Intergalactic Summit

Start a thread with any hint of religion in it and every Amarran windbag with a religious opinion rushes comment. Having a conversation with them is like trying to describe a painting to a blind man.

That's funny. I have no idea where to start making one that isn't invariant with respect to time. Of course, I'm interpreting the good old material implication (→) as an expression of the relationship between binary truth values. Truth values that are not intrinsically linked to the time domain, even. We may be talking about different things.

Cpt. Sherezad,

it's only efficient causes that presuppose time. Thus, compairsions of God to fire or other forces of nature might be appropriate, though certainly only as analogies. Just because God is eternal and transcends time doesn't mean he is a-causal in all respects.

Also, I have to agree with Cpt. North: The material conditional is usually not understood as indicating any causality as it's a logical connective. There needs not be a temporal or even any other causal order to the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional. For example:

"If Roden is president of the Federation now, then Domain lies within the Empire and did so for years prior to the election."

The material implication is true, as Roden is president of the Federation and Domain lies within the Empire and did so for centuries. Still, one would not be saying that because the material contional is true that Roden being the president of the Federation is causally responsible for Domain lying within the Empire. Another example:

"If Roden is Emperor of the Amarr in YC111, then --arbitrary statement--."

This conditional is always true, as the antecedent is false. Here, no one would say that the false statement has any causal power, especially since even when the consequent is false, the implication will be true. The material conditional is thus, not mapping to causal relations, especially not of the effective kind.

It is thus neither the timlessness of god, nor a problem of formal logic with God's timelessness that causes us to be unable to prove God formally.

The problem of proving God is another: Formal, that is logical proof presupposes a statement of greater universality from which to deduce that which is to be proven. Stating God, though, is making the statement of highest universality - by definition. Thus, there can't be a statement of greater universality from which to deduce - and thus formally prove - God's existence.

The problem with disputing God's existence here - or a 'godlike' principle doing the same work - is that deduction will falter and proof will stop being accessible in any reasonable way. One needs such a principle as deduction can't be circular and needs a starting point for it to work.

Faithfully,
N. Mithra

What tangible irony.

I think Ms Mithra already provided the answer.

If one refers to the standard figure of an omnipotent being embodied by God and ruling over the universe - which is quite an old and naive concept - then of course it becomes a matter of proof, and a matter of proof impossible to provide.

However, if one refers to the concept of God, the prime mover, the force behind the Creation or the universe, or just more generally the Truth of everything, it is what it is : a concept. Then it is merely a matter of definition, and you can not prove a definition. A definition simply is. Then, this God, simply is. It is mostly a matter of semantics. I am pretty sure a lot of religions have their own variant with its own name.

Hmm.

Miss Farel, I hope it is not rude or insulting of me to say so... But your interpretation of the creator-god as an abtract entity of "movement" and "truth" as opposed to a literal one is, to my eyes, far closer to the Achuran interpretation of the figure then the Amarrian one. (If still not utterly the same.)

You don't happen to identify yourself as such, do you?

You are right, perhaps I have displayed a measure of arrogance in the brief time of our interaction. That is something I will reflect upon.



The Path of Righteousness is narrow and must be tread carefully. If this was meant as an insult, it was not received that way.

Cpt. Ikiryo, I hope you don't think one would be able to get a better picture of God if one stays with a 'literal' concept of God. Yex, I agree that Cpt. Farel's kind of abstraction leads no closer to understanding God. But the idea that He might be expressed and described in human terms without the need to resort to abstraction, analogy and metaphors does as well hamper the understanding of a being that transcends human categories.

Many a devout Achuran might be closer to understanding God than those Amarrians that cling to a folkloristic depiction of God as a fatherly figure with a long white beard sitting on some cloud ready to throw lightning bolts when he gets angry. Yes, those naive depictions might have their place, especially in helping us realize that all our concepts of God are in some respect naive. But there's a time when they outrun their usefulness and should be replaced by more refined and useful concepts. Amarrian theology has no lack of those, after all.

Faithfully,
N. Mithra

But, passive, is only a relative term. Supernovae, tremors, or even a pilot failing to hit his target, may be considered as a more active form of divine action either. Captain Merdaneth for example, was a fervent supporter of such beliefs.

The barrier between passive and active here, is not as clear as it may seem.



Yet, it still is a defintion in your... definition.

Also, it was not in my intention to repeat your point, I only wrote that I agree with it and then added my own view, which I find complementary, nothing more.



My apologies for such an analogy, but this discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions between amarrian priests and scientists I had to witness in the past.