I guess that gets into the whole mind/body dualism thing, which most scientific types eschew. If you don’t accept the premise on which the spirit-as-separate-from-the-body belief is based, there will not be much common ground to even discuss anything.
I haven’t really decided for myself (except to say that I do not know, so I am agnostic), as I have said previously, but I really enjoy following these sorts of debates. I feel that I learn and stretch my intellect.
in the closed reference system i occupy, not only does god not exist, it is impossible for such a thing to exist.
I don’t mind undefined or self-defined terms at all, Lib. Of course, if you wish to prove your point with such, telepathy would be a much better form of communication. That way, we wouldn’t have to refer back to a Lib-to-English, English-to-Lib dictionary to make sure of the meaning of otherwise common words and phrases.
Sorry, but even under your definition of “man”, your statement still doesn’t hold up. If we are both body and spirit, and your god is spirit, then at best we are only partially God. Though a cake contains flour, you cannot say that a cake IS flour, can you?
To say that “a=b” is to say that “a” holds all attributes and is the exact equal to “b”.
Spiritus
First, a small nit. Reason is just as subjective and faith-based as any other epistemology unless you discover a way to begin your argument with no assumptions or undefined terms.
Second, it seems reasonable to me, given the assumption that we are God (that is, our essence is Spirit), an entity can be a free moral agent only if its consciousness is a closed frame of reference, that is, some outside agency cannot make its decisions on its behalf. That is analogous to the definition of freedom in the libertarian ethic, i.e., the absence of coercion. Were God not a Free Moral Agent, he might be influenced by evil, and that simply would not do because He would cease to be God since one critical attribute of His is Goodness — Perfect Goodness. That’s just like if a government that is libertarian began to coerce its citizens, its libertarianness vanishes in that instant.
We can prove to ourselves to our own satisfaction (by postulation) that we exist, but, as we’ve discussed here at length, that is the best that we can do. I can prove that you exist only by experiencing your consciousness in the way that I do my own. Were I to invade God’s consciousness, He would cease to be God, since another critical attribute of His is His Free Moral Agency (He chooses to be Good). If He opened that reference frame to me, I might make decisions for Him that would destroy His Goodness and therefore His Godness.
There seems to me one and only one way (unless you can demonstrate another) that God can be God, and we can also be God, and yet each of us be accountable for our (and His) own morality, and that is to close our consciousness and allow us to take the existence of others (including Him) on faith. The notion is in line with what Tris was saying. If I know for an absolute certainty that God will instantly poke me with a cattle prod when I sin (that is, when my heart grows cold) and that He is sitting on my shoulder as I go about my life, then I am not free, but in chains.
Only if I can take the risk that God might exist can I be free to act out my morality as I and I alone see fit. Likewise, if God can take the risk that I might love Him, then He can Himself be a Free Moral Agent (thereby remaining Perfectly Good) while allowing me to be one just like Him.
If God is proven to exist objectively, then all closed reference frames open up, and God dies.
Spider Woman
Glad you’re back! I agree that discussions of the abstract roots of our philosophies — metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and politics — are the most intellectually stimulating of all discussions, and for good reason! They are the foundations upon which all our world-views are built.
(Note: With respect to your sig, you might add that God said, “Before Spidey was, I am,” thus proving His own existence in the same way you did yours.)
DixieChiq
I respect that.
Slythe
The body part of us is not real, but only atoms. Thus, for the duality, we have an additive identity.
a = b + 0
Therefore
a = b
Lib:
I have never said reason was not subject to the same weakness as every other epistemology. I used it simply because you called your argument compelling and, given the audience of the SDMB and GD in particular, reason seemd teh most likely context in which to persuade. I have no objection if you wish to recast it as faith-based (or anything else), but I would likely find such a framework less compelling.
As to your argument – you seem to be running into a problem with the imprecisely defined boundaries between Spirit & Flesh and between God & us. You also seem to be shifting away from teh original proposition. For instance:
Why not simply say our essence is Spirit? If we are God, then we would necessarily share a frame of reference. If we do not share a frame of reference, the identity breaks down in perhaps the most important element (when discussing free will/morality).
This does not follow. In fact, you yourself later argue that if an outside agent (not sharing your frame of reference) coerces your actions, you are not a free moral agent. If I hypnotize you and influence your actions, then you are no longer a completely free moral agent though we do not share a frame of reference. Likewise, if you perceive everything exactly the same way that I do (sharing the frame) but have no power to affect my decisions, then I am a free agent despite the fact that my reference frame is open.
I am not sure what you mean by “invade God’s consciousness”. Originally, you predicated only the lack of objective proof was necessary. The contrapositive would be to assume you could objectively demonstrate God’s existence. Invading consciousness would seem to be an irrelevant point. Even idf we set this aside you seem to be saying that if you could control God’s actions then He would not be a free agent. Can you smell the hint of irony?
Well, in the first place this is another qualification absent in the original proposition. In the second place, you will have to be much more precise in the equivalence you are postulating if you expect me to understand it well enough to base an argumnt around that axiom. I can think of an arbitrary number of ways in which a human being is not an eternal, hyperdimensional, non-physical entity of perfect goodness who created the physical universe. Saying “we are both Spirit” carries nmo semantic value unless you can communicate what “Spirit” is with sufficient precision. I can also think of any number of relationships betewen beings that are composed of the same “material” (for lack of a word) yet are not identical.
Again, that seems to be a factor in the free action of humans, not in the free action of God. Are you arguing that our reference frame is closed to God (that He cannot share in our perceptions, know what is in our hearts, etc.). Again, I remind you that sharing a reference frame implies only perception, not action.
Not true. Wel, not true with regard to your freedom as a moral agent. At every juncture, you are free to decide your course with the knowledge of the outcome. You certainly are acting under coersion, but your moral free agency is unaffected by the consequences of your actions. Suicide is a moral choice with irrevocable and inescapable consequences, nevertheless a depressing number of people make that choice freely.
Of course, it takes a strong will to make a moral choice knowing that punishment will irrevocably follow. Nevertheless, human beings manage to do so quite often.
If you knew for a fact that God did not exist you would, in fact, be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.
If you knew for a fact that God did exist, but knew nothing else about Him, then you would likewise be forced to act out your morality as you and you alone saw fit.
If God did not care whether you loved Him or not, He could be a free moral agent.
Nothing in your original propositions or your axioms has raised the issue of whether you love God (narcisism?). The issue was whether His existence could be demonstrated objectively. Are you adding an additional axiom that any human who can perceive God would have no choice but to love Him? If so, what does that do to your free moral choice sa a human who has stated that he can perceive God.
That does not follow. Demonstrating the existence of God would not necessarily allow us to share His frame of reference. Sharing His frame of reference would not necessarily kill Him. Didn’t Jesus share His reference, in Christian theology?
This makes sense only if you define real==Spirit. In that case it is tautology.
In other threads, you have stated that you see the material universe as a context in which moral agents make choices. Are you now arguing that said context is illusory? If so, then what value does the context have? If it has no value, why would a perfectly good being create it?
It is just as valid to write that we have b = a - 0. Where b is man, a is God, and 0 is hyperdimensionality, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc. Are these things also not real?
Lib is falling into the Platonic/Parmenidean trap here. That which is observable is mutable, and therefore not, ultimately, real, because only that which is eternal and unchangeable is real. Therefore the table/desk/whatever before you is not “real” in the Platonic sense, and only real insofar as it partakes of God’s idea of what a table is, the only “real” thing.
This is the point at which most people throw their book on metaphysics across the room and pour themselves another cold one.
The structure I would construct would be this: everything perceivable is “real” in the sense that it is a true object occupying a given locus of points in the space-time continuum, with characteristics of mass, charge, speed, and so on. (Some of these may be set to zero – there is no electromagnetic charge or speed on a typical object standing still.)
However, some phenomena are not detectable by the senses, and require special equipment to identify, though ultimately humans do react, negatively, to their influence. Consider, for example, gamma rays.
Due to anecdotal evidence and legendary evidence from history, man has come to accept the speculation that there is, indeed, an additional group of phenomena which function, like gamma rays, outside the arena of phenomena normally detectable by the senses. It has coined the term “spirit” for the underlying nature of these phenomena.
Note, at this point, that we have not as yet assumed anything personal about the concept “spirit.” For our animist pagan associates, “spirit” infills the natural world and in some way functions to provide a unity between nature and oneself. (Sqrl, Matt_mcl, Freyr, others – please emend this for accuracy.)
To be an acceptable hypothesis, one would have to assume the idea of “spirit” to be falsifiable. However, due to its difficulty of detection, it no more requires denial by a skeptic (as opposed to a “not proven” judgment, which can be quite fair given the nature of the evidence) than did neutrinos when they were hypothesized but not yet detected.
Bringing the idea of “God” into the “spirit” question then ups the stakes a bit, since we are now ascribing personal nature, extensive power, creativity, and “mysterious ways” to Him. However, the anecdotal and legendary evidence seems to suggest that He does in fact exist to many reasonable people, though by no means to all of them.
I personally subscribe to Tris’s suggestion regarding why He is not absolutely and obviously evident to the senses, though I realize quite fully how lacking this point of view is to the skeptical contingent. I have been wondering for some time whether it might not be interesting to start a thread which presumes the existence of God as generally defined (not specifically the Christian Trinity, but not the supreme deity of the Kwakiutl either – the philosophical God shared by most monotheists and non-atheist philosophers) and see what analysis of what He may or may not be and do results in. Having someone of Gaudere’s or slythe’s reasoning skills tackling the nature of God instead of refuting half-baked “proofs” offered by drive-by evangelists and the resident theists seems to me to be a positive step.
I personally quibble with the God=spirit presumption of Lib’s recent arguments on much the same grounds as people have a problem with his God=Love/God=those-who-love item. What is happening here is that arguers are mistaking predication of a characteristic for equivalence. And to say, “God is the universe” or “God is the sum total of all human aspirations” is equally inadequate. At rock bottom, the formula He gave Moses, the Pharisees, and Libertarian is the only proper one: “He is.” The Universe may be His material manifestation, and all slythe’s requests for proof founder on the fact that it is therefore impossible to show unGodness to him. But this gets off into entirely separate and even more arcane speculations. So let me stop by submitting the analysis I’ve arrived at to this point for critique. Pray comment on each phase of it – if you have a problem with adding a personal God into the mix, what about the generic “spirit” concept, divorced of godhood?
Spiritus
I concede that point. I should have said that I find it compelling. There is no reason, particularly given the circumstance of your perspective, that you (and many others here) should find it compelling, if for no other reason than the sheer void of a common understanding of terms.
I am fine with saying simply that our essence is Spirit, so long as it is then understood that that means we are God. It is my belief, based on revelation, that we are not just made of the same “material” God is made of, but that we are the very material that He is made of; that is, we each have a sort of “piece” of Him. This isn’t something that’s just like him sending a diplomat to dwell in us. It is He that is in us.
That is why the closed consciousness is a necessary entity. Without it, our consciousnesses would be “merged”. There would be no autonomy.
I think you got mixed up just a bit. Coercion is applicable to the libertarian ethic which I thought I identified clearly as an analogy. It was to help illustrate the point that followed: if God invades our consciousness (or we His) He ceases to be God (or we cease to be free) in the same way that a government that coerces loses its libertarianism.
I predicated the lack of proof as necessary, yes, but I also said that “I can prove that you exist only by experiencing your consciousness in the way that I do my own.” Therefore, invading God’s consciousness would be the only way to prove He exists. That is a biconditional implication. In other words, the only way to prove that He (or you or anyone else) exists is to attain your consciousness. What other way is there to “see for yourself”?
The irony disappears when the clarification is made that it is not enough to whip God into submission (or coerce Him) to prove His existence. After all, we coerce the atoms all the time, and they don’t exist. We must take His consciousness into our own to prove His existence. And that would destroy Him.
Well, now, that’s a hoot, Spiritus! You asked me to expand my argument (present it in full) and then ambush me with the glib observation that I have added something, thus: “this is another qualification absent in the original proposition”! That is like asking me, when I assert that 1 + 1 = 2, to develop a supporting argument, and then saying, “But, hey! You never mentioned the Induction Axiom before!” Of course I didn’t. I also didn’t mention that A is A and any number of other things that I might have thought you would assume on your own.
As to what Spirit is, I can tell you only that Spirit is. I cannot tell you its chemical composition since it hasn’t one. But if you need a synonym, you may use Reality. Spirit is all that is Real. Chemicals are not. I accept that axiomatically.
God does indeed know what is in our hearts. After all, what’s in our hearts is He! But consciousness is in the brain. God is not corporeal; therefore His consciousness is manifest in some other way, namely, the same way ours is once our brain cells die. I haven’t a clue how that might be described. Necessarily, God would have to reveal it to me. No other epistemology can discover it.
I concede that point. The God-on-the-shoulder analogy fails. It was stupid of me.
Let alone that existence can be proved only subjectively. But how can I know whether He exists if I know nothing about Him? Suppose I am to know that Roxus exists. How can I have even evidence, much less proof? What the heck is Roxus?
I must know something about God, even to assess whether there is evidence that He exists. I must be Him in His Reference Frame if I am to prove that He does.
What original propositions or axioms? My original remark was a gratuitous implication for which you requested ADDITIONAL support.
At any rate, God could not be the particular Free Moral Agent that He is (none other matters in this context) if He did not care whether you loved Him. He is God. He loves everyone, and has said that His will is that they love Him. But His will is not our will. Our will is our own.
And no, certainly not everyone who perceives Him will love Him. Only those who already do, like Gaudere and Tris.
We would destroy God were we to share His Reference Frame because we might choose to be evil. But, as stated repeatedly, the one and only one way to prove the existence of anyone else is to share their reference frame.
Jesus is God’s Reference Frame.
Yes, it is. All definitions are tautological.
I have always argued that the atoms (the material universe) are not real. The value of the context is that it is a context that allows us to make moral choices. The lady in front of you on the subway is an amoral wave cyst. The morality comes in whenever you interact with her: push her down, help her to her seat, or something else.
The universe is a pallet for the picture you are painting. A pallet has great value to a painter.
Nothing is real but God.
Poly
No, I’m not.
That’s all you have to say about my post? 
I shouldn’t have left that so unqualified in case anyone did not know that I meant “already” in an eternal context. It is possible that you, Spiritus, “love God already” a year from now.
Poly
Well, I wanted to respect your position other than your observation about my falling into a Platonic/Parmenidean trap. You mentioned a “quibble” that I did not seek to blow up. As to perceiving God, I think you know that He has revealed to me that He cannot be known by the mind. That means that no instrument of any kind, save the human essence (our hearts), can ever comprehend him. Our brain apprehends only. That apprehension is identical in those who love or hate Him.
In fact, you might could say that Love is how we know Him.
Let me get this straight:
That which we have absolutely no evidence of is “real”.
That which we do have evidence of cannot be proven as “real”.
I think I’ll leave Wonderland now.
Bye.
By “we”, do you mean “you”?
I remember when this thread used to MEAN something.
Please tell us what science has discovered about meaning, Scylla.
No one can be told what reality is, you’ve got to experience it for yourself.
Yep.
When we did it in verse it at least had stylistic content.
you could always come back to the limericks thread.