1. Created by an author.
2. Created at a specific point in time.
3. Their existence is dependent on the author, literary work, memory of the work, and people who can read or hear the work.
4. They are not found in the spatio-temporal world.
Well, that really was what was at the
heart of my question: how do you determine if the character is a mental creation, or a living being?
When you read Plato's dialogues, what tells you that this 'Socrates' character is real, yet causes you to determine this 'God' character of the Bible to be made up?
Now, you mention one thing: "They are not found in the spatio-temporal world." How does that apply to people about whom we have no knowledge other than things others wrote about them, e.g., Socrates?
You'll have to explain in plain terms what a no-god is before I can actually answer that question. No analogies please.
Like I said, I'm not much on logic babble.
It is a difficult concept around which to grasp our minds. No-God isn't necessarily the same as an 'absence' of God. No-God is a non-existent entity, which exists inasmuch as we are able to discuss no-Him (think of imaginary numbers, sort of). Anything can be talked of in this way; we can have no-house, no-unicorn, etc.
So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world. In fact, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find or do not find in regards to 'house', none of it will be able to tell you about 'no-house'. 'No-house' becomes the 'house' non-existant. Can we find the non-existant purple trim on 'no-house'? Certainly that would be evidence; but alas, even if it
were evidence, we can't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. There is not a SHRED of evidence that will point us to the truthfulness of 'no-house'. And all the evidence that we do not find for 'house' will only tell us that what we have no evidence for 'house' and it can tell us nothing about 'no-house', or the truthfullness of 'no-house'.
Now, I know that you requested that an analogy wasn't used, but I feel that it was best to describe it using something that you could at least accept as existing in some form. We can apply this to the idea of God, and no-God in the same way. Evidence for a no-God, must be, by its very definition, evidence of the 'no-' variety, such as 'no-(6-day-creation-evidence)'. No-God is the 'exact opposite', not simply an 'absence of', and as a result requires the 'exact opposite' evidence. What is the opposite of evidence-existant? Evidence-non-existant. And so by the very nature of 'no-God' we can possess no evidence to the affirmatory, because our evidence
has to be non-existing in order to affirm the no-God as truth. If our evidence
does exist, it will then be evidence-existant, so, for example 'yes-(6-day-creation-evidence)'; in other words, it will be evidence that is the exact opposite of 'no-...' and be 'yes-...', which in so being only serves to affirm the yes-God statement. This has the implication that all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can
never have evidence of 'no-God'.
It is true; in the world as it is today there has yet to be evidence for the existence of God in the sense that He is a testable entity, and so as it stands, we are safe in saying that there is no evidence of God (or, as I've said before, 'negative-[yes]evidence of yes-God'). But, we are not okay to say that there is evidence supporting the notion of no-God, (or, 'positive-[no]evidence of no-God') because our statement already tells us that we can have no evidence; seems foolish to go looking for it then, or to pretend that it exists.
Now, one more illustration, that might add understanding:
Yes-God and no-God exist on polar opposites of the same line (the 'God' line, we can call it):
yes-God no-God
|__________________|
We can also add an 'evidence' line to overlap:
yes-God no-God
|__________________|
| |
yes-Ev. no-Ev.
In the middle of the God line, exist things which are neither 'yes-God' or 'no-God', for example, 'house'. In the middle of the evidence line exist things which are not evidence in regards to our particular cause, so, evidence in regards to house is found somewhere there. Now, you see, the closer and closer we move toward evidence of no-God, the closer we move toward no-evidence. In the end, the moment we get to no-God, our ability to prove the concept is doused because we now have no-evidence.
Without specific parameters we really can't discuss whether gods can be found in the spatio-temporal world.
The one with the specifics has to provide the information for those doing the looking.
Where do we find these specifics? In literature and stories. God's attributes are dependent on people. ...
Please read all of Message 110 so I don't have to repeat those points.
I hope that what I have written above will address all the points you say I failed to (and probably did fail to) address.
Jon
__________
Six day creation is not necessarily an attribute necessary in our defining of yes-God. We can, in fact, pick anything we want, to say it would be evidence of 'yes-God', and still realise that the opposite of that evidence cannot be evidence of 'no-God'.
House, of course, exists on the line too, in its own place. We could've put yes-house and no-house on opposite ends outside of the God line and used the house-line. Any things can be plotted independently on our continuum line, but on one side it is yes-X and on the other no-X, extending in infinite directions, both ways. In other words, each side of the line contains the essence of either yes-ness or the essence of no-ness.
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. -
I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells
Sailing from Byzantium
By your logic, a Goddess with red hair who created you as a nine foot tall women with wings cannot be disproven, either.
.
™ Version 4.2
(1)