It depends on how literally you're interpreting my statement.

Try this: write two different sentences simultaneously with your right hand and your left hand. Can you do it?

Why do we generalize and create categories like "fruits?" So we can communicate more efficiently. Writing "I like fruits" is a lot more efficient than writing "I like bananas, oranges, canteloupes, watermelons, potato, tomato, blah blah blah blah blah." If I made a list you wouldn't be able to read it quickly enough, which is why you probably wouldn't read it in the first place.

But, you know, if all of us could parallel process a long list instantaneously, we don't need concepts like "fruits" anymore. Instead, I could just create a list of objects I like [bananas, oranges, etc.] and with a single glance, you can instantly tell what I'm trying to communicate.

We need efficiency because we can only think one sentence at a time. If we could parallel process millions of sentences, summarizing isn't necessary anymore. Philosophical concepts of categories and classes exist only because of this mechanical limitation on our thoughts.

On the other point: yes I agree. Sentences are very complex. Fine. But no matter how complex it is, you can still only express your ideas one sentence at a time.

Again, why?

Right. So we use larger concepts like "fruit" to summarize smaller concepts like "bananas or oranges" to get around this problem of "I can only think one sentence at a time."

But if we could think millions of sentences simultaneously, we wouldn't need to summarize concepts, now, would we? Instead, we could just make a list and expect everyone else to quickly scan through it, kinda like what computers do.

That's alright. Apology accepted.

But the larger problem is that despite all of the words bandied forth (intuitions, transcendental, etc.) your response still doesn't answer the question. What it does instead is to rationalize why you choose not to question it.

Like, on a physical level what is the reason we can't think more than one sentence at a time? Obviously, there has to be a scientific reason for it. What is it? And once we discover it, doesn't that mean we can modify this trait so that people in the future CAN think multiple sentences simultaneously?

What I'm trying to get here is this: what are the mechanics of human thought? Our physical bodies are bounded by physical laws (Newton, gravity, falling apples, etc.). We know we cannot, for example, fly like a bird because our legs cannot generate the thrust required to counter the force of gravity acting on our bodies. On a similar vein, what are the mechanical boundaries of human thought and what are the reasons for them?

And yet here you are writing your sentences one at a time. That's odd, isn't it, considering that we can program machines to write millions of sentences simultaneously?

"Why does the Sun go around the Earth?"
Answer: 'Cuz it just does. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Literally, it's so simple. You're over-complicating it.

I.e. your response doesn't answer any of the questions. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is that philosophy has made you an ass.

Descartes says "I think therefore I am."

Fine. So, then, on a mechanical level, how does Descartes think?

Regardless, you can't coherently think both thoughts at the same time. Right? When people do philosophy, they can only philosophize one sentence at a time. They can't, for example, philosophize two sentences simultaneously, correct?

Also, your response doesn't answer the question. Two problems:

1. Which parts?
2. Your brain can multitask for information processing, too. Like, for example, you can see the color red and listen to music on Youtube. That's multitasking. But then why is the processing of information in the content of "words" so restricted? Like, your brain can note the color red and green on opposite ends of the screen simultaneously. And yet when you read this paragraph you're restricted to reading only one line at a time. Why?

Every generation believes that what they believe in is eternal. And yet two centuries later, very few of their descendants continue to believe in what they had believed. And then these descendants claim their belief system is eternal and correct, only to be ignored and dismissed as "stupid" two centuries after that.

If concepts are so eternal, then why are they always changing?

But even if they stick to the Nicene Creed, if each Pope writes about God differently, then doesn't that mean each Pope is thinking of a different concept of God?

Of course, each Pope believes they're talking about the same God as the previous Pope. But the written evidence suggests otherwise.

The point is there concepts of God are not identical. Similar perhaps, but not identical. Elijah and Isaiah each wrote and thought about Jehovah differently.

I agree. I'm not responding to his posts. Don't know if he's a troll but it's pretty obvious he's a sociopath and I don't want anything to do with him.

What can't you philosophize about?

My response: the infinite.

I suspect the neurobiological patterns of these two types of people, when they talk about God, will differ.

@ emancipate

I don't take a position on God, whether he exists or not, or whether he's finite or not. I'm actually ok with most other people's positions on it. If you're Hindu or atheist or Christian, that's great. As an agnostic, I'm ok with all sides. But my position can be summarized like this: "obviously humans can't see the infinite. I agree with you. But since I can't see it, and you can't see it, and no one can see it, and no one can really talk about it, then why spend the effort? If the infinite can't be comprehended, why try? Shouldn't more effort be spent on subjects we can measure (i.e. finite subjects) such as: [EDIT]

On a biological/physical level, what exactly makes people want to discuss God in the first place?

And, neurologically, when two people discuss God, are they using the 'same' parts of the brain, or are they using different ones?

And, if they have happened to be using different parts of the brain when they discuss God, doesn't that mean each person is discussing a different "God?"

@ Sime

In America, the game is called "Clue." I'm assuming you're referring to that because I'm looking at the name "Cluedo" and I'm wondering "what country calls it that?".

In regards to the other points made, um, my point is more like this:

Are we even thinking of the same game? I mean, we might call it by similar names, but the thought processes you go through when you think about "Clue" or "Cluedo" appears to be really different from the thought processes I go through when I think about it.

@ Wayfarer: I actually have a friend (sorta) who went to graduate theology school. What you say about Christianity sounds about right. It was at the Council of Nicea or something that the Church at the time decided which chapters of the Bible to include, right? From what I read Emperor Constantine was getting pretty pissed that these argumentative church elders couldn't agree on a state doctrine so he was like: "alright you fools, do it or else." Etc. etc. I don't have the details but I do have a general sketch of what happened then.

In regards to the second half, the argument that Muslims, Hindus, Christians, etc. are all looking at the "same" God, but from different perspectives (and that of course all human perspectives are flawed and incomplete) is something I'm familiar with. But, you know, if you're not pious, from the written evidence you can just as easily argue that each person or side is arguing about a different God. There are significant differences between Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, all of which is well documented. The only major similarity is that they all claim to be about "The One True God" as a tactic to demonstrate their superiority over alternatives like the other religions and atheism/agnosticism.

@Emancipate. But why do you assume that? From the written evidence, I can easily argue that the reason people have different perspectives of God is because each person is writing about a different God.

I mean, when a person writes about God they're writing about their concept of God, correct? Since their concepts of God differ, then naturally that means each person is writing about a different God.

What is beautiful to a human may not necessarily be beautiful to a dog. And vice versa. I can agree with that.

Oftentimes statements are neither true nor false. Feelings have everything to do with it. People rationalize their feelings, all the time.

Ok. I'll try to understand.

Also, no.

Human feelings of belief and truth have little to do with accuracy.

No. So that's another reason why I don't understand what you're saying.

Too much passive tense.

If you are a fanatic, belief and truth are the same. They're different only if you're not a fanatic and can see things from the perspective of others.

I couldn't understand what you're saying. Um, the grammar needs work. Could you phrase that differently?

You know, if the Communists invade a Muslim country I don't think the Communists will win. Those Muslims are pretty stubborn at defending their lands.

Claim: Beauty is only relative or culturally dependent.
Answer: In a study that was conducted by an American woman - Judith Langlois - it was found that a face with a particular set of proportions was regarded as beautiful by everyone. Actual beauty - such as the Sistine Chapel or the Burmese stupas or the works of Anna Akhmatova - takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.

My response: the women portrayed on Tang Dynasty vases are almost all fat.

Here's another problem: The pious might believe they're talking about the same God (from different angles). But to everyone else, it looks like each individual is talking about a different God.

I mean, if two people write about God differently, then doesn't that mean that the two people are each writing about a different God? They may not agree to that, but to everyone else that's what it looks like.

EDIT: BTW, I'm planning to take this thread beyond the immediate question. For example, if two philosophers write about free will differently, then doesn't that mean each philosopher is writing about a DIFFERENT free will? Perhaps the reason philosophers can't agree on a definition of "free will" is because each philosopher is defining a different "free will."

Belief and Truth are not the same... only if you can think from the perspective of someone else. If you can't, then they are the same.

Ok. Is Augustine writing about the same God as Aquinas? Are modern scholars of the Bible thinking of the same God as scholars of the Bible of the, uh, medieval centuries?

And more broadly:

When two people on a philosophy discussion forum discuss God, to what extent are they discussing the "same" God?

EDIT: Maybe the reason people can't agree is because each person is talking about a different God.

What I'm really asking for is:

Is the OP's question even answerable?

That definition doesn't make any sense. I'm a different person than you. Furthermore, nothing can transcend the universe because the universe by definition includes all.

Good. But put it in your own words. I don't want to read a hyperlink.

EDIT: Hyperlinks are lazy.

That's remarkably vague.

Ok. Goes like this. Let's say Person A provides an answer to his question. "God is material because of X or Y reason."

But if Person A is talking about a different God than the OP, doesn't that mean Person A didn't actually answer the OP's question? 'Cuz what the OP is asking for is whether HIS concept of God is material or not, whereas Person A in his answer is referring to Person A's concept of God.

So that means when he talks about God, and when you talk about God, and when I talk about God, we're each talking about a different God. Right?

Oh don' t bother. As it happens my math is better than yours.

But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you?