Theophobia

[Pastor Frank]

You are connected to Existence, or you would not exist.

I still have a problem with your 'Existence is separate from the object'.
I have read your "long post" and it doesn't help me. So
here is a question.
What happens to the separate "existence" when the physical
object is destroyed.
Example: So let's take an axe (my latest favourite example) and toss it
into a furnace. The wooden handle burns quickly, and the blade
melts. When the physical object is destroyed its "existence" is
gone. The axe is gone.
On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
Bbut your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

In religion you deal with qualities demonstrated by objects such as
people. Now, if all the people are gone, the quality still exists. People
are temporary but a quality is eternal. That is Plato whose philosophy
dominated much of the Biblical realm at the time of Jesus. But any opinion
in that regard, whether pro or con, is still a mere conjecture lacking any
and all proofs or even evidence.
So if you want to believe that man's character qualities die with the
last man (or observer), then there is no argument that can prove the
contrary.

[Scotmc]

Post by Pastor Frank

You are connected to Existence, or you would not exist.

I still have a problem with your 'Existence is separate from the object'.
I have read your "long post" and it doesn't help me. So
here is a question.
What happens to the separate "existence" when the physical
object is destroyed.
Example: So let's take an axe (my latest favourite example) and toss it
into a furnace. The wooden handle burns quickly, and the blade
melts. When the physical object is destroyed its "existence" is
gone. The axe is gone.
On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
Bbut your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

In religion you deal with qualities demonstrated by objects such as
people. Now, if all the people are gone, the quality still exists. People
are temporary but a quality is eternal. That is Plato whose philosophy
dominated much of the Biblical realm at the time of Jesus. But any opinion
in that regard, whether pro or con, is still a mere conjecture lacking any
and all proofs or even evidence.
So if you want to believe that man's character qualities die with the
last man (or observer), then there is no argument that can prove the
contrary.

Are you saying:
Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that is always was.
(A bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it.)

But your God isn't just a collection of human qualities, is it?
If there were no people then would God not be instantiated?

[Pastor Frank]

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

You are connected to Existence, or you would not exist.

I still have a problem with your 'Existence is separate from the object'.
I have read your "long post" and it doesn't help me. So
here is a question.
What happens to the separate "existence" when the physical
object is destroyed.
Example: So let's take an axe (my latest favourite example) and toss it
into a furnace. The wooden handle burns quickly, and the blade
melts. When the physical object is destroyed its "existence" is
gone. The axe is gone.
On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
Bbut your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

In religion you deal with qualities demonstrated by objects such as
people. Now, if all the people are gone, the quality still exists. People
are temporary but a quality is eternal. That is Plato whose philosophy
dominated much of the Biblical realm at the time of Jesus. But any
opinion in that regard, whether pro or con, is still a mere conjecture
lacking any and all proofs or even evidence.
So if you want to believe that man's character qualities die with the
last man (or observer), then there is no argument that can prove the
contrary.

Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that is always was.
(A bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it.)
But your God isn't just a collection of human qualities, is it?
If there were no people then would God not be instantiated?

"My God"? I'm not sure I follow you. We here in our Christian NGs talk
about the God of Christ, regardless of one's religion. Our Christian "God is
love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ. Whatever else
our God is, is a matter of conjecture, unless specified by scripture. You
need to reference Biblically when you characterize our God as a "collection
of human qualities", though there is little doubt, He is that too.

[Scotmc]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

You are connected to Existence, or you would not exist.

I still have a problem with your 'Existence is separate from the object'.
I have read your "long post" and it doesn't help me. So
here is a question.
What happens to the separate "existence" when the physical
object is destroyed.
Example: So let's take an axe (my latest favourite example) and toss it
into a furnace. The wooden handle burns quickly, and the blade
melts. When the physical object is destroyed its "existence" is
gone. The axe is gone.
On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
Bbut your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

In religion you deal with qualities demonstrated by objects such as
people. Now, if all the people are gone, the quality still exists.
People are temporary but a quality is eternal. That is Plato whose
philosophy dominated much of the Biblical realm at the time of Jesus.
But any opinion in that regard, whether pro or con, is still a mere
conjecture lacking any and all proofs or even evidence.
So if you want to believe that man's character qualities die with the
last man (or observer), then there is no argument that can prove the
contrary.

Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that is always was.
(A bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it.)
But your God isn't just a collection of human qualities, is it?
If there were no people then would God not be instantiated?

"My God"? I'm not sure I follow you. We here in our Christian NGs talk
about the God of Christ, regardless of one's religion. Our Christian "God
is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ. Whatever
else our God is, is a matter of conjecture, unless specified by scripture.
You need to reference Biblically when you characterize our God as a
"collection of human qualities", though there is little doubt, He is that
too.

By "your God" I meant "the God in which you believe". (fair enough?)
So now, with that cleared up, I hope, I think you missed my point.
So I guess I'm going repeat it. Are you saying:
Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that it always was.
(Still a bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it, especially now that I fixed a typo.)
But the God in which you believe is more than just a collection of
human qualities, isn't it? Are you saying that if there were no people
then God would not be instantiated?

[Pastor Frank]

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

You are connected to Existence, or you would not exist.

I still have a problem with your 'Existence is separate from the object'.
I have read your "long post" and it doesn't help me. So
here is a question.
What happens to the separate "existence" when the physical
object is destroyed.
Example: So let's take an axe (my latest favourite example) and toss it
into a furnace. The wooden handle burns quickly, and the blade
melts. When the physical object is destroyed its "existence" is
gone. The axe is gone.
On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
Bbut your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

In religion you deal with qualities demonstrated by objects such as
people. Now, if all the people are gone, the quality still exists.
People are temporary but a quality is eternal. That is Plato whose
philosophy dominated much of the Biblical realm at the time of Jesus.
But any opinion in that regard, whether pro or con, is still a mere
conjecture lacking any and all proofs or even evidence.
So if you want to believe that man's character qualities die with
the last man (or observer), then there is no argument that can prove
the contrary.

Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that is always was.
(A bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it.)
But your God isn't just a collection of human qualities, is it?
If there were no people then would God not be instantiated?

"My God"? I'm not sure I follow you. We here in our Christian NGs talk
about the God of Christ, regardless of one's religion. Our Christian "God
is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ.
Whatever else our God is, is a matter of conjecture, unless specified by
scripture. You need to reference Biblically when you characterize our God
as a "collection of human qualities", though there is little doubt, He is
that too.

By "your God" I meant "the God in which you believe". (fair enough?)

Why would you assume that? Does you comparative religion professor
believe in every god he discusses with you?

Post by Scotmc
So now, with that cleared up, I hope, I think you missed my point.
Without people qualities are not instantiated.

My dictionary doesn't show a verb called "instantiate" only
substantiate.

But qualities abide

Post by Scotmc
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that it always was.
(Still a bit of a confusing statement but I actually have no problem
with it, especially now that I fixed a typo.)
But the God in which you believe is more than just a collection of
human qualities, isn't it? Are you saying that if there were no people
then God would not be instantiated?

You need to reword that using standard English. Plato is clear enough
about what he means, and when we talk Christianity we must see it through
the philosophical matrix current at the time. Only then is there any hope of
understanding the author.

[Scotmc]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc

On the other hand: Take your old axe (not burned in a fire) and
replace the old wooden handle. The non-physical "existence of an axe"
hasn't changed (it can't change) so you still have the same axe but just
with a new handle. Now replace the blade. The non-physical "existence"
hasn't changed (it can't change) but you have an entirely NEW AXE.
The old axe is GONE. It now longer exists.
But your 'metaphysical existence of the axe' hasn't changed.
Therefore you "metaphysical existence" is a bunch of hooey.

snip

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
But your God isn't just a collection of human qualities, is it?
If there were no people then would God not be instantiated?

"My God"? I'm not sure I follow you. We here in our Christian NGs talk
about the God of Christ, regardless of one's religion. Our Christian "God
is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ.
Whatever else our God is, is a matter of conjecture, unless specified by
scripture. You need to reference Biblically when you characterize our God
as a "collection of human qualities", though there is little doubt, He is
that too.

(1) You said "the God of Christ" and "Our Christian "God is love" and
you also said "Whatever else our God is...".
You refer to the God of Christ as "our God" but you get confused when
I refer to that God as "your God". I think your objective is simply you
being deliberately difficult. Do you want to have an honest discussion
or not?

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
By "your God" I meant "the God in which you believe". (fair enough?)

Why would you assume that?

(2) Do you or do you not believe in the God of Christ? My assumption
that you believe in Him was based on your referring to God of Christ as
"our God". Is that not a fair assumption that you believe in the God
you refer to as "our God"?
So, given (1) and (2) above can we cut this out now?

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that it always was.

My dictionary doesn't show a verb called "instantiate" only
substantiate.

Check another dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=instantiate
in·stan·ti·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-stnsh-t)
tr.v. in·stan·ti·at·ed, in·stan·ti·at·ing, in·stan·ti·ates
To represent (an abstract concept) by a concrete or tangible
example: “Two apples... both instantiate the single universal
redness” (J. Holloway).
Perhaps I'm not using it precisely. I'm using it this way.
An abstract concept is "instantiated" when an example or
instance of it exists. (from the root "instance" )
But since you are confused by the word, I'll rewrite the statement
without using it:
Without people there are no instances or examples of qualities.
But the qualities abide in so far that, if there were a person around
who exhibits the quality then it would be the same quality that
it always was.

Post by Pastor Frank
But qualities abide.

If you wrote that that I would say that you agree with my statement
above.

The next step in my thinking was a bit of a leap, I will admit.
To understand why I made the leap, we have to back up a bit.
In this thread before you came Sweet Ol' Bob asserted that his
abstract concept of "existence" WAS God. And SOB also
asserted that since "existence" exists then God exists. My
rebuttal to his argument was basically that "existence" doesn't
actually exist other than as his abstract concept. Therefore his
God doesn't necessarily exist. You, at this point in the thread,
came in and started talking about "qualities abiding". (Next is
my leap in thinking). I thought it was possible that your
"qualities abiding" statement was offered in proof that the
the God of Christ exists. This would be a similar sort of
argument to SOB's argument the "existence exists therefore
God exists". So, I realized that I was making a leap and

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
But the God in which you believe is more than just a collection of
human qualities, isn't it? Are you saying that if there were no people
then God would not be instantiated?

You need to reword that using standard English.

Rewording and asking again:
Are you saying that if there were no people then there would be
no instance of the abstract concept 'God'?

[Pastor Frank]

Post by Scotmc
(1) You said "the God of Christ" and "Our Christian "God is love" and
you also said "Whatever else our God is...".
You refer to the God of Christ as "our God" but you get confused when
I refer to that God as "your God". I think your objective is simply you
being deliberately difficult. Do you want to have an honest discussion
or not?

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
By "your God" I meant "the God in which you believe". (fair enough?)

Why would you assume that?

(2) Do you or do you not believe in the God of Christ? My assumption
that you believe in Him was based on your referring to God of Christ as
"our God". Is that not a fair assumption that you believe in the God
you refer to as "our God"?
So, given (1) and (2) above can we cut this out now?

As I am posting to news:alt.christian.religion, I mean by "our God" the
the God we talk about in our Christian NGs. What the term means to you is
still in question. My effort here is to establish a working definition
according to scripture, especially of Christ Himself, who explained the
concept to a rather skeptical Philip in John 14:6-10.

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
Without people qualities are not instantiated. But qualities abide
in so far that, if there were a person around who exhibits the quality
then it would be the same quality that it always was.

My dictionary doesn't show a verb called "instantiate" only
substantiate.

Check another dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=instantiate
in·stan·ti·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-stnsh-t)
tr.v. in·stan·ti·at·ed, in·stan·ti·at·ing, in·stan·ti·ates
To represent (an abstract concept) by a concrete or tangible

That certainly describes Christ. Our "God is love" become fully
manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, when He took upon
Himself the sins of the world and all condemnation, setting us free from our
guilt and shame.
“Two apples... both instantiate the single universal

Post by Scotmc
redness” (J. Holloway).
Perhaps I'm not using it precisely. I'm using it this way.
An abstract concept is "instantiated" when an example or
instance of it exists. (from the root "instance" )
But since you are confused by the word, I'll rewrite the statement
Without people there are no instances or examples of qualities.
But the qualities abide in so far that, if there were a person around
who exhibits the quality then it would be the same quality that
it always was.

Post by Pastor Frank
But qualities abide.

If you wrote that that I would say that you agree with my statement
above.
The next step in my thinking was a bit of a leap, I will admit.
To understand why I made the leap, we have to back up a bit.
In this thread before you came Sweet Ol' Bob asserted that his
abstract concept of "existence" WAS God. And SOB also
asserted that since "existence" exists then God exists. My
rebuttal to his argument was basically that "existence" doesn't
actually exist other than as his abstract concept. Therefore his
God doesn't necessarily exist. You, at this point in the thread,
came in and started talking about "qualities abiding". (Next is
my leap in thinking). I thought it was possible that your
"qualities abiding" statement was offered in proof that the
the God of Christ exists. This would be a similar sort of
argument to SOB's argument the "existence exists therefore
God exists". So, I realized that I was making a leap and

You are getting inevitably into obfuscation on that road, for God does
both exist and not exist. I.e. No, absolutes do not exist, therefore
perfection does not exist. Ergo God does not exist. Yet regardless, people
will seek to live up to perfection, and God the perfect Father sees
perfection perfected in His Sons. (This is merely God's opinion, not a fact)
So God, the absolute does exist after all... as an ideal that is perpetually
being born, or resurrected in His Sons. That is why Christ tells Philip,
that we (the sons of God) know our Father and have seen Him.

Post by Scotmc

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by Scotmc
But the God in which you believe is more than just a collection of
human qualities, isn't it? Are you saying that if there were no people
then God would not be instantiated?

You need to reword that using standard English.

Are you saying that if there were no people then there would be
no instance of the abstract concept 'God'?

According to Plato, the ideal chair, as all ideals, exists independently
of actuality. Therefore his notion, that there is nothing new under heaven.
Everything exists eternally as a potential before becoming "instantiated"
temporarily in an imperfect form.