An Incoherent God?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And therefore you could not have a coherent discussion about "normal color" with such a person

Perhaps not with regards to the details; but I can certainly discuss the existence of normal colour with that person.

That's the point I'm making - knowing that X exists is a different question to knowing what X is.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I doubt people who've been blind since birth can experience colours synaesthetically and, if they can, identify it with the "something other people can use to navigate but I can't" concept of colour they've formed for themselves. My point remains -- normal colour, as we experience and use it, is out of their bounds of knowledge.

[b]You're evading t ...[text shortened]... d then challenge the conclusion is certainly not the most effective way of challenging it.

So point out how point 3, to which you originally objected, is based on false premises.

Blind people cannot identify colour not because it is extra-dimensional but because their eyes don't work. That doesn't remove a dimension from their existence, except metaphorically. (The dimensions here are the usual four, I take it--the three that constitute space, and time. Extra-dimensional = outside space and time). Some identify it synaesthetically. Whether or not their sense of colour is the same as ours is irrelevant: they can still identify it.

Is colour an entity?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am saying it is incoherent for him to say lucifershammer was outside the box without first at least defining something about lucifershammer.
If he says "There was something outside the box that was causing the noise" he can only coherently discus the possible existence of "something" which is defined. He cannot coherently talk about whether a "garble" was making the noise.

Sure. But that's irrelevant to the point vistesd is making.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's the point I'm making - knowing that X exists is a different question to knowing what X is.

Yes, and it seems to be beside the point in this discussion, which is the ability to speak coherently about God.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So point out how point 3, to which you originally objected, is based on false premises.

Blind people cannot identify colour not because it is extra-dimensional but because their eyes don't work. That doesn't remove a dimension from their existence, except metaphorically. (The dimensions here are the usual four, I take it--the three that constitute ...[text shortened]... colour is the same as ours is irrelevant: they can still identify it.

Is colour an entity?

As I specified before, I am using the blind man as an analogy for us space-time limited beings. Or, if you want me to make it explicit:-

Colour : Blind man :: Extra dimensions : Us

Clear now?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, and it seems to be beside the point in this discussion, which is the ability to speak coherently about God.

I raised the point with respect to vistesd's discussion of "spiritual dimensions". If you read his notes, he clearly asks the person positing such dimensions to go on to explain them in detail -- a burden of proof I consider unnecessary for the purposes of his syllogism.

If it is coherent for a person to posit the existence of something (say, "spiritual dimensions" ) without actually explaining in any detail what it is, then there's no reason for him to do so wrt this syllogism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I specified before, I am using the blind man as an analogy for us space-time limited beings. Or, if you want me to make it explicit:-

Colour : Blind man :: Extra dimensions : Us

Clear now?

It was clear from the beginning, but it doesn't work, because we don't exist outside the blind man's dimensions. He can identify us as human beings (through touch, hearing) and discuss us coherently, after all. In short, we do not correspond to extra-dimensional beings in the blind man's experience.

Clear now?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It was clear from the beginning, but it doesn't work, because we don't exist outside the blind man's dimensions. He can identify us as human beings (through touch, hearing) and discuss us coherently, after all. In short, we do not correspond to extra-dimensional beings in the blind man's experience.

Clear now?

Actually, a certain element of us (the visual element) does exist outside the blind man's dimensions. Or, to use the terminology vistesd used, we are not "bounded by" his dimensions. Which doesn't mean we cannot interact with him within his.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Perhaps not with regards to the details; but I can certainly discuss the existence of normal colour with that person.

No, you cannot, as he cannot possibly understand what you are talking about. For example let us discuss the existence of Guigs. I cannot tell you what they are or anything about them. Now lets see how the discussion proceeds.

[edit]
You clearly stated that normal color was "out of their bounds of knowledge.".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, a certain element of us (the visual element) does exist outside the blind man's dimensions. Or, to use the terminology vistesd used, we are not "bounded by" his dimensions. Which doesn't mean we cannot interact with him within his.

I've already mentioned that I understand "dimensions" in its ordinary sense, to wit, "Measurable spatial extent of any kind, as length, breadth, area, volume" as well as the "fourth dimension" of time. I don't know what dimensions you are talking about, but sight is a sense, not a dimension. It helps with spatial coordination but isn't indispensable.

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.

Second pass:

(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 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).

All the discussions on "spiritual dimensions" aside, can you clarify here what you mean? (This goes back to the ambiguity in "identify"😉.

(4) Such a god has no definable identity. [by (1) and (3)]

Refer back to note on "bounded".

(5) Postulating an entity with no definable identity is incoherent

Is it?



Something about your argument reminds me of the ontological argument.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've already mentioned that I understand "dimensions" in its ordinary sense, to wit, "Measurable spatial extent of any kind, as length, breadth, area, volume" as well as the "fourth dimension" of time. I don't know what dimensions you are talking about, but sight is a sense, not a dimension. It helps with spatial coordination but isn't indispensable.

Then you clearly did not get the analogy the first time around. Yes, sight is a sense (thanks for educating me).

Screw that, do you think it is incoherent for human mathematicians (who are four-dimensional physical beings) to be talking about 10-dimensional objects?

EDIT: For all the accusations of evasion you level at me, I'm disappointed to see you do it yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you cannot, as he cannot possibly understand what you are talking about. For example let us discuss the existence of Guigs. I cannot tell you what they are or anything about them. Now lets see how the discussion proceeds.

You can tell me why you think they exist.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then you [b]clearly did not get the analogy the first time around. Yes, sight is a sense (thanks for educating me).

Screw that, do you think it is incoherent for human mathematicians (who are four-dimensional physical beings) to be talking about 10-dimensional objects?

EDIT: For all the accusations of evasion you level at me, I'm disappointed to see you do it yourself.[/b]

I did, but it's rubbish. Sorry. Sighted people are not extra-dimensional beings to the blind.

I can't follow string theory. However, such discussions are still bounded by a certain number of dimensions. It would be incoherent for them to talk about objects outside the (10) dimensions which form their frame of reference. Unless they extend the set by discovering more.

I haven't evaded your analogy; I've criticized it. It relies on a use of "dimension" that simply doesn't seem apposite here. Maybe you could come up with a better one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You can tell me why you think they exist.

No I can't because anything I say about them will be a partial definition. If I do give a partial definition then that becomes the object of discussion. For example if I tell you that they are red then we can discuss the existence of red things but not the existence of Guigs.