Article <14902@mimsy.UUCP> email@example.com (Charley Wingate) says :
>Gary Strand writes:
>>You can get an idea of what such a [self-inconsistent] universe would be
>>like by listening to a Christian. They are very often illogical.
>... and then we have some half-baked "christian" paradoxes.
I like to think of them as being well-done. You even use one yourself. See
>I can only presume Gary's problem with this sort of language stems from some
>faith of his that you can talk about anything in the conventional
>objectified language of western secular philosophy. But in fact, it is well
>known that this isn't true. Logic and mathematics cannot deal with cases at
>their own boundaries, because unacceptable (to their methods)
>inconsistencies arise. God talk most definitely lies along those boundaries.
(BTW, Charley, how did you determine that logic isn't "true" when certain
topics arise? Did you use some other method than logic to determine the truth
or falsehood of logic? That I would really like to see.)
"God-talk" doesn't lie near any boundary, it is well within the depths
known as irrationality and nonsense. Like I said, "God-talk" is predicated
on a perversion of the Law of Identity, namely, A is not-A.
I make no claims that anything and everything can be discussed in the
"objectified language of Western secular philosophy". However, the only
subject I know of that falls outside the range of ANY language, mode of
expression, form of communication, etc., is the Christian concept of "God".
You "talk" of God, but you can't use words. You "see" God, but you don't use
your eyes. You "hear" God, but you don't use your ears.
There is no difference between your God and nothing. In fact, I say that:
"Christian God == Nothing".
>The language of paradox has conventionally been used as a signal to say
>"here be God-talk." It does not mean that this language is to be taken
>literally, even though in many cases the two halves of the contradiction are
>taken as "true".
Since the language cannot be taken literally, then why do you even attempt
to discuss your God, if the words are totally inadequate.
You won't admit it, but there is no form of communcation of any sort that
one can use to talk about your God. Since that is the case, I recommend
>A lot of effort has been expended in western philosophy about God-talk. The
>positivistic ideas Gary describes are known not to work. They presume too
>much about what God could be like. Those of us who actually know God are
(This is the nonsense that Charley uses that I was talking about. Charley
uses the term "know", but not in the usual definition. He cannot specify
how he acquired this knowledge, without perverting the sense of the word.
Since this is ALWAYS the case when Christians talk about their God, I
submit that they are the ones who are being woefully inadequate.
They come up with a concept that cannot be communicated in any human way,
then they complain, as Charley does, that they cannot communicate about
their God. Pity. Quite the hole they are in.)
>aware that sometimes it is necessary to talk nonsense to talk about him; if
>others object to this, it is in the end their problem.
Actually, my Being of Infiniteness is Girp. Girp made your puny "God".
When I think of Girp, this is what I think of:
"Girp lksdj asjd 0943 ;lsdm- pawodm 908324 mawkd p34ja apsd8
*&^aljd90* masdkj(*(*7897 dmnasj u lasd89d adm Girp."
Your problem if you don't understand Girp. I could draw you a picture, but
it would also be nonsense.
In the end, it's really too bad that the Christians grope around for their
God, the concept that thought is incapable of thinking about, that words
cannot describe, that pictures cannot show, that sounds cannot describe.
All that effort for a concept, that in the end, cannot be understood.
If the Christians want to waste time and effort on such an impossible pursuit,
that is their right.
Gary Strand NCAR / CGD | The most formidable weapon against errors of
Boulder CO 80307-3000 | every kind is reason.
(303) 497-1398 | - Thomas Paine, 'Age of Reason'