Actually, wouldn't it be more accurate to say God is a doorknob?

IE, something created by man to serve man's purpose?
Since God also doesn't listen to anybody's prayers, is that where the saying: deaf as a doorknob comes from?

(May 26, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Okay, well if we change it so that it stays where it is and doesn't die, is it God then [1]? Kingpin said it needs to not die as well, so that covers both in one.

It's not conditional on anything [2]. Just a slug that created everything else, and then continues on in solititude, never dying [3].

1) No
2) Then it isn't a slug.
3) Well, either it is a slug that created everything, or it is something else that isn't conditional. Even if it were a slug that created everything else, as conditional, it isn't god.

Why isn't a slug? The laws of our reality just don't apply to it.

Bold mine: Why not? What's still lacking? It created everything, and its not conditional on anything. What is it missing?

Honestly, I don't know what a god is supposed to be. It's normally defined in ways that tell me nothing about it. I can't fill in the gaps myself here.

(May 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why isn't a slug? The laws of our reality just don't apply to it. [1]

Quote:ignorant says: Even if it were a slug that created everything else, as conditional, it isn't god.

Bold mine: Why not? What's still lacking? It created everything, and its not conditional on anything. What is it missing? [2]

Honestly, I don't know what a god is supposed to be. [3] It's normally defined in ways that tell me nothing about it. I can't fill in the gaps myself here.

1) Why? A slug is a thing-existing-in-a-particular-way, viz. in the way of a slug. If the thing-about-which-you-are-asking exists in a way which slugs do not exist (e.g. slugs do not exist unconditionally or necessarily) then it can't be said to be a slug and be intelligibile at the same time. Either it is a slug (which is a contingent way of existing) or it is a non-contingent thing existing in the ways you are trying to understand. It can't be both.

2) See #1

3) Join the club. Thomas Aquinas used to ask "What is god?" all of the time. There are very few things you can positively identify about god (some would argue no things can be so identified). The most traditional way to try to understand the "what" of god is by identifying what god is not (i.e. the via negativa). One of the things god is not => a slug 

Okay, I appreciate the honesty

Does this not worry you, that you don't know what it is you believe in? This topic wasn't meant to be a trap, it was a genuine attempt to try and negotiate what a "God" is. Sadly only two theists have been willing to cooperate.

You seem to be describing a slug as it exists in our reality. If you put a slug somewhere that no laws of our universe acted upon it, what's the problem? A slug doesn't have this reality attached to it as part of its definition.

But this seems moot if you don't know what a god is. It's my suspicion that no theist does actually know. Which is why me trying to answer the question of belief is fruitless, because I don't understand the question, and I can't see into their minds.

Indeed; all I generally hear are negatives. The reasons the negatives seem to exist is to keep the god outside the range of falsifiability by science. My hypothesis is that "gods" only exist within the imagination of theists. Any attempt to inject a dose of reality seems to disqualify the thing from being a god. For example, a computer programmer would be a perfectly sensible "God", relative to this reality. But I don't think I've ever heard a theist accept this as a "God".

Clearly the slug thing is causing some friction.

So if I just replace it for now with an unknown entity, and all we know about it is:

1) It was responsible for the creation of everything else
2) It is not dependent on the creation
3) It exists continually/indefinitely

Is this enough? Would any theist sign off in this being "a god"? Obviously not any particular God, I'm trying to discover the entry requirements.

If this is not enough, what is missing?

If a theist doesn't know what the difference between a god and a non-God is, how can their belief make any sense?

I don't want to hear vague, meaningless statements like "It's the greatest of all things". That doesn't tell me anything. Great in what way? According to who?

(May 27, 2016 at 3:40 pm)robvalue Wrote: Okay, I appreciate the honesty [1] 

Does this not worry you, that you don't know what it is you believe in? [2] This topic wasn't meant to be a trap, it was a genuine attempt to try and negotiate what a "God" is. Sadly only two theists have been willing to cooperate.

You seem to be describing a slug as it exists in our reality. If you put a slug somewhere that no laws of our universe acted upon it, what's the problem?  A slug doesn't have this reality attached to it as part of its definition. [3]

But this seems moot if you don't know what a god is. It's my suspicion that no theist does actually know. Which is why me trying to answer the question of belief is fruitless, because I don't understand the question, and I can't see into their minds. [4]

Indeed; all I generally hear are negatives. The reasons the negatives seem to exist is to keep the god outside the range of falsifiability by science. [5] My hypothesis is that "gods" only exist within the imagination of theists. Any attempt to inject a dose of reality seems to disqualify the thing from being a god. For example, a computer programmer would be a perfectly sensible "God", relative to this reality. [6] But I don't think I've ever heard a theist accept this as a "God".

1) =) 

2) Actually, no, it doesn't worry me. If god is anything like the sort of thing my limited understanding tells me god must be like, then I couldn't possibly conceive of or know god like I conceive of and understand other things: like slugs. The moment I identify god as a "thing" in the same way that I identify a slug as a "thing", then it can't be god. Why? God's way of existing is unlike any other way of existing. Existing is "what" he is, but existing is "act" not "thing". So what is god? He is "the act of being" (derived from the negative => god cannot not "be"). What is that? <= A good question for contemplation. Also, as I am sure you know I am Catholic, and as a Catholic I believe that this god, whatever it is, speaks to humanity. More precisely, I believe that he speaks to humanity in a very particular way through the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. Through Jesus, god speaks to us about "who" he is, and about who WE are. That gives us more information about god. However, seeing as that is information known by faith, it is hardly admissible within the context of a discussion based in reason alone.

3) I don't see how removing the slug "from our reality" changes anything. In whatever reality it finds itself, if it is existing "as-a-slug" (in whatever way that means in any reality), then it can't be existing "as-god".

4) Many theists think that they do know what god is. They are partially right, because not knowing exactly the "what" of god is not equivalent to knowing "exactly nothing" about the "what" of god. There are some things we know about the "what", and those well-meaning theists confuse that "what-we-do-know" with the "exactly-what" of god. I used to be that way, but after more critical reflection and prayer I have learned to distinguish between the little I do know, and the infinite degree of what I don't. That is not scary, that is exciting. I can always discover more.

5) =) Theists don't (at least I hope most of us don't) actively attempt to conceive of god in ways that dodge and avoid validation and experimentation by scientific methods. If there is any god at all, and the-way-in-which-it-exists is not scientifically verifiable in a lab, that is simply because that is the-sort-of-thing-god-is.

6) If you think that this example is a perfectly sensible "god" relative to this reality, then you a very very right to not accept that god exists.

(May 28, 2016 at 4:21 am)robvalue Wrote: Clearly the slug thing is causing some friction.

So if I just replace it for now with an unknown entity, and all we know about it is:

1) It was responsible for the creation of everything else [1]
2) It is not dependent on the creation
3) It exists continually/indefinitely [2]

Is this enough? Would any theist sign off in this being "a god"? Obviously not any particular God, I'm trying to discover the entry requirements.

If this is not enough, what is missing? [3]

If a theist doesn't know what the difference between a god and a non-God is, how can their belief make any sense? [4]

I don't want to hear vague, meaningless statements like "It's the greatest of all things". That doesn't tell me anything. Great in what way? According to who?

1) Just an aside: This is irrelevant regarding the "what" of god, considered in itself. God is not the sort of "what" that MUST create. If however, the question is regarding how we can know anything (if at all) about the "what", then it is relevant. 

2) There is a better way to put this: It is subsistent being. <= I know that is not readily clear, so: Compare with yourself. 

You are a human being. Which is to say, you are being human. You can't NOT be human. Why? It is your "what". You are being as-a-human and only a human. God is being as-the-act-of-being. <= This is why god is different than everything else, and this is why we find it difficult to say exactly what he is. What is he? He is his own act of being. What does that mean? I don't exactly know, there is nothing else like it.

3) See above

4) See above, I identified the difference.

I appreciate the responses, thank you

I cannot make any sense of it I'm afraid. I don't know how I could possibly tell the difference between a reality with one of these gods involved, and one without. I'm also very unsure how any theist can tell the difference.

Maybe that's a different angle. How would you expect reality to differ if there was no god behind it? It might still have a creator, but not a god.

If you can answer this question, where are you getting your information? (Hopefully not in a circular way.)

If it's all so complicated, vague and beyond our understanding that we couldn't tell the difference...

Anyhow I wanted to give you respect for differentiating between a philosophical/scientific discussion and faith. That's rare on here, most religious theists shoehorn in stuff from their books like it is fact. At that point, I can't continue a reasonable discussion.

Oh, and I don't think theists are deliberately trying to be evasive. Not all of them, anyway. Some come across as particularly dishonest, but you don't. I do think that the whole concept has been sold so as to be vague enough to escape science. It has to, or else it will fall on its face. And it has become increasingly vague as science has progressed. I mean, look back at Yahweh in the first book of the bible. He's clearly a humanoid walking on the earth. That's about as far away from the description you gave for God as you could get. The stories are taken more and more metaphorically as it becomes clear the literal readings conflict with reality. By the smart theists, anyway. Some cling to literal interpretations and are willing to deny reality to do so.

(May 28, 2016 at 5:44 am)robvalue Wrote: I appreciate the responses, thank you

I cannot make any sense of it I'm afraid. I don't know how I could possibly tell the difference between a reality with one of these gods involved, and one without. [1] I'm also very unsure how any theist can tell the difference.

Maybe that's a different angle. How would you expect reality to differ if there was no god behind it? [2] It might still have a creator, but not a god. [3]

If you can answer this question, where are you getting your information? (Hopefully not in a circular way.) [4]

1) You couldn't tell, and here's why: If "one of these gods" was not involved with a particular reality, that reality would not exist. If that reality didn't exist, then there is no difference to observe because there is nothing to observe at all. If you are proposing that a reality might exist without involvement in the "act-of-existing", then I simply don't know what you mean.

2) It would differ in every way in the most radical way possible: reality would not exist at all.

3) It would be possible to have a reality with god and a creator which is not itself god. [EDIT:If => It] is not possible to have a reality with a creator which is not itself god and no god. Why? How do you propose a creator might exist if the "act-of-existing" does not exist?

4) If we accept the idea that god is subsistent being, i.e. He is not only the "act-of-existence" as such, but also his own "act-of-existence", then nothing else can "exist" at all if they do not share this "act" somehow. If there is no act to share, then they can't act at all. If they have the act in themselves, then they are god.