God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora I'll Probably Wait For The Book Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Harvey on June 24, 2002 15:37:32 UTC

Hi Alan,

***If you search "ctmu" you'll probably find Chris Langan's website. Or search "megafoundation". He has written interesting stuff.***

I'll probably wait for the book. Flashing someone's IQ as part of their credentials really turns my stomach (otherwise I probably would have had some interest).

***I think probability amplitudes maybe are present in my example when you start looking at the possiblities of seeing the sum of histories from different perspectives. It would be about the probability density of finding a particular perspective when looking from some other perspective and trying to interpret a third perspective.***

Hmmm... It seems like a stretch.

***I don't mean "God" is ALL that exists; but that all that exists, exists through God. I am not saying that there are strings say held together with glue; which would mean there are strings, and there is glue. I'm saying that there may be if you like, strings held together with glue, where there is an interdependence: the strings can only be strings when held together as something bigger than strings. The glue and the glued stuff may need each other to be what they are; so Existence would be a relationship? A third entity, not the glue, nor the glued stuff; but projected by their relationship; might be said to exist.***

The only problem I have with this is that relations exist because the relatum exist. That is, we have relatum thus we have relations. If relations were first, then there is nothing for the relation to relate (the relation is meaningless). If relation and relatum co-exist, then there is no reason that a relation best explains the relation of the relatum. For example, if my eyes are 16" from the computer monitor, then one of the relations I have with the computer monitor is being 16" away. If that relation co-exists with me and the computer monitor, then there exists no reason as to why I am 16" away. If the relation of being 16" away is due to a computer monitor being 'beemed down' from some alien transporter device, then we say the relation exists because me and the computer monitor were put into this relation via the alien transporter device. The relation is due to an event combined with 2 relatum (objects).

Now, in case of the Trinity, the relation and relatum are suggested to exist without beginning between the three Hypostasis of God ('persons'), but this doesn't mean that the relation exists for no reason. Rather, the reason could be that the relation exists because the Hypostasis exist without reason, hence the relation between the Hypostasis exists as it does. For example, if the number 1 exists, then 2 exists because 1 exists. If 1 didn't exist, then 2 also wouldn't exist. That is, the relation between 1 and 2 exist because 1 exists (and not because some relation exists).

I admit that this is no clear cut answer. My concern with saying that relations exist without cause is that relations appear to exist because of their relatum. If relations just 'exist', then we should explain why the relation just happens to exist in such a way to perfectly explain the relatum. For example, if the relation of 1 and 2 exist and is not wholly dependent on 1 existing, then we should explain why the relation is such a good explanation for the connection between 1 and 2. Why not 1 and 10? Why not 1 and X? We say 1 and 2 because the relation is logically derived from 1. This provides a reason to conclude that relations, in actuality, are not primitives. Rather, relations are due to existence of the relatum which 'exist' and therefore the relatum exist as a logical consequence.

Anyway, this is a very difficult philosophical problem. It is one that I go and forth on because I see the problem in having relatums without first having a relation. The holistic answer that you provide might be right, but it doesn't satisfactory answer the question on why the relation appears to 'fit' the relatum. That 'fit' would seem logical if the relation is a consequence of the relatum.

If that is true, then having God as a relation would not be satisfactory since God would exist as a consequence of relatum. His existence could be derived from something more primitive, hence God would not be existence itself, but a derived existence.

My view is that God is mystery and that relations and relatum are just logical approximations to that mystery. In fact of matter, there are no exact relations, properties, attributes, relatum, objects, etc, rather these are all logical approximations to something that cannot be precisely defined.

Warm regards, Harv

 Web www.astronomy.net