A Logical Approach To The Concept Of A Creator God II (experience, service)

[SamuelSmith]

Beyond the relative universe, there are no hooks for the intellect to grab on. When we attempt to imagine what is beyond this, all we come up with is fanciful versions of what we have already experienced in the relative universe.

Look at what the intellect has offered up thus far. The most common thought is that what is beyond the relative universe is a deity. But the concept of deity is an aggrandized individual and that reduces to matter and energy which are constituents of the relative universe. Also suggested is some vast field of energy. But energy also is a constituent of the relative universe. Some see the foundation of the relative universe as sub or sub-sub atomic particles. But that, too, is but a reductionist view of matter and energy. To use an old analogy, intellect is like the dot in a line world that can not conceive of a plane or the inhabitants of flat world being unable imagine a three dimensional reality.

Mod Note: this is a portion of the original post, which has been edited in accordance with RF's terms of service regarding copywritten material. The full essay can be found here.

[Storm]

You admit that what lies beyond the universe is beyond the human imagination, and then you proceed to attribute human rules to it. That is erroneous.

[SamuelSmith]

Storm,

It has been my intention to show that human rules attributed to whatever may be beyond the relative universe are but projections or enhancements of what is know within the relative universe.

[Storm]

Well, if that was your intention, you failed.

[SamuelSmith]

Apparently I did, Storm.

This is the section where I made that argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the relative universe, there are no hooks for the intellect to grab on. When we attempt to imagine what is beyond this, all we come up with is fanciful versions of what we have already experienced in the relative universe.

Look at what the intellect has offered up thus far. The most common thought is that what is beyond the relative universe is a deity. But the concept of deity is an aggrandized individual and that reduces to matter and energy which are constituents of the relative universe. Also suggested is some vast field of energy. But energy also is a constituent of the relative universe. Some see the foundation of the relative universe as sub or sub-sub atomic particles. But that, too, is but a reductionist view of matter and energy. To use an old analogy, intellect is like the dot in a line world that can not conceive of a plane or the inhabitants of flat world being unable imagine a three dimensional reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure that you are not confusing my stating of existing arguments with my own?

[Storm]

I'm sorry, but it wasn't well-argued. I had a devil of a time finding a point in that rather long post, and what I came up with was a far cry from what you claim. I'm still not sure of the point you're trying to make, other than to discredit theism.

[SamuelSmith]

Storm, the topic is devilishly difficult and the few words allowed by an essay can only be an enhanced outline. Yes, the point that I am making is that theism is a mistaken notion. That is it. Of course, there is a lot more but too much for one essay.

If you see anything specifically that you find difficult, let me know. Look at this as a beta test.

[Storm]

The thing is, theism is unfalisfiable. You don't KNOW it's mistaken, you can't.

[SamuelSmith]

But I CAN challenge the ideas that support it.

[Storm]

Fair enough.