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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (20881)	8/7/2001 2:21:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks ever so....but since your post is philosophically sterile, I think I shall wade here awhile.....

To: Solon who wrote (20881)	8/7/2001 2:36:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It occurred to me that it might not be wholly futile to explain the flaws in your post: 1. There is no reason to suppose that all that exists resembles objects of sense. However, our imagination is composed of sense objects in very permutations. Therefore, it is quite possible to conceive of something one cannot imagine. 2. On the other hand, it is sometimes helpful to use analogy to clarify a concept, and we have little choice but to make analogies with things in our experience, and therefore speak in an metaphorical manner about some things. 3. By definition, and whether or not He exists, the Western conception of God is one of perfect Being, without deficiency, without either extension or location, without succession or duration, prior to the universe, yet related to the universe in an eternal moment. Since He is perfect, everything He is, does, and knows is fulfilled in one "act of Being". Whether or not it is true, it has various conceptual implications, for example, that God did not create the universe out of need, but out of a sort of "full heart". I hope this helps, but I am not confident.......

To: Solon who wrote (20881)	8/7/2001 3:01:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Here is a good example from geometry that might help you. A point is, according to Euclid, that which has no part, that is, pure location, without extension. We can understand what that means, but we cannot imagine a point with imagining a dot, however tiny, and thus providing extension. A line is length without width. Again, we can conceive of it, but when we imagine lines, however skinny, they always have some width. Etc.

To: Solon who wrote (20881)	8/7/2001 7:04:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Modern conjecture supposes that God could not have existed outside of space and time, and still be in it now. People can conjecture all they want but if God is by definition supernatural then limitations like this would not apply. Of course if you don't believe in the supernatural at all then obviously you won't believe in God. Nothing illogical about that idea, but if you don't start with that assumption then this conjecture shows nothing. Tim

To: Solon who wrote (20881)	8/7/2001 7:41:08 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"...Modern conjecture supposes that God could not have existed outside of space and time, and still be in it now... Space, time and the material universe are temporal entities. God is eternal and non-bounded by temporal descriptors. "But how does joyful abundance comport with the reality we experience with our senses?" As per your discussion on points and lines: Points and lines exist whether you can put dots or shapes on paper or not. We can imagine them. We can provide an experience of the illusion of perceiving them with pencil and paper. They exist whether we perceive them or not. We don't create what IS using our imagination/perception, we discover what IS. Much of what we discover through our imaginings and perceptions is but transient illusion. Yet we accept the images. Often we discover an image of what is and as a result we can imagine through logical inference other things that are but have not yet been perceived by the five senses. In fact, what we perceive with our best efforts is but a thin veil of all that IS. Human existance on Earth is but a twinkle in the eye in the history of all that IS. What is so hard or illogical about imagining existance that preceeds what you perceive as existance?