On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[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?

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.

OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.

I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.

[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"?

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...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

[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?

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.

That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.

[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.

That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.

Yes, I know, it's also part of the normal definitions of person just as having three sides is part of what is a triangle. You seem to think such a 'thing' can be so it obviously is not true for you. I am allowing for to to try and explain how such a thing, in absence of what the normal definition can be. So far you seem to be avoiding it.

[Outrider]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

[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?

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.

That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.

Yes, I know, it's also part of the normal definitions of person just as having three sides is part of what is a triangle. You seem to think such a 'thing' can be so it obviously is not true for you. I am allowing for to to try and explain how such a thing, in absence of what the normal definition can be. So far you seem to be avoiding it.

So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.

[Alien]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?

[Outrider]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?

Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened. It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.

O.

[Alien]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?

Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.

That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.

It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.

O.

No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.

[Nearly Sane]

So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.

Which is not how you normally proceed which is to cite a dictionary definition and then go from there. Now we have had the discussions in the past where you seem to misunderstand dictionaries as being precriptive when they are descriptive but to be consistent form your viewpoint you should take a set of definitions such as

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/person

so while this mentions person being party of Chrsitian theology, can yiou explain a non spatail, non temporal person? In what sense of 'person' and please feel free to add to the definitions is an intentional being not temporal?

[Nearly Sane]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?

Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.

That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.

It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.

O.

No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.

One hopes so because you are not getting close

[Outrider]

That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything.

Implicit in the idea that an event occurred which initiated the universe is some sort of reality in which the event can occur - we have no conceptual framework and no data in which to adequately describe it.

In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.

This is, perhaps, where the explanation breaks down. Space - the universe - has been expanding since its inception, but not 'into' anything, it's a set of dimensions that aren't duplicated outside of itself - we can deduce this from the lack of interactions we'd expect to see if there were more of the same thing outside.

However, the event that initiated the Big Bang - I believe the current best hypothesis is an asymmetric breakdown of fundamental particles - has to have occurred in some reality, however divorced from ours. It cannot happen in 'nothing', just in nothing that we'd recognise.

O.

It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.

O.

No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.
[/quote]

[Alien]

So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.

Which is not how you normally proceed which is to cite a dictionary definition and then go from there. Now we have had the discussions in the past where you seem to misunderstand dictionaries as being precriptive when they are descriptive but to be consistent form your viewpoint you should take a set of definitions such as

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/person

so while this mentions person being party of Chrsitian theology, can yiou explain a non spatail, non temporal person? In what sense of 'person' and please feel free to add to the definitions is an intentional being not temporal?

See #32.

[Alien]

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.

O.

The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?

Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.

That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.

It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.

O.

No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.

One hopes so because you are not getting close

OK. Please explain it better than me. Did the universe emerge into extra-universal space (to quote Outrider)?

[Alien]

...]In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.

This is, perhaps, where the explanation breaks down. Space - the universe - has been expanding since its inception, but not 'into' anything, it's a set of dimensions that aren't duplicated outside of itself - we can deduce this from the lack of interactions we'd expect to see if there were more of the same thing outside.

However, the event that initiated the Big Bang - I believe the current best hypothesis is an asymmetric breakdown of fundamental particles - has to have occurred in some reality, however divorced from ours. It cannot happen in 'nothing', just in nothing that we'd recognise.

O.

If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?

[Outrider]

If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?

Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.

O.

[torridon]

If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?

Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.

O.

btw, wb Outrider 

[Alien]

If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?

Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.

O.

I realise that this is stuff we struggle to explain in terms which are understandable, but you seemed to claim that any absolute start to the universe would need to happen "in" something. If you think that then it is up to you to explain why as the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, at least in normal discussions/debates.

I'm not arguing that there are no causes to any absolute beginning of the universe anyway. In fact the Kalam argument assumes that there is a cause.

Anyway, now off to Heathrow to pick someone up. Time to sit on the M25 and contemplate how wonderful it is to live in rural Norfolk.

[Outrider]

I'm not arguing that there are no causes to any absolute beginning of the universe anyway. In fact the Kalam argument assumes that there is a cause.

It's not demonstrable, we have no evidence (that we're aware of) of anything outside of the universe. It's deductive inasmuch as everything we see in physics has antecedant conditions - we have no information on what those conditions are, but nevertheless...

It may be that those antecedant conditions are an absence of energy and matter in order for there to be no interference with spontaneous break-down of potential into matter and anti-matter, but that's just supposition, it's just as (un)likely that those conditions are a physical environment which does not interact with those matter/anti-matter breakdowns.

What I can't see any way round is some corollary of time in this extra-universal physics - there has to be a differential passage of background existence in order for changes of state to occur, and the step between no universe and the emergent universe is a process which involves a change of state.

Whether that's physics, metaphysics, metaphor or simply the limitations of human understanding is completely up in the air, to me.

O.

[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.

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?

But in the Kalam argument you posit that this God has a personal element to it and in fact has all the other attributes which I would consider to be at least a theistic God. What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?

I asked you on What Is God Made Of what caused you/your reasons to be come a Christian and you gave me #92. What else I'm to conclude than this is part of your reasons for becoming a Christian?

So metaphysics cannot be about reality?

I think Kant answered that one. It has to be grounded in our experiences and understanding else it ends up in contradictions and analogous incoherences. It would seem obvious that as we have none of these about how things began it is pure metaphysics we are dealing with here.

[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.

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?

My post is quite clear. A 'Force' that has all the properties you give for God in the philosophical arguments but being impersonal.

[Andy]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

[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.

OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.

I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

[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...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

[Alien]

...
But in the Kalam argument you posit that this God has a personal element to it and in fact has all the other attributes which I would consider to be at least a theistic God.

I don't. I have said many times, including on this thread, that the argument, if correct, does not take us to a theistic (intervening) God, but leaves open whether he would intervene/sustain/do miracles. Where do you think the Kalam says anything about that? I'm not aware of anything.

What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?

Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument.

I asked you on What Is God Made Of what caused you/your reasons to be come a Christian and you gave me #92. What else I'm to conclude than this is part of your reasons for becoming a Christian?

Nothing major, that I can remember. I became a Christian very largely through looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Kalam and other arguments back that up (at least in the understanding of an immensely powerful, non-material, non-spatial, timeless creator of the universe who is plausibly personal), but I learnt of them much later.

So metaphysics cannot be about reality?

I think Kant answered that one. It has to be grounded in our experiences and understanding else it ends up in contradictions and analogous incoherences. It would seem obvious that as we have none of these about how things began it is pure metaphysics we are dealing with here.

Why do you think it is obvious?