Philosophy on soc culture USA: Tending our God again till effect


From 'Tenured Poster' on Philosophy Forum in thread : "Whether a
priori knowledge
 is possible "
 He is 33 years old now; post from 2004.

".... if God is defined as something that has precisely the properties
you've given, then it would be a priori that he has all those
qualities, since it is true by definition (it is analytic too, but the
main thing is that it is not dependent on experience), but you'd be
cheating because if you posit a collection of properties, there's no
reason a priori why the collection of properties refers, i.e. it is
unrealistic to say that the existence of God is a given.

 There is a caveat to be made.

 Since mathematical objects and fictional objects can be treated
independently of this world, their existence is possible given just a
consistent collection of properties, i.e. a description or
definition.

TO STRONG STATEMENT. LETS BE MORE PRECISE: "THEY CAN AND /OR THEY
ARE."
IT IS SIMULATANEUSLY TRUE THAT THEY ARE NOT ( INDEPENDENT OF THIS
WORLD) HOW?  Our perception of the world makes us know it and within
the known perceptual and acccesibale or actionalble knowledge and teh
imagination based in that knowledge we make these two a priori
mathematical systems ( taht have teh demand for full internal
consistency) and the fictitious objects - I deliberately distinct
these two as theoretical  math is also fiction by this standard- we
use what we know; We do have the choise to exopand all prior to the
task - expand knowledge perception and vision and these sureley be
affecting our assumed systems of two kind fiction inteenally consitent
math model and fictuitious characters and objects. end of comment
....
This is because the mathematical things we study or the fictional
characters we make up are whatever we want to study or make up, and
they don't really affect this world.

GOOD LUCJ BUT WE BETETR AT IT.

 God would have been someone who created this world, and interacts
with this physical
world, and we know that there is less in the physical world than we
can think of, so just defining God wouldn't work to give him
existence. It couldn't be known a priori.

I CONSIDER YOUR ARGUMNENT UNFINISHED, WITH THE VERY INTERESTING
OPENING.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT GOD INTERACTS WITH US AND WE WITH THE GOD AND
WE GET TO THE "THEID BODY" ( called also spirit; shedow; dream;
aparition;
insight as sudden gush of light; eletion; miracle; daity; projective
identification;
self fragment; 'artificial' intel; 'reincarnated self';  'redeemed",
mind you, soul
has them all, optional being just a few) WHETEHR MATERIAL OR NOT.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an
inevitability." -- Stewie

ME IS CHECKING FURTHER - I THINK GOD 'ALLOWED' US TO RE-NEW THE
BODY AND SOUL AND WE MISSING ON IT. IN SO CALLED 'EVOLUTION'
WE HAVE NEGLECTED SELF AND HAVE LESS ACCESS TO THE WORLD THAT
 "ALLOWED" - WE NARROWED PERCEPTION, SELF PERCEPTION
AND COGNITION. HE SURELY DID NOT SAY TO DO IT.

AMBIVALENT ABOUT SUDDEN GUSH OF THINGS ( AS REVOLUTION), I WANT IT
BECOUSE I WILL NOT THAT FAST FORGET HOW I WAS THAN IN SLOW BITING
ME OFF AS ONE EXAMPLE ONLY HOW WE LIMIT SELF IN SLOW MOTION,
SO I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN GET ACTIONABEL INSIGHT OF LOST
THINGS ( LIKE PERCEPTION , CONGNITION AND SELF PERCEPTION BY
THAT SUDDEN INSIGHT, COLLECTIVELLY AND INDIVIDUALLY)