. Bringing in boundaries or limits goes beyond normal usage.

That doesn't quite work with infinity. It's a poor approximation/model, that you're using. And when you say "we ground it in expereince"... that's it! You just put the self imposed border around it. The normal useage simply doesn't capture it. And the mind is so often putting borders around stuff, that it's the "normal" useage includes putting borders around it, but it's so automatic, it happens outside of awareness.

You are trying to make the concept of a divinity as an infinite being work, but I cannot really buy into the kinds of mental gyrations that you describe in order to arrive at the destination you desire. I still think that endless repetition is a perfectly valid process that one can understand and know as one that has no boundary or endpoint.

You can know and understand the process, but you cannot know the content. It's not so much that I am mentally gyrating. I'm being precise. And my desire is only to defend a perfectly coherent logical god concept. I'm very happy with my religion, and my practice, but this idea that... "you can't have a tri-omni god, because... ummmm.... reasons" simply doesn't work. It can be explained, and it isn't incoherent. But like I said it requires a clean slate. Then each issue can be addressed, beginning with creation, then the problem of evil, then the ultimate success of the divine plan as written in Gen 1: "And God saw all that was created and saw it was VERY good."

And the god concept is one that has been with humanity for a very long time. You can't ignore all of the baggage it brings with it.

Sure I can! You can't?

Attempts to define the monotheistic god as "infinite" or "unknowable" are not uncommon, but it is not a valid basis for defending the claim that the god actually exists. Such a claim can be rejected for lack of reasonable justification.

And There. It. Is. The inevitable shifting goal post. Ah well I had kind of hope you wouldn't do it. But there it is. We weren't talking about *actually* existing. We didn't get there. You were telling me my god concept was incoherent, but, as we approach the point where all those issues melt away.... "But, but, that doesnt mean it actually exists."

The reason to believe it's true comes after. After the ignorance is embraced, then the model gets put into practice, and objective observations about people, about human behavior, about unexplained phenomena get explained. Then predictions get made, and predictions get tested.

It's a model. If the model works, then... that's a good reason to believe that model is accurate.

Your solution doesn't work unless everyone agrees.

You and I are all that matter right now in this discussion. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Agreeing on a model, agreeing on a fixed reference point, agreeing on defintions, is what makes the world work. Try to imagine the most primitive commerce. Just two people, maybe two familes. One group picks the apples and knows that the other family will hunt. 5 apples = 1 rabbit. Who else needs to agree?

We have different life experiences, so it is a given that we will interpret words differently. We can't seem to agree here on what "unknowable" means, but I at least understand better how you were approaching the concept.

Do you? Infinite relational database, each object joined in a many-to-many relationships? And that's one attribute of 6.

Well, my original point was that ineffability was the ultimate defense. I understand why Heyo accepted that as a sufficient defense, but I don't.

But I still don't see why not. Is it just because we cannot agree on the definition of knowledge?

I don't require arguments to end with a resolution. Sometimes the dialog is worth it just to get a better understanding of the other person's perspective. Regarding much of what you said above, I can't honestly say that it made a lot of sense to me, but I'm not motivated to untangle all of the cognitive dissonance that goes into defending the concept of a perfect god.

There is no cognitive dissonance. This is just name-dropping like calling it incoherent. But the actual truth is, you simply don't care that much about the topic. It's not that it's incoherent. It's not illogical. There's no cognitive dissonance. It's just not your thing. It's not that you can't understand it, you don't want to.

The ideas stick together for you, and that's fine with me. But I still regard the ineffability defense as actually an admission that one doesn't know what one is talking about.

Of course I do, and I could continue to answer your questions and demonstrate I do know what I'm talking about. But it's frustrating for people who have convinced themself that god MUST be incoherent/illogical/contradictory or somehow imperfect. As I said, this confidence and certainty of "knowing" can make a person feel like a god. Meeting someone who challenges that... and challenges that effectively... not super comfortable.

But it's all perspective. it could be wonderful.

 

[shunyadragon]

No it's not the same don't be silly.

Not silly at all. First, the overwhelming evidence of human history is that humans have always been fallible humans and prown to what you would call sin. Some sin more than others. Second, the mythical view of Genesis that humans were once without sin and in paradise, and through fault of their own caused the Fall, Original sin and human nature prown to sin is not even plausible by our current knowledge of human nature and history. IF God exists God must take responsibility for the faults of human nature as they they have always been and not blame two innocent humans for the 'Fall,' sinful nature and suffering of the world . This mythology today is shear foolishness.

If I walk in front of a bank, and notice that the guard is sleeping, and I have a thought... "wow, somone could rob that place." That's the evil inclination in the heart. It doesn't mean I'm going to steal it. I just noticed for an instant the possibility. So, people can have that inclination, and it can live in the heart, and a person can simply be aware of it, but never submit to it, and... poof, they're not sinning.

Foolish meandering response not on subject.

Easier said than done, but, having the inclination, is no where near the same as saying people will always sin.

Well given the facts of human nature it is terribly naive to say humans have an inclination to sin and they will not fall to temptation and sin, When do you propose human nature will change and have an inclination to sin, but sin no more?

Regardless of how you personally view the Genesis accounts as realistic or not it is a fact the the mythical concept of the
Original Sin' and the 'Fall' are at the heart of Christian beliefs since Christianity became Roman thousands of years ago.

 

[dybmh]

Not silly at all. First, the overwhelming evidence of human history is that humans have always been fallible humans and prown to what you would call sin. Some sin more than others. Second, the mythical view of Genesis that humans were once without sin and in paradise, and through fault of their own caused the Fall, Original sin and human nature prown to sin is not even plausible by our current knowledge of human nature and history. IF God exists God must take responsibility for the faults of human nature as they they have always been and not blame two innocent humans for the 'Fall,' sinful nature and suffering of the world . This mythology today is shear foolishness.

Um, but none of this has anything to do with simple english comprehension.

Inclination in the heart, does not mean people will always sin. People have brains, people have restraint.

Foolish meandering response not on subject.

Look at your post for that. And my example is perfectly on topic. It's a simple example that the evil inclination does not mean a person will sin. It's just a thought or a feeling.

Well given the facts of human nature it is terribly naive to say humans have an inclination to sin and they will not fall to temptation and sin, When do you propose human nature will change and have an inclination to sin, but sin no more?

It's english words on a page. If you don't agree that the words reflect human nature, that is your opinion. The story doesn't need to be realistic. But the words mean what they say.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think there will be a final number. I understand that the final number is unknown. Again, the point is that the concept prohibits knowing the content. The content is understood to be unknown.

Nonsense. Pi is simply the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. It isn't necessary to be able to represent it as a decimal number of finite length, however troubling that may seem to you. We even have a very nice Greek symbol to represent its value without going to all the trouble of doing division.

I'm not using the term infinite in a metaphorical way. I'm using it literally. Quantification is not inherent in the meaning of omniscient. There is no way to calculate this expansion, because a math function is limited in dimension, and literal infinity is not. You see, the dimensions, themself expand. But also the quantity of dimensions is also expanding.

The term infinite is well understood as an unending repetition of something, and that something is always a discrete measure of some kind. Formulaic expansions can be calculated. That's what calculus is all about. It's not rocket science. It's calculus. No deity is needed to understand it.

It is able to react within each timeline, within each existence. Just like an author writing themselves into a story...

Yes, I've used the metaphor of an author writing a timeline in a novel to explain the orthogonal relationship between our timeline and a putative God existing in an orthogonal timeline. The analogy is useful as a way of explaining the idea, but it breaks down with the idea that the characters in the story are autonomous beings with independent free will. The author controls everything about them and portrays them as free agents. Again, we come back to the problem that you can make sense out of isolated "omni" properties attributed to God, but putting them together into a coherent package is a cognitive trainwreck.

Sure I can! You can't?

I would argue that the volume of arguments you and I produce over these topics in internet discussion forums is far from ignoring the baggage that the god concept brings with it.

Attempts to define the monotheistic god as "infinite" or "unknowable" are not uncommon, but it is not a valid basis for defending the claim that the god actually exists. Such a claim can be rejected for lack of reasonable justification.​

And There. It. Is. The inevitable shifting goal post. Ah well I had kind of hope you wouldn't do it. But there it is. We weren't talking about *actually* existing. We didn't get there. You were telling me my god concept was incoherent, but, as we approach the point where all those issues melt away.... "But, but, that doesnt mean it actually exists."

We were not approaching a point where all those issues were even beginning to thaw, and it seems pointless to pursue this "infinite being" idea with me when I find the concept of infinity and infinite processes perfectly understood and knowable. What isn't even understandable is how you get them to fit into a coherent picture that approaches the cultural narrative found in the scripture of actual religions that people practice.

Well, my original point was that ineffability was the ultimate defense. I understand why Heyo accepted that as a sufficient defense, but I don't.​

But I still don't see why not. Is it just because we cannot agree on the definition of knowledge?

I believe that that is the way you framed it when you claimed God was "unknowable" and then tried to come up with this idea that infinity was somehow unknowable. The meaning of infinity is perfectly knowable, as long as you accept that repetition and unboundedness are core properties of the meaning.

I don't require arguments to end with a resolution. Sometimes the dialog is worth it just to get a better understanding of the other person's perspective. Regarding much of what you said above, I can't honestly say that it made a lot of sense to me, but I'm not motivated to untangle all of the cognitive dissonance that goes into defending the concept of a perfect god.​

There is no cognitive dissonance. This is just name-dropping like calling it incoherent. But the actual truth is, you simply don't care that much about the topic. It's not that it's incoherent. It's not illogical. There's no cognitive dissonance. It's just not your thing. It's not that you can't understand it, you don't want to.

Sorry, but there is cognitive dissonance for me, and I've tried to explain to you why that is. I don't think you are going to get very far by rationalizing your failure to convince me of your conclusions as me not being interested, especially since I bothered to read and spend time replying to your lengthy posts. I'm not going to try to tell you that you don't understand me because you aren't interested or don't want to. I think you gave it your best effort. I appreciate that you've put a lot of thought into these ideas, and I wanted to see what you had to say.

 

[shunyadragon]

Um, but none of this has anything to do with simple english comprehension.

Meaningless.

Inclination in the heart, does not mean people will always sin. People have brains, people have restraint.

No one every said 'always or anything about restraint. Yes people do not always sin and do show restraint. You have not responded to the fact that or people have an inclination to sin they will sin.

Again; When do you propose human nature will change and have an inclination to sin, but sin no more?

Look at your post for that. And my example is perfectly on topic. It's a simple example that the evil inclination does not mean a person will sin. It's just a thought or a feeling.

The example wa not meaningful, because it is a fact that the real evidence that because of the fallible human inclination people do sin, but not always.

It's english words on a page. If you don't agree that the words reflect human nature, that is your opinion. The story doesn't need to be realistic. But the words mean what they say.

The problem is BOTH the fact that Christians believe it is real and yes that they mean what they say. Both represent mythical foolishness that does not reflect the human nature for at least tens of thousands of years based on the evidence.

The concept of Original Sin and the Fall lies foundation of Christian belief. It was believed by the authors of the NT and most Christians in history as a real factual account of Adam and Eve.

Please respond and avoid just words on a page.

 

[dybmh]

Nonsense. Pi is simply the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. It isn't necessary to be able to represent it as a decimal number of finite length, however troubling that may seem to you. We even have a very nice Greek symbol to represent its value without going to all the trouble of doing division.

The reason for bringing Pi as an example was to demonstrate the difference between understanding a concept and knowing its content. Concept vs. content. I used the word content several times. No matter how many digits one knows in Pi, what is known is always and forever nullified when compared to what is unknown about its content. I think I've mentioned this nullification several times as well, but that has not been quoted or commented on. It's a very important idea when considering an infinite god.

So the keywords in this example (Pi) are: content and nullify. Other than that, it is an overly simple, one dimensional, limited example for something infinite and unlimited. Unlimited in every conceivable way. It's useful for the idea that the content of the known is nullified in the unknown. But after that, the analogy fails.

The term infinite is well understood as an unending repetition of something, and that something is always a discrete measure of some kind. Formulaic expansions can be calculated. That's what calculus is all about. It's not rocket science. It's calculus. No deity is needed to understand it.

I didn't say a deity was needed to understand it.

But this model you're using of unending repetition is a poor model for literal infinity. It's even more limited than the digits, the content, of Pi which does not repeat. I am beginning with a simple concept where the content is not knowable and expanding on that concept. From Pi to something multidimensional like an array, and from that array to a relational database. Then I'm linking the objects in many-to-many relationships. Then filling that database with reality. And in that reality I'm including the negations ( what wasn't, isn't, and can't ). And I'm also including the could-be events.

The result is literally infinite. The method for considering it is advancing from one model of inifinite to another which is more infinite to another which is even more infinite, etc. If you recall, I said this earlier. Dot to infinite line. Infinite line to infinite plane. Infinite plane to infinite cube. Infinite cube to infinite versions of a cube. 5 dimensions, 6 dimensions, 7 dimensions. The goal is to expand.

You seem to be doing the opposite. Reducing. The example given was Pi. Reducing it to "unending repetition" is going in the wrong direction.

And honestly, any math construct is a limited model for what we're talking about. Try developing a math construct which accurately and in detail describes an exploded view of the components of a car. That's much better model of something approaching reality with infinite interconnected parts and pieces.

Yes, I've used the metaphor of an author writing a timeline in a novel to explain the orthogonal relationship between our timeline and a putative God existing in an orthogonal timeline. The analogy is useful as a way of explaining the idea, but it breaks down with the idea that the characters in the story are autonomous beings with independent free will. The author controls everything about them and portrays them as free agents. Again, we come back to the problem that you can make sense out of isolated "omni" properties attributed to God, but putting them together into a coherent package is a cognitive trainwreck.

I completely disagree. It's not a trainwreck. As I said. I can play the multi-verse card. It resolves the free-will problem. Or even more simply, did you ever read "choose-your-own-adventure" books?

In the very simple story I wrote, Andrew the bird had a choice to fly away or to fly onto my shoulder. Both stories exist. When I composed the story, in my mind, Andrew flew away. But automatically included in that thought is the converse story, Andrew didn't fly away; something else happened. It could be that I considered both and chose one. The alternate story may have had many details, or none at all. But the converse story was included in the form of "that didn't happen" / "that isn't the story".

Andrew had a choice, choosing to fly away resolved the could-be, free-will event, into a "did-happen-event". The story where Andrew flew away became flagged as the "story that happened" or "the story that is told". The story where Andrew flew on my shoulder got flagged as "the story that didn't happen" or "the story I didn't tell". Authors do this. They "what-if".

If it's assumed that there is only 1 version of me, and 1 version of this existence, 1 story being written, then yes there's a contradiction between freewill and the tri-omni creator/author. But once that assumption is dropped, the contradiction goes away.

In this model, when a person makes a free-will choice, all that's happening is they are applying attributes to the pre-conceived events and preconceived version of existence. Again, the infinite relational database is a good way of imagining this. All that's happening is toggling a couple of check-boxes, binary yes/no attributes on the object which is a physical action.

Before the choice:

Object: "fly away"

Attributes:

Type: physical action​

Could-be: yes​

Did happen? no​

Didn't happen? no​

Is happening? no​

Isn't happening? no​

Will happen? no​

Won't happen? no​

After the choice:

Object: "fly away"

Attributes:

Type: physical action​

Could-be: NO​

Did happen? YES​

Didn't happen? no​

Is happening? no​

Isn't happening? no​

Will happen? no​

Won't happen? no​

These same attributes ( and many others ) are applied to every object in the database. That's how many-to-many relationships work in a relational database. Using these attirbutes ( and others ) events ( which are objects ) get flagged as choices are made. Versions of existence ( which are also objects ) get flagged too. Physical objects, physical actions, ideas, symbols, everything, even the attributes themself, are all objects in the database. This database is part of this god-concept. It created it. It knows it. It knows it all. And all of it is endless / infinite. Infinite ever-expanding knowledge.

So free-will isn't actually a problem. The database can be filled with every possibility, and those possibilities are endless. When a choice is made, all the other objects linked to it update their attributes, because, the objects are all linked. This includes the version of existence, which is itself an object. When a finite being makes a choice, they are choosing which version actually happened for them. They are choosing-their-own-adventure. But all of those other versions still exist. They're just flagged differently.

The god I am describing knows which choice is going to be made, but all of the possibilites are also known to it. There could be negative consequences from this choice that the finite being has made, but in the other versions there could be great rewards. It could be the negative consequence leads to a great reward. It could be ALL the versions end in a great reward eventually. It's impossible to know from within the story. And if this is unknown, unknowable to the finite being, and this database is part of god, then god cannot be knowable. Whatever is known is always and forever nullified compared to what is unknown.

In the past it was difficult for philosophers to conceive of something like this and it has been accepted by many that omnipotence contradicts with free-will. Even among believers it is still deemed impossible for a human mind to understand it. The phrase I've heard describing it is "It's a paradox, but, it's only a paradox." But with modern computer science I think it can be comprehended.

 

[dybmh]

I would argue that the volume of arguments you and I produce over these topics in internet discussion forums is far from ignoring the baggage that the god concept brings with it.

I don't see the relevance. I have asserted that the baggage needs to be dropped, no fleshy-father-son-king-priest-dying-rising-hybrid-god. You seem to be claiming that this baggage cannot be dropped. I asked why not? Why not temporarily drop it? This feels like a similar reluctance to expanding on the version of infinity described by Pi. Why the reluctance?

We were not approaching a point where all those issues were even beginning to thaw, and it seems pointless to pursue this "infinite being" idea with me when I find the concept of infinity and infinite processes perfectly understood and knowable. What isn't even understandable is how you get them to fit into a coherent picture that approaches the cultural narrative found in the scripture of actual religions that people practice.

Again, concept vs. content. You are talking about understanding a concept. I am talking about knowing the content.

We are actually nearing the end of the "incoherent/contradicting god concept" debate. What conflicts are there? Too many differing versions of god? Nope. Omniscience vs. free-will? Nope. Infinite vs. Omniscient? Nope. Omnipotence vs. Lacking omnipotence ( can't make a rock that can't be lifted )? Nope. If we ever get to the Problem of Evil, that's a nope too.

Bringing up scripture is a different topic all together. I'm not going to call it shifting the goal post, but it's similar. There is no contradiction with what I'm saying in the Hebrew bible. Some details are missing. We can talk about that later if you want. But, all we're talking about is a god concept. This needs to happen first. Especially considering that's where this entire exchange began.

I believe that that is the way you framed it when you claimed God was "unknowable" and then tried to come up with this idea that infinity was somehow unknowable. The meaning of infinity is perfectly knowable, as long as you accept that repetition and unboundedness are core properties of the meaning.

That sequencing misrepresents. I did not claim God was unknowable THEN I tried to come up with this idea.

Again, with infinity, you are talking concept, I am talking content. Repetition is not a good model for literal infinity. 1/3 repeats. That's a very simple idea, and its content is known. Unbounded is better. But it is unbounded in all ways including its dimensions. If we go back to Pi, the original method for knowing its content was using polygons of increasing quantity circumscribed in a circle. The process repeats, but the actual work done gets harder and harder and harder until the person gives up and says... "that's good enough". That's the border, the self imposed boundery, that's what defined the element of knowledge for them.

Have you ever *actually* tried to compute PI? Have you ever looked at the method for doing so? Have you ever tried to understand how the algorithm works? Why it works? This is not simple. It looks simple on the surface. But, it's not.

Infinite sounds simple. But that is what happens when a limited version of infinite is considered. Literal infinity is different. Literally knowing its content is impossible. Whatever is known about its content is always and forever nullified in comparison to what is unknown. So why is it being labeled "knowable"? Because: Understanding is being conflated with knowledge AND the concept is being conflated with the content.

Sorry, but there is cognitive dissonance for me, and I've tried to explain to you why that is. I don't think you are going to get very far by rationalizing your failure to convince me of your conclusions as me not being interested, especially since I bothered to read and spend time replying to your lengthy posts. I'm not going to try to tell you that you don't understand me because you aren't interested or don't want to. I think you gave it your best effort. I appreciate that you've put a lot of thought into these ideas, and I wanted to see what you had to say.

Well, there's no cognitive dissonance for me. I think the dissonance can be resolved by dropping the assumptions, dropping the baggage. But only if you want to understand this concept. Only if you want to.

And I haven't failed at all. The ideas adhere, they are logical, and do not contradict. This god-concept is valid. It's ok that you were labeling these ideas incorrectly but at this point your criticisms no longer have merit.

 

[dybmh]

Meaningless.

Your comments? Seems like it to me.

Inclination in the heart, does not mean people will always sin. People have brains, people have restraint.

Yup.

No one every said 'always or anything about restraint. Yes people do not always sin and do show restraint. You have not responded to the fact that or people have an inclination to sin they will sin.

Sure I responded. People have restraint, people have brains. That means an inclination in the heart does not equate to people always sinning.

Again; When do you propose human nature will change and have an inclination to sin, but sin no more?

I don't propose a when. I don't need to. It's just too simple. I may have an inclination to smoke cigarettes forever and never smoke again. ( I don't BTW, I've heard it's one of the worst addictions ).

You are making a false implication. All it needs is a single counter-example and there are hundreds, thousands, millions of counter-examples.

The example wa not meaningful, because it is a fact that the real evidence that because of the fallible human inclination people do sin, but not always.

Well, there ya go. The inclination does not mean people will always sin.

The problem is BOTH the fact that Christians believe it is real and yes that they mean what they say. Both represent mythical foolishness that does not reflect the human nature for at least tens of thousands of years based on the evidence.

It's totally irelevant to english comprehension of the words. We can have a debate about meaning of the magic words used to conjure Harry Potter's patronus if you want. But the realism of Harry Potter is irrelevant.

The concept of Original Sin and the Fall lies foundation of Christian belief. It was believed by the authors of the NT and most Christians in history as a real factual account of Adam and Eve.

Steering the debate into "the bible isn't real" won't work this time.

Please respond and avoid just words on a page.

I'm not sure how else to reply. The desire to debate the realism of the bible ight be tempting for you, but it is irrelevant. You've confirmed that the inclination does not automatically lead to sin. Once this capability, this restraint, is acknowledged we could argue about where it comes from. I'm saying "brains". And this works perfectly considering the inclination is described in the heart.

If you want to claim that there will always be people who are "brain-dead" and unable to restrain themselves, I will simply say they are ill and not really sinning.

And if you say, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to use their brains all the time to restrain the evil inclination, I ill simply repeat "realism is irrelevant to english comprehension"

There is no debate on this. It's very simple. Inclination =/= action.
People who are mentally unable to restrain themselves are probaby ill. Illness =/= sin.
It doesn't matter if it's unrealistic. Unrealisitc =/= false comprehension


That's about as far as it goes.