Rationals (NTs)

When someone misunderstands this thread and is mean will they-

  • A, claim all NTs are evil because of a single bad experience or

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • B, argue that NTs are the master race

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • C, inevitable joke answer: Xylophone

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • D, use their unlimited power to edit this poll. Xx, Lady Palpatine

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
God's time being timeless, I sure hope he isn't waiting, because he'll be waiting a long time. ;)
 
Ahh like the tree and if there is no one to hear it and all that (yes terrible, forgive me.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
jkxx said:
Ahh like the tree and if there is no one to hear it and all that (yes terrible, forgive me.)
Click to expand...

Ha, well I would think of your example as an epistemological question, whereas my point about God was in fact purely logical. :)

It's just that one typically understands God as having a temporality that is not terrestrial temporality. That's one of the things that distinguishes Him from humans. But "waiting" implies terrestrial temporality - so either it's not possible for God to wait in that sense, or it is possible but then God has terrestrial properties and is therefore not celestial. But then does it not follow that he is not God?
 
I think these two lines alone can explain why we are having so much trouble with God right there.

Edit: yup, logic not a strong point although thinking about it a bit think I get where you're going with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Ren said:
Ha, well I would think of your example as an epistemological question, whereas my point about God was in fact purely logical. :)

It's just that one typically understands God as having a temporality that is not terrestrial temporality. That's one of the things that distinguishes Him from humans. But "waiting" implies terrestrial temporality - so either it's not possible for God to wait in that sense, or it is possible but then God has terrestrial properties and is therefore not celestial. But then does it not follow that he is not God?
Click to expand...
Just because an icon isn't the way it is imagined to be, it does not logically follow that it doesn't exist, but merely that you have insufficient means to prove or disprove its existence.
 
And the inevitable mental digression for me - I guess this also means something can exist in an I [as in Ni/Ti/Si/Fi] way without any issue although there might not be an analog in the external world.
 
jkxx said:
I think these two lines alone can explain why we are having so much trouble with God right there.

Edit: yup, logic not a strong point although thinking about it a bit think I get where you're going with it.
Click to expand...

Haha, well I think God is not too much trouble so long as we define him precisely. ;) The confusion typically arises from the fact that people speak from different viewpoints on who God is - and these viewpoints aren't false in themselves, but it is the fact that they differ in susbtance that makes it very difficult to say things about God without logical inconsistency.

I'm okay with a terrestrial God so long as it's clear that he is terrestrial, and so long as it's explained to me what makes him "God" in this new configuation of properties. And it might be a challenge (though I'm not saying it's impossible) to show that he is still "God". Because if he is terrestrial he de facto loses what is usually taken to be part of his essence: timelessness, perfection, omnipotence, etc.
 
Hmmmm there is one god with these properties you list but I want to back off from dirtying the thread being what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Ginny said:
Just because an icon isn't the way it is imagined to be, it does not logically follow that it doesn't exist, but merely that you have insufficient means to prove or disprove its existence.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing two uses of the word "be" here. I was speaking of being as identity, as in "God is X". Not of being as existence, as in "God is" i.e. "God exists."

Though I do think that in order for an entity to exist, it must be identical with itself. This is a minimal criterion. Hence the need to precisely define what God is as a preliminary to discussing his existence. So my question above could be rephrased thus: "If we take God to be a terrestrial being, is he still identical with himself?" - something like that. Personally I am agnostic when it comes to God's existence.
 
Ren said:
Hence the need to precisely define what God is as a preliminary to discussing his existence. So my question above could be rephrased thus: "If we take God to be a terrestrial being, is he still identical with himself?" - something like that.
Click to expand...
You did however say that God is no terrestrial being, presumably, and therefore there are insufficient means. What follows is that you cannot define it unless you first were to define the non-terrestrial plane of existence, which causes the debate to be nonsensical in this way/order.

Besides, the debate you propose is based on opinions due to insufficient means, and thus it is highly unlikely that there is going to be a consensus on any definition.
 
^- This is a very interesting statement. Will be incorporating it into some of the chapters coming up.
 
Ginny said:
You did however say that God is no terrestrial being, presumably, and therefore there are insufficient means. What follows is that you cannot define it unless you first were to define the non-terrestrial plane of existence, which causes the debate to be nonsensical in this way/order.
Click to expand...

I could continue showing you where the confusion arises in your argument but I will stop here, as I do not want to start arguing again.

I will leave you guys to astrology :)
 
Ren said:
I could continue showing you where the confusion arises in your argument but I will stop here, as I do not want to start arguing again.
Click to expand...
That's the funniest thing I ever heard. I could show you how wrong the quoted statement is, using my knowledge of pragmatics, but if you want to chicken out, I'll accept your defeat.

And to be 100% clear, astrology has nothing to do with what I wrote.
#GameOver
 
I would be interested in hearing both your points of view but maybe it is not the best idea to go all out - or would it be.

To wind us back a bit, the introduction of astrology here when there was no need for it is purely "my fault."
 
jkxx said:
I would be interested in hearing both your points of view but maybe it is not the best idea to go all out - or would it be.

To wind us back a bit, the introduction of astrology here when there was no need for it is purely "my fault."
Click to expand...
You two can do this if you like. I don't have a perspective besides the fun I had poking holes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top