Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
You know this is too long and--I've said this before, somewhere--the faulty nature of debate is its negativity, whereby I only respond to that which I have some problem with. The positive side is that it considerable cuts down that which needs to be addressed.It's not that I don't know whether there is a God or not. It's that I don't know what is it that I'm supposed to not know about. For contrast, I know that I don't know the physics behind a black hole, but I do have a logically consistent definition of it. I don't know how it works, but when I talk about it, I know what I'm talking about because the definition remains consistent. I don't have that luxury when discussing this God term.
|
I understand what you are saying snapshot. But your definition of what a black hole is is of your own making. You read about black holes, you even memorize what a black hole is according to what your professor says...but what you think of when you think "black hole" is completely singular to you. No one else understands black holes the way you do. Your logically consistent defintion is based on you, snapshot, reading about black holes, maybe looking at pictures, talking to scientists, whatever the case may be. You gathered information, chose what you see as factual and what you see as hypothesis and belief, and formed a definition for yourself of what constitutes "black hole." The black hole is unknowable in reality, as you are not the black hole (unless of course you believe the universe to be a singularity in which case you are literally the black hole). The black hole has infinite facets to it, of which you and anyone knows barely anything. So your definition that you see as consistent is a complete belief.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that the term GOD has to be unified in order for it to have merit or for you to understand it. If I say "I am God" and someone else says "God is an old man in the sky" why does it matter to you? How YOU understand the term "God" is all that is important when it comes to forming your own belief and/or faith about your existence.
Does this make sense? And before you go there, not everyone agrees on what a black hole is. Logically, it would be ILLOGICAL to say you know what a black hole is. Logically, it would be logical to say "I think a black hole is X because..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
To me, hearing you say the emboldened portion is like hearing someone say that logic will lead me to the truth that Hickadoola doesn't exist. I need to know first what Hickadoola means before I can make any sort of assertion.
|
so define hickadoola! Or, in this case, listen to his definition and then come to your own conclusion whether or not it does.
You believe that to be true. Your mind says that in order for you to accept or make an assertion about whether Hickadoola does or does not exist, you need a definition of what Hickadoola means. I find this strange. Why do you need external definitions of things for you to make an assertion? IF you believe Hickadoola to mean broccoli, then it means broccoli. And when discussing things with other people (should you choose to do so), your answer to "what is hickadoola?" is "broccoli." My answer to "what is God" is no different, and neither is right or wrong.
I provided you with a definition of what I think God to be. It is logical and clear. If you discuss God with me, that is what I mean when I say God. Do you believe in God according to my definition of what God is?
The word "God" is not owned. God does not mean old man in the sky to everyone. The things in space you call stars are not stars to everyone. When speaking to a native american, you might need to call it by its God-name to have a discussion (or vice versa), etc etc etc.
Follow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
If you give me a definition of Hickadoola with contradictory terms, I have no choice but to say that it can't exist, otherwise our ability to communicate breaks down entirely since our discussion can no longer be contained by the nature of reality.
|
You have a choice. You choose to think that contradictions in terms means that it can't exist. Believing that only rational logic is true is a belief system. A belief system that is just as right and just as wrong as any other one you can come up with.
Our ability to communicate didn't break down. I'm still fully capable of communicating! YOUR ability to communicate has ceased because your belief system about what constitutes "the nature of reality" has stopped you. You do not see any value or ability to continue a discussion, and see no way for there to be progress. WHICH IS FINE. But that is your choice based on what you believe to constitute truth. Which is not universal
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
Wouldn't this also mean that it transcends logic as well? Meaning that something that transcends logic can't be communicate logically; meaning that trying to come to any sort of conclusion about it logically, one would eventually have to give up logic? And how can one question without the tool of logic
|
nope, it wouldn't mean that. If anything, it would have meant "logic transcends itself."
If God is the system of "a creator needs a creation" then God is the system of "logic" as well. In this way of looking at God, God is the infinite which allows creation, logic, and the universe. Since the system (God) is the system, God IS logic and God IS "a creator needs a creation."
Perhaps transcend is the wrong word for you. I was trying to express that the system (God) would be the empty space that allows logic and creation to exist within it.
In essence, logic is logical because logic is determined by logic.
