NonSum wrote:Realthinker: How can you even estimate the "relative difference" betwen human mind and what you call unimaginable? If it's unimaginable you cannot even discuss it?
You still appear to be speaking with authority regarding a deity with unimaginable attributes, or attributes with unimaginable connotations. From where do you derive your authority to speak on such matters? What is your basis for suggesting anything about a deity's attributes?
NS: McCulloch indicated a good example of approximating conceptual orders of mathematical infinitude (re Cantor). For example the set of all whole numbers. Since they are an infinite set, would you say that they number higher than 10? Would that be: slightly higher, or a lot higher, in your estimation? I would say ‘unimaginably higher.’
I realize that an infinite number series can be ‘known’ to be numerically high, and also unknown. And I can also ‘know’ that any finite number, such as 10, that can itself be known will not suffice for its extent. I can also ‘know,’ and speak about, the relative proportionate distances between the numbers that comprise this infinite series, e.g. that 11 is much closer to 10 than is the number approximating the diameter of our galaxy. And yet, I ‘know’ the differential order of magnitude between 11 and the galactic diameter is negligible (e.g. of a whole other order) in comparison to the unimaginable extent of the set of whole numbers.
Numbers are a logical concept for which infinity has a distinct definition. Numbers are continuous and there is an obvious and objective relation between any two. To derive a correlation between a mathematical example and an example of a subjective notion such as justice simply doesn't work. There are no orders of magnitude of justice because of the subjectivity.
If God's notion of justice is not the human notion of justice, then it's probably simply something different. To call it justice is disingenuous or simply incorrect.
Real: With what authority and on what basis do you judge their meaning and the accuracy of what they are saying? How are you justified in dismissing their intent and the righteousness of that intent?
NS: On the basis of experience, and having been informed by believers themselves. But, I am not “dismissing their intent,� merely describing it for what it is. “Faith� is taken to be a thing to have pride in, by most theists. The ‘faithful’ also see their faith as something to take comfort in, and will readily admit to it; since it is often seen as their ticket to, and hope in, salvation.
You appear to be describing their behavior on the basis of your perspective, for which you have offered no basis. Do you speak from other than your own "faith" or do you have some other basis for your suggestions? I'm putting you in the same boat. You're making claims about a deity with no apparent basis for their correctness.
An anthropomorphized deity who comes replete with high human ideals, all the while being considered ‘vastly superior’ to humans is an absurd inconsistency. If I were to attribute these same qualities to a clam (e.g. mercy, justice, moral supremacy) most would laugh. Yet, our species (signified as a ‘10’) is relative brothers with clams (10 to 9) in comparison to a being that creates a universe ex nihilo (10 to infinity).
To make any kind of comparison between man and a deity you must anthropomorphize to some degree, since we've no evidence of any of the deity's attributes. So in your last statement you're falling victim to it yourself.
You seem to be saying that God is unknowable, but then you go on to say that others are wrong, which suggests that you think you know something about the deity. Which is it? You seem to be trying to speak with authority about the deity. But the deity is unknowable. How does that work?
Real: For communication to work effectively word meaning -- definition, connotation, and semantics --must have similarity between the issuer and receiver.
NS: Ah, there’s the truth of it, “similarity.� Never are words identically defined, since what the word “connotes� to one person with a lifetime of verbal associations, going to match that of another. You and I can discuss the meaning of ‘justice,’ and yes, we will both be on a similar topic, but what each of us takes true ‘justice’ to be, will, I suspect, be miles apart. What does a clam take it to be? What does a creator of universes, with the ‘big picture’ always in His mind, take justice to be? How just and merciful are you to a clam?
And I think we're back to where we started. If Man's notion of justice is not soemthing the deity recognizes, we cannot call a God just.
Any god who demands certain behavior and yet holds man accountable in a fashion that man cannot understand cannot be just, or merciful, nor even good.
Those people who speak with authority on the nature of God claim that He is just and good and merciful.
Unless you are ordained in the orders of one of the established churches, I don't put you into that group. You'll have to exhibit your credentials directly, or at least provide some cognitive basis for your suggestions regarding the deity.
