Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40119)	6/12/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 108807

No or We are God isn't Curiousity is our single greatest gift

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40119)	6/12/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You too are using human words and concepts, Christopher... The only thing that would be strictly consistent with your originally stated position is Wittgenstein's dictum: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent..." But you are not silent. You continue to speak. And you give your indescribable God at least two attributes: he can "intervene," and he is "present in this world." But there are those who agree there is a God, but maintain that he is not present in this world, and cannot intervene in it (Deists, for example). So you are in the same argument as the rest of us. At first you seemed to be saying: "There is Something Out There, but I can't tell you what It is." Frankly, I'd buy that. Then you started saying: "There is Something Out There, and I can't tell you what It is, but I have an idea about what It is doing." Personally, I am not defining anything. But when you are being proselytized by people who have a definite conception of God, as we were being, you have to use human concepts & words if you want to discuss it with them. Or you can go through Graystone's exercise, which might be easier. <g> And yes, I know all about Flatland -- and about superstring theory. One of my sons is a cosmology buff, and he plies me with his literature. All this bopping back and forth between Grammar and Theology has worn out my brain, and it's late. Good night, all. :-) Joan

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40119)	6/12/1999 10:54:00 AM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Allow me to restate my question within this refined model. OK. Let's posit that the whole God is higher-dimensional. Symbol cube. Let's further say that our cosmos, our Universe, is a two-dimensional sheet. God's intersection with this sheet must be a plane figure. Nothing wrong with suggesting that the plane figure fills or exceeds the boundaries of our Reality, thus becoming indistinguishable from it. But here it is - would or would not the God-section be describable in our Euclidean terms? Is it fair to believe that what we could see of God (i.e that infinitesimal portion that also cohabits our Reality) would conform to that Reality's laws of physics and logic? Imo that's pretty important. Cuz if not, we're up against the omnipotence/omnibenevolence problem. Such a God who could but doesn't is clearly to some degree alood or just mean. Or distracted!! There's some punch to that extended metaphor.