And I was saying that what amounts to a conceivable test rests largely on the sorts of assumptions we accept as valid.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
I guess my point was whether this really could, or should, be given. I don't know of very many people who are proposing that kind of God.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
Not an exact analog, no. It was merely a device to point out that we can, and do, test meta-properties. We might not be able to see or directly detect God (if one exists), but we might well be able to detect some effect that can only, or best, be explained by reference to some special entity.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
Well, just what makes God nebulous and ineffable if not our own limits? I can hear the obvious reply: "Well, how about the nebulous ineffability of God?". But it has to be acknowledged that if our powers of perception and deduction were strong enough, that wouldn't matter.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
First, it should be pointed out that this was a set of properties concocted by Anselm, a monk and later Archbishop who probably didn't have access to the entire corpus of the JudeoChristian tradition or scripture at the time he formulated the ontological argument. He was just sitting around thinking about what would be God, in his opinion. Unfortunately, his idea gained extraordinary influence on western thought, thanks to a variety of accidents of history.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
I rather prefer, if we're going to talk about God, to either consider the Gods directly experienced by mystics and prophets, or possibly the thing designated by a particular version of the cosmological argument.
Well...I mostly agree, but I would propose a couple of caveats, and I think those make some difference. First, we have to mean something reasonably definite when we use the term "mind." We're talking about something that has percepts, thinks thoughts (however exalted), and has motives (however inscrutable to us). Second, whether we could fathom those or other aspects of such a mind is a different question from whether we could detect their existence. Motives that are accompanied by actions leave a signature in all but a single kind of case.Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon
Now God might have a radically different nature, as you say. But if it's radical enough, does it really have a mind? Not in the way in which we mean the term.