[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freenet-philosophy
Subject:    Re: [Freenet-philosophy] sets, synergy, concepts
From:       "Marcel Popescu" <marcel () AIUREA ! COM>
Date:       2000-07-01 17:41:24
[Download RAW message or body]

From: "mike" <mstover1@rochester.rr.com>

> Say god can't think/conceive of things that don't exist without making
them
> come into existence, and further, God alone has the power to make stuff
> exist.  One conclusion I might draw is that our thoughts and conceptions
are
> not our own - they are God's.  They wouldn't exist (in our heads) unless
God
> had thought them, right?  If we think "pink elephant", it must be because
God
> thought us thinking "pink elephant".  However, that violates our free
will,
> which is important to your faith, so we have to drop that type of
reasoning.

No. Your conclusion is wrong. God could have created us by thinking of us,
but that doesn't mean that, once created, our thoughts can't be at least
partially independent of God.

> So, we have to say that thoughts and concepts have absolutely no reality
to
> them, and that is why we can, of our free will, think them without God's
help
> (because thoughts don't really exist, it is not required that God
know/conceive
> of them, since God alone has the power to make things "exist").  So, that
> leaves us in a situation where our thoughts don't exist, and God therefore
knows
> nothing of them.  He can't know our thoughts!  Well, that would explain
why he
> wastes so much time talking to people in the Bible - he can't do more
direct
> communication.

Wrong again. God alone has the power to make *things* (matter / energy), but
we could have the independent power to make information (thoughts).

> > What I meant was "I don't dare to speculate that far".
>
> But you dare to speculate that god can't do impossible things.  It appears
you
> are saying it makes no sense to speculate about what God thinks - it is so
far
> beyond us, there is no hope anything useful can come of the activity.

Not that strong - it makes no sense *to me* to speculate about what God
thinks, beyond a certain limit at least. I didn't say it was wrong *for
you*.

> Some of us have been trying to say that all along - what point is there in

> bringing in the assumptions of your faith into a discussion about
copyright
> law, morals, ethics, etc?  We can't possibly know what God thinks, we
can't
> possibly know whether the bible truly comes from him - we can only have
faith.

Knowledge comes from many sources; faith is one of them. Therefore, we CAN
know whether the Bible truly comes from God - by using faith.

> One thing Kierkegaard says is that faith is a matter of your personal
> relationship with God.  It has nothing to do with rationality.

I think that's also what I said all along :)

>  It is useless
> to try and make others understand, because it is entirely personal.

I disagree. Pain, or love, are also very personal, and yet we can make
someone else understand when we talk about them. Furthermore, God kept
trying to make us understand - the Scriptures were given to us to teach us,
among others.

>  What good
> would it have done for Abraham to try to explain to those around him that
god
> told him to sacrifice his only son?  They would have thought him a madman,
and
> with good reason!

Yes, but you're focusing on the wrong example. Jesus took the time to
explain to those around him that he is the Son of God.

>  God didn't make sure everyone understood Abraham's
> instructions had indeed come from him.  No, he just told Abraham and
Abraham
> alone, and he had to have faith.

Yes. This is an example of a direct relationship between God and a man. But
Jesus told us to be his witnesses - to TELL other people about our good
news. In fact, he was very angry with those who "keep the light to
themselves".

> I have no problem with someone claiming a personal relationship to God (or
to
> the Absolute, as Kierkegaard would say), but you can't do yourself or
anyone
> else much good by trying to make that relationship public.  It's not
rational,
> you can't make it understood - it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Since you're contradicting some direct orders from God, I'll choose to pass
:)

> > Really? Have you actually done that experiment? I suppose not. So, in
fact,
> > you have really predicted the behaviour before (without) actually
> > experiencing it.
>
> Ad hominem attack here?  What for?  I play guitar, I've experience
interference
> first hand.  I studied physics in college, I did plenty of experiments
> involving wave interference.

I fail to see ad hominem! In any case, that wasn't my intention. I just
wanted to give an example of actual prediction. [Well, it was a poor example
:)] We never made any experiments with waves in school, and I never played
guitar, or any other instrument...

> But what difference does it make?  What I proclaim to know comes from
other
> people doing experiments, and communicating their results to me.  I sure
as
> hell didn't come up with the concept of wave interference on my own,
locked in
> my basement just thinking about it.

No. But you can understand why the waves should cancel each other without
doing the experiment; there's nothing unexpected there, at least once you
understand that, among other properties, waves have the one of
"interference".

>  >  > Furthermore, our ability to *predict*
> something doesn't prove that the > qualities don't exist - only that we
weren't
> able to discover them before. > In the first experiment where two waves
> cancelled each other out, it is > possible that the experimenter hasn't
> expected that; however, we now know > that the "closeness" is the missing
> element - information.
>
> We know that "closeness" is the missing information?  If that were true,
then I
> would expect that if I created an exact replica of a bowl, and put into
onto
> the original with the exact reverse (180 degrees) orientation, they would
both
> vanish before my eyes.

Only if the bowl were a wave. Yes, I assume that if you managed to superpose
the atoms of the second bowl over the atoms of the first bowl, at exactly
180 degrees difference, the bowls would seem to disappear (for as long as
you kept them that way).

> Seriously, I'm not sure what information "closeness" conveys.

Distance, position, and orientation.

> > Because I'm still opposed that the result of A + B is something that
can't
> > be found in A, B, or +. I still haven't found a good example of that.
>
> Ok, take a magnet - put it in a room without any metal.
> Now, take a piece of iron, put it in a different room.
> Now, take your concept of "closeness", and whatever that means.
>
> Now, pretend you've never played with magnets before, and never read about
> them.  Are you going to be able to tell me what will happen when you bring
the
> two together?

Nope. As I said, the first experiment might surprise me, but now that I
*did* play with magnets, I am able to explain the behavior without the need
for any "new" element.

BTW, do you know of anybody who could explain me how do magnets work? More
generally, how do electromagnetic and gravitational fields work? AFAIK, this
is still something that goes AGAINST Newtonian physics, at least, 'cause
it's action at a distance.

Mark

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]