Comment by ryandv
2 days ago
No, my point is that the concept of identity is nonsense.
Show me a proof of the existence of an "identity" and I will furnish you proof of the soul and god.
2 days ago
No, my point is that the concept of identity is nonsense.
Show me a proof of the existence of an "identity" and I will furnish you proof of the soul and god.
Sure, just as soon as you show me the proof of existence of "thoughts" and that you exist as something other than an illusion in my mind.
How about the existence of numbers? The proof of 1+1=2? We humans have words for lots of things that only exist as abstract concepts without a physical embodiment.
Identity is one more of those and it's trivial to understand its application to real people.
> semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions for the word "god," which is probably better understood in modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical models, and the hard reality of physical law). [0]
Right. We have that thoughts exist only if identities exist; identities exist only if gods exist; and that gods are made out of the same mind-stuff as mathematics, thought, and abstraction.
In fact it sounds like your position is tantamount to saying that gods exist if and only if identities exist, which was to be demonstrated.
One wonders why one regards such viewpoints as "secular" (or even, scientific!) when they still bear the hallmarks of what was once regarded as "spiritual" or metaphysical thought.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929408
If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree.
The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful.
1 reply →