The Power of Prayer

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I am not trying to quantify the Higgs. I said I should first define what I mean by it so people will know what I am talking about.  Don’t you think that is a reasonable suggestion?

[.]

Yes I agree that is a good start lol…but your “analogy” in my mind (I think I know where you are going with this) is that if you are asking for God to be “defined” the same way you would a lesson out of a physics book you just can’t. Some things cannot be defined they can only be described.

[Strega]

@bellerose in the interest of clarity could you give some other examples of things that cannot be defined?  I realize you are referring to a deity, but I’m asking what other, non deity related things cannot be defined.

[.]

@Strega

You cannot define love. You can only describe it. When I tell someone “I love you” that can have different meanings for different people. You cannot give a be-all-end-all definition of it that applies to everyone. You can DESCRIBE love though. I cannot put a definition on the love I have for my son but I can describe it to you.

The Bible says God is love. Maybe that’s why…I don’t know.

[.]

One could argue that we define love as an intense feeling of deep affection but the how do you define affection and how do you define the description of affection? And so on and so forth. If someone asked me for objective evidence of my love I could not provide it. Some things are purely subjective

[Strega]

@Bellerose. Love is an emotion.  Not a ‘thing’.  A response to a ‘thing’ perhaps, but not a ‘thing’.   I do not want to quote others who have defined love far better than I have, in terms of its evidence.  Richard Dawkins wrote a letter to his very young (at that time) daughter covering exactly that.  It’s not the point. Emotions are our reactions to other people or events.

(http://www.rationalresponders.com/richard_dawkins_letter_to_his_10_year_old_daughter_how_to_warn_your_child_about_this_irrational_world)

I’m sure you’re not saying god is a human emotion.  Well fairly sure.  I was just trying to understand the category of ‘things that cannot be defined’.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Strega. Reason: to add the link to RD letter to 10yo

[.]

@strega no god is not an emotion but he is described as love.

And yes love is an emotion but our own INDIVIDUAL experiences of love can only be described.

I cannot define what it is like to be on a desert island I can only describe it.

We can describe our own human experiences we cannot define them and apply that definition to every one on the planet

[.]

So again our human experiences of all kinds are purely subjective and so is our relationship with God

[Simon Paynton]

@bellerose – maybe like this

[Strega]

@bellerose you’re saying you can’t describe what it would FEEL like to be on a desert island.  You are not confused as to what a desert island is.  The equivalent is that you cannot describe what it FEELS like to believe in god.  It doesn’t absolve the need for an understanding as to what god is.

[.]

Here’s something for you Strega:

http://www.dailyedge.ie/8-things-you-cant-describe-no-matter-how-hard-you-try-906176-May2013/

My favorite is you cannot describe the language deaf people think lol

[Strega]

@bellerose it’s funny you should pick the deaf one.  My granddaughter is deaf and as a result we have done quite a lot of research on the subject.  Most interestingly, those people who have never had hearing, dream in sign language!  Those who have had hearing but lost it, still dream in the audio language that they can no longer hear when awake.  Fascinating stuff.

As far as the color red (for example), it is not easy to define how a human INTERPRETS the color, but the color itself is not only easily replicated but explicable in terms of light wave frequency.  And as far as colors we cannot see in that spectrum, we can still define and explain them using physics.

Again, you seem to be including individual human interpretations in your collective of things that can’t be defined.  I think you could easily point to a fire engine and declare it is red, without any dispute. It is objectively red.  What each human does in their brain with that information is not relevant.  The truck is still objectively and definably red.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Strega. Reason: Bloody autocorrect

[.]

@Strega

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24572

More heavy reading, hope you’ve had your coffee!!

quote: (this hits the nail on the head!

 

Thinking further: I suspect you may be principally concerned with the problem of affirming that something (X) exists, and whether this affirmation is meaningful if we lack a definition of X. On the face of it, there would be a problem with someone claiming: “Call the reporters. There is something I will refer to as ‘N,’ but I have absolutely no idea or definition of what ‘N’ might be. It could be an animal or number or time of day, for I know.” Such a claim would be as bizarre as what we find in Alice in Wonderland. Even so, I suggest that we should distinguish claims about meaningful speech and claims about what does or does not exist. Even if we cannot make claims about what does or does not exist without (at least vague) definitions, it is another thing to claim that there only exists things we can make meaningful claims about. Sadly, we can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force which we cannot comprehend (and thus we cannot define) That is such a grim thought to end this reply, let me change the example: we can imagine that cancer and depression might be eradicated by a force that we human beings cannot comprehend or define.

[Strega]

I read this statement.  The author is saying that we should not be restricting our imaginations by focusing on what does or doesn’t physically exist at present.  He/she thinks it’s possible to envisage the entire human race perishing from some force nobody comprehends.

I disagree. If humanity were to be extinguished, I’m afraid it would have to be from disease, absence of habitat, or asteroid.  Anything else of that kind of force majeure would be simply imaginary.  I can imagine flying elephants but physics proves them impossible. (Weight vs aerodynamics).

Cancer will be cured. We are much closer to this than you might imagine.  We have already found how to reprogram our immune cellular activity in respect of certain leukemias!  What would be ridiculous, would be for us to gaily carry out activities we know induce cancers such as smoking, because we held the belief that by the time we get cancer ourselves, scientists will have found a cure.

With the advancement of human knowledge, we have diminished the field of philosophic contemplation  where philosophy is a form of mental exercise and conceptual debate.

[.]

I disagree with your interpretation Strega. I read something totally different into it. He’s addressing the very argument that Reg has been trying to make to me about “defining God.” Look closely…

Thinking further: I suspect you may be principally concerned with the problem of affirming that something (X) exists, and whether this affirmation is meaningful if we lack a definition of X. On the face of it, there would be a problem with someone claiming: “Call the reporters. There is something I will refer to as ‘N,’ but I have absolutely no idea or definition of what ‘N’ might be. It could be an animal or number or time of day, for I know.” Such a claim would be as bizarre as what we find in Alice in Wonderland. Even so, I suggest that we should distinguish claims about meaningful speech and claims about what does or does not exist. Even if we cannot make claims about what does or does not exist without (at least vague) definitions, it is another thing to claim that there only exists things we can make meaningful claims about.

 

Reg head been suggesting that in order to even begin an intelligent debate about “evidence” for a God, there must begin with a definition. I have given my own vague definitions as I see it, but have also stated that you cannot “define” a person, let alone a deity! So the point he is trying to make in my opinion really isn’t helpful in advancing the conversation to a deeper level. We stay stuck on rudimentary language about the daunting task of trying to “define God” and to me, if there is a God he can’t be defined. It would be like me trying to say “Strega, define yourself.” No. Not in your characteristics or personality. That doesn’t count because it’s subjective….you have to give me an objective definition of YOU. Can you do that? I don’t think I can. Not in the way Reg is requested that I define God. Am I making any sense at all? I feel like half the time I say things and then they get twisted around into something else. So if I’m not clear tell me where I’m missing the point, or something….

[Author]

Posts