Sinister Divine Attributes

[Higgins]

Suppose we try to define something with attributes that turn out not to
be attached to anything.

For example: "Joe is the man in the Hallway standing on the Blue Circle"

You look in the hallway and there is a blue circle but there is no one standing on it.

Do you conclude:

Men named Joe are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible if they are on
blue circles.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway on blue circles.

Or if you are a chair trying to define its maker:
Chairs cannot see men named Joe etc.

[Sarpedon]

I would conclude that the statement is either false or nonsensical.

[Higgins]

I would conclude that the statement is either false or nonsensical.

Yeah...or it might be an imaginary disability. Maybe people are not like bacteria in relation to their imaginary supercosmic creator or at all. Maybe the supercosmic creator is no more a problem for the human mind than
what to make of "Joe is the man standing on the blue circle" when there is no one on the blue circle. Either that or maybe we have the mental
abilities of bacteria.

[Sarpedon]

Huh? I'm sorry Higgins, I guess I'm not following.
(oh yes, I know, I know, the irony)

[zornhau]

Suppose we try to define something with attributes that turn out not to
be attached to anything.

For example: "Joe is the man in the Hallway standing on the Blue Circle"

You look in the hallway and there is a blue circle but there is no one standing on it.

Do you conclude:

Men named Joe are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible if they are on
blue circles.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway on blue circles.

Or if you are a chair trying to define its maker:
Chairs cannot see men named Joe etc.

In a hypothetical fictional world? I either kick the #### out of the speaker, or put 4ft of sharp steel through the blue circle and take out the necromantic son of a #### who calls himself Joe.

In reality, I ask, "Can you prove that's Joe and not Sid?"

[veinglory]

[note: posting as a user, not with my mod hat on]

I do hope this subforum isn't going to devolve into post after post where one has to defend the basic logic and sanity of being atheist. If anything it should be a safe room, one place one *isn't* constantly asked/baited by the theistic majority to justify holding a certain beleif. Honestly a lot of the threads recently seem to me like the equivalent of going into the rainbow safe room at a college and saying: so you looked at one guy and didn't fancy him, are you sure that really means you are a lesbian? I mean I could give you the Flying Spagetti Monster (TM) counter argument, but I would rather talk (shock, horror) about writing.

[Higgins]

Huh? I'm sorry Higgins, I guess I'm not following.
(oh yes, I know, I know, the irony)

Sorry...I was thinking of definitions and divine attributes and I thought it was somewhat unfair to rate human thinking as bacterial just because
we don't readily extrapolate from non-observation of a given object to innate ineptitude in observation in general.

[Higgins]

[note: posting as a user, not with my mod hat on]

I do hope this subforum isn't going to devolve into post after post where one has to defend the basic logic and sanity of being atheist. If anything it should be a safe room, one place one *isn't* constantly asked/baited by the theistic majority to justify holding a certain beleif. Honestly a lot of the threads recently seem to me like the equivalent of going into the rainbow safe room at a college and saying: so you looked at one guy and didn't fancy him, are you sure that really means you are a lesbian? I mean I could give you the Flying Spagetti Monster (TM) counter argument, but I would rather talk (shock, horror) about writing.

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, in defending basic logic and sanity in any context.

[Sarpedon]

Higgins, please, could you rephrase that? Are you saying that just because we don't see something means we conclude that observation is useless? Who does that?

[Higgins]

Higgins, please, could you rephrase that? Are you saying that just because we don't see something means we conclude that observation is useless? Who does that?

Perhaps I should resort to a more confessional narrative. I was thinking about divine attributes and why people would want to think of themselves as the moral equivalent of bacteria (see the thread in this subforum on whether god is definable) in order to make the indefinite non-qualities of god into a more positive thing. So I thought of "creator" as an attribute. The problem is "creator-of-the-universe" is a role in search of a dude-like creature to bear the title....like Joe (with attributes) in the hallway who is not there. Now if you look at the "human mental abilities are bacterial so no wonder they can't define god properly" angle from the other side...I have to conclude my mental abilities are bacterial if I don't see Joe (with attributes) out in the hallway.
This of course not the way people assess their observational abilities...which is my point...

[Sarpedon]

Well, obviously not. This is one objection I've always had to the whole 'divine mysteries' argument; If we are so small minded we can't comprehend the divine mysteries, what is the alternative? Sure, they can say we can rely on divine revelation, but that only leads to another question...how do we KNOW its divine revelation, if we can't understand the divine?

[zornhau]

Well, obviously not. This is one objection I've always had to the whole 'divine mysteries' argument; If we are so small minded we can't comprehend the divine mysteries, what is the alternative? Sure, they can say we can rely on divine revelation, but that only leads to another question...how do we KNOW its divine revelation, if we can't understand the divine?

Taking this back to the literary, not all cultures relate to the divine in the "I'm a bacteria, hear my cilia wiggle" way.

The peoples of the Roman empire, for example, thought that Joe might not be in their hall, but they'd certainly new somebody who knew somebody whose grandfather's hall he'd not only turned up in, but also cracked open a sixpack.

The attitude, if anything seems to be, "You're so big... let me buy you a beer."

[Sarpedon]

Right, the concept that the divine is unscrutible is not universal. Mysticism is often contradictory.

[Higgins]

Taking this back to the literary, not all cultures relate to the divine in the "I'm a bacteria, hear my cilia wiggle" way.

The peoples of the Roman empire, for example, thought that Joe might not be in their hall, but they'd certainly new somebody who knew somebody whose grandfather's hall he'd not only turned up in, but also cracked open a sixpack.

The attitude, if anything seems to be, "You're so big... let me buy you a beer."

Right, the concept that the divine is unscrutible is not universal. Mysticism is often contradictory.

Right. And if you were heroic enough, a goddess might pour you a drink and make you a god.

[AMCrenshaw]

Have you heard this quote? God created animals, men created themselves.

Also, have you read my definition of God (which is Reality)? It states simply that we are finite beings so an infinite being may exist, but we have no clue- if it does, by definition, we could not understand it. (In my opinion), however the evidence of a Creator God is slim at best. And there is no reason, anymore, for me to feel the universe was ever created in the first place.

AMC

[Sarpedon]

Or you might get the consolation prize of getting sleep and death to haul off your corpse.

[HeronW]

Or that at the time of the statement the person saying so was lying, or Joe moved after the words were spoken.

[StephanieFox]

By the time you went to look for Joe, he had left to get a martini. Conclusion? Don't keep Joe waiting if you want to see him standing in (or on) a blue circle.

[Higgins]

Or you might get the consolation prize of getting sleep and death to haul off your corpse.

I've seen that Vase in person! The names of the characters are scratched into the surface!

[Sarpedon]

How nice! Where is it?

[Higgins]

How nice! Where is it?

It's probably in the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. I haven't been there in
about 10 years and they have competely redone the classical wing. Anyway, I think that's where I saw it.

There's also a very slight chance its in the Fine Arts in Boston...depending on how unreliable my elderly memory is getting.

[Zoombie]

I...think I understand the point Higgans is trying to make. Understand and agree with...the whole "does a chair understand it's creator" argument pissed me off...cause, well, humans arn't chairs.

[Sarpedon]

"Does the AI computer understand its creator?"

It better, or else its not much of an AI, is it?

[Higgins]

"Does the AI computer understand its creator?"

It better, or else its not much of an AI, is it?

Or it is possible the AI was produced by a dispersed, unconscious AI-producing program that cannot be localized or identified as a single
entity. IE, the AI has no creator.

[AMCrenshaw]

Or it is possible the AI was produced by a dispersed, unconscious AI-producing program that cannot be localized or identified as a single
entity. IE, the AI has no creator.


:)

Sounds about right.

[oscuridad]

maybe Joe was on a toilet break when you looked in the corridor.

[Eeek]

Does Joe have a cell phone? Call him and ask him where he went.

Actually, if this were a novel, then the disembodied voice proclaiming that "Joe is in the hall (etc.)" would be classified as an unreliable narrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator).

[Bartholomew]

Suppose we try to define something with attributes that turn out not to
be attached to anything.

For example: "Joe is the man in the Hallway standing on the Blue Circle"

You look in the hallway and there is a blue circle but there is no one standing on it.

Do you conclude:

Men named Joe are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible.
Men named Joe standing in the Hallway are invisible if they are on
blue circles.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway.
The Human eye is unable to see Men named Joe standing in the Hallway on blue circles.

Or if you are a chair trying to define its maker:
Chairs cannot see men named Joe etc.


You didn't include my conclusion: Joe isn't present.

If investigating the circle yields uninteresting results, I'll conclude that the speaker is bored.

[veinglory]

You didn't include my conclusion: Joe isn't present.

A round of applause as Parsimony steps out onto the stage.