Originally posted by lucifershammerHmm...what is this 5th dimension? (I think I know but I would rather you tell me as opposed to volunteering a guess)
I'm afraid you are being pedantic. If your objection is that the ants (or whatever) are "really" 3D beings despite their perception and action being limited to 2D then my analogy still works because my counter is that human beings are "really" 5D despite our perception and action being limited to 4D.
What you are supposed to communicate is how beings can affect others outside of their dimensions...not out of their perceived dimensions...You say that God works out of time, This is a bloody massive assertion LH, certainly not one that I would wish to defend or try to make sense out of and it needs more than just a simple analogy to justify it.
Originally posted by AgergMaybe it isn't just five -- there could be more. Five is sufficient, though.
Hmm...what is this 5th dimension? (I think I know but I would rather you tell me as opposed to volunteering a guess)
If I had to give it a name, I'd just call it the "spiritual" dimension.
Originally posted by lucifershammerhmm...and exactly what sort of things reside in this spiritual dimension? (I seem to recall you telling me that our soul or essense is not spiritual/supernatural)
Maybe it isn't just five -- there could be more. Five is sufficient, though.
If I had to give it a name, I'd just call it the "spiritual" dimension.
Bear in mind you posit that our existence is weaved into at least 5 dimensions (one of which being spiritual) so one would infer also that some part of us can be specified in this spiritual dimension, though by your argument in the soul thread... not our essence
Originally posted by AgergNow you're getting confused. I said that the soul needn't be immortal or supernatural or anything like that; I said that the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of soul would be just as valid for an atheist.
hmm...and exactly what sort of things reside in this spiritual dimension? (I seem to recall you telling me that our soul or essense is not spiritual/supernatural)
Bear in mind you posit that our existence is weaved into at least 5 dimensions (one of which being spiritual) so one would infer also that some part of us can be specified in this spiritual dimension, though by your argument in the soul thread... not our essence
I didn't say the soul couldn't have a spiritual/ supernatural/ immortal aspect to it.
In fact, if human beings are 5D beings, then it would be part of the essence (soul) of the human being for a human being to be a 5D being.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHmm...😉
Now you're getting confused. I said that the soul needn't be immortal or supernatural or anything like that; I said that the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of soul would be just as valid for an atheist.
I didn't say the soul couldn't have a spiritual/ supernatural/ immortal aspect to it.
In fact, if human beings are 5D beings, then ...[text shortened]... t would be part of the essence (soul) of the human being for a human being to be a 5D being.
In our soul debate where I threw some specific problems at this forum with regard to the soul concept you stated that the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of soul escapes all of my mind-body problems...
You did state however that our essense is entirely physical. (you also state that the soul need not require any supernatural connotation...and if you say that this doesn't rule out the possibility that it can be supernatural then by stating that it is *only* physical we have ourselves a contradiction)
A quote from your last post in that thread:
An essence is, likewise, always instantiated in physical or "supernatural" "form". With humans, the soul (i.e. the essence) is always instantiated in physical "form".
See, i now have a problem...In this thread, that we exist five dimensionally requires that some part of us is spiritual in nature...yet in my soul thread where I threw at you some problems with this notion you state that our soul/essense is entirely physical 😕 (unless you'd like to say that it is instantiated as a physical entity and then changes to being a supernatural one....though that would give me grounds to refute some of your other assertions)
Originally posted by knightmeisterLets break it down:
To be honest I made the comment because I find philosophical language often inaccessible and unneccesary . If you look at my posts I make every effort to try and use accessible analogies and I very rarely quote scripture. So I'm not going to go away and read 500 pages of post structuralism if I think that there is another , simpler way of someone makin ...[text shortened]... , I had little idea what the post was on about! You may have guessed I'm a plain english fan.
The individual is made a 'subject', through: 1)the internalisation of language ie a super ego a guilty concious;2) representention through ethnicity, cultural, gender, class etc;3)the metaphysics of presense, a truth a logos, or even a god if you like; 4)and lastly by discourses of power that marginlise certain periphery groups such as homosexuals etc. Therefore we have no free will but are merely automatons objectified by all the above....Hope that is plain English enough and that you now understand the post below, I think this is what the author of the post meant, if not please feel free to correct me 🙂
If you forget the God equation and look to post-structural discourse, we haven't got free will either as we're objectifed as subjects through language (Lacan), representation and metaphysics (Derrida), and power and knowledge (Foucault). "We have no free-will, we are as much automaton as mind" (Pascal).
Originally posted by AgergYou did state however that our essense is entirely physical.
Hmm...😉
In our soul debate where I threw some specific problems at this forum with regard to the soul concept you stated that the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of soul escapes all of my mind-body problems...
You did state however that our essense is entirely physical. (you also state that the soul need not require any supernatural connotation...and if you ...[text shortened]... atural one....though that would give me grounds to refute some of your other assertions)
No, I didn't. I hope you're not deliberately misrepresenting my position now because, in Thread 55285 (page 8), I repeatedly asserted that the essence is not something physical (entirely or otherwise).
(you also state that the soul need not require any supernatural connotation...and if you say that this doesn't rule out the possibility that it can be supernatural then by stating that it is *only* physical we have ourselves a contradiction)
For the nth time, the essence/soul is not a "thing" (as we normally use that term in reference to objects). It is neither physical nor supernatural. It is an aspect or element of real "things" -- whether physical or supernatural.
Every being has an essence. It's a metaphysical element of reality. Whether you limit your metaphysics to purely physical beings (as many atheists do) or include non-physical beings (as theists do), it doesn't make a difference to the fact that beings have essences.
See, i now have a problem...In this thread, that we exist five dimensionally requires that some part of us is spiritual in nature...yet in my soul thread where I threw at you some problems with this notion you state that our soul/essense is entirely physical [LH: No, I didn't -- go back and read what I wrote] 😕 (unless you'd like to say that it is instantiated as a physical entity and then changes to being a supernatural one....though that would give me grounds to refute some of your other assertions)
Once again, the "problems" you raised in the thread were mostly (if not all) relevant only to a Cartesian notion of "soul" with mind-body duality. With the Aristotelian notion of 'soul', many of those are irrelevant. Further, nothing about the Aristotelian 'soul' requires you to accept that it is immortal or anything like that. Such propositions need to be supported by further assumptions (such as those provided by Christian Revelation).
This is what I said in the other thread.
And it's not inconsistent what is being said here. In this thread, the idea of five-dimensional human beings naturally rests on assumptions obtained from Christian Revelation. If you reject those further assumptions, then naturally human beings need be only four dimensional. It still doesn't change the fact that they will, nevertheless have essences that dictate that they are (in this metaphysics) four dimensional beings.
Yes, if we exist five dimensionally, then some part of us is spiritual in nature. That "some part" is not the same thing as the soul. The soul is the essence of the entire being -- all five dimensions of it.
That said, that we are five dimensional beings does not necessitate that we have a non-zero value on the fifth dimension, btw. Just as, with the "ant-tray" analogy, we can just as easily consider beings who have non-zero dimensions on only two axes as the beings on the "tray".
I’m limited in my ability to be here, so forgive me if I can’t respond as quickly as I used to. But, I thought I’d pay my old friends a visit, and this discussion struck me as interesting.
_____________________________________
I have some questions about the “multiple dimensions” analogy, which assumes that all the beings in question are constrained by some bounds of dimensionality, whether two dimensions (“flat world” ), four dimensions, or more...
If God is a being that “exists within” (or is conditioned/constrained by) some matrix of dimensionality, albeit not to the same extent as we are (i.e., in our four dimensions), then I think the analogy might hold (but see my point (4) below)—so long as one also assumes that such a God is able to somehow voluntarily constrain God-self within such narrower dimensional confines in order to accomplish certain things (such as revelation or incarnation); in which case, God’s abilities would be constrained by those dimensional bounds, as long as they are actual, and not simply “perceptual.”
On the other hand, if one really intends to argue that his/her God is somehow “beyond” the confines of dimensionality altogether—
(1) It becomes difficult to conceive of such a God as a being at all; that is the notion of such an “unbounded being” does not seem to me to be coherent.
(2) The notion of non-dimensionality does not seem to me to be coherent, either.
(3) If God is bounded by dimensionality, then terms such as omnipotent are not strictly correct—although I recall LH once using the phrase “maximally potent,” which could be construed as being maximal within some dimensional bounds.
(4) Since LH’s reference to the “spiritual dimension” moves beyond “physical” dimensionality, I am wondering about the notion of “metaphysical dimensionality” generally, and what that means...?
—It strikes me that one must first assume a “metaphysical dimension” that is actual, but exists beyond the natural order of the cosmos—i.e., a “supernatural” or “extra-natural” dimension—before one can properly talk about theos at all, or what dimensions such a theos can communicate and act in, or how. Such a “supernatural category” (as I call it) must be assumed because there could well be aspects of the natural order that simply transcend our cognitive abilities, without being in any way “extra-natural.” (I think LH agrees with this.) One can be Taoist, a Zennist, a thoroughgoing pantheist, without relinquishing the notion of “ultimate and ineffable mystery.”
Why should we think we are the only being whose cognitive abilities vis-à-vis the cosmos in which we live are unlimited (within the bounds of that cosmos), and that anything that is not accessible to our understanding must be “supernatural”? (A scientist qua scientist cannot, of course, arbitrarily limit the scope of her investigations by assuming “unknowables” that may not turn out to be unknowable.)
______________________________________________
So, I guess the bottom-line question here is whether the argument is:
(i) that God is a dimensionally bounded being, with whatever limitations that entails (i.e., that God is just the “superest” of all such beings)? Or,
(ii) that God somehow “exists” in a state of non-dimensionality, in which case how that is coherent needs to be addressed? Or,
(iii) that “God” is really being-itself, and as such includes dimensionality (in a similar way to which the cosmos includes the physical dimensions), which is really a monistic—as opposed to a theistic—view?
It would be helpful if theists were a bit clearer about which argument they are ultimately making...
______________________________________________
Warmest greetings to one and all!
Originally posted by vistesdWow, I thought you were gone forever. Nice to see you!
I’m limited in my ability to be here, so forgive me if I can’t respond as quickly as I used to. But, I thought I’d pay my old friends a visit, and this discussion struck me as interesting.
_____________________________________
I have some questions about the “multiple dimensions” analogy, which assumes that all the beings in question are constrained b ...[text shortened]... making...
______________________________________________
Warmest greetings to one and all!