Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm

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

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

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. 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.

I see what you're saying, yet it is perfectly reasonable and useful for me to acknowledge that there is much we humans do not know.

But there would NOT be a human being who does NOT KNOW this Fact ANYWAY. But these people just do NOT feel the 'need' to keep acknowledging this OBVIOUS and IRREFUTABLE Fact. Nor do they feel the 'need' to keep 'trying to' speak for 'we', human beings.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm Are you just being argumentative? Some on this forum act like they know 'the truth' about almost everything, while their claims of gods and truths are clearly as limited and distorted as they continually demonstrate themselves to be.

Are you just being 'argumentative' here? Because it could be 'argued' that there are those who act like they know 'the truth' about almost everything, including about their CLAIMS that God, and Truth, does NOT exist, and that this is 'the truth', which NO one could refute.

Which, if these people, STILL can NOT YET SEE the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here, then, HOPEFULLY, one day they WILL.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:09 pm It's more honest and courageous to acknowledge the unknown, than to superimpose one's ego over it.

I would say it would be MORE Honest, and Courageous, to acknowledge and admit that there is NO one who CLAIMS there is NOTHING 'unknown', nor that there is NOT a LOT more to learn, understand, and KNOW.

One could now also say that to NOT acknowledge this Fact is one superimposing their OWN ego over this.

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

Useful for 'what', EXACTLY?

And, if ANY one thought or imagined that 'thriving' was NOT possible without knowing, then they are CERTAINLY NOT 'thriving', nor thinking correctly, AT ALL.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:37 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:16 pm
Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

oh my, such limited and limiting thinkin'

Please explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

Please explain. What do you mean or refer to, EXACTLY, when you use the word 'form' here?

AFTER you do this, then SHOWING how there is 'a being' or not CAN be done. VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, I will add.

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.

Obviously not. But what "lacewing" WANTED to discuss and/or converse about was what thee ACTUAL CLARIFYING question that was posed to you.

WHY do you NOT just answer "lacewing" OPENLY and Honestly and provide the True, Right, AND Correct answer?

WHY are these people SO LUCKY to get the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to them, when I am NOT that LUCKY?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:37 pm

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?.

Is 'that' what was ACTUALLY said?

What I SAW was:

"lacewing"; Why would we think there's 'a being'?

"henry quirk"; Why would we think there's not?

"lacewing"; Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

And, once we or I learn and understand what the word 'form' means or refers to, to "lacewing", then we could discuss how and/or why there is a 'being' or not.

But until that CLARIFICATION is PROVIDED I WAIT.

SEE, there is absolutely NO use AT ALL discussing, 'If there is a 'being' or not', UNTIL we KNOW, for sure, the meaning behind the words being used or what the words, themselves, refer to, EXACTLY.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:37 pm 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.

When 'you', "henry quirk", wrote the words, "Why would we think there's not", in relation to there being a 'being', then what EXACTLY were you meaning or referring to here, EXACTLY?

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.

What do the words, 'successful life', ACTUALLY mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:11 am Any benefit one enjoys from ignorance (i.e. the unknown) is sheer serendipidty (luck).

So, the human beings, who lived without knowledge, and thus in 'ignorance', and which who were Truly Happy, and who lived with PURE Bliss in Peace, to you, was just sheer luck.

Maybe this is WHY the saying, 'Ignorance is bliss', has stuck around for so long?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am

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 NEVER saw you saying this, either.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'?

I NEVER saw this, as well.

What I saw was you asking, Why would we think there's 'a being'?'

To wit, ANY one could have said there exists 'human beings', correct? And,

If this is correct, and you accept that you are 'a human being' or that there are 'human beings', then this is WHY 'we' (human beings) would think there is 'a being'.

Which, let us NOT forget, is DIFFERENT to ANY such God-like Being.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am 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.

WHY do 'you', beings, apply what you IMAGINE 'you' live in, ONTO EVERY 'thing'?

And, do ALL of 'you', (human) beings, do this?

If yes, then, again, WHY?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

Until you answer the question, What does the word 'form' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? then I can NOT provide you with the Correct answer here.

Also, do NOT forget that it is 'you', "lacewing", who is applying 'form' onto God or 'a god' here, and NOT necessarily ANY one "else".

See, God might ACTUALLY be VERY DIFFERENT from what 'you', "lacewing" might IMAGINE.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am You see Henry, you jump to conclusions and cannot hear what is being said because of your own limitations and rigidity (much like Age)

If you want to make a CLAIM like this about 'me', then be Honest and Courageous ENOUGH to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of where you think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE I have my OWN "limitations" and "rigidity", and then let the readers SEE if I have or NOT.

But, if you do NOT want to do this and much prefer to just carry on the way you are, with your, unsupported ACCUSATIONS, then by all means please feel absolutely FREE to do so.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:32 am -- 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.

I ONLY talk about what I ACTUALLY KNOW.

It is, again, ONLY in your OWN IMAGINATION, that I talk like I know EVERY thing, ALL the time.

Could we be LOOKING AT a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'projection' here?

Or, could we be LOOKING AT one applying the 'world' they live in, onto "others"?

We will just have to WAIT, and SEE.

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.

I think what you are talking about, Lacewing if I may, is that certainty is impossible but that there is an alternative to logical certainty.

The alternative to logical certainty is inherent in all of us and in all living things. It is often accessed via the beauty of nature. It is available to humans who have not been brutalised or stupified in their youth by industry or commerce, and other men's greed.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:01 am

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

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

Except that KNOWING that there is a LOT more to learn, and understand, is a VERY ENJOYABLE aspect, especially to those of 'us' who want to continue learning MORE, and ANEW.

Besides the Fact that this KNOWING is VERY ENJOYABLE, this KNOWING also adds a GREAT AMOUNT of positive value, well to My Life, anyway.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:01 am 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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

You seem to have JUMPED, VERY QUICKLY, here that God is a person.

What ACTUAL PROOF do you have for this CLAIM here?

Or, do you even have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence', let alone 'proof'?

Did you notice, by the way, I LOOKED PAST your CLAIM that God is a "him"?

I will leave asking if you have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' or 'proof' for this CLAIM at a later date.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am
And -- just to be clear -- I'm not Christian, but that don't make me anti-Christian.

What, EXACTLY, is a "christian", to you, AND, what would be the make up of a "anit-christian"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am The Bible ain't my Holy Book, but there's wisdom in it.

Is there A book that 'you', human beings, could NOT gain WISDOM from?

And, what, EXACTLY, is your "holy book"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

'you' or "others" might not "henry quirk", but "lacewing" might.

"lacewing", after all, did say that; "We live in a world of forms, so 'we' apply onto everything".

Now, "lacewing" is OBVIOUSLY speaking for "lacewing" here, and some "others". But who and/or what those "others" ARE, EXACTLY, 'we' do NOT YET KNOW, for sure.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

If that does NOT 'mean' that, then to some that CERTAINLY implies or infers that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am You see Henry, you jump to conclusions and cannot hear what is being said because blah, blah, blah...

Yeah, sure, whatever...

This here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of being 'selectively porous', 'to the world'. Or, MORE CORRECTLY 'selectively porous', to ONLY SOME of the 'world'. That is; ONLY 'porous', or OPEN, to ONLY 'that' what one wants to HEAR, and LISTEN TO.

Which, coincidentally, is just about ALWAYS ONLY what fits in with and suits there current BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS anyway about what is ALREADY true, right, and/or correct.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:01 am

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

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.

So why is it knowledge when you say it, but you imagine it's about ignorance when I say it?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: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: Please 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.

FOR FUCK SAKE, HENRY... FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION! You are being like Age, and jumping in wherever the Hell you want to make some stupid distorted point.

I originally asked "Why would we think there's 'a being'?" I asked this in response to...Alexis saying "But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being".

So, this... "I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'?"... is exactly what I was asking... and we don't need to "pretend" anything (according to you)... we only need to understand that you are being stupid and not following the conversation, and that you are projecting your distortions onto me.

The concept of 'form' was introduced because you came into the conversation and asked "why would we think there's not?" ('a being'), and I answered because 'a being' implies a form, and a form implies limitation. Does it not?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

Human words and beliefs do not necessarily answer that question in an unbiased and logical way if they are describing what man might want to believe/imagine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

I am questioning what we imagine. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to do?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amGenesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image

Written by man about what he imagines.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThis, 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.

That's what you imagine. I don't think that logically makes much sense. You can imagine whatever works for you -- and I can question whatever doesn't make sense to me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThe Bible ain't my Holy Book, but there's wisdom in it.

Agreed. But this "wisdom" is based on what we humans have gathered and created from a certain time and space, and it may be quite different than a complete or accurate understanding.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

Okay... it doesn't apply to concepts such as those.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

As I say: I don't know.

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:35 am Lacewing: 'Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.'

I think what you are talking about, Lacewing if I may, is that certainty is impossible but that there is an alternative to logical certainty.

The alternative to logical certainty is inherent in all of us and in all living things. It is often accessed via the beauty of nature. It is available to humans who have not been brutalised or stupified in their youth by industry or commerce, and other men's greed.

Yes! As you phrase it, certainty is impossible. And I am simply saying that it's possible to thrive while acknowledging uncertainty... and while acknowledging that we may not know as much as we think we do... and despite the unknown.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: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: Please 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.

FOR FUCK SAKE, HENRY... FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION! You are being like Age, and jumping in wherever the Hell you want to make some stupid distorted point.

If you want to jump in here, while discussing with "another", about how I "make a stupid distorted point", then be BRAVE ENOUGH to at least bring that 'point' to light, so we can ACTUALLY SEE it. And, ALLOW us to SEE and DECIDE if it is ACTUALLY stupid or not.

Or, I, or ANY one else for that matter, can just do what you do and that is make these STUPID and False CLAIMS about "others" and NOT have to back up and support those CLAIMS with absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm I originally asked "Why would we think there's 'a being'?" I asked this in response to...Alexis saying "But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being".

So, this... "I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'?"... is exactly what I was asking...

Did you use those EXACT words?

if no, then that is NOT, exactly, what you were saying, AT ALL.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm and we don't need to "pretend" anything (according to you)... we only need to understand that you are being stupid and not following the conversation, and that you are projecting your distortions onto me.

And, 'you', "lacewing", are projecting your DISTORTIONS, ONCE AGAIN, onto "others".

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm The concept of 'form' was introduced because you came into the conversation and asked "why would we think there's not?" ('a being'), and I answered because 'a being' implies a form, and a form implies limitation. Does it not?

NOT AT ALL, well to me anyway.

But if that is what 'a being' implies to you, from 'the world' you live in, and which you apply to other things, then so be it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

Human words and beliefs do not necessarily answer that question in an unbiased and logical way if they are describing what man might want to believe/imagine.

"lacewing's" words are a GREAT EXAMPLE and PROOF of this, ACTUALLY.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

I am questioning what we imagine. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to do?

Since when, and to whom?

Or, are you just, AGAIN and ONCE MORE, APPLYING the 'things' from 'your little world' onto other 'things'?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amGenesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image

Written by man about what he imagines.

Very well said. But what is also True is IMAGINING 'philosophy' is supposed to question what 'you', human beings, imagine was also said and written by hu/man about what hu/man imagines.

See, a LOT of what 'you', "lacewing" say about 'man' and what 'man' does is just 'you' PROJECTING, ONCE AGAIN.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThis, 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.

That's what you imagine. I don't think that logically makes much sense. You can imagine whatever works for you -- and I can question whatever doesn't make sense to me.

And 'you' can imagine whatever works for you, and I can question you about WHY you APPLIED to the word 'philosophy', only 'that' from 'the little and small world' you live, reside, and dwell in?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThe Bible ain't my Holy Book, but there's wisdom in it.

Agreed. But this "wisdom" is based on what we humans have gathered and created from a certain time and space, and it may be quite different than a complete or accurate understanding.

But this could ALSO be said from EACH and EVERY word spoken and written, from 'you', human beings.

EXACTLY LIKE, EVERY word you have spoken and written may be quite different than a complete or accurate understanding.

Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, you EVER reach thee ACTUAL complete AND/or accurate understanding, then you ALSO will be ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE thee ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, which is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, to us here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

Okay... it doesn't apply to concepts such as those.

So, if a notion of 'form' does NOT apply to 'mind', 'love', nor 'hate', then how, EXACTLY, would the notion of 'form' be applied to 'being'?

You did, after all, say:
a being implies a 'form'

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

As I say: I don't know.

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

How do 'you', human beings, frame 'a being', EXACTLY?

We ALREADY KNOW that; " a being implies a 'form' ", but how, EXACTLY, do 'you', "lacewing", frame 'a being'?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:35 am Lacewing: 'Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.'

I think what you are talking about, Lacewing if I may, is that certainty is impossible but that there is an alternative to logical certainty.

The alternative to logical certainty is inherent in all of us and in all living things. It is often accessed via the beauty of nature. It is available to humans who have not been brutalised or stupified in their youth by industry or commerce, and other men's greed.

Yes! As you phrase it, certainty is impossible.

Are you CERTAIN of this?

If yes, then is that CERTAINTY possible or impossible?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:59 pm And I am simply saying that it's possible to thrive while acknowledging uncertainty... and while acknowledging that we may not know as much as we think we do... and despite the unknown.

Well I am UNAWARE of absolutely ANY one who would even think otherwise to this, let alone say it out loud.

So, all you are REALLY saying here is just what EVERY one agrees with and accepts, anyway.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: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: Please 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.

FOR FUCK SAKE, HENRY... FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION! You are being like Age, and jumping in wherever the Hell you want to make some stupid distorted point.

I originally asked "Why would we think there's 'a being'?" I asked this in response to...Alexis saying "But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being".

So, this... "I was asking why a god would need to be 'a being'?"... is exactly what I was asking... and we don't need to "pretend" anything (according to you)... we only need to understand that you are being stupid and not following the conversation, and that you are projecting your distortions onto me.

The concept of 'form' was introduced because you came into the conversation and asked "why would we think there's not?" ('a being'), and I answered because 'a being' implies a form, and a form implies limitation. Does it not?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am 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.

Human words and beliefs do not necessarily answer that question in an unbiased and logical way if they are describing what man might want to believe/imagine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

I am questioning what we imagine. Isn't that what philosophy is supposed to do?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amGenesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image

Written by man about what he imagines.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThis, 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.

That's what you imagine. I don't think that logically makes much sense. You can imagine whatever works for you -- and I can question whatever doesn't make sense to me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 amThe Bible ain't my Holy Book, but there's wisdom in it.

Agreed. But this "wisdom" is based on what we humans have gathered and created from a certain time and space, and it may be quite different than a complete or accurate understanding.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: 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.

Okay... it doesn't apply to concepts such as those.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:23 am Lacewing: Would a god of infinite power be restricted to or by a form?

As I say: I don't know.

Then might it be possible that a god is not 'a being' in the way that humans frame such a thing?

Then might it be possible that a god is not?