And this all men call God

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:38 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominum']No two electrons are identical in their quantum numbers, compare them to snow flakes if you must[/quote]

If that is true, then fine. It doesn't really matter. God isn't made of quantums anyway. My main point is that there can be many beings that have the qualities required to be a god.
[right][snapback]839326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
as far as I'm concerned you wouldn't be talking about god in the strict sense. God is not "a being", God is beyond being, and yet the presupposition of the possibility of being. That is worse than suggesting that we posit [i]being qua being1[/i], [i]being qua being2[/i], etc.. Some things are logically indivisible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I feel like arguing with myself (no I'm not crazy.. very crazy anyway).

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:11 PM']Photons too are all distinct in their energy, etc.
[right][snapback]839312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What are you talking about kid? Photons are massless, integer spin particles you amateur. Photons can have the same energy and be identical, this is why we must use Bose-Einstein distribution to statistically take into account this indistinguishability.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Myles']By way of their infinity they become a single and same infinity.[/quote]

But it's not the same infinity. Here's an analogy:
Infinity Q is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
Infinity W is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
These are both infinitely long sets of numbers. If you were to write either of them on paper, it would make a infinitely long text.

Infinity A includes both Q and W. If you were to write A on paper, it would include all the numbers from 1 to infinity twice, and it would be a infinitely long text.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Semalsia

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominus']God is not "a being"[/quote]

Well, as far as I can see, you have just stated that God doesn't exist.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:53 PM']I feel like arguing with myself (no I'm not crazy.. very crazy anyway).
What are you talking about kid? Photons are massless, integer spin particles you amateur. Photons can have the same energy and be identical, this is why we must use Bose-Einstein distribution to statistically take into account this indistinguishability.
[right][snapback]839333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you sound like a bafoon. don't quit your day job.
I wasn't talking about all that statistical mechanics fluff, I was more making a metaphysical statement. I mean, if "two" photons are truly indistinguishable then it doesn't make much sense to speak of two photons at all. As far as I know, any meaningful experimental situation in which you could speak of two photons, you can really speak of two distinct photons, otherwise its more an abstraction and we're just talking about two photons merging into one. Perhaps there is something paradoxical involved here.. Or maybe I should just quit talking out of my rear.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:01 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominus']God is not "a being"[/quote]

Well, as far as I can see, you have just stated that God doesn't exist.
[right][snapback]839344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
if existence is conceived of merely as contingent existence, or diastemic being, then yes, God does not exist in this sense. But reality is bigger than that. I'm not sure you how drew that conclusion considering that I indicated in my post the fact that God is the presupposition of the possibility of existence. And we can know of the necessesity of God's activity, even if we can't presume to penetrate His transcendent reality with categories of finite existence.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:37 PM']

Well whose side are you on L_D?

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]839325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
not sure yet, I've been too busy talking to myself to read the thread.. gosh, I'm a deadbeat.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:54 PM'][quote name='Myles']By way of their infinity they become a single and same infinity.[/quote]

But it's not the same infinity. Here's an analogy:
Infinity Q is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
Infinity W is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
These are both infinitely long sets of numbers. If you were to write either of them on paper, it would make a infinitely long text.

Infinity A includes both Q and W. If you were to write A on paper, it would include all the numbers from 1 to infinity twice, and it would be a infinitely long text.
[right][snapback]839334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think this pulls in the orginal arguments presented in this thread...

Pap covered the first one... if infinity Q is 1 - infinity and infinity W is 1 - infinity, then there is no difference in them, they are the same thing, that is infinity. There is no difference between them :. they are the same.

You're second example is what Jeff argued. If Q and W were subsets of A then A becomes the "Form" which they are derived from and this again is a singular thing.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:07 PM']1) Location is not a quality of the object.
2) God has no location, therefore gods can be identical even if location mattered.
[/quote]
1) Sure it is. An object occupies height X, width Y, and length Z of space that another object does not occupy. Location may be seen as a "quality" when we understand it as an object possesing space as one posses a color of hair.
2) My point was to refute your analogy not to apply it to God.

And LD, forgive me for referring to God as a being, but I think that in the context of this thread and the limits of language that was the only way I could get my point across. You do have a point, though. Hume presupposes that God is a being rather than Being.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:39 PM']And LD, forgive me for referring to God as a being, but I think that in the context of this thread and the limits of language that was the only way I could get my point across. You do have a point, though. Hume presupposes that God is a being rather than Being.
[right][snapback]839423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do the same thing when its convenient. no worries mate. and its valid when qualified.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Ok, before I was offering the possible Platonic argument, and critiquing a possible Aristotelian argument. Now I feel compelled to give [i]my[/i] argument, which is the Anselmian argument:

[b]Is it possible to have more than one "God"?[/b]

We understand God to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Now, let us imagine a world in which two Gods exist, each with exactly identical greatness. But if I can conceive of each one having a particular greatness, then I could conceive of a single being with the greatness of [i]both[/i], and this being would in fact be even greater than either of the other two. Thus, each of the first two "gods" would not, in fact, be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Therefore, God, or that than which nothing greater can be conceived, must be only one.

Your Brother In Christ

Jeff

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:50 PM']Ok, before I was offering the possible Platonic argument, and critiquing a possible Aristotelian argument. Now I feel compelled to give [i]my[/i] argument, which is the Anselmian argument:

[b]Is it possible to have more than one "God"?[/b]

We understand God to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Now, let us imagine a world in which two Gods exist, each with exactly identical greatness. But if I can conceive of each one having a particular greatness, then I could conceive of a single being with the greatness of [i]both[/i], and this being would in fact be even greater than either of the other two. Thus, each of the first two "gods" would not, in fact, be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Therefore, God, or that than which nothing greater can be conceived, must be only one.

Your Brother In Christ

Jeff
[right][snapback]839436[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you're so cool.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:50 PM']Ok, before I was offering the possible Platonic argument, and critiquing a possible Aristotelian argument. Now I feel compelled to give [i]my[/i] argument, which is the Anselmian argument:

[b]Is it possible to have more than one "God"?[/b]

We understand God to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Now, let us imagine a world in which two Gods exist, each with exactly identical greatness. But if I can conceive of each one having a particular greatness, then I could conceive of a single being with the greatness of [i]both[/i], and this being would in fact be even greater than either of the other two. Thus, each of the first two "gods" would not, in fact, be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Therefore, God, or that than which nothing greater can be conceived, must be only one.

Your Brother In Christ

Jeff
[right][snapback]839436[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


yes this is also discussed in length in the book, along with the arguments I'll post those so you can add more though I doubt they're anything new to you

[rkwright]

well not really related, but following what jeff has posted on Anselm's arguments...

my book goes into a quick over veiw of arguments, the author gives examples of a 'perfect island' put foward by a monk named Gaunilo, but the author (as Anselm seems to have done) handles these with ease, stating that the definition of God itself is the highest of perfection while a perfect island is founded on our idea of island which is contingent. The author moves to Kant's objections, but shows that Anselm devided existence in understanding and existence in reality, and that it was just as rational to believe in God as it is to not believe in a squared circle.

The author does leave 2 arguments at a 'draw'. He presents Hume's idea that God is merely a man made idea and just because we put together an idea of God doesn't mean it really exists. But is just a restatement of Guanilo's argument? Doesn't Hume have to actually attack the definition of God as being perfect to get anywhere with this line? As soon as you accept Anselm's definition, it becomes more perfect that God actually exist :. He does. Or am I way over simplifying the power behind Hume's argument?

The other objection is that there is some hidden contradiction not yet found in the term God that makes it a squared circle.

The last sentence regarding all this sums it as "the ontological argument establishes not the truth of theism but its rational acceptability"

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:02 PM']you sound like a bafoon. don't quit your day job.
I wasn't talking about all that statistical mechanics fluff, I was more making a metaphysical statement. I mean, if "two" photons are truly indistinguishable then it doesn't make much sense to speak of two photons at all. As far as I know, any meaningful experimental situation in which you could speak of two photons, you can really speak of two distinct photons, otherwise its more an abstraction and we're just talking about two photons merging into one. Perhaps there is something paradoxical involved here.. Or maybe I should just quit talking out of my rear.


[right][snapback]839345[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Photons are, of course, all 100% identical but individually distinguishable upon detection.

Look at all this fun you have while I am responsibly trying to work! I've enjoyed your... um, autodebate.

We should have a quantum mechanics topic.