"We're all searching for answers"

Post Reply New Topic

We can answer it for "yes", and if there are no trees we can answer it for "no". If there are only some trees, we cannot answer.



Would an area covered by one very large tree be a forest?



Really? What's the difference between a forest, a wood, a copse and a grove?



This is true, but let's keep it simple! You hold that one tree is not a forest (I agree). A few thousand trees in one area is a forest. Two trees are not a forest. 999 trees are a forest. So at what number of trees in (say) one hectare is it a forest?

This is an old philosophical conundrum. If you have a heap of objects, the number in the heap is not relevant - you can add more and take items off and it is still a heap. But one item is not a heap. Two isn't a heap either. How many objects make it a heap?



I'm not sure I made that comparison originally. I picked it up from someone else. But I agree - God's definition is so vague that we're looking for a forest without knowing what trees even look like.

So what about those it doesn't "choose"?

Faith isn't sentient, and as such can't make choices. However, some people are wired for it and others are not.

Well now apparently faith is sentient as part of at least one person's religious beliefs

I suppose it only chooses super-special peoples

Once again you just ride roughshod over vast amounts of literature. Just because you spot an issue, does not mean that it is irresolvable. People have written a great deal on precisely this question, like Richard Swinburne in his work 'The Coherence of Theism', quite frankly I don't really want to go into this any more, since you seem to have no respect for any answer I might give, therefor I will just link you off to some decent reading materiel.



Hardly, people have been studying God through philosophy for as long as there has been philosophy. The idea of God and the various conceptions put forward by history's great thinkers have allowed us to explain things through the thought experiment of the explanatory ultimate. One of the truly weird things in your post is that you first claim that existence outside of an absolutely great being is impossible, I would disagree. But then you point out in defense of your position that it would entail that we were simply a part of that being.

Even if I were to grant that point and I don't think I ought to, you are basically saying that exterior existence is possible, you are just redefining what it means for that existence to be exterior in such a way as to make everything interior. Basically, you are just being tricky with definitions, we are all part of the universe but that does not mean we are not individual in and of ourselves. Our solar system has planets, those planets are made of elements and those elements are made of atoms. We are perfectly capable of recognizing that we are not our planet, despite the fact that we are made form it and that we are not the big bang, despite the fact that we are a response of that causal chain so why should I grant your position as the demonstration of an impossibility other than for the reason that you want it to be?



There sure are definitions of God within Christianity that do not work, that is just obvious. The fact that there are multiple claiminats to a true thing, does not mean that there is no truth to be discovered. It is also highly useful to use philosophy to develop one's understanding of God and I certainly do discuss this with other theists. So I don't really see this as a problem at all.

I don't like most of what you reply with, true. I keep getting the impression you are trying to screw with me. If that's not the case, we simply just speak a different language, despite both calling it English. There are some moments that we seem to find common ground, however, so I haven't given up on communication.

On point, something "maximally great", the best I can understand this is; A being that is of infinite size. This would be the universe/omniverse/multiverse, whatever you like to call it. The sum of all that is. Naturally, despite being an individual, you are part of it. We all are. But, this simple definition is not often what people are referring to when they use the word "god". And I think you defining it as such is dishonest. If that is not what you mean by "maximally great", I would like further clarification.

If it is a "maximally powerful great being" like you defined it as earlier, then it would have all power, leaving none for anyone else. Since I can demonstrate that other beings do have power, we can conclude either this definition is false, or that the "maximally powerful great being" is exerting it's power, not the individual, this makes all individual and all beings an extension of said great being, essentially this is also a longer road to reach the same conclusion as above, that a maximally powerful great being is the universe/omniverse/multiverse, whatever you prefer. And again, its somewhat dishonest to claim as what people define god as.

The problem with either of these definitions, as I see it, is they use reference to "all powerful" and "all encompassing". So naturally are inherently logically flawed. or trivialized into nonreligious definitions of other existing objects/forces.

Only facts are true.

ruveyn

Truth has nothing to do with facts.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

Truth: Some people don't like chocolate.

"chocolate is good" is not a fact, it is an opinion
"Chocolate is made from cacao" is a fact
"Chocolate is liked by many people" or "Many people dislike chocolate" are facts

But that would prove the fact "chocolate is good" to not be a fact

The proper fact for this situation would be "Some people think chocolate is good."

No, the definition requires trees. In theory, a large area covered in a rather small number of super massive trees could be classified as a forest, if that is what you mean. The number of trees really isn't important to the definition, its the size of the area covered in them...



I'm not merriam... these all have distinct definitions, and while we can all agree there are stark similarities between them, they are distinct in some manner.



A tree is not a forest, yes. A few thousand trees in one area (large) is a forest, yes. Two trees are not a forest. 999 trees are NOT a forest... we have not qualified the important factor of size of area they cover. You keep missing the distinction, the area is the variable, the number of trees is irrelevant, in as much as they are only required to be covering the area.

Depending on which definition you refer to, as little as 4 objects could be classified as a heap (Less may be possible, this is a quick estimation). This is however, HIGHLY dependant on the qualities of said objects. One cannot determine if something is a heap or not by quantity of objects without defining the objects therin.

Why are we talking about this? >.>

Many people do not dislike chocolate, some dislike chocolate.

I would argue that chocolate being good is a fact from a genetics standpoint. Most of us are biologically wired to like anything sweet. This fact alone has helped Hershey, Ghirardelli, and many other chocolate manufacturers stay in business.

So again, chocolate is good is a fact supported by sales figures.

Facts are objective, chocolate is good is not objective, therefore it is not a fact.

As it has been said, the proper fact would be "many people like chocolate".

We're wired to think chocolate is good. Which makes chocolate good, that's a fact.

False. I don't like chocolate (normal chocolate anyway).

This means your fact is no longer a fact.