From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Subject: Re: absolute truth tests
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:41:03 GMT

In article <olFnr*Of1@bkhouse.cts.com> nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.181758.2155@tc.fluke.COM>, Arnold E. Nordeng writes:
>
>> In article <l693ikINN4db@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>> >>(Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>> >
>> >>Unaffirmability is a test for falsity.
>> >
>'God exists' is unaffirmable in any objective terms. Were it not, you wouldn't
>have so many problems getting people to see your point. 

Then its a problem with the definition of unaffirmability.  "I cannot express
myself in words" is unaffirmable.  I guess I could define unaffirmability
to mean that which is rationally inescapable.  One can as easily say 
"God exists, or God does not exist".  Both are equally difficult to 
affirm, but both may *not* be impossible to affirm.  Just because you 
don't understand God or know God doesn't mean he doesn't or does exist.  
I am not saying he exists, I am saying that if he exists, he must be a 
being.  From your point of view, I may not exist.  But something does exist, 
and undeniably so.  Your own existence cannot be denied.  Even if you
are a product of your own imagination, you must exist to imagine.
Or unless you want to show that non-existence can imagine.

>If God exists, then God exists is comparison to what? Non-existence. But
>if God is an entity which exists upon non-existence, then God is no longer
>the Alpha and Omega, first and last, omni-present, omnipotent, as God
>came into existence from non-existence which preceeds God. If we give
>God existence, then we must ask: how was God brought into existence?
>So, if God was not brought into existence, then God does not exist. Taken
>together, we have God exists and God does not exist, or God both exists
>and not-exists. Alone each are unaffirmable, together less so.
>
>Does this mean that God is false? Of course not. It merely means that God 
>is unaffirmable.
>

You have not show unaffirmability.
[the following is based on the premise that God does exist]
How do you go from contrasting "existence and non-existence", to "God
came into existence from nonexistence which preceeds God"?  If non
existence preceeds God, then how can God come into being?  Can nothing
create something?  Does God have a cause?  Then I would conclude that
the cause (the creator) of God is greater, which would make God only
a little "g" god.  Nothing cannot create something.  In fact what
you accuse Christians for "anthropomorphizing" God, you have done
to God to assume s/he needed to *come* into existence.

It is unreasonable to ask "how God came into existence".  That immediately
assumes God is not eternal.  If God is not eternal, then we have
an infinite regress of caused causes.  (What caused God, What caused the
cause of God, what caused the cause of the cause of God.....).  
If God is eternal, we have one uncaused cause of all that is finite, 
changing, and contingent.


>(I'm sure that you think God is affirmable, but affirmability, to meet
>tests of formal logic and whatnot, must be objectively derived without
>dependence on belief systems. If you disagree, please give examples of
>how God is affirmable in objective terms, without scripture.)

I am not going about it that simply.  I did not state God is affirmable,
(yet ;-) ).  Don't read into what I am stating and confuse it with what
I believe.  The only issue I am addressing is absolute truth, not whether
God exists, or if the bible is the absolute truth.....etc.

>
>> >>God s/he must state, "God is, but I am not" which is self defeating.
>> >
>> >S/he could state all is God, and I am god, which fits the premise.
>> 
>> And is unaffirmable.
>
>But not false... 

It is metaphysically indifferent from atheism.  Just the term "God" is
attached to all there is.  It is false simply because there is
no way to affirm it even if you knew it for certain. 
It has no contrast, no meaning. 

>Let's try another statement: The Bible is God's inspired and infallible 
>word to man. Is this affirmable? Not without self-reference, which does 
>not meet the test of affirmability. Is it deniable? Again, not without 
>bringing in other non-affirmable ideas to build the case of deniability. 
>The statement is neither purely affirmable nor deniable. Does this make
>it true or false? Neither.

The only issue I am addressing is absolute truth.  
>
>Wrong. I take it that you are not familiar with dialetic both/and 
>philosophical structures? The above statements are not conclusive that
>God has no meaning, but rather that God has *all* meaning. 
>

Wrong?  Now Norm, coming from the sea of relativity,  and both/and
philosophical systems, how can you say this? ;-)
Reality must be non-contradictory.  It is so interesting how you come
out of your relativistic to make an absolutist statement such as "wrong."
Aren't I right as much as I am wrong? ;-)  You are untrue to what
you believe.

>> For meaning only exists when there is contrast with something else.
>
>Only in either/or philosophical systems. Not something I subscribe to,
>preferring the both/and systems. I think you'll find that a lot of people
>in the newage movement feel the same way, philosophically speaking. Still,
>look what happens above if I apply your same contrast idea to existence
>itself.
>
>By the way, please do distinguish between pantheistic newage thought
>and panentheistic newage thought. There is "God is all and all is God",
>and there is "God is *in* all, and all is *in* God". 
>

I was only taking on the pantheistic point, not panentheistic, which 
has its own set of problems.  If you want, I will address them. ;-)

>Ah, but you can deny your own existence, as has been done many times
>throughout philosophical history.

O.K. Norm.  We'll start of something simple.  Show a logic proof
using whatever logic system you want:

Prove:
I cannot express myself in words.

>
>
>Norm.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Norman R. Kraft 			   INET  : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
>Senior Partner				   UUCP  : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
>Argus Computing 			   GENIE : N.KRAFT3
>San Diego, CA				   
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Arnold 
-- 
_______________________
-Arnold Nordeng           
 nordenga@tc.fluke.COM

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill 
 Him a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
 and God.  But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense 
 about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that 
 open to us.  He did not intend to."
                                        -C.S. Lewis.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3408 alt.alien.visitors:4657 sci.skeptic:13033