re: #192 m0nkeyb0y

I have been toying with a theory that such spritual traits might be our vague perception of our parrallel extra-dimensional selves.

LVQ is correct. Advanced science isn’t logical positivist anyway — for example logical positivism doesn’t work for quantum mechanics.

I would agree with you about the “parallel extra-dimensional selves”. Christianity would say that we exist not only within the space-time dimension but also within a supernatural dimension - humanity is sort of a dimensional composite of the space-time and supernatural. The idea that you are toying with is also in philosophy. You should look into Christian Platonism - it will give you background and a philosophical language to branch out with. A History of Philosophy Vol 2 Medieval Philosophy by Copleston would be a good start.

re: #199 Obdicut

I’ve never understood the attraction of belief in a god who created a universe that was somehow fundamentally incomprehensible. It paints god in such a crappy light.

Can you explain philosophy to a cat? No. How about astrophysics? No. Those things are incomprehensible to a cat, it is beyond its capacity to understand them.

It is not that Christians say that we cannot understand the universe, for we clearly say that we can understand the universe, but we also say that comprehending the universe often goes beyond our capacity to understand. We see in a mirror darkly and all that.

re: #349 albusteve

whoa…did you make that up?…I’ve never heard the term impersonal god, but ho w can a life a virture prove an impersonal god?…have you altered the definition of god?

Nope didn’t make that up. You can also find it under the term “non-personal god”, “ground of all being” etc.. When we talk about an “impersonal god” we are talking about a god who is not a person. All that is a “god” is that “thing” to which life is ordered and governed by. The idea that god is a person is not necessary. It is also not necessary to say that god always existed when dealing with a definition of what god is. If one holds, say the virtue of love, as the suprime thing towards which all life is ordered, then that person does in fact believe in something, just not a person.

Problem is that basic definition of what “god” is, is too colored by us being in Western society — everything has been pre-conditioned in a Judo-Christian light. Thus “athiests” tend to reject primarily the Christian concept of God without looking beyond that to a broader philosophical definition.