Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

[Carrikature]

Hmm. He also can't conceive of nothingness, so in light of that, I'm assuming he believes the universe is uncaused as well. Maybe he's a pantheist and believes that God and the universe are one in the same.

We'll see what he says when/if he weighs in. I don't think he believes the universe is uncaused. I think he believes that God is the uncaused source of the universe. It might be that we would consider the beliefs closer to pantheism even if he doesn't (I've seen that before in others). His inability to conceive of nothingness, I think, draws from his definition of God as a necessary being. My understanding of his position was drawn in part from the something/nothing thread. He can't conceive of nothingness because God has to exist. For God to not exist is impossible by definition.

[Teallaura]

Qualifier for my amen: "if he exists".

He does - but that's another thread.

[Teallaura]

I didn't express myself well: I'm implicitly invoking some type of possible universe argument: in a universe where there exists a god defined to possess the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality (in that universe) then "2+2=4" needs the god to be true.

Which is itself problematic - if such a god exists in one universe, he must necessarily exist in all (as phrased).

[Teallaura]

I think he's defined 'LORD God' as the uncaused entity that necessarily exists which possesses the Omni- predicates and is the foundation of logic. Robrecht's post #4 becomes moot because there is no "if" when it comes to how you define God. In 37818's mind, so far as I can tell, there is only a single way to define 'LORD God'. His posts #21 and #34 underscore this further.

The issue, then, is that 37818 quite simply cannot conceive of a 'LORD God' that does not possess these attributes. Anything different, even hypothetical deities without the Omni- predicates, quite simply cannot be the 'LORD God' by definition. It's not that he's mixing up arguments, but that he rejects out of hand anything that isn't the definition as he sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going about the normal methods of teasing out the different potential attributes and sorting out which ones do or don't make sense. 37818's not even using the same book we are, let alone on the same page.

Qualified amen - I think you're both right. Bible is mixing his arguments - and mixing the order of some of the points within them - and he is committed to a definition and rejecting everything else out of hand. He's just doing them both almost simultaneously which makes it even more confusing to read.

[Teallaura]

We'll see what he says when/if he weighs in. I don't think he believes the universe is uncaused. I think he believes that God is the uncaused source of the universe. It might be that we would consider the beliefs closer to pantheism even if he doesn't (I've seen that before in others). His inability to conceive of nothingness, I think, draws from his definition of God as a necessary being. My understanding of his position was drawn in part from the something/nothing thread. He can't conceive of nothingness because God has to exist. For God to not exist is impossible by definition.

I think you're probably right here but to be fair, the existence of something (us, pixels, cheese pizza) makes the argument(s) about nothingness highly theoretical - he gets stuck on the 'reality exists' and therefore stuck to the conclusion. I agree with his conclusion, obviously - he's just unable to properly take the steps that get to it.

[Teallaura]

Not quite moot in my opinion because I still consider the question of whether or not one can, does, or should define God to be a fundamental consideration.

Interesting. I'd argue from the opposite - I don't see how you can avoid defining God in some way.

[Carrikature]

Qualified amen

I'd like to start a petition for a 'qualified amen' button. Under the post it could say "Carrikature sorta agrees with this post".

[Adrift]

He can't conceive of nothingness because God has to exist. For God to not exist is impossible by definition.

Ah, so you think he may be applying the concept of nothing to an immaterial God the same way one usually applies it to the material universe. That makes a lot of sense for why he's so adamant that the concept of nothing is inconceivable. "Nothing", as far as I can tell, is not usually applied to the immaterial. So his take on the subject seems to be unique.

[Carrikature]

Ah, so you think he may be applying the concept of nothing to an immaterial God the same way one usually applies it to the material universe. That makes a lot of sense for why he's so adamant that the concept of nothing is inconceivable. "Nothing", as far as I can tell, is not usually applied to the immaterial. So his take on the subject seems to be unique.

Yes. However, I might quibble that 'thing' only refers to 'existence', so the material components (or lack thereof) don't strictly matter.

[robrecht]

Interesting. I'd argue from the opposite - I don't see how you can avoid defining God in some way.

I would give this post a qualified amen. It is not easy to avoid defining God in some way, and perhaps it cannot be altogether avoided. Maybe the more important point is, whatever definitions one comes up with for God, whether any definition of God is adequate. I think that any God/god that we can define will be infinitely inferior to the real God. Try it. What is your definition of God? Is it adequate? Can you express it as a classical definition in terms of genus and species?

[Carrikature]

I would give this post a qualified amen.

Would you like to sign my petition as well?

[robrecht]

Ah, so you think he may be applying the concept of nothing to an immaterial God the same way one usually applies it to the material universe. That makes a lot of sense for why he's so adamant that the concept of nothing is inconceivable. "Nothing", as far as I can tell, is not usually applied to the immaterial. So his take on the subject seems to be unique.

I doubt this is his conception, and I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying here either, but if it is, and if I do, it is not unique. See, for example, John Scotus Eriugena, who says that because of his transcendence God can also be said not to be, at least in any sense of being/existence that we can comprehend. In one part of his 'system', God can be spoken of as nihil per excellentiam, ‘nothingness through excellence’. But don't think about it too hard, and I do not want to take this thread off-track; I know you are not a fan of apophatic theology.

[robrecht]

Would you like to sign my petition as well?

Sort of, but, no, not really. Can I just initial it perhaps?

[Adrift]

I think that any God/god that we can define will be infinitely inferior to the real God.

At some level, we can probably say that about anyone or anything.

[robrecht]

At some level, we can probably say that about anyone or anything.

Yes, of course, but most especially of God.