If whats on your mind threatens what is on this thread, whats on your mind threatens all the threads you could have in your mind.
Do you know why God cannot KNOW?
by Terry 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Christ Alone
To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable!
Right, but where are you measuring FROM? A physical dimension? It has been theorized by science that there are many dimensions. Can all these dimensions (perhaps 10) be measured?
-
Terry
we are using meanigless meanings that are simply interpolations of logic to explain what is in reality a preconceived notion.
Not so fast! Self reference is simply cheating communication. Plain and simple. "Meaningless" meanings is a good example.
Modifying "meaning" by using the descriptor "meaningless" is a form of self-reference. But, I get your point.
All I'm saying is that talking about God or infinity or Spirit or any of that sort of thing using EVERYDAY language is to expect
to communicate while, at the same time, cheating! Why? The language has to do double-duty. God language is mostly poetic.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
This one is way too easy. If there were nothing (now follow with me on this) the person who asks this question would not exist either.
The fact that the question exists means there must be something FOR the question to exist.
-
moshe
Vey logical, Terry! Like, if God created paradoxes, then there is really no way we can depend on logic to explain our existence . If the existence of paradoxes, proves that God does not exist, then we have used logic to define paradoxes, so,---- it's all very hard on the brain--
-
Terry
To exist is to be something, somewhere. For there to be a somewhere it must be measurable!
Right, but where are you measuring FROM? A physical dimension? It has been theorized by science that there are many dimensions. Can all these dimensions (perhaps 10) be measured? Measuring is what Science is all about. All that is provisionally known by science began as a hypothetical and ended (provisionally) as a measurement of an actual. Another thought experiment! You are blind. You are standing someplace. You have a large bag full of ping pong balls. By taking these balls and tossing them in various directions you can hear the impact (or lack of) as the ping pong ball strikes a surface. In this way you can "measure" the room without actually seeing it. Now imagine, instead of ping pong balls, you have electrons being fired at particles. When the particles are struck they veer away and leave a trail in a cloud chamber. What you have done is measure by DISTURBING that which is measured. After all, you struck it! Right? This is why you change that which is "observed". Try getting somebody to look "normal" when you try and photograph them. "Normal" becomes impossible because--under scrutiny--the parameters change.
-
Terry
Moshe says: (Oy)Vey logical, Terry! Like, if God created paradoxes, then there is really no way we can depend on logic to explain our existence . If the existence of paradoxes, proves that God does not exist, then we have used logic to define paradoxes, so,---- it's all very hard on the brain--
If God created paradoxes it would be no different from our own creating of pradoxes which, by definition, would have to be illogical in order to exist.
If we exist (hint: we do!) and create paradoxes we should allow god the same privilege!
-
moggy lover
Again, I think the use of paradox is being misapplied. Remember we are attempting to encompass the meaning of Ultimate Reality. In other words, Reality beyond which nothing else exits. Now Reality is not a paradox. That is why it is real. It is only when we try and explain this Reality in terms of logical inference that we fall into paradoxical anomalies.
If we are trying to disprove the existence of God using "logic" and reason, then we fall into the trap of depending on paradoxical evaluations of this logic. That is what I am trying to say.
For instance: Is Ultimate Reality a paradox? No, because then no reality would in fact exist.
But: Does our intellectual belief in this Reality prove that God exits or does not exist? This is where we slide into metaphysical explorations that involve logical inferences, and which in turn can be sustained only through paradox. Thus to argue for or against the existence of God on certain perceptions such as self realization and logic can be a trap, because the use of this perception can be circular and inferentially paradoxical.
When we wrestle with the concept of the WHY of reality, we are involving ourselves in the interplay of cause and effect. We are not detirmining the HOW of things. When we say that reality exists because of the implied existence of the question of reality itself, we are interpreting reality in the nature of HOW, not WHY. In order to answer the WHY, we must delve into the interrelationship of cause and effect which detirmines the existence of reality.
For instance, when we ask: WHY does the universe exist? The answer must confront the importance of its cause, not its assumed existence. The universe must have a cause behind its existence. Otherwise it is Infinitely Real and has always existed. But as we have seen this is as meaninglessly meaningful as inferring that God has always existed. If the material universe has infinitely existed, and this is held to be unimpeachably true, why can't the same be said of an infinite God? How does self realization and logic infer the existence of one and not the other?
If we insist that it does valididate the existence of one and not the other, then this use of logic ultimately becomes inferencially paradoxical. To avoid the inference of paradox one will have to acknowledge the application of such logic equally to both possibilities.
Thus, we must all struggle with the existence of an Infinite Reality, and of our place in it.
-
Satanus
A side point here, polls of voting tendencies DO affect the vote, but not like you say. When people see or percieve that one candidate is winning, they tend to vote for the winner. People like a winner, at least in the usa. There was even some discussion of suspending the taking of polls, because of this affect.
S
-
Terry
Remember we are attempting to encompass the meaning of Ultimate Reality.
Reality can't be modified. You can, for example, say "round circle" but you haven't further described a circle! Reality is all there is.
If we are trying to disprove the existence of God using "logic" and reason, then we fall into the trap of depending on paradoxical evaluations of this logic.
I'm with you there. You can't prove a negative. I wasn't trying to.
Thus to argue for or against the existence of God on certain perceptions such as self realization and logic can be a trap, because the use of this perception can be circular and inferentially paradoxical.
My topic is about KNOWLEDGE and not EXISTENCE.
When we wrestle with the concept of the WHY of reality, we are involving ourselves in the interplay of cause and effect. We are not detirmining the HOW of things
Knowledge such as Science deals with WHAT and only incidentally bumps into proximate "why" now and then. The difference between "efficient" cause and "sufficient" were Aristotle's balliwick and not my own:)
When we say that reality exists because of the implied existence of the question of reality itself, we are interpreting reality in the nature of HOW, not WHY. In order to answer the WHY, we must delve into the interrelationship of cause and effect which detirmines the existence of reality.
Once again, this topic is intended to focus on KNOWLEDGE. There is no "question" without a mind to do the questioning. The existence of a questioner and a question produces the result. Without a questioner there is no question and without existence there is no questioner.
Reality, as I previously mentioned, is all there is which actually exists. The mind, however, extrapolates a mock up of various non-existing things simply because that is part of the extraction process from the senses. The mind uses a "clip-board" where concepts are manipulated through stages. None of these stages necessarily connect to anything actual.
For instance, when we ask: WHY does the universe exist? The answer must confront the importance of its cause, not its assumed existence. The universe must have a cause behind its existence.
I have to disagree. There is no reason to posit non-existence to an existing universe. When you say "the universe MUST HAVE a cause" you multiply unnecessarily in violation of Occam's Razor. An always-existing-universe is no less reasonable than an existing universe. Few people have any problem accepting an always-existing-god, after all :)
-
Etude
Terry: As usual, you pose another provocative question. You sucked me in when I really don't have time to be on-line.
" Logic prohibits self-reference "
Yes, indeed it does. And your consideration tells me that it's not an easy subject. For example, you say: " IF you divulge the day and hour and location of the event IN ADVANCE you insure the event will NOT occur. " Reading your initial presentation as a whole, I would think that, given your example about Gitmo, it is more accurate to say : "IF you divulge the day and hour and location of an event IN ADVANCE you insure the specific event will NOT occur." Even that is not strictly accurate because what will happen to the event is dependent on who wants to know and what their intensions are. If the event was a Justin Beiber concert, the revelation of that would not prevent the event from occurring, unless the world came to its senses, as I have, and decided that they could give a rat's ass about Beiber's musical contribution to the world (Oh, baby, baby, baby). In that case, no one would show up and there would be no concert.
So, I don't see the self-reference in either of those examples because the knowledge about the event does not guarantee any specific outcome (such as if the bombing's time and place is revealed but could not be stopped anyway). There is no guaranteed outcome.
I think that what you posit may be more accurate in terms of "circular reasoning". I really don't know (technically) but it seems to me that circular reasoning is closely tied to self-reference. The famous statement by a liar: "This sentence is not true" connotes that the sentence must be true because the liar will always speak to the contrary. If the liar is telling a lie, then the opposite must be true. But if the sentence is true, then the liar is not lying and would not be a liar, making his sentence a lie. Therefore, self-reference in this case leads to a paradox.
So, take these examples into consideration: "This sentence contains five words" or "These words are not self-referent". The first sentence is self-referent but is not a paradox. Change the number "five" to some other number and now it becomes, not paradoxical, but false and still self-referent. Staying with your line of thought, one circular or self-referent statement that would fit your intent would be: "All things are possible to God (omnipotence). God cannot lie (or sin)." It is both paradoxical and self-referent.
Bringing the argument to its original premise, it would be fair to say that "knowing" does not guarantee an outcome. But suppose God has the omnipotence to effect any outcome she wants (to make it so), still, the outcome is a matter of choice to either prevent a happening or guarantee that it happens.
I don't know if it's still true. But back then when I was in college (late 1970s) it seemed to me that one goal of Physics was to infer (via several methods, including backward chaining) certain origins that could describe the properties of matter or causes. Using forward chaining instead, I envisioned that if all, I mean all, variables affecting an event could be taken into consideration, then an outcome could be accurately predicted. Imagine tossing a coin, knowing the exact force from the fingers, the temperature of the air, the wind velocity, the vector of the initial thrust, the inclination and hardness and texture of the surface it will fall upon (and trajectory based on the previous factors), you could conceivably "predict" if it will land heads or tails. Propaget that to ther things it would be conceivable to know the future. In a sense, it is the holy grail of Meteorology in order to "predict" if a tornado or hurricane will actually form.
Of course there isn't a mind large enough to take in all those variables from micro-second to micro-second, unless one decides that that mind is God. But some computers have a valiant effort to deal with some events, like reproducing in real time the wake of wind under a helicopter blade. That's a tough one.
I do understand your point regarding the inevitability of events set to motion: The bomb is set. Only the terrorist knows where and at what time the timer will set off. Unless there's some intervention, the bomb will detonate. But the knowledge by the interrogators of the time and place of the explosion does not guarantee that the event will not occur. On the other hand, it possible that even without intervention, the bomb would not have gone off because a rat chewed through some of the wires. It's like Occam's Razor.
" There are is no certainty to knowledge UNLESS and UNTIL what is being called "known" actually TAKE PLACE. " So, you redeem in a way by that statement. Still, we need to define what we call "knowledge" because there can be knowledge (that there are explosives in a place and time) but not that an event will inevitably happen given tenuous circumstances. Some event's are certain. Via the laws of Physics we can determine that the Earth will continually rotate on its axis to provide us day and night. That's as rock-solid as it gets. The guarantee that there exists very little to interfere with that makes a practically immutable certainty for us.
I would venture to think that a mind that can be omniscient to such a degree as is attributed to God either doesn't exist or doesn't really care about the sequence of events in the universe, doesn't care to the point of complete non-interference.
