An Incoherent God?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Second pass:

[b](1) God is an entity whose existence is not bounded by (time-space) dimensionality. [definition]

OK. But what does "bounded" imply? That it simply cannot interact in time-space at all? Or that it has elements that go beyond time-space?

(2) A god so defined is conceptually coherent.

Fine.

(3) An existing e ]

Is it?



Something about your argument reminds me of the ontological argument.

[/b] Is it?

Can you coherently postulate an identity-less entity? Can you give me some rough idea what that means?

______________________________

With regard to the “spiritual dimension”—I’ll consider it when you can give me a coherent definition of what it means to put “spiritual” and “dimension” together, I do no know what a spiritual—dimension could mean.

NOTE TO ALL:

It’s possible that I’m just being wrong-headed about all this. But there have been lots of questions about language and ambiguity. If anyone knows a philosophically “technical” phrase, or comprehends what I’m getting at enough to offer alternative terms, I’ll be more than happy to entertain them.

Thus far, the only challenge to a premise has been LH’s of premise (3)—but there were still questions thereon.

Also, I guess he challenged (5), but I do not understand on what basis.

Originally posted by vistesd
Let me try to clarify my use of the terms “identify” and “definable.”

By “identify” here, I mean first being able to know that something is, regardless of any further identification of [/i]what[/i] that something is. In this case, that there is an entity.

I am positing the necessity of dimensional boundaries in order to recognize that[ efinition of, say, a dimensionally unbounded (or dimensionless?)entity, I’ll reconsider.

I would say that it is not necessary that an entity G be bounded by dimensions XYZT (three space and one time) for its existence to be recognised by an entity H in XYZT.

First, a real-life counter-example - modern physicists routinely posit and act on the existence of particles (or quarks, or strings, or whatever) that are not limited to XYZT and may, indeed, have no presence in these dimensions at all. At some point one would suppose that it would have to interact with entities that do - but that is not the point here. The point is that we can infer the existence of entities that do not conform to our own dimensional boundaries.

Clearly not all of our knowledge of existent beings comes from direct interaction with those beings. Often it involves a series of secondary interactions; but it could also be based on rational inference.

I'm still confused about your use of "definable" - an entity (or being) is simply something that is/exists. If it can be 'identified' (according to your criteria) then do you simply mean by 'definable' a listing of the conditions/criteria that allow such identification?

Originally posted by vistesd
A 4-dimensional cube is--dimensional.

But it is not 3-dimensional.

You need to keep the goalposts steady here, vistesd. Your definition of God simply states that G is not limited by space-time -- not that G has to be dimensionless completely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please elaborate as I don't know what you are trying to say.

To me, a definition is a special type of description used to categorize anything that matches that description. So when you talk about something based on its definition you are talking about the whole category of things that match that description. You cannot talk about anything coherently un ...[text shortened]... definition (description) because otherwise you simply will not know what you are talking about.

Any description can be automatically be used to categorize, so your distinction doesn't help. The word 'definition' as commonly understood provides necessary and sufficient conditions.

Originally posted by vistesd
Can you conceive of dimensionlessness? Can you articulate such a concept coherently?

Could it make any sense to speak of “dimensionless space”?

What kind of dimensions do you consider that God might be bounded by, that enable considering God to be an entity having identity to be coherent?

Unboundedness and infinity are, to my understanding, not the ...[text shortened]... uctio might drop the time-space specification—I’m not sure. (Why I brought in thoughts.)

Why should I conceive dimensionlessness? I thought we were simply talking about non-XYZT-bounded beings! (No moving the goalposts...)

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.

Where do you see the conflation in the reductio? I am claiming that a certain definition of God is incoherent.

My wording about dimensional boundedness was an attempt to see if I could get beyond the obvious linguistic a ...[text shortened]... space”, or “God is everywhere”, or—for my money—“God is a limitless being” (note the article).[/b]

In the light of the discussion I'm having with twh, I'd probably also object to (1) being a definition at all (i.e. it does not provide both necessary and sufficient conditions for God).

Would your argument change if (1) were simply a description of an attribute of God's and not a definition?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.

Where do you see the conflation in the reductio? I am claiming that a certain definition of God is incoherent.

My wording about dimensional boundedness was an attempt to see if I could get beyond the obvious linguistic a ...[text shortened]... space”, or “God is everywhere”, or—for my money—“God is a limitless being” (note the article).[/b]

I see the conflation in the way you jump from 'identify' (by which you simply mean "recognise the existence of"😉 to 'define' (which involves a description).

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) God is an entity whose existence is not bounded by (time-space) dimensionality. [definition]

(2) A god so defined is conceptually coherent.

(3) An existing entity can only be identified by its dimensional boundaries (vis-à-vis other entities, or as a bounded figure vis-à-vis a dimensional ground).

(4) Such a god has no definable identi ...[text shortened]... question.

_________________________________

I welcome critiques, especially of the logic.

Third pass (As with most vistesd posts, I need a couple of tries to refine my thoughts 😀):

What does it mean to say that God is not bounded by space-time dimensionality? I think of it in terms of something like:

For the set of all points U in the four-dimensional universe, there does not exist a subset P such that we can say that God is "contained" in P but not in U-P.

A related, but not unimportant, question would be whether there is any "part" of God that is not in U at all.


A conceptualisation example: Suppose we were dealing with the set of points defined by three dimensions U=(X,Y,Z). Now, consider a subset of all points K=(x,y,0) or simply (x,y). How would one consider the line segment between (0,0,1) and (0,0,2)? If our frame of reference only included K, would we say this object was at (0,0)?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What does it mean to be bounded by time-space dimensionality?

For example, theists often claim that "God is outside of time," but I have never once encountered one who could actually articulate the propositional content (or prepositional, for that matter) of that claim to me. Its close kin are the unlikely siblings "God is everywhere," and [i]als ...[text shortened]... on their propositional content; that is, what precisely are they claiming to be the case?

Think of it as a programmer dealing with a program that has true
independent variables, the programmer can see the outcome and end
of all that is going on at the same time. He can at will touch the
program as it does its thing, while leaving the independent variables,
independent to do as they will. The program can be tweaked, but
keeping the variables independent to do as they will is the
programmers goal, while the programmer achives the end result the
program was designed to do.
Kelly

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Conceptually, the mathematical notion of infinity (and higher-order infinities) have no bounds either

Nonsense.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


What does it mean to say that God is not bounded by space-time dimensionality? I think of it in terms of something like:

For the set of all points U in the four-dimensional universe, there does not exist a subset P such that we can say that God is "contained" in P but not in U-P.

Under this definition, unicorns are not bounded by space-time dimensionality. What a coincidence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I would say that it is not necessary that an entity G be bounded by dimensions XYZT (three space and one time) for its existence to be recognised by an entity H in XYZT.

First, a real-life counter-example - modern physicists routinely posit and act on the existence of particles (or quarks, or strings, or whatever) that are not limited to XYZT and m ...[text shortened]... mean by 'definable' a listing of the conditions/criteria that allow such identification?

First, with regard to this example (and all references to moving goalposts), I have already stated that I am willing to accept further dimensions of the cosmos—I will let the scientists explain to me what such dimensions entail. If it is helpful, I will generalize my first premise as:

(1) God is an entity whose existence is not bounded by natural dimensionality.

“Natural” here refers to the natural order of the cosmos; I do not think that any of the dimensions posited by the physicists fall outside that.

You might have a point about definition and attribute. (1) simply defines G as (a) an entity having (b) the attribute of not being dimensionally bounded.

You have used the word “something.” I would take “a something” (note the article) as a colloquial term for “an entity.”

Does the word “something” itself have a definition? Or, as you put it, what are the “criteria/conditions” necessary to speak of anything as being “a something”?

The man-in-the-box analogy is interesting. Can the man infer that there is “something” causing the tapping sound? (I think so.) Note that the box represents dimensional boundaries within which the man is confined; however, in order to infer “something” outside the box, the man must assume some further (n this case physical) dimensionality beyond the bounds of the box.

I’m not sure that most theists are willing to admit a God bounded by a dimensional “box”—you may be.

___________________________________

NOTE: I too have had the (uncomfortable) sense that my syllogism bears some (inverse?) relationship to the ontological argument. The difference is that I am not, as I made clear at the end of my first post, positing the non-existence of such a G: I am saying that the concept is incoherent.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I see the conflation in the way you jump from 'identify' (by which you simply mean "recognise the existence of"😉 to 'define' (which involves a description).

No—I do not mean “recognize the existence of.” I mean a coherently recognizable concept. If your definition of the concept (the idea, if you will, in the conventional sense) is incoherent, then to ask further whether I think that concept mught be instantiated (exist) is meaningless.

Here we have a sign (signifier + signified): God. The signifier is the letters/sound G-o-d. The signified is the conceptual meaning of that sign. If the signified is incoherent, then the question of whether or not there is a referent cannot be answered, either yes, no, or maybe...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Third pass (As with most vistesd posts, I need a couple of tries to refine my thoughts 😀):

What does it mean to say that God is not bounded by space-time dimensionality? I think of it in terms of something like:

[i]For the set of all points U in the four-dimensional universe, there does not exist a subset P such that we can say that God is "con d (0,0,2)? If our frame of reference only included K, would we say this object was at (0,0)?

[/i]Third pass (As with most vistesd posts, I need a couple of tries to refine my thoughts ):

Mea culpa—which is partly why I am doing this exercise: to refine my own. (I might be able to return the compliment, though. 🙂 )

I’m not sure I like the word “contained.” If you mean that a figure (visual analogy) is “contained” within its ground, maybe. But it is the (perceptual, in this case) boundaries of that figure vis-à-vis everything else in the ground (or maybe just blank space) that enables one to identify the figure itself.

My mention of “dimensionless” goes to my point that we conceptualize entities (“somethings” ) in terms of dimensionality. Our brains work that way. (We even do it in conceiving of unicorns.) Almost all of our posts here are using dimensional language: where, there, somewhere, etc.

Can you conceive of an entity that is not “anywhere” (including any conceptual dimension(s) imagined in your head)? Do you have a non-dimensional language that would enable you to speak thus (or to think thus)?

If you want to posit an additional “supernatural” dimension, then the first thing I ask is for you to give me some understanding of what that means.

_____________________________________

A something’s identity is what allows us to say this, as opposed to that. A something’s identity is “defined” by its (perceptual or conceptual) boundaries. (In this case, I am using “define” to mean “to determine or fix the boundaries, or extent of”; Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.)

If one cannot “fix the boundaries,” one cannot “define” a something.

By “identify,” I mean “to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing” (ibid.; my italics).

By “identity” I mean “the condition of being oneself, or itself, and not another” (ibid.).

By “entity” I mean “1. something that has a real existence; thing ... 2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent or self-contained” (ibid.)

Being “bounded” means “having bounds or limits” (ibid.).

A “boundary” is “something that indicates bounds or limits; a boundary line” (ibid.).

All of the “boundary” concepts are fundamentally dimensional.

An entity can be identified (recognized as being a particular thing) as such because it has an identity that allows us to define (fix the boundaries of, and hence recognize) its condition of being itself and not another.

If one asserts an entity that has no bounds or limits, I don’t know what they are talking about.

Absent dimensional boundaries what does it mean to say that God is an entity (a singular existent being)?