[ryanatau]

Quote by: Morality Games Not if it's existence transcends space-time, although the idea of a being existing outside space-time contradicts the standard meaning of the term 'existence'.

How is that? Many philosophers have contended anything that transcends space-time has more being (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Kant, ect.)

But what is God except one contradictory idea after the other? What is God other than that?

I cant believe how many Medieval philosophers I have been appealing to lately, but John Scottus Eriugena (through the Pseudo-Dionysus) would say that these conceptions of God only contradict because we are using the positive way instead of the negative way.

You seem determined not to think seriously about the dilemma. Perhaps you are incapable, or just don't want to. Anyway, God's role as first cause and his omnipotence plays into this just as much as his omniscience. If God knows all, is the cause of all, and is all powerful, then how does he escape responsibility and accountability for everything that occurs? No amount of theological reasoning has ever put more than a band-aid on this problem -- moreover, all theological reasoning can do (as you have done) is throw dust in people's eyes whenever they get close to spotting how distorted theological concepts of God are.

I don't know I think theology has done an ok job solving the Problem of evil. I mean it is not wholly convincing but it is not all that bad. Augustine's evil as privation is good.

So you are arguing for compatibilism. There are no serious disagreements between us then, except that compatibilism is unnecessarily wordy and easily induces false impressions.

You could say I am arguing for compatiblism. But really I am just arguing that there are other perspectives. I wouldn't necessarily make the leap.

Your argument seems to be, "Because there is an I, my will is free" -- this kind of thinking is pretty representational of compatibilism in general.

I wouldn't simplify it to that because of problems that would immediately occur because of the vague concept of "I" and self-consciousness. It would not help we would just dive into the philosophy of mind, then philosophy of language, etc.

Everything at once in every mode possible; they would perceive the whole of actuality in the manner of every existing entity, so in colors (like humans), not in colors and smell-centric (like dogs), sound-centric (like bats), as statistical data (like computers), and more -- there would also be a mode of thought possible only to God, one that no entity other than God could use, and one of course that is incomprehensible to everyone else (and thus one I cannot describe, I can only say that, logically, it should exist).

Would you actually call this perceiving? If God understands in on insightful whole (without use of imagination or sense) is that perception? Are a priori judgments perceptions? I would say no. I think this kind of Godly understanding is placed above pure reason (given a Hegelian hierarchy of reason).

But this concept of God is a fusion between deistic and pantheistic ideas -- a pantheistic God might not think in a mode beyond that of all entities in nature and a deistic God might not think in any mode except one inaccessible to other entities.

A Pantheistic God may not think at all. Who was it that came up with the pantheistic God as Aristotle's substratum?