Philosophy Now Forum

Now, lace, if, instead of bein' all tricksy, you had just asked Henry, does God have a form? I woulda said I don't know and that mighta led to a conversation about His nature, and evidences for Him.

But: you don't really wanna have that conversation.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:40 pm Now, lace, if, instead of bein' all tricksy, you had just asked Henry, does God have a form? I woulda said I don't know and that mighta led to a conversation about His nature, and evidences for Him.

But: you don't really wanna have that conversation.

I'm not trying to be 'tricksy'. Maybe it seems that way because you're stupid. I don't have to ask questions in the way you would. I asked why we would think there's 'a being'. You said 'why wouldn't we?', and I responded because that implies there's a form, and a form implies limitation. That's when you said I was being 'limited', and now you say (above) you actually 'don't know'. So, stop being an asshole. You're the one demonstrating that you don't want to have that conversation.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:17 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:40 pm Now, lace, if, instead of bein' all tricksy, you had just asked Henry, does God have a form? I woulda said I don't know and that mighta led to a conversation about His nature, and evidences for Him.

But: you don't really wanna have that conversation.

I'm not trying to be 'tricksy'. Maybe it seems that way because you're stupid. I don't have to ask questions in the way you would. I asked why we would think there's 'a being'. You said 'why wouldn't we?', and I responded because that implies there's a form, and a form implies limitation. That's when you said I was being 'limited', and now you say (above) you actually 'don't know'. So, stop being an asshole. You're the one demonstrating that you don't want to have that conversation.

Yes, you brought up form, not me. I've haven't said diddly about God's form or formlessness. And it is limiting on you. You walk into the conversation with your bias hangin' out, God has no form, so how can He exist?. And I'm supposed to defend God's existence despite His lack of form (which -- again -- I never asserted). You don't have to ask question in a way I like: okay; but I don't have to answer questions in a way you like or defend propositions I never foisted up.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.

Nothing is possible to human beings without knowledge. It is the only means to successful life. Any benefit one enjoys from ignorance (i.e. the unknown) is sheer serendipidty (luck).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:37 pm God has no form, so how can He exist?

That's not what I was saying. I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'? A supposed 'god' could be very different from ourselves or anything we might imagine. We live in a world of forms, so we apply that onto everything. Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

You see Henry, you jump to conclusions and cannot hear what is being said because of your own limitations and rigidity (much like Age) -- then you distort it in your usual jackass style and make the conversation more difficult and tangled up than it needs to be. You guys would be easier to talk with if you stopped acting like you know every goddamned thing all the time.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:11 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.

Nothing is possible to human beings without knowledge. It is the only means to successful life. Any benefit one enjoys from ignorance (i.e. the unknown) is sheer serendipidty (luck).

You don't know what I'm talking about. That's fine.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:33 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:11 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.

Nothing is possible to human beings without knowledge. It is the only means to successful life. Any benefit one enjoys from ignorance (i.e. the unknown) is sheer serendipidty (luck).

You don't know what I'm talking about. That's fine.

Actually I do, because I've heard it so much. It's not original with you. But it is obvious I have failed to make what I'm talking about clear to you.

My point is that there is no aspect of, "not knowing," that can possibly be of any positive value. I agree it is important to understand the limits of one's knowledge, and I certainly understand there is more I don't know and have yet to learn than I'll ever know--but that too, is knowledge, not ignorance.

That's not what I was saying. I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'?

Yeah, that ain't what you asked: this...

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:14 pmPlease explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

...is what you asked. But, okay, let's pretend you said one thing, but meant sumthin' else.

Anywho: why a god would need to be 'a being'?

Probably the most fundamental answer: cuz words mean things. God, after strippin' away all the particular flavor (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) means Supreme Being. Now, if you wanna redefine God you can, but it might be better to just pick the appropriate existing word.


A supposed 'god' could be very different from ourselves or anything we might imagine.

Yep. Also possible He's very much as we imagine Him to be.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image

This, I think, can be, ought be, taken that we are very much like Him. Not physically (He may have no form, have multiple forms, or look like the FSM), but becuz, like Him, we're persons (free wills) with causative/creative power.

And -- just to be clear -- I'm not Christian, but that don't make me anti-Christian. The Bible ain't my Holy Book, but there's wisdom in it.


We live in a world of forms, so we apply that onto everything.

What is the shape or form of mind, lace? Or love? Or hate?

No, we don't apply notions of form to everything.


Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

As I say: I don't know. Certainly I never said He would be or is.

As for Him bein' infinite in any way: I never asserted that either.

His perfection and supremacy doesn't necessarily mean He's omni-anything.


You see Henry, you jump to conclusions and cannot hear what is being said because blah, blah, blah...

Yeah, sure, whatever...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:42 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:49 pmEverything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"

Thee 'Mind', Itself.

Whether you know it or not, you hit the nail square on the head, age.

From my perspective, a LOT of what I say does the exact same 'thing'.

Which, by the way, I would LOVE to be queried, questioned, AND challenged MORE on, so that I can SHOW this.

If ANY one would like to delve deeper into this, then who and what 'a human being' IS, EXACTLY, which is VERY DIFFERENT to, and from, who and what, let us call 'It', 'a God Being' IS, EXACTLY, can be explained, and understood, in VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY terms, and language, which also could NOT be refuted. OBVIOUSLY it WILL BE 'disputed', but it COULD NOT BE 'refuted'. That is; IF ANY one is up to the challenge?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:23 pm Age wrote:

Belinda wrote:

Mainly I want to discuss Alexis Jacobi's gnostic stance , as I was troubled by the split between the God of Nature and the God of goodness, beauty, and truth.

Well the word 'God' refers to one thing; thee Creator, but in two different senses; in the visible (material) sense, in the spiritual or invisible sense.

Understand these two conceptions, and the rest just falls into place.

I think your explanation may rest upon the substance dualism ontology of believers. Briefly, if the Creator created two separate substances that have separate causal systems then the two separate substances can't interact with each other.

Remember, the word 'created' infers or refers a 'one time only' scenario, and that when they see the words, for example, "Everything, or the Universe, was 'created', by the Creator", then the first IMPRESSION/ASSUMPTION they have, and go to, is that the Universe was 'once' 'created. And, when the words, "In the beginning", then this has caused MORE confusion, and MORE ASSUMING, that 'the created' was 'a one off' scenario, 'in the past'. Which is ALL of a TOTAL MISINTERPRETATION and MISUNDERSTANDING. (But this reason this has all occurred will be explained later, and which does provide far more 'sense'. Anyway, a 'Creator' creates some 'thing', which is/was 'created', but a 'Creator' COULD BE STILL creating the SAME 'thing' NOW, or CONSTANTLY.

This is just something to think about anyway, for a later date/time.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:23 pm Perhaps you would explain what exactly you mean by "senses" and "sense".We may agree yet.

There are five 'senses' contained within the human body. These 'senses' provide ALL the 'information' or 'knowledge' to and for the human brain, in order for 'it' to make 'sense' of the 'world' or 'Universe' around 'it', that brain and body. So, ALL the 'information' we EACH have, let us say, for example in regards to 'senses' and 'sense' comes from what EACH body has, literally, 'experienced' (through those ANY of those five senses).

Now, to get to your comment here, I am NOT SURE EXACTLY what 'it' is that you want from me here. NO specific clarifying question was asked. But what I mean EXACTLY by the use of the word 'senses' and the use of the word 'sense', in relation to 'God', 'thee Creator', is that by the use of the word 'senses' I mean in; a way in which an expression or a situation can be interpreted; a meaning.

(Sorry I do NOT, on purpose, YET KNOW what 'verbs', 'nouns', et cetera are, nor even mean, which, if I did, might help in explaining things better for you here).

But anyway, by the use of the word 'sense', in the above, I ALSO mean in; a very similar way. That is; in one 'interpretation' or in one 'way of looking at 'this' - the word 'God' and/or the word 'Creator' that is, we can SEE that there is A Creator of physical things, and, A Creator that allows human beings to rearrange physical 'things' into different shapes and forms, also known as 'the human created world'.

The word 'sense'/'senses' has so MANY DIFFERENT meanings, and because one of the meanings of the word 'sense' relates to 'meaning', itself, or to the 'interpretation', or 'meaning', that EACH individual human being can put on to and into 'things', then this makes 'explaining' even MORE DIFFICULT. See, even the word 'meaning' can be difficult to FULLY UNDERSTAND, when "another" uses it, without FIRST CLARIFYING in what 'sense', 'definition', or 'meaning' they were using, and meaning, with that word.

So, what EXACTLY was 'it' that you wanted me to explain here, for you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:25 pm Alexis: But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

To me, the word 'being' not just implies, but MEANS, without 'physical' nor 'visible' form, AT ALL. Which could then imply, or mean, limitless, or without limit.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:27 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:45 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:57 pm And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.

How can you possibly know there is some, "vastness that we do not understand?" If there are limits to what we know, one of those limits is on how much is not known. This emphasis on, "what is not known," is as mystical as any religion.

Vast is not indicating a specific amount, nor is it indicating what is not known. It is simply an acknowledgement that there is a lot that we don't know, and that we may not be capable of comprehending due to our human limitations.

And, let us NOT forget, and acknowledge, that there is a LOT that we do know, and that we ARE capable of comprehending a LOT MORE.

And, this is ESPECIALLY True WITH a Truly OPEN Mind. After all, absolutely EVERY thing human beings have imagined, dreamed up, designed, AND CREATED what ALL because of the Truth OPEN Mind ALLOWING them to. It is ALSO because of thee Truly OPEN Mind how absolutely EVERY one is ABLE to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing that they have, and continue to do.

Human beings, individually and collectively, are NO different in this regard.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:07 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:27 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:45 pm
How can you possibly know there is some, "vastness that we do not understand?" If there are limits to what we know, one of those limits is on how much is not known. This emphasis on, "what is not known," is as mystical as any religion.

Vast is not indicating a specific amount, nor is it indicating what is not known. It is simply an acknowledgement that there is a lot that we don't know, and that we may not be capable of comprehending due to our human limitations.

But, what's the point. Nothing can be based on what we don't know.

Only what we know can possibly matter. I think the emphasis on what is not known is almost always an excuse for allowing some absurd imaginary fictions, like gods and the supernatural to be considered legitimate concepts.

WHY do you ASSUME or BELIEVE, without PROOF, that that God, Itself, is just some absurd imaginary fiction?

What is your EXCUSE for your 'what is NOT known' scenario here. Or, are you under the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that you KNOW, without absolutely ANY doubt AT ALL, that there is NO God?

Also, there is NO human being who even considers there to be a so-called "supernatural" existing is there?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?

Also, what, EXACTLY, makes the concept, "There is NO God existing", or "God does NOT exist", a legitimate concept?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:07 pm It even infects the sciences. We don't know where everything came from so there must be evolution, or a big bang, but they are both simply conjecture based on very flimsy evidence. They are not science, for example.

What EXACTLY do the words 'evolution' and 'big bang' mean or refer to, to you?

BOTH are PROVED Facts, ALREADY.

And, if you would like to delve into this further, then GREAT.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:44 pm Thee Universe is CERTAINLY NOT a "nice little camp fire" (with logs arranged "just so", nor with a circle of stones surrounding those logs) like It was 'started' AT ALL, by some absent thing, NOR ordered and nice, neither.

Yeah, it is.

Here is AN EXAMPLE of just how DIFFERENTLY different human beings "see" the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

This DIFFERENT 'views' are based SOLELY on the DIFFERENT 'experiences' EACH INDIVIDUAL human body has 'experienced'.

Some "scientists" say the EXACT OPPOSITE to you here "henry quirk" and state that the structure of the Universe is SO COMPLEXLY ARRANGED, SO DISORDERED, and/or just SO UNNICE.

Which helps in EXPLAINING WHY these people STILL can NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND the PURE SIMPLICITY and BEAUTY of It ALL, in the days when this is being written.

And, and what ALSO appears VERY STRANGE and CONTRADICTORY is that there are some people say that the Universe is CERTAINLY a "nice little camp fire" (with logs arranged "just so", and with a circle of stones surrounding those logs) like it was 'started' FOR SURE, by some absent thing, AND is ordered and nice, AS WELL. But, then some these people will STILL walk around carrying guns and shooting up the (nice little) place while also SHOOTING DEAD parts of this "nice little place", just because they BELIEVE they have a 'right' to.

Which, AGAIN, is ALL REALLY VERY STRANGE and CONTRADICTORY.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:47 pm become Truly OPEN

Nope. I'm selectively porous to the world, but I won't be unthinkingly open to it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one who is Truly CLOSED, and thus NOT thinking, properly AND correctly, AT ALL.

Thinking that becoming Truly OPEN means that one would be 'unthinking' is just about as CLOSED as one can get.

These people, because of NOT thinking properly AND correctly, and thus are ACTUALLY just ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING some thing is ALREADY true, which is based on their past experiences ALONE. These people ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that if one is Truly OPEN, that they then HAVE TO and WILL end up BELIEVING whatever they are told.

Which is Truly humorous to watch and OBSERVE, considering the Fact that they BELIEVE 'this' is true, based SOLELY on absolutely NOTHING other than what they have been TOLD previously, by "another".

Becoming and being Truly OPEN MEANS that that one would NEVER EVER BELIEVE nor ASSUME ANY such STUPID and RIDICULOUSNESS notion as this.

ONLY the CLOSED BELIEVES things are true. And, ONLY the OPEN continue on learning AND thus becoming WISER.

In fact the Truly OPEN cannot NOT learn. Whereas, and obviously, the CLOSED can NOT learn.

The words 'selectively porous', by the way, just mean and refer to 'confirmation biases'. That is; people with BELIEFS, are only somewhat open, and ONLY open to 'that' what they WANT to see and hear.

As evidenced and PROVEN ENOUGH throughout this forum.