The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
A simpler version of yesterday's "What's a bird?" by BaruMonkey2006-11-19 12:55:59
  ANYTHING by daemon_poet2006-07-26 07:49:45
    Is a stone a chair by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 07:50:39
      Is a chair a chair by bitflipper2006-07-26 07:52:15
        Yes. by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 07:54:12
          Perception is the key by bitflipper2006-07-26 07:56:32
            You can't say "how long is the chair a chair" by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 07:58:45
              Sure I can; who says I actually have to make sense by bitflipper2006-07-26 08:03:12
                Hmm, I think I see your point... by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 08:22:12
                  While you're chewing... by bitflipper2006-07-26 08:27:09
                    Hmm, not sure I agree by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 08:29:50
                      Where's the problem? by bitflipper2006-07-26 08:36:35
                        I still disagree by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 08:38:36
                          So there is an ideal chair? by bitflipper2006-07-26 08:41:09
                            There is an ideal chair. by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 08:42:42
                              Oh, how to attack that one? by bitflipper2006-07-26 08:51:53
                                Just because the mind of God by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 08:59:41
                                But if the ideal of a chair exists by bitflipper2006-07-26 09:08:36
                                I'm not clear here by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 09:15:20
                                It still all boils down to a chair only existing.. by bitflipper2006-07-26 09:49:05
                                Well, by MatthewDBA 2006-07-26 10:03:40
when you say "it only exists when God looks at it, and at no other time," you're assuming that God is subject to the constraints of time - that one can say "God is perceiving the chair now, but he wasn't five minutes ago". I don't believe that's the case. I don't see why it's a logical consequence of my belief to say that the ideal chair exists in a concrete and perceivable form. (Which, incidentally, begs the question "perceivable by whom?")

What is to prevent some other part of reality from perceiving the ideal chair differently than God perceives it? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. God's perception of "chair" is itself the ideal chair. Other people's perceptions are not the ideal, except perhaps to the extent that they may be able to share or interpret God's perception.

Stating that God's essence is his existence is not a tautology. Here again, perhaps I'm not being clear. What I'm trying to convey here is perhaps the idea that the best way to describe God is to say that "to be God is to be that which exists, and which *must* exist."

As far as Deism: Deism doesn't reserve the wonder of all existence for a specific class of being; it acknowledges the wonder of all existence, and attributes it to this (class of) being. How does it denigrate me to say "The universe is wonderful, but not because of me."?

Perhaps I might say that a chair exists only as, and to the extent that, *God* perceives it to be a chair.
[ Reply ]
                                Then what we are left with is... by bitflipper2006-07-26 10:45:22
                                If it is possible that you by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 11:04:08
                                O-kay, I understand "necessarily", in that context by bitflipper2006-07-26 11:52:26
                                Nice one by MatthewDBA2006-07-26 12:29:31
                                Trouble is.. by bitflipper2006-07-26 12:42:37

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)