3
4

TheismIs God physical? Does he have mass, density or angular momentum somewhere in space? (self.DebateReligion)

MikeyTupper が 投稿

It occurred to me that the existence of god poses a problem. If he exists, he must be somewhere. As such, he must have information like all other things in the universe, that information being mass, density, volume. If he is anywhere in the universe he is also likely to be spinning very fast and have a gravitational pull, as gravitation is a fundamental force with infinite range that acts on everything.

If you adopt the stance that he created the universe, you can easily set him as an entity separate from the universe, an outside creator. Still it poses the question of his residency. If he created this universe and is not inside it, he must be outside somewhere, right?

And if he is inside the boundaries of our universe, then surely he has physical information.

It seems to me that if there is no physical information about god, he does not possess physicality of any kind and thus has no existence.

Thoughts?

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 329
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Aeraerae 35ポイント36ポイント  (188子コメント)

It seems to me that if there is no physical information about god, he does not possess physicality of any kind and thus has no existence

"Hey theists, if I assume ontological physicalism, stuff that isn't physicalist doesn't fit in my ontology. What gives?"

[–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 7ポイント8ポイント  (39子コメント)

So if something isn't physical but it can affect the physical realm then there's some boundary between this non-physical and physical that can be detected. Do we have examples of this bridge?

[–]OediumAgnostic l Ardent Triclavianist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some people would just talk about real patterns - market equilibria exist in a real sense (very arguably) so do prime numbers and centers of gravity, as well as other abstracta we are motivated to put in our account of existence in any science-informed metaphysic. So even though physics has a position of priority in determining what is real (a statement that goes against the physicist's consensus can comfortably be rejected as false) if we were to rely on it solely we would miss out on much. This is beyond abstracta being some useful fiction, when we consider how faulty it is to build up the full scientific image from a purely physical study of things.

Others might talk about a more straightforward breaking of causation and natural order. This is usually called a miracle. We could also consider epiphenomenal accounts, where one side can't causally effect the other, but we could see their relationship (consciousness). Then there's still dualistic and idealist arguments.

But yeah, theism requires non-physicalism, and any occasion where God intervenes to supercede the natural order he set out from creation is supernatural in essence (unless you're a muslim) and would be what theists would tell you to look for most directly, but isn't the only thing to look for.

[–]Josh_xP -1ポイント0ポイント  (30子コメント)

Gravity?

[–]MikeyTupper[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

black holes?

[–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (25子コメント)

We know how gravity works.

[–]mecartistronicoatheist 9ポイント10ポイント  (8子コメント)

We know what it does, we can accurately describe its effects, but as far as I know we're still a little fuzzy on the why or how.

[–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

very*

You misspelled "very fuzzy".

[–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

We agree that there's nothing supernatural about gravity, right?

[–]temporarily-in-orderagnostic agnostic 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Eh, not really. I imagine at some point you have to point to some natural law, and then you end up having to explain what the heck that is. And that explanation better be a whole lot better than something which could be synonymous with "god did it".

[–]aaronshermanmonist gnostic -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. In other words, the distinction between "physical" and "supernatural" is a) vague at best and b) probably a false dichotomy.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]OediumAgnostic l Ardent Triclavianist 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

    not really

    [–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

    We do?

    [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist -3ポイント-2ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Yes, get a pencil and throw it into the air. God doesn't push it down.

    [–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

    QED theoretical physicists. Write this down and hand SsurebreC his Nobel Prize.

    [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Nah, I want things that don't exist in reality to be true. Let's start with my invisible friends and assume they exist because they just do. We have no way of verifying it but hey, why not?

    [–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You realize I'm an atheist, right....?

    [–]Shitgensteinanti-theist/anti-atheist 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Saying "it's not God" is not an explanation of how gravity works. Saying "it's not X" is not an explanation of how anything works.

    [–]MikeyTupper[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    It's a part of the process of eliminating all non-viable explanations.

    [–]Shitgensteinanti-theist/anti-atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Still a far cry from an actual explanation, also considering divine agency is unfalsifiable.

    Why are "agnostic atheists" on Reddit so willing to make silly statements, like that gravity has been explained, in order to win internet arguments with theists? It's so single-minded.

    [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    But I didn't claim that gravity is explained. It's one of the least understood things in the universe.

    [–]Willfreeagnostic anti-objectivist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Probably for the same reason they choose agnostic atheism.

    [–]aaronshermanmonist gnostic -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Amusingly, it's also not a valid way to establish that it's not X.

    When I throw a pencil in the air, the pencil follows the curvature of spacetime back to the ground. That's pretty much all we know. It tells us very little, in reality. Is it fair to say that "God did it?" I don't know. My inclination is to say that, "God always did it," but that's not a terribly useful answer if you want to understand a phenomenon.

    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

        [–]ideatremor 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Can you give me a good reason to NOT assume physicalism? Seems any other ontology is just making shit up.

        [–]JoebloggyAtheist; Modwatch 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Quine-Putnam indispensibility argument along with an argument from Fregean Semantics, Moral non-naturalism, even other variants of plain Moral Realism. I can elaborate on these if you want.

        [–]MikeyTupper[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (145子コメント)

        I don't even know what physical ontology is, I'm just talking about things that are and aren't

        [–]N0CLASS 12ポイント13ポイント  (115子コメント)

        He's saying that your argument assumes an unstated, unsupported premise: what exists is limited to what is physical. Your reasoning is thus fallacious.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (66子コメント)

        The word "exist" becomes meaningless if it is not confined to the physical.

        Put another way, if things not physical exist, then by definition, we can't know that. There is absolutely no way to determine whether a non-physical thing is invisible incorporeal unicorns, or God.

        [–]fwau 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

        Idealism is a school of thought that allows for the existence of the non-physical by claiming that all things are non-physical, with only a small subset of those things having properties that we attribute to "physical" matter.

        If you ask an idealist how can we interact with non-physical things, he will respond "because we're non-physical."

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

        Sure, but that's an obviously unsupported claim. The existence of a claim does not make it correct. Telling me that some school of thought exists that disagrees with me, when I'm already attacking Thomism, the Talmud and thousands of years of philosophy is not particularly daunting.

        The science says what the science says. I don't blame people for getting it wrong before that, but I do ask that people change their beliefs to fit the evidence.

        [–]PostFunktionalistagnostic xor atheist 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Science doesn't really tell us anything on the matter actually. As it so happens, empiricism is associated with idealism over materialism.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        That's vaguely interesting to me, but because I am not familiar enough with the names of the schools of thought, that doesn't mean much to me. I would like to read more about it, but I have not been able to find a modern book on the different schools and their evidence and their criticism.

        [–]PostFunktionalistagnostic xor atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ is a good overview of the debate.

        Empiricism typically likes idealism because there's nothing in our sense experiences which directly says "the things we're experiencing are physical non-mental sorts of stuff".

        [–]fwau 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

        What does science say about this? I was under the impression that this is a philosophical discussion still being debated by scholars to this day. Could you point me to the peer-reviewed scientific study that contains indisputable evidence that the materialism paradigm is correct and idealism is wrong?

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

        No, because I can't prove a negative.

        Again, I can tell you that no evidence has ever been presented ever to support the existence of non-physical things, and that, absent evidence, a hypothesis should be discarded, or at least kept as a possibility and no more.

        [–]fwau 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        "There is no such thing as non-physical phenomena because we haven't found any physical evidence of them."

        See the loop? We are encountering a fundamental syntax error here. We're asking the wrong questions, making the wrong assumptions. Science is painting itself into a corner.

        [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

        No, because I can't prove a negative.

        Yes, you literally can. People do this all the time.

        Again, I can tell you that no evidence has ever been presented ever to support the existence of non-physical things,

        Sure, there's no physical evidence, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence at all to support the existence of non-physical things.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

        What evidence would you like to discuss?

        [–]oldmoneeyagnostic 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Just stop thinking of God as an actual entity floating about and instead consider it a present force.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

        But that doesn't mean anything, at least without more information. I don't know what a present force is, except for the 4 fundamental forces. But those I believe in only because evidence supports their existence. Give me the same standard for God and I'm golden.

        [–]EvilVeganignostic apatheist | Don't Know, Don't Care. 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

        There has to be a lower level force. Or higher level. Something has to exist out of which the other forces can exist, even if it's just a probability field.

        Theists attribute too much to the field/source; but there logically has to be something. There is necessarily some sort of force or quality of reality that "predates" spacetime.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        That's not good enough. There doesn't have to logically be anything. There might be, but there might not. Pretending otherwise hurts our ability to look at the question without bias.

        [–]EvilVeganignostic apatheist | Don't Know, Don't Care. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        There logically has to exist something that allows the existence of our reality. The 4 fundamental forces are insufficient to explain the existence of "something" rather than "nothing".

        There has to exist the potential for something to exist for something to exist.

        It's a metaphysical claim with full logical support.

        The answer likely lies in quantum physics; not in philosophy. But the question rests in philosophy.

        [–]oldmoneeyagnostic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        This is a hypothetical discussion, no one's here to convince you of the existence of God. We're just talking about the concept of a god with mass or without mass, for neither of which exists evidence, so I don't see why you'd bring that up.

        [–]hammiesink 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

        The word "exist" becomes meaningless if it is not confined to the physical.

        This is one of the worst habits to plague modern pop-level atheism, and it's so common: the presupposition of materialism. The mainstream view of mathematical objects it that they really exist, but are non material. This is also circular, since no theist is going to agree with it. You are basically just arguing:

        1. Materialism is true
        2. Therefore, materialism is true

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

        That's a lot to digest, and I'll read it and comment further.

        I'm arguing that the materialism appears to work, and that dualism supposes unnecessary arguments in order to answer questions that have already been answered by materialism. If I have two options, one that is supported by evidence and has been the answer to every question asked so far, I'll take that option over a theory that is more complicated but has never been supported by evidence.

        Now, obviously I need to read more. I'll be the first to admit that. Is there a modern book that goes over the various leading theories and covers the vocab? I feel like the baggage that a lot of these terms have is a barrier to communication on the forum and I'd like to correct that.

        [–]mektrik 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        To clarify, dualism often means something different than what you perhaps mean here, best to steer clear of the term.

        If I have two options, one that is supported by evidence...

        This isn't an empirical/scientific debate as well, you can't use empirical data to support empiricism. It's a bit circular.

        To get the basics down I'd recommend the SEP and maybe IEP.

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

        [–]hammiesink -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I'm arguing that the materialism appears to work, and that dualism...

        For one thing, "dualism" has nothing to do with mathematical platonism. Dualism is the view that the human mind is a separate substance from physical stuff. Mathematical platonism is the view that mathematical objects exist and are separate from human minds.

        My point is not that either view is correct, but that simply assuming that only physicalism is correct is question-begging, since the theist is never going to accept that in the first place. It's like the theist offering an argument for God that starts with the Bible being God's word: the atheist isn't going to accept that, so it isn't an effective argument for God.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        And that point makes sense.

        [–]aaronshermanmonist gnostic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        The word "exist" becomes meaningless if it is not confined to the physical.

        And how are you defining physical? Does the integer number line exist? Does truth exist? What is this property of "existing" and is it physical?

        You're in some very deep water when you assert that only physical things exist. Arguably, you are denying existence entirely by doing so, but that's a much more complex argument to have. At the very least, you are denying the existence of a whole host of abstracts that many ontologies that are perfectly self-consistent rely on.

        [–]N0CLASS 0ポイント1ポイント  (38子コメント)

        Prove our knowledge is limited to what is physical. Also you are operating on the assumption that nonphysical things cannot or don't interact with physical things.

        [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 3ポイント4ポイント  (29子コメント)

        How can you interact non-physically with something?

        [–]N0CLASS 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I've made no positive claims. I'm asking for the poster to support his position that: what exists is limited to what is physical.

        [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I'm not the one who made an argument. I'm a third-party who is interested in you elaborating on the claim you did make, namely, the claim that the the argument is resting on the assumption that nonphysical things cannot or don't interact with physical things.

        If you don't want to elaborate on your seemingly incoherant claim, that's fine.

        [–]fwau 0ポイント1ポイント  (26子コメント)

        Its easy if everything is non-physical.

        [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 0ポイント1ポイント  (25子コメント)

        How would you define "interact" in lieu of physicality?

        [–]fwau 0ポイント1ポイント  (24子コメント)

        "Be aware of in some way or another." Or "exchange data in some way or another."

        [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 0ポイント1ポイント  (23子コメント)

        How does one exchange data without a physical medium?

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

        I can't prove a negative.

        But nothing that have ever been documented have ever been shown to be non-physical. I have no desire to assume that a phenomenon (God) that has never been supported by any substantial evidence and, if true, makes the world make less sense, also has a unique property that has, in and of itself never been shown to be possible, let alone a property that anything real has.

        Believing in non-physical things is just as illogical as believing in the existence of flargglets. It has no meaning, since there is no concept of what non-physical would even mean, just like you have no concept of what a flargglet might be. (I picture some kind of sickly bird).

        [–]N0CLASS 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

        Opening tins of canned rhetoric is no substitute for a well reasoned argument. Try making one.

        [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Back at you. I thought my argument was well reasoned. If I am wrong, I beg pardon, but I also beg the courtesy of correction, so that I may err less in the future.

        コメントをもっと表示する (48 返事)

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 1ポイント2ポイント  (28子コメント)

          Why can't things without physicality of any kind exist?

          [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

          If we are expanding the definition of "exist" to things that are not physical, then by what new criteria do we have to distinguish things that exist and things that don't exist.

          Previously, we distinguished that fact through physical presence. How would this new system work?

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

          then by what new criteria do we have to distinguish things that exist and things that don't exist.

          Things which have a causal effect on the universe.

          we distinguished that fact through physical presence

          You may have, but a great deal of metaphysicians have not.

          [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

          Things which have a causal effect on the universe.

          Can you give an example of such involving non-physical concepts?

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

          Can you give an example of such involving non-physical concepts?

          Mathematics.

          [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 4ポイント5ポイント  (12子コメント)

          Mathematics have a causal effect on the universe?

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

          Mathematics has a causal effect yes, particularly if we consider formal causes.

          [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

          How so?

          [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

          Because the word "exist" becomes meaningless if it is not confined to the physical.

          Put another way, if things not physical exist, then by definition, we can't know that. There is absolutely no way to determine whether a non-physical thing is invisible incorporeal unicorns, or God.

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

          Because the word "exist" becomes meaningless if it is not confined to the physical.

          I'd disagree. See: morality, mathematics.

          Put another way, if things not physical exist, then by definition, we can't know that.

          Once again, I'd disagree. It can be possible to intuit the existence of such things. There have been a number of explanations why, beginning as early as Plato (who suggested our minds can interact with the immaterial because they are themselves immaterial).

          [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

          Our minds are physical. We can read thoughts and while we still have much to learn, every indication has been that the brain is the mind.

          Morality and mathematics are concepts, which appear to be nothing more than physical patterns of brain cells. They appear to be quite physical. The disease acalculia indicates that we just need to find the location in the brain to be able to quite literally remove mathematics physically from someone.

          [–]JustDoItPeopleWhat if Kierkegaard and Thomas had a baby? 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Our minds are physical.

          Hold on just a second partner. That's not a universally acknowledge claim among those who study the mind.

          Morality and mathematics are concepts

          There are arguments that they are much more than concepts.

          [–]Fuck_if_I_knowex-atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Morality and mathematics are concepts, which appear to be nothing more than physical patterns of brain cells.

          Rather it appears they are not this. For instance, if I want to see what the sum of two and three is, I can't add up some patterns of brain cells (really, it's unclear what that even means). So there is clearly some difference between a physical pattern of brain cells and a number.

          [–]rawrnnn 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The way that brains encode information is incredibly complex and largely outside our mastery. It's obviously more complicated than an 8-bit adder (which is why we suck at math despite how big our brains are) but there's no reason to believe that the physical state of our brain doesn't somehow correspond those numbers.

          [–]Fuck_if_I_knowex-atheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          there's no reason to believe that the physical state of our brain doesn't somehow correspond those numbers.

          I just gave you one. I'm sure that when we think of a number that is in some way related to our brain, but whatever happens in my brain when I add up two and three is not the same thing as what's going on in the addition itself. If people were to completely figure our neuroscience, that would have no impact on mathematics. Making vague gestures at the complexity of the brain does nothing to alleviate this objection.

          [–]rawrnnn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          whatever happens in my brain when I add up two and three is not the same thing as what's going on in the addition itself

          I'm not even sure if I'm arguing with you here, but what do you mean? What is going on in the addition itself?

          When computers add numbers, we know exactly how the addition "happens" because we designed the machine.

          When our brain adds numbers, we don't really know how the mechanism is working but there's surely correspondence. For example, you could MRI brain activity and note that adding larger numbers produced more electrical activity.

          Extrapolating this idea further back... every mathematical idea, insight, intuition, and theory that we know of had to originate in a human brain. So in one sense I agree with you: math isn't defined by physical reality. But all of the math we will ever know of is.

          [–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Morality and mathematics are concepts

          I mean, no.

          [–]fwau 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          OK, but "we can't know it exists" is not the same things as "it cannot exist."

          [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          For all intents and purposes it is, unless we're going to sanction arguing about angels on pinheads.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 12ポイント13ポイント  (44子コメント)

          If he exists, he must be somewhere.

          Why?

          As such, he must have information like all other things in the universe, that information being mass, density, volume.

          A photon doesn't have mass, yet it exists. An electron has no volume, yet it exists.

          Even assuming you were able to phrase a better definition of what it means to be physical, there are other examples. The number three doesn't seem to be in any way physical, yet it still clearly both "has information" and is often held to exist?

          If he is anywhere in the universe he is also likely to be spinning very fast and have a gravitational pull, as gravitation is a fundamental force with infinite range that acts on everything.

          What. Why.

          If he created this universe and is not inside it, he must be outside somewhere, right?

          Does the concept of location even make sense outside of the universe?

          he does not possess physicality of any kind and thus has no existence.

          This seems to involve a hidden premise of "things without physical attributes do not exist". Do you have any argument for that premise?

          [–]MikeyTupper[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (22子コメント)

          You're right that they don't have mass but all particles have information (say electrical charge). Everything in the universe has information about itself. God does not have any yet people claim he is real.

          And yes, gravitation is a fundamental force that acts on all things across the universe. I don't know why you acted perplexed by me saying this

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 7ポイント8ポイント  (21子コメント)

          You seem to have ignored most of my questions about what your argument actually is. Could you try answering them? Further, could you define what you mean by "information"?

          [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (20子コメント)

          sorry i was at work on mobile. Let me explain more.

          what I mean by ''information'' is the state of a system. Its electrical charge, spin, mass, volume, density when applicable.

          This information cannot, by the laws of our universe, arise from nowhere nor can it disappear, and all things must possess some of these physical properties, otherwise they simply do not exist. God has no such physical information, and I am calling on the absurdity that he could exist in a non-physical form (what form?).

          Locality outside the universe is indeed non-sensical. I was ruling out the possibility that it exists.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 6ポイント7ポイント  (19子コメント)

          by the laws of our universe

          Do these laws exist? They do not seem to have the necessary physical properties for you to consider them to exist, and yet you clearly argue as if they did exist?

          [–]MikeyTupper[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

          I'm sure you've heard of Einstein and his work

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

          This does not seem like an answer to the questions I asked. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?

          [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

          these laws exist as fundamental forces of nature. Weak radiation, strong radiation, electromagnetic and gravity. There are particles that we can observe, that exist physically, mediating these universal forces. So yes, the laws of the universe are actually physical things.

          Hence my reply.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 3ポイント4ポイント  (15子コメント)

          So yes, the laws of the universe are actually physical things.

          What is the electrical charge of the Pauli exclusion principle? How much does the second law of thermodynamics weigh? What is the velocity of wave-particle duality?

          If these questions don't make sense, and you assert that questions of this type make sense for all physical things, how can you assert that the laws of physics are physical things?

          [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

          there is also a big difference between something and the state of a thing. The second law of thermodynamics for example describes the state of one single system - the Universe. This is a distinction that needs to be made when asking questions such as "what does the second law of thermodynamics weigh?"

          [–]GCEian 1ポイント2ポイント  (20子コメント)

          Photos and electrons can be detected physically

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

          The argument does, however, not seem to be based on that, but rather on some notion of "information", which is yet to be defined.

          Also, that still doesn't seem to cover examples such as, say, numbers, physical laws, or qualia?

          [–]GCEian 3ポイント4ポイント  (18子コメント)

          Well I'll let him/her respond reg what "information" is. But numbers are again just concepts in our physical minds that abstract and describe the physical reality we see, detect and measure.

          Same for physical laws. These laws are descriptive, ie, our minds infer these laws based on observations of the physical universe. There is no indication that somebody created these laws.

          If by qualia you mean subjective experiences, again they are entirely within our physical minds. There is no evidence as yet of any non-physical phenomena or variable involved.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

          So then what is it that causes things to behave like they do? Why is it possible to abstract physical laws from nature if there are no such laws in reality? In short, if there are no physical laws, why does reality behave as if there were?

          Second, please point me to an example of a "physical mind". I have never, so far, seen or touched an example of one. I'm also interested in knowing in what sense you consider my experiences of greenness to exist? There doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence for them?

          [–]GCEian 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

          1. We don't know why things behave the way they do. We just know that they do. There doesn't have to be a reason. You seek a "why" where there is none that we can detect.

          2. Physical mind = thinking/awareness etc that happens inside a physical brain. What other types are there? I've definitely touched a human brain. I've seen images of living human brains including mine. I've seen the physical manifestations of thought translated into action. As far as we can tell, thoughts are chemical reactions that take place inside the brain. There is zero indication of any other factors.

          3. There is no empirical evidence of greenness. Only of a particular wavelength of light that consistently corresponds to people's abstract concept of green in their physical brains.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

          1. This seems like an incredible cop-out. Are you denying causality, now? Further, if things just are the way they are without any reason, why does the scientific method work? It seems like your view makes any kind of induction impossible, which seems to scuttle the sciences. Or perhaps you do not believe in science, either?
          2. Sorry, but I have yet to see any evidence that my thoughts and such happen inside my brain. I have, for one, never seen or touched a thought in the first place, so I'm not sure how I could find it having a location at all, so a fortiori it seems hard to find it in a brain. Further, I am entirely unaware of what particular pattern of neurons is firing when I think, and yet I am decidedly aware of what I am thinking. This seems to preclude thought being identical to a pattern of neuronal activity, if one can be known without the other also being so?
          3. So you are denying the existence of my subjective experiences? In that case, in what sense do I even exist as a person? Or are you falling back into some sort of solipsism?

          [–]GCEian 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

          You are confusing and mixing up different threads of our conversation.

          1. I'm not denying causality. I'm speaking specifically regarding the basic behavior of the universe...we don't know at this point why it behaves the way it does. I'm NOT however saying we shouldn't continue to probe and research. Just saying that it is possible that things just are the way they are and there may be no fundamental "why" to be answered. But we will definitely try our best to find out.

          2. So you are saying your thoughts could be coming into your brain from some other part of your body or even from somewhere outside your body? You might be unaware of neuron patterns firing but it is possible to see them in real time with an MRI. It is also possible to physically manipulate the brain and force you to experience different things. These things have been done in the lab.

          3. I'm not denying your subjective experiences. Only that there is no empirical evidence of them other than your word that you experience them. And since what you say is consistent with my experiences and literally millions of others, and from what our model of the world predicts (photon of green wavelength comes in, millions of minds perceive it and consistently label it green, we agree that the color is green). If however you had a faulty mechanism in your brain where you couldn't really see green but used some other trick to know that you were seeing the color green, there would be no way for me to tell that you were lying. Unless in the future we could get even more granular with our brain probing equipment and see that you are lying.

          [–]SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          I'm not denying causality. I'm speaking specifically regarding the basic behavior of the universe...we don't know at this point why it behaves the way it does. I'm NOT however saying we shouldn't continue to probe and research. Just saying that it is possible that things just are the way they are and there may be no fundamental "why" to be answered. But we will definitely try our best to find out.

          You did, however, deny the existence of physical laws as anything beyond models in our minds. Thus, it is obviously absurd for you to claim that these laws cause the observed behaviour of the world. When questioned as to why the world behaves as if events were caused by natural laws, you claimed that things "just are the way they are".

          If there are no laws of physics which cause the world to behave as it does, how do you think further enquiry will help at all? Under your account, further enquiry should only be able to provide better models and more data about behaviour, but be entirely unable to provide causes, since those causes would be non-material and thus non-existent?

          This all does seem to produce huge problems for causality.

          So you are saying your thoughts could be coming into your brain from some other part of your body or even from somewhere outside your body? You might be unaware of neuron patterns firing but it is possible to see them in real time with an MRI. It is also possible to physically manipulate the brain and force you to experience different things. These things have been done in the lab.

          No, I am saying that I do not think my thoughts are physical things at all, so to claim that they have some location is nonsensical.

          You apparently ignored my argument for why that seems to be the case?

          I'm not denying your subjective experiences. Only that there is no empirical evidence of them other than your word that you experience them. And since what you say is consistent with my experiences and literally millions of others, and from what our model of the world predicts (photon of green wavelength comes in, millions of minds perceive it and consistently label it green, we agree that the color is green). If however you had a faulty mechanism in your brain where you couldn't really see green but used some other trick to know that you were seeing the color green, there would be no way for me to tell that you were lying. Unless in the future we could get even more granular with our brain probing equipment and see that you are lying.

          Yes, you argued that all things which exist are physical, and that there can thus at least in principle be empirical evidence of all things which exist. However, there can, as we agree, be no empirical evidence of the existence of my subjective experiences. Therefore, it seems to me like you are committed to their nonexistence?

          [–]GCEian 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          1. You continue to misunderstand what I write and to conflate different ideas and words. Things behave the way they do whether we describe them or not. What we call the laws of physics are merely descriptions and formulations of patterns of what we see in the world. You keep getting confused between such "descriptive" laws that we formulate based on what we see of the world versus 'prescriptive" laws that would have been decreed or given by some unseen entity. There is no evidence for prescriptive laws having been decreed or given by some unseen entity. And the world will be what it is whether we formulated them into descriptive (or behavioral) laws or not. Probably the confusion arises from using the word "descriptive law". The more appropriate term is "descriptive and predictive models."

          Now you keep wanting to find out who gave out these laws. The fact is we don't know if anybody did give them out or not. It is also possible that nobody did, that the universe and the way it works is just the way it has been in existence forever. Or maybe it changes with each cycle of some sort and in most of these variations intelligent life wouldn't even evolve to try to understand the universe. These are all scenarios and hypotheses that I believe can be explored and researched as we continue to learn more about our universe.

          1. Fine. Your thoughts are not physical. If (hopefully not) you one day get a brain injury or a tumor in the brain, your whole personality and resulting thoughts will change. And then hopefully you will realize how rooted in physical processes your thoughts are.

          2. Yes, there is no such "thing" as subjective experiences. It doesn't exist. Everything is chemical reactions and physical processes in your brain. We just use the term "subjective experience" as an abstraction for what's happening in your physical brain. But it is still valid to talk about "subjective experience" because it's shorter than saying "the stimuli and resulting processes in your brain".

          I think at some point we run into the limits of the way people's brains are made at some core level and it gets hard to communicate. No matter how much I explain you are looking at things with the prism of your perspective, which to me seems flawed. I don't think any amount of discussion will change that. It really is hard to change one's ways of thinking.

          [–]fwau 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

          Ok, information describes things that are physical. The elephant in the room is then "is information itself physical?"

          Of course the materialists are gonna say it is, but I just don't see how that is logical seeing as "twelve" doesn't have mass and take up space.

          again they are entirely within our physical minds

          Except for we don't know that. We can't even agree on what consciousness is let alone how it interacts with the brain. There's still a ton of uncertainty and inconclusiveness there. Its not as cut and dry as people make it out to be.

          There is no evidence as yet of any non-physical phenomena or variable involved.

          I can't be the only one who sees the circular argument here: "we know reality is limited to physical phenomena because we have yet to find any physical evidence of non-physical phenomena." ?! Its like painting yourself into a corner.

          [–]GCEian 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

          We have no evidence that consciousness exists outside our mind. Until we have evidence proving otherwise, we can say that consciousness exists within a physical brain and varies in complexity and capability depending on how evolved the brain is. There is no "interaction" between consciousness and brain because consciousness is function of a brain. Your statement "how it interacts with the brain" presupposes consciousness exists separate from the brain when there is no evidence it exists outside the brain and all evidence that it exists only within. Do you know of any disembodied consciousness? Again, I'm going to reiterate this is based off of "given what we know today". If new, verifiable knowledge disproves that, I'm happy to change my perspectives.

          In the last part again you make the same mistake. I said "There is no evidence as yet..." You took that to mean "We know...". I'm not saying "We know". I'm saying based on what we know, we can infer that reality is limited to physical phenomena.

          There is no such thing as non-physical phenomena because "all evidence to date indicates everything is physical or are abstractions of the physical within our physical minds".

          [–]fwau 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

          There is no "interaction" between consciousness and brain because consciousness is function of a brain.

          Is that so? Or is the brain a function of consciousness? Is consciousness an emergent property of the cosmos or an inherent property? Why is this idea worthy of scoffing and ridicule to some? Just because an idea challenges the status quo doesn't automatically make it bullshit.

          Your statement "how it interacts with the brain" presupposes consciousness exists separate from the brain

          Not really, that would be dualism. Idealism says that all things are fundamentally consciousness, that includes the brain. I suppose I could have worded it better. Idealism is just materialism in reverse.

          Do you know of any disembodied consciousness?

          You mean like ghosts and OBE's and all that fun stuff? Thats a completely different kettle of fish, an entirely different debate about the repeatability of certain phenomena. I personally don't think its crazy or delusional to consider the notion that certain phenomena we call "paranormal" exist and are actually "normal," they're just operating under a less-constraining set of rules which make them appear to disobey causality from our perceptive in the more-constraining set of rules, like how someone might hack a computer program if they understood the language well enough.

          "all evidence to date indicates everything is physical or are abstractions of the physical within our physical minds".

          Can you even think of an example of evidence of the contrary? Is that even possible? Lets assume ghosts are real for a second. Could you give me an example of physical evidence which indisputably and undeniably proves it? Remember, it can't be a photo, a video, a voice recording, or an eyewitness account.

          [–]GCEian 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

          Just because an idea challenges the status quo doesn't automatically make it bullshit. I know I'm not saying anything's bullshit.

          So you are saying that all things are fundamentally consciousness? Is that right? Why do say that? Physical evidence indicates consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. There are of course gaps in our knowledge that we strive to eliminate with more research and analysis. But I can't think of one reason to believe that everything (the whole universe?) is a manifestation of consciousness.

          Can you even think of an example of evidence of the contrary? You mean contrary to the idea that everything is physical or are abstractions of the physical within our physical minds? No I can't. Hence my current position.

          If you are asking me whether I can think of physical evidence that would indisputably and undeniably prove, for example, the existence of ghosts. Sure. If I and other people can have repeated (ie happens more than once), consistent (our experiences are similar) and even simultaneous interactions with such beings that can't be explained by other phenomena and that being claims to be from beyond the grave, then I'd be willing to admit it could a ghost. And I'd then continue to research more to learn more about exactly how such a being exists and interacts and try to update our model of the world with this new information.

          [–]fwau -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

          But I can't think of one reason to believe that everything (the whole universe?) is a manifestation of consciousness.

          This is still in the realms of philosophy, not science. Look at your phone, a computer, a car, a pencil. All those things started off as thought, are manifestations of consciousness. Why would a flower be any different? Why is that an idea worthy of ridicule? Why is it outlandish and crazy to consider the notion that the cosmos isn't a machine, its a thought?

          If I and other people can have repeated (ie happens more than once), consistent (our experiences are similar) and even simultaneous interactions with such beings that can't be explained by other phenomena

          Can you think of an example of an interaction with a hypothetical ghost that in no way could be described as a hallucination, dream, hoax, or lie?

          [–]GCEian 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

          This is still in the realms of philosophy, not science. Well then I can't really discuss that. Feel free to have any idea you wish.

          From my perspective, a thought is a still just chemical reactions in your brain that depend on the physical structure of your brain, the physical input from your 5 senses, the physical food you eat.

          I'm not ridiculing anything you say. But you could really say anything you want, claim it be a philosophical point of view and then not back it up with any evidence because it's just philosophical. To me, that's a deadend for discussion purposes.

          Can you think of an example of an interaction with a hypothetical ghost that in no way could be described as a hallucination, dream, hoax, or lie?

          In my previous reply, I believe I gave you a pretty good example of the conditions that would cause me to rethink my perspectives on whether ghosts exist or not. Pls read that pasted below for your convenience:

          If I and other people can have repeated (ie happens more than once), consistent (our experiences are similar) and even simultaneous interactions with such beings that can't be explained by other phenomena and that being claims to be from beyond the grave, then I'd be willing to admit it could a ghost. And I'd then continue to research more to learn more about exactly how such a being exists and interacts and try to update our model of the world with this new information.

          [–]Dionysus24779 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Well if he's omnipotent I guess he can choose not to have any physical attributes.

          But the Bible does mention god doing physical things like wrestling.

          And then there's Jesus who's supposed to be meaty incarnation of god.

          [–]JaeilWhat is a man? A miserable pile of horse jokes! 10ポイント11ポイント  (22子コメント)

          If he exists, he must be somewhere.

          [citation needed]

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist -4ポイント-3ポイント  (21子コメント)

          100% of things that exist, exist somewhere.

          [–]JaeilWhat is a man? A miserable pile of horse jokes! 8ポイント9ポイント  (17子コメント)

          [citation needed]

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist -3ポイント-2ポイント  (16子コメント)

          Reality.

          [–]JaeilWhat is a man? A miserable pile of horse jokes! 7ポイント8ポイント  (15子コメント)

          That's a claim, not a justification.

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (14子コメント)

          What are you talking about? Everything exists exists somewhere. There's nothing that exists that does not exist somewhere or is this some wordplay?

          [–]JaeilWhat is a man? A miserable pile of horse jokes! 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

          You're simply asserting that everything exists somewhere without actually justifying it. You could

          1. Show that, for every thing, that thing is physical, or

          2. Show that for any nonphysical thing, that thing is nonexistent.

          But simply saying "Everything exists somewhere" is no justification at all. It's simply a claim requiring justification.

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

          Is this going into solipsism?

          1.Show that, for every thing, that thing is physical

          Process of elimination - no "thing" is non-physical.

          2.Show that for any nonphysical thing

          I don't know of any non-physical things existing. Isn't the definition of something existing meaning that it's physical?

          [–]atnormanOSR |THE CAPTAIN REBORN 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

          Is this going into solipsism?

          No?

          Process of elimination - no "thing" is non-physical.

          Demonstrate this.

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Demonstrate this

          Definition of the term.

          [–]EvilVeganignostic apatheist | Don't Know, Don't Care. 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

          I believe you need to define "somewhere" that doesn't include in it's premise the unstated claim that "somewhere" is inherently physical and/or within our universe.

          Define "Somewhere".

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Oh, within the universe.

          Is outside of our universe proven or can it be confused with fiction?

          [–]EvilVeganignostic apatheist | Don't Know, Don't Care. 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          I see that you're doubling-down on your insistence to assume things without proof.

          You're assuming there isn't anything "exterior" to physical reality, then by your assumption (which isn't proven/provable) you assert that there is nothing that isn't physical.

          This is circular arguing, at best.

          You're basically saying "There is nothing physical that isn't physical".

          Things within the universe are all physical.

          Things outside of the universe are either non-existent, non-physical, or physical; but you can't make claims about it. Nobody can.

          By asserting that "somewhere outside the universe doesn't exist" you're making an unverified claim.

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I can't distinguish between something non-physical - Christian God in this case - and a fictional God character like Crom. Do you have a way to differentiate between these two?

          [–]mecartistronicoatheist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Love, pain, gravity exist. They are interactions between cells/atoms. They "exist" in those atoms.

          I guess if God existed, you could say it's like gravity, existing everywhere.

          [–]ideatremor 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          It's funny how people down voted you for this basic plain as day fact. I'd really like to see someone point to an existing thing that is nowhere.

          [–]SsurebreCagnostic atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          It happens but I'd like to see this too, especially since the context is God as opposed to some concept like "infinity".

          [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 5ポイント6ポイント  (28子コメント)

          No.

          [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 7ポイント8ポイント  (26子コメント)

          No, God is not physical in any way. Your assumption that everything that exists is physical and that only physical things can exist is unfounded.

          [–][削除されました]  (25子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 2ポイント3ポイント  (23子コメント)

            How does a non-physical thing exist?

            Where is fourteen? How much does purple weigh? What's the velocity of false?

            [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

            Those questions reveal an enormous misunderstanding about the nature of the universe.

            Fourteen is a concept. A concept is a pattern of neurons. Fourteen is located in the brain of every person who has the concept of fourteen.

            Purple is also a concept, and it weighs whatever the pattern of neurons weighs.

            False is also a concept, and the velocity of any given "false" that a person might have is highly likely to correspond to that person's velocity. If it doesn't that means that the person has likely suffered extreme trauma.

            None of these are controversial. Neuroscientists have known for decades that concepts are patterns of brain cells that, when excited, produce the sensation of being aware of those concepts.

            The concepts in the abstract don't exist. When we talk about a concept in the abstract, we are talking about the concept of a specific person or group and hoping that the concepts are similar enough to communicate effectively. There is relatively little disagreement about the concept "14", for example, but both false and purple have a lot of variation, and most people either use their own, or else attempt to make theirs mimic that of some authority as best they can.

            [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

            A concept isn't a pattern of neurons. A pattern of neurons is a pattern of neurons. Fourteen and purple and false would be exactly what they are now even if there were no beings with brains in the universe. The neurons are capable of perceiving and encoding for those concepts but they are not the concepts themselves.

            [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

            This is a common assertion, but it is made with no evidence.

            14 doesn't even have to mean the same thing. Different species might use different bases. 14 means something very different in base 6.

            Purple almost certainly doesn't exist without humans, as it is a color that humans perceive. We don't know whether or not other humans perceive the color the same way, let alone other species. It is flagrant speculation to suggest that the concept exits without beings to possess it. Same with falsity.

            Your retort is speculation. It's possible you're right, but there's no evidence that you are, in the mean time, I don't believe we should act as though you are right, given the absence of evidence.

            [–]venndiggoryasian 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

            So things are neither true nor false unless people think about them?

            [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            No, but the concept of truth or falsity only exists if people think about it. The concept is separate from the thing it describes.

            [–]venndiggoryasian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            What does the concept of truth or falsity describe?

            [–]CubsoupQuine till they whine 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Fourteen is a concept. A concept is a pattern of neurons. Fourteen is located in the brain of every person who has the concept of fourteen.

            If numbers are just concepts in peoples' heads does that mean that numbers don't exist until someone thinks of them? Further, does that mean that if everyone agreed that 1+1=3 then it actually would equal 3?

            [–]bac5665Jewish Atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

            Yes, and sort of.

            Yes, numbers don't exist until people (or something else) thinks of them. (I add the something else, because computers probably at this point have a good basis for continuing the physical existence of numbers after people are gone.)

            As to 1+1=3, that's complicated. There are two things there, the language of mathematics, and the real world things we describe with math. The language would absolutely change if people just decided to change it. The real word things we describe would not just change, although they would describe it in their new version of the language.

            So if they saw 1 orange on the ground, and a second orange fell from the tree, they'd say there were 3 oranges, but we would say there are two. Math is a language, nothing more.

            [–]CubsoupQuine till they whine 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Yes, numbers don't exist until people (or something else) thinks of them. (I add the something else, because computers probably at this point have a good basis for continuing the physical existence of numbers after people are gone.)

            This reasoning falls apart when investigated closer though. Take the natural numbers N. We know that an infinite amount of natural numbers exist. Now if numbers are identical to concepts in peoples' heads (or as you say, patterns of neurons firing) and there are an infinite amount of numbers, then that must mean there are an infinite amount of concepts that people have thought of or an infinite amount of patterns of neurons firing in people's heads. This is ridiculous though, brains are finite. Also, what do you make of numbers that have more than one concept attached to them? The concepts "the only even prime number" and "the number before 3" are distinct concepts and are associated with different neural patterns firing, so does this mean that "the only even prime number" and "the number before 3" are different numbers? Of course they aren't, they both refer to the number two. If you admit that they both are the number three then you cant hold that numbers are identical to neural patterns firing because different patterns can refer to the same number.

            As to 1+1=3, that's complicated. There are two things there, the language of mathematics, and the real world things we describe with math. The language would absolutely change if people just decided to change it. The real word things we describe would not just change, although they would describe it in their new version of the language.

            Here you are confusing the word with that which the word represents. Of course if we changed our notation so that the symbol "3" stood for the number two, then 1+1 would equal 3. This is not what I'm talking about though. If numbers are just mental states in peoples' heads then if everyone agreed that the concept of 1 plus the concept of 1 equaled 3, then it actually would equal 3. You unwittingly provided a counterexample to your own position with your orange example.

            Math is a language, nothing more.

            Interesting assertion. Ok, lets grant that math is a language. Typically, it is thought that in order for a language to be successful it must refer. For example, take natural languages. Our word "tree" is taken to refer to an existent entity, that is an actual tree. Even if the word "tree" didn't exist, it would be absurd to conclude that trees themselves didn't exist. So my question is, if math is a language, then what does math refer to? Does it refer to anything? It can't refer just to concepts in peoples' heads as I demonstrated earlier in this post. Also, why can we use math to describe things in the world so well? It seems to me that the world must be mathematically well-defined in some sense for this to work.

            [–]MikeyTupper[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            numbers don't exist in the sense that things exist in a natural state alone. They pair, combine, react, align, etc. Such it is with all matter.

            Nobody counts except humans.

            [–]GCEian 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

            These are all concepts that exist in a physical human (or other sentient) mind that correlate to physical things in the Universe. For example, purple to light/photons of certain wavelength.

            [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

            You can point to a particular intantiation of purpleness but you can't point to purple itself. And the purple object in question is not identical with the experience of purpleness that you're having when you look at it. The experience of purple is caused by certain wavelengths hitting certain neurons, but neither those photons nor those neurons are purple.

            Does that mean that purple doesn't exist? Does it mean that purple has no causal power in the physical world?

            [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Purple does not exist. It's simply a description of how organisms with eyes perceive certain wavelengths of light.

            [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

            So when you see a purple thing, what's happening there? I don't want a physical description of wavelengths hitting neurons - what are you actually, subjectively, experiencing?

            [–]McMeatyه҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉҉҉҉҉҉̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҈҈҈҈҈҈̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺҉rtgi 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

            You are experiencing your mind's subjective response to retinal stimulation of that wavelength of light. There's no way to know whether what I perceive as purple looks the same as it does to you. The only thing that matters is that we recongize that the label "purple" refers to the same wavelength.

            If you're asking what makes exactly makes us percieve that wavelength the way we do, you're better off asking a neuroscientist and those who deal with the mechanics behind consciousness.

            [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            actually those born with color vision deficiency which covers most variations on how people see colors differently show that identifying certain chemicals as certain colors was useful and those with deficiencies in some cases have variations on how the brain is wired not anything to do with a improperly formed eye which is more common

            [–]GCEian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Correct. Purple exists only in the mind of the perceiver. I have no way of knowing that your experience of "purple" or the way perceive purple when those photos hit your cornea and are interpreted by your brain the same way I do. It is purely subjective at that point within your physical mind. But you and I do see purple from the same physical phenomena of particular wavelength photons hitting your cornea.

            [–]B3NGAM1Natheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            So things that don't make sense?

            [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

            [deleted]

              [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

              I'm not claiming that purple is God, just that it exist without comforming to OP's requirements for existing.

              [–]vicegripper 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              I'm not claiming that purple is God, just that it exist without comforming to OP's requirements for existing.

              The question is not whether purple is god, but whether a non-physical entity (whether it "exists" or not) could have any influence or interaction with the physical.

              [–]Rrrrrrr777jewish 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              And purple clearly does. It can cause feelings, it can cause behaviours based on associations, it can do all kinds of things.

              [–]vicegripper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              And purple clearly does. It can cause feelings, it can cause behaviours based on associations, it can do all kinds of things.

              But my question again, if you read my previous post was not about purple, it was "whether a non-physical entity could have any influence or interaction with the physical".

              Purple is probably a bad example of what we are talking about, because purple is real. Purple is what we call a certain wavelength of light. It has physical properties. The properties of purple would be discovered by an alien species in another galaxy, and given another name. Purple is the same phenonenon as x-rays or radio waves, etc., so could of course have effects on the physical world.

              [–]N0CLASS 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Do you believe in natural laws?

              [–]MikeyTupper[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I was looking for something a bit more detailed.

              [–]Ori15npagan 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Gods exist; but not in our universe. They exist outside of it in their own realms or states of being. For example, in my religion the gods exist in the spiritual world that lies parallel to ours. They can visit our world in numerous ways, but they are by no means present at any given time. The Abrahamic god, it is silly to think he exists within our universe since it is pretty much said from the get go that it has a more or less, third person view over the whole place.

              I'm not saying he created the universe, or that he is real. But the general rule for 'god' is that he, she, they, it, whoever, is in some way detached from our universe. They have their own states of being, their own realms or kingdoms, and their own rules when it comes to interaction with us.

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              which coincides with my belief of my god being a 5th dimensional (assuming time is the 1st dimension) which correlates to the ability to see the entirety of a 4-d world interact with the 4-d world in ways to a 4-d being would be a miracle (ie klein bottle) and can have a facet of it's being exist in the 4-d world (jesus) intersingly this view could be applied to any god(s) sadly if this is true we will never be able to "test" god in any 4-d way due to the only evidence existing as many religious texts show with no way to prove it happened

              [–]Graylien_Alien 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

              Here's one idea. God isn't "inside" or "outside" the universe...he IS the universe. No single amount of matter (energy) in the universe is God, but God is all of them together. Similar to how no single subatomic particle that makes up your body is you, but you are all of them together.

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

              possibly but then we would have to assume there is some at least quantum particle or quirk that allowed god to exist some way like gravity

              [–]Graylien_Alien 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              There is. Its gravity (and the other forces).

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              as of yet not math or other such scientific way to prove it i agree there is reason to assume it could be true but which particle does that

              [–]Graylien_Alien 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I'm not sure I understand your question :? Sorry! Would you maybe rephrase it?

              [–]antizeusnon-theist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              I think most theists approach their God character as sort of like what happens when I play Asteroids. I'm standing in front of the Asteroids machine and pushing buttons. In response to that button pushing, various changes happen within the state of the game. The triangular ship object within the game turns, fires, thrusts, and enters hyperspace. The asteroid objects get hit by weapon fire and break into smaller asteroid objects. One of those flying saucer objects might get hit by weapon fire. The triangular ship object might collide with an asteroid object. But I'm not actually represented as an object within the game. I suppose one might consider the triangular ship object to be an avatar of me (kind of like Jesus I guess), but I don't consider the triangular ship to actually be me. Some might consider me to be an Asteroids heretic because of that.

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              which correlates with my belief of my god being a 5th dimensional (assuming time is the 1st dimension) which correlates to the ability to see the entirety of a 4-d world interact with the 4-d world in ways to a 4-d being would be a miracle (ie klein bottle) and can have a facet of it's being exist in the 4-d world (jesus) intersingly this view could be applied to any god(s) sadly if this is true we will never be able to "test" god in any 4-d way due to the only evidence existing as many religious texts show with no way to prove it happened

              [–]AquareonΩ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I think so. You are some of the matter of the universe that has been organized by physical laws into consciousness, so far. The literal personification of nature. Likewise with everybody you've ever met. I don't think the process stops here, either.

              [–]OneLastIdeachristian 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

              Christian here. The Bible says he is above all, in all, and through all. So rather than "outside," think more "all of the above." Think also two different "realms" or Biblically speaking, "Kingdoms." There is the spiritual realm, and the earthly/natural realm. What is in the Spirit is invisible to the earthly realm. With this understanding, however, you can train yourself to become familiar with the spiritual realm. For example, there are witches in other parts of the world that can produce very real effects on the physical environment through spiritual (demonic) power. It is because they have familiarized themselves with the spiritual. At the same time, humans have often reported seeing into the spiritual realm (visions, prophetic dreams, angels / demons). Humans have even reported "being completely caught up in the spirit" which is how John wrote the entire book of Revelation in the Bible. Today, there is a guy, Blake Healy, who wrote a book called The Veil, where he talks about his "gift" to see into the spirit at all times. Basically, whichever realm you choose to believe in is the realm that will become most real to you. That is why Christians in the early church were not afraid to die, because in the spirit they had already received eternal life through their new identity in Christ. Spiritually, they were born and went from dead to alive.

              Also, all of the physical/natural world is a reflection of the spiritual. For example, the kingdom is like seed. A male and a female coming together are similar to our uniting with Christ in spirit. A person who is aware of their born again spiritual identity will bear that witness to others through their fruit (love, honor, joy, healing, clean conscious, freedom in everything, suffering on behalf of "the elect") just like a tree shows whether it is good or bad based on the fruit it produces.

              The way we relate to the spiritual is the Word. The word is Spirit and is our window into the spiritual. Read from the worlds perspective and it makes no sense and has countless contradictions, read according to the kingdom of kingdom of heaven, the spirit, and it is perfect, the only real truth.

              Thanks for reading this was fun to answer. Good post!

              [–]vicegripper 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

              For example, there are witches in other parts of the world that can produce very real effects on the physical environment through spiritual (demonic) power.

              What other part of the world? Why can't witches in your part of the world affect the physical environment with their demonic powers?

              What can these witches do?

              [–]OneLastIdeachristian -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

              Good point. It doesn't matter which part of the world. You can probably find a lot of information about the supernatural if you just did a Google search. Do you really think that stuff would be so prevalent in the entertainment industry if it didn't have some semblance to reality? I've heard several supernatural stories involving witchcraft in my part of the world (USA). For example, one of my friends in High school was involved with witchcraft and saw a Ouija board jumping around the room. I've heard of several stories in India about curses. There was a 20/20 about a woman who operates in spiritual power. It's not like it hard to find these stories. It's just that we don't care for them since we don't understand them and it is not acceptable as "sane" to talk about the supernatural experiences we have.

              I just know that the spiritual realm is much more familiar in other parts of the world such as developing areas of Africa and South America. I know this because of friends who have traveled to these places or were born in them.

              [–]vicegripper 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

              You can probably find a lot of information... Do you really think that stuff would be so prevalent in the entertainment industry?... one of my friends in High school was involved with witchcraft and saw... I've heard several supernatural stories ... There was a 20/20 about a woman...

              This is all folklore. You seem to believe every story you ever heard someone tell you. If you want to convince someone of such stories, you will need to have specific examples, with names, dates, times, and videos, etc. "I heard this" or "someone told me that" is not enough.

              You should read a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. It would help you begin to sort out the true from the false. Also try subscribing to /r/skeptic.

              [–]OneLastIdeachristian 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              What other part of the world? Why can't witches in your part of the world affect the physical environment with their demonic powers? What can these witches do?

              I didn't know you were asking a rhetorical question that you wouldn't accept an answer to. That seems to go against the rules of discussion in a transparent and earnest manner.

              With that said, you also seem to have skipped over the bulk of my initial post which talked about how the spiritual cannot be measured by the natural.

              Lastly, you are quick to tell me what I "should" do for a person who, by definition, suspends judgement and believes that true knowledge is uncertain.

              [–]vicegripper 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I didn't know you were asking a rhetorical question that you wouldn't accept an answer to.

              Your answer was all folklore and hearsay. I want specifics. If you give specifics, I might take your answer.

              [–]OneLastIdeachristian 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

              What's more, a religious skeptic can only operate in a framework where there is no belief. How is that scientific? It is ignoring an entire area of thought and experimentation that could be performed in the midst of belief. Why box ourselves in like that? The whole idea sounds like a means for personal peace and acceptance.

              [–]vicegripper 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              What's more, a religious skeptic can only operate in a framework where there is no belief. How is that scientific? It is ignoring an entire area of thought and experimentation that could be performed in the midst of belief. Why box ourselves in like that? The whole idea sounds like a means for personal peace and acceptance.

              I"m not sure I understand what you're trying to say. You seem to be making a muddled argument to the effect that if science dismisses claims that have no evidential foundation, then science is somehow at fault.

              Is that what you're saying?

              [–]OneLastIdeachristian 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              No. That is not what I am saying. Yes, I could have said that better. I was wrong in bringing science into my point. Science is perfect. Its purpose is to study nature and knowledge in the universe. When I wrote "How is that scientific" I was actually thinking about the spirit of science which is to understand the unknown.

              How would you respond to my revised comment, below?

              --> A religious skeptic can only operate in a framework where there is no belief. One is ignoring an entire area of thought and experimentation that could be performed in the midst of belief.

              The whole idea sounds like a means for personal peace and acceptance.

              I was wrong to say this and I apologize. I said this to call out the idea that even in a system of thought that questions everything, we have not completely escaped thought structure. We have actually subscribed to just another belief system. My comment was under the assumption that we subscribe to belief systems to find security but it was wrong of me to say that without clarification.

              [–]vicegripper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              How would you respond to my revised comment, below?

              --> A religious skeptic can only operate in a framework where there is no belief. One is ignoring an entire area of thought and experimentation that could be performed in the midst of belief.

              I'm all in favor of experiments. Experiments are independent of belief. A good experiment will get useful results as long as the experimenter conducts the study without bias. The same results should come out whehter the experimenter is a christian, buddhist, atheist, etc..

              [–]sisko7pantheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

              As a pantheist I obiously believe that the mass of all existing particles combined is the mass of "God".

              [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              then God does not love you, God is love

              [–]Loki5654 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

              We already have a word for everything. It's "everything".

              How does calling everything "God" add anything meaningful or different to the definition?

              [–]sisko7pantheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

              Not much, except that this "everything" has a "soul". The "world soul" (aka "God"), of which every individual soul is a part of, and through which every soul is connected on a unconscious level. Basically every soul would be an aspect of this one soul, like the facets of a crystal. And the laws of the universe which make planets exist, the formulas are the personality of the sort of intelligent world soul.

              Obviously such a world soul would not need your belief in it, desire your worship, or want to control your lifestyle through prophets. It would be kinda like a neuron worshipping the brain. Kinda stupid, though amusing.

              Of course this is just a belief/philosophy based on possibly misinterpreted personal experience, and not real knowledge (as in science).

              [–]Loki5654 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              What is a "soul" and how do you know it is real?

              If something isn't based on knowledge how do you know it is real?

              [–]sisko7pantheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              If it isn't knowledge, then it's a belief or philosophy. It can't be known for certain (through scientific method) whether it's real (as in "it is/exists") or not. In my case the belief is based on spiritual/mystical experiences, which I interpreted as union with the divine. Of course I may have misinterpreted my experience, and the divine may not exist independently from my brain. That seems highly unlikely to me however.

              Soul in my worldview would be a timeless layer of something like consciousness, unconsciously being connected to consciousness. And the relation to the body is like the relation of heat to a hot iron rod. Like all heat comes from the same origin, all soul comes from the same origin. Like heat is a part of the universe, soul is a part of the world soul ("God").

              I guess C. G. Jung would call the world soul "collective unconscious" (a layer of something like consciousness, which consciousness is unconsciously connected to) or "unus mundus", and Erwin Schrödinger may call it "Brahman" (he assumed that each individual's consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe).

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F#Content

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unus_mundus

              [–]Loki5654 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              If it isn't knowledge, then it's a belief or philosophy.

              If it isn't knowledge, what use is it?

              It can't be known for certain

              Nothing can be known for certain, but something can be known to be reasonably certain.

              In my case the belief is based on spiritual/mystical experiences

              How do you know they are true?

              Soul in my worldview would be a timeless layer of something like consciousness, unconsciously being connected to consciousness. And the relation to the body is like the relation of heat to a hot iron rod. Like all heat comes from the same origin, all soul comes from the same origin. Like heat is a part of the universe, soul is a part of the world soul ("God").

              Waiter, I didn't order the word salad.

              I guess C. G. Jung would call the world soul "collective unconscious" (a layer of something like consciousness, which consciousness is unconsciously connected to) or "unus mundus", and Erwin Schrödinger may call it "Brahman" (he assumed that each individual's consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe).

              I don't care what you call it, I want to know how you know it exists.

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              aka Buddhism in diguise

              [–]rawrnnn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              To try to expand on OP's point without embracing the strawman.

              So god exists as an ex-temporal, non-physical being. OK.

              • Does god have causal potency? (can he change what happens in the world)
              • God's influence notwithstanding, is the world mechanistic: do the laws of physics generally cause things to happen?
              • Is there some separate metaphysical essence - "spirit" besides god which is nonphysical, that corresponds to individual people? Even more kinds of "spirits" beyond these two (god and man)?
              • What are the mechanisms of action of these metaphysical forces? Do they point-edit physical quantities, or aggregate outcomes? What exactly can god/my "soul" do to make the future different than what would have happened by brute physics had they not intervened?

              [–]EvilVeganignostic apatheist | Don't Know, Don't Care. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              The universe exists and is physical. God is the universe. Or the "container" within which the universe exists.

              So yes?

              It has mass, density, and/or angular momentum everywhere there is mass, density, and angular momentum. It also contains any other information that "exists" outside of the information that "exists" within our universe.

              [–]czokletmussagnostic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              If he is anywhere in the universe he is also likely to be spinning very fast and have a gravitational pull

              TIL God is spinning

              [–]mektrik 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              If he exists, he must be somewhere

              The US government exists and yet you can't point at it. You can't point at the White House and tell me that's the US government, as it's not. The US government isn't a physical entity yet it still has a place in and affects the physical world.

              he must have information like all other things in the universe, that information being mass, density, volume

              Same as before, what's the mass of the US government?

              If he created this universe and is not inside it, he must be outside somewhere, right?

              Not unless space/spacetime exists outside of our universe, which is a big leap

              he does not possess physicality of any kind and thus has no existence.

              Again, here are a few things that aren't really 'physical' and yet clearly exist in some meaningful sense:

              • the US government
              • colour
              • relationships
              • courage

              [–]mcapelloanti-theist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Yes, he would be physical, and is/was/will be standing outside the universe. Since we were created in his image, we can calculate a roughly humanoid shape. Size and mass would probably have to be significantly greater than that of our own universe given his strength -- I would estimate 3 x 10100 g.

              [–]BillWeld 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              He created space and time. They have their being in him, not vice versa.

              Edit: Saying he "exists" is not precisely accurate. He is.

              [–]khasteapatheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              And if he is inside the boundaries of our universe, then surely he has physical information.

              Many theists say that God is outside of the boundaries of our universe. So from that claim, god is not physical, nor has any physical attributes.

              [–]2way10 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

              It's a great question, and here's my thoughts from observation and experience. Something physical has a beginning and an end, so if God were physical it would mean God was created. So then something had to exist before God to create God. Super-God - and so on and so forth. So where did that previous God come from? It's too weird an approach. You won’t discover God by looking outwards, you will only find reflections. Here's another approach. Have you noticed that all beings have life? Have you ever seen the life itself? No, but we see the results of life being in a body. Life isn’t seen by microscopes or scientists. It continues to elude us. We can’t explain it but we know it’s there. That's what I would call a miracle that stares us in the face each day but is hardly acknowledged. While someone or something has life the body will function and do its thing. When the life separates from the body the body goes back to its basic elements. Is the life different for every human, animal, insect, plant, cell, microbe, etc.? Life is life. It's within, not without. It's only by going inside that we can begin to get answers. Not outside. We are designed to do that, and if we don't, we feel the sense that we still have something important to do. All this can be observed and experienced for oneself. No book required. Look for God within and it becomes clear.

              [–]amefeu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              there is no before god or after god. god is just there sorry it's like trying to explain infinity+infinity=infinity god is infinite there for there is no way to place boundaries on him including those mentioned by op

              [–]Sablemintexistentialist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              In many religions, god and the universe are the same thing. It's like in elder scrolls games - There is no difference between a daedric prince and their plane in Oblivion. They are the planes and the planes are them, and their appearance as planets (spheres moving through space) is the result of the limited perceptions of mortals.

              [–]pineappletrauma -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

              God's not a thing.

              [–]apophis-pegasusagnostic deist with a dash of igtheism 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              It seems to me that if there is no physical information about god, he does not possess physicality of any kind and thus has no existence.

              But that is if he is inside the universe.

              [–]ShakaUVMMod | Duelist -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

              When you are playing a game of the Sims, are you physically present in the Sims world?

              [–]MikeyTupper[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

              Are you saying this is all just a game?

              [–]ShakaUVMMod | Duelist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I'm saying that it's an analogy that works pretty well at resolving all your questions.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)