I would submit that the metaphor of a gold lion is flawed, because in this era of stellar fusion and particle accelerators, the fact that a lump of matter is lion-shaped is as hypothetically inconstant is the fact that it is made of gold.
Besides, just as a thought exercise, I present a recognition algorithm, which is presumabley soulless:
LOOK at X.
IF X.BODYPARTS == FANGS, CLAWS, MANE, 4LEGS (etc.)
X.SHAPE == LEONINE
SAMPLE X.
IF X.CHEMCOMP == FLESH
X == LION
IF X.CHEMCOMP == STONE
X == STONE LION
IF X.CHEMCOMP == GOLD
X == GOLD LION
Nope. And here is where we run in circles. If you start from the assumption that this [points at the universe] is all there is, then you can’t prove the existence of anything supernatural, by definition. Conversely, if you start from the assumption of a loving God, then you can’t disprove the concept, because your logic is subordinate to His logic, and He said that souls exist.
Not to intercept Tris, but I thought that what he said was well said.
Omniscience, like omnipotence, is merely an attribute — unlike goodness, which is the very nature of God. An attribute is contingent upon His will, so that God does not render our experience meaningless by making square circles and rational square-roots of two.
Just because He is omnipotent does not mean that He is forced always to use His power. And just because He is omniscient does not mean that He is forced always to know all things. He may call upon one to suspend the other for any number of reasons, not the least of which might be to guarantee our sovereignty over our own will.
Actually, that’s the whole point of the metaphor. The noumenal world is indestructible and gives rise to the phenomenal world.
When the algorithm is complete, what has your machine experienced subjectively?
The problem is that the first assumption is a substantive denial of a positive ontological propostion. (It posits both ~G and ~<>G, prima facie contradictions.) And the second is not a converse, but merely one of any number of alternate axiomatic sets.
Actually, Diogenes, I was trying to make the point that the ordinary logic of behaviors like “changing your mind” or “knowing about something before” are simply not the same as what is “known” or what opinion is held from a point of view which is not bound by before and after as limits. And what we can understand about God is necessarily bound by before and after limits, because those bounds encompass our understanding.
I don’t think there is a “before God knows”, but he can choose to act as though he doesn’t know.
I see it like this: God is outside of, and not bound by, time and space.
God can see all of time and space from his “vantage point”, and knows exactly what is happening at every place and time. This is similar to the way I can see a graph of a mathematical equation and know exactly what is happening at any point on the graph.
I think (forgive me if I’m wrong) that what Tris is trying to say is that at any given time, God’s interaction with an individual is appropriate to that time, and doesn’t necessarily take into consideration any future knowledge that he has.
Let’s say at time T, God knows that such and such city will turn from its sin, the way the Bible says that Ninevah did. At time T-10, T-5, and T-1, God is justified in telling them that they will be destroyed if they don’t turn from their sin, even though he knows that they will turn at T. Because at that time they still haven’t. At time T+1, he might say “I have turned away from my anger” or “I have changed my mind”, but what really happened is that the people of that city changed, and are no longer subject to the wrath that they had coming their way. Since they are no longer going to be destroyed, it appears that God has changed his mind, when in reality, he knew that they would repent and he wouldn’t have to destroy them.
@ Joe_Cool … im interested in the way you cite the example of god’s divine intervention in saving nineveh from sin. i have never really understood (and to be fair every branch of christianity has differing opinions on this) the apparent current inaction of god given that the bible seems to attribute many conspicous actions to him in the past (such as blatantly intervening in wars, causing floods, causing cities to repent etc.) dont u think cities such as L.A for example must contain as much immorality as nineveh allegedly did?
its easy to say that we cannot hope to understand gods plan etc, but doesnt it stike you as strange that there have been very few historically accepted divine incidents for a considerable stretch of time? and if god has a plan for us all (which by definition, he will pull off and could pull off at any time) - why make countless generations suffer and wait for its conclusion? i apologise in advance for asking impossible questions which no person could honestly know the answer to, but the basically tautological argument that to believe you must simply have faith is not enough for me.
Lib, mathematicians can’t prove that 1+1=2, I can’t prove that the universe is ordered and rational, and you can’t prove that God is Love. That’s why they are first assumptions. In order to interact with the universe, you need to make at least assumption about it.
Actually, Russel and Whitehead proved that 1+1=2, using the Peano Axioms in Principia Mathematica, “Prolegomana to Cardinal Arithmetic”. Here is a photocopy of the proof.
And yet you asked for “objective evidence” that my message is “divine”. If you can’t prove laws of thermodynamics, why would you ask for objective proof of subjective experience?
I’ve never seen a discussion in philosophy or any of its disciplines, such as logic, theology, or science, in which anyone ever asked for “proof” of a definition.
If fair enough for you, then fair enough for me, no?
Dunno. Not a cockroach. Yes, I get what you’re saying. Alright, lemme rephrase.
If there is no universe, statements (true or false) can’t exist, because there is no room for them.
This is a statement.
Therefore, the universe exists.
Alright. But you must still demonstrate His existance if your first assumption is of a rational universe.
Also, there appears to be a miscommunication about the use of the word ‘objective’. I’m using it to mean verifiable by other people in a controlled setting. Hence, science experiments are objective. Your experiences with God aren’t.
Because I can observe a closed system not at absolute 0 and note how it tends to disorder over time. I can’t likewise observe either God or unanswerable questions that have soley a God-shaped answer.
Serves me right for speaking via rectal fiat. OOC, can someone translate that into English, or at least ASCII?
Although you had to exist prior to making the statement, “This is a statement,” so it’s no proof that the universe exists for it already was the case, i.e. we can assume that if you didn’t make the statement the universe would still exist.
Self awareness is a prerequisite for sentience not existence. A dog or tree doesnt think or have self awareness and they do exist as does the universe. It is fallacy for a man to arrogantly think that just because man cannot understand the unviverse it (or any of its infinite parts) therefore cannot exist.
