On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Nearly Sane]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.

Quite possible - but what other is there of a person other than temporal and physical? Do you understand a non temporal non physical person? If so please explain? If I said I believed in a four sided triangle would it be sensible if you objected to say maybe you just don't understand?

[Jack Knave]

Alien (your #17)

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.

Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?

------------------------------------

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God

The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Is everything about a person measurable though?

Dunno, not even sure the question makes sense. Since nothing I have said states everything about a person is measurable, am at a loss as to relevance. I understand the concept of peron to be temporal and material so the idea of a non temporal non material person seems nonsensical to me - if it does not seems nonsensical to you, can you help out in how you understand it?

That's a great question.

[Jack Knave]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.

See above.

Wow, that was useful!!!           ...........

[Jack Knave]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.

That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.

Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

[Jack Knave]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

[Nearly Sane]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.

Quite possible - but what other is there of a person other than temporal and physical? Do you understand a non temporal non physical person? If so please explain? If I said I believed in a four sided triangle would it be sensible if you objected to say maybe you just don't understand?

As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.

A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.

[Alien]

Alien (your #17)

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.

Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?

OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.

------------------------------------

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God

The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.

Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.

[Jack Knave]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.

That's like one of the come backs I use against you and yet you don't accept it. Should NS?

[Alien]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.

That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.

Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

[Nearly Sane]

As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.

A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.

Yeop and rational and self conscious  and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

So how would such a force come to create the universe?

[Andy]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?

Non temporal just makes no sense. We're not just talking about space-time here, but any notion of a metaphysical temporality where there is some form of continuum. I don't know how one even begins to make sense of something "doing" anything void of this. It's alogical as being able to do stuff "at the same time" is not even wrong in a non temporal state.

[Nearly Sane]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

So how would such a force come to create the universe?

How would it not? If you want to go to intentionality - that's temporal - so your solution is out the window.

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.

That's like one of the come backs I use against you and yet you don't accept it. Should NS?

Nope, NS said he didn't understand something so therefore it is nonsensical. There are lots of things I don't understand, but that is often down to my lack of knowledge and not because they are nonsensical. His ergo was not a valid ergo.

[Alien]

As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.

A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.

Yeop and rational and self conscious  and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial

Why should "to NS" have any relevance?

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

So how would such a force come to create the universe?

How would it not? If you want to go to intentionality - that's temporal - so your solution is out the window.

I'd go with "volition" rather than "intentionality", I think.

Time for tea.

[Jack Knave]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?

The subject matter is about what caused the universe (or everything) to come about - as posited in the Kalam argument and so on. So we are dealing with unknowns here things we can't have any evidence for or data, and so on. That is, metaphysics. My objection is that Alien restricts the possible answers by only allowing his version of God through the backdoor by introducing a broader deistic God in first and then gradually defining God in a way to suit what he wants the answer to be. The dice have been loaded.

He has used these philosophical arguments to be part of the reason why he became a Christian but has tainted the logic with this warped narrowing of the answer by misusing or poorly applying the word God.

Therefore, it isn't about what is real for us humans but all the possible metaphysical answers that can be conjured up for the philosophical arguments without, hopefully, not getting too silly about it.

[Jack Knave]

Alien (your #17)

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.

Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?

OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.

------------------------------------

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God

The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.

Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.

A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.

We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.

[Jack Knave]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

So how would such a force come to create the universe?

Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.

[Jack Knave]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.

That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.

Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

[Nearly Sane]

As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.

A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.

Yeop and rational and self conscious  and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial

Why should "to NS" have any relevance?

For the same reason as by definition a triangle does not have four sides. A person is by definition temporal and spatial. It is not to me, it is the applied logic of your position.

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?

The subject matter is about what caused the universe (or everything) to come about - as posited in the Kalam argument and so on. So we are dealing with unknowns here things we can't have any evidence for or data, and so on. That is, metaphysics. My objection is that Alien restricts the possible answers by only allowing his version of God through the backdoor by introducing a broader deistic God in first and then gradually defining God in a way to suit what he wants the answer to be. The dice have been loaded.

That is incorrect. I have never argued that the Kalam argument gets you to a theistic God, let alone the Christian God. I'm a bit confused that you think otherwise since I have been as clear as I possibly can in all my discussions here and on the BBC boards.

He has used these philosophical arguments to be part of the reason why he became a Christian but has tainted the logic with this warped narrowing of the answer by misusing or poorly applying the word God.

Er, that is what you are claiming in the OP. Just repeating the OP does not prove anything.

Therefore, it isn't about what is real for us humans but all the possible metaphysical answers that can be conjured up for the philosophical arguments without, hopefully, not getting too silly about it.

So metaphysics cannot be about reality?

[Alien]

Alien (your #17)

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.

Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?

OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.

------------------------------------

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God

The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.

Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.

A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.

We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.

A force is a physical thing and, as such, part of the universe so it can't be the cause of the universe. Perhaps you mean "force" in some other way to the usual meaning?