/lit/ - Literature

>>3128472

They aren't objects if you define "objects" as physical things within the universe.

I'm defining "object" as that which has being and exists within the set of that which is conceivable. This includes physical as well as non-physical objects.

Thoughts will be included in the set of objects for the purpose of this demonstration; it is analogous to different definitions of "equality" in classical and non-classical systems.

>>3128414

This is a red herring. I defined the universe in a specific manner (a set of that which is conceivable), and included all objects that have being (this includes thoughts, as thoughts are conceivable). If God is all-conscious, he must be conscious of abstract ideas as well. The analogy is not false, as it simply satisfied the definition as initially posed.

Whether a finite amount of thoughts are pondered at any given instant is irrelevant to the fact that thoughts are conceivable objects within the universe.

>>3128341

You would contend that the number of ideas capable of being thought is finite as well?

>>3128302

Let us define the universe as a set of that which is conceivable: non-physical as well as physical objects. I'm making no claim about non-being, as I cannot even think of non-being - and thus, it does not belong to the universe. God's infinite awareness is, thus, distributed amongst all objects (all conceivable sub-sets) within the universe. Is this clear?

>>3128289

This is a straw man argument.
You assume I'm referring to the material realm. This is an unwarranted assumption: I am simply defining the universe - not in a scientific manner - but as a set of all that is conceivable. Don't suppose I'm referring to objects or the universe as empirical reality. Supposing this was some sort of semantic confusion and not a fallacious counter-argument, I hope my point is evident.

With this cleared, I would say "yes: that which you perceive is also subject to God's consciousness." In fact, all ideas are subject to God's consciousness: for, even if they don't physically exist, they still have being.

>>3128217
Let us not confuse philosophical and scientific terminology. That which IS (and can be conceived), is an object; that which cannot be experienced is non-being.

>>3128221

For the sake of clarification:
Matter consists of anything that is - anything that has being. I am using this in a philosophical sense. We can conceive and experience that which is matter (let us not confuse this with physics). That which does not have being - or is non-being - cannot be conceived and should only be realized as the negation of that which IS (for any further investigation into non-being would be empty). Thus, objects is any collection of matter. If something has matter, it is an object that can be spoken of.

>>3128183
If we're to think of the universe in its designated spatio-temporal framework, then the ceaseless expansion of space over an infinite temporal continuity suggests that the universe is infinite.

uppose we define God as infinite awareness: consciousness of all objects in the universe, simultaneously.

If God has an infinite consciousness, and we are to distribute this equally amongst all of the objects in the universe, then the limit as God's consciousness approaches an infinite number of objects in the universe is 0; since God distributes 1/infinity of his consciousness to every constituent object, then he is not conscious of any object.

That which is conscious of everything is conscious of nothing; thus, God exists, but he isn't: God is a lack of being.