(July 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(July 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: ^This.

I myself don't have an issue with other gods existing, gods are just beings that are to be honoured to the extent of worship. That's all they are.

However, logically, Ultimate Existence, cannot lack existence. And if lacks some existence, it would not be Ultimate Life. The same is true of it's qualities. If it lacked some power, some goodness, some compassion, some love, some mercy, it would not be ultimate love, power, compassion.

Whatever it is, all it's qualities that we call are in fact united in a single existence. The reason is, none of them would be ultimate qualities or perfections, were they not one, as they would lack the other qualities.


Now if there was two independent existences, one would lack what's in the other. They both would not be ultimate.

But if we know ultimate being exists, then necessarily he cannot lack existence.
So now you probably are thinking, what about creation? Well, creation then is a dependant existence, it borrows it's existence from God. Thus God lacks no life, the life of other beings is from him giving existence through his own existence. This doesn't mean God loses any existence.

Can there be "lesser" gods...sure why not...why can't creation reach the level of divinity? But the difference with God is that he is Value in itself, while everything else has to earn value.

So if there is gods, they would have struggle to reach that rank.

Perhaps us humans are on a journey towards divinity, perhaps, other creatures are also on that journey.

But I don't think finite creation can ever reach the level of Ultimate, because that has no limit, while creation is finite and limited.

Meaningless rambling and shite that no one is interested in.

(July 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Meaningless rambling and shite that no one is interested in.

I think all of that was to prove that an ultimate being is ultimate, if one were to exist.
Now, if you ask me, I felt that the ultimate being proposed would have to be ultimate by definition- but I lost him just as fast as whateverist, so I can't be sure.

(July 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(July 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I myself don't have an issue with other gods existing, gods are just beings that are to be honoured to the extent of worship. That's all they are.

However, logically, Ultimate Existence, cannot lack existence. And if lacks some existence, it would not be Ultimate Life. The same is true of it's qualities. If it lacked some power, some goodness, some compassion, some love, some mercy, it would not be ultimate love, power, compassion.

Whatever it is, all it's qualities that we call are in fact united in a single existence. The reason is, none of them would be ultimate qualities or perfections, were they not one, as they would lack the other qualities.


Now if there was two independent existences, one would lack what's in the other. They both would not be ultimate.

But if we know ultimate being exists, then necessarily he cannot lack existence.
So now you probably are thinking, what about creation? Well, creation then is a dependant existence, it borrows it's existence from God. Thus God lacks no life, the life of other beings is from him giving existence through his own existence. This doesn't mean God loses any existence.

Can there be "lesser" gods...sure why not...why can't creation reach the level of divinity? But the difference with God is that he is Value in itself, while everything else has to earn value.

So if there is gods, they would have struggle to reach that rank.

Perhaps us humans are on a journey towards divinity, perhaps, other creatures are also on that journey.

But I don't think finite creation can ever reach the level of Ultimate, because that has no limit, while creation is finite and limited.

Meaningless rambling and shite that no one is interested in.

Sir I admire your elequence

Lack of a coherent meaningful definition and a clear positive ontology is the killer mystic.

(July 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I myself don't have an issue with other gods existing, gods are just beings that are to be honoured to the extent of worship. That's all they are.

Which begs the question, why call them gods then and not just other forms of life?

Quote:However, logically, Ultimate Existence, cannot lack existence.

Oh shit. The -Ultimate- Spider-man slap-on tag is back. Here we go again...

Quote:Well, creation then is a dependant existence, it borrows it's existence from God. Thus God lacks no life, the life of other beings is from him giving existence through his own existence. This doesn't mean God loses any existence.

This is where I become apatheistic. If we're still here today, gone tomorrow why should we even care if there's a god? We're going straight back to oblivion mate and cannot afford to waste any time pondering the existence of beings that don't perish.

Quote:Can there be "lesser" gods...sure why not...why can't creation reach the level of divinity?

Immortality? That's simply unrealistic within reality as we know it.

Quote:But the difference with God is that he is Value in itself, while everything else has to earn value.

I'd rather tell that kind of god to fuck off if it exists.

Quote:So if there is gods, they would have struggle to reach that rank.

And no doubt continue to suffer greatly just to maintain their godhood. Nah, screw that nonsense.

Quote:Perhaps us humans are on a journey towards divinity, perhaps, other creatures are also on that journey. But I don't think finite creation can ever reach the level of Ultimate, because that has no limit, while creation is finite and limited.

Then why bother? If oblivion is liberation from this god and its crapsack reality why not just live out a finite existence and joyfully contemplate the simplicity and yet profoundness of eternal nothingness which is greater than any ultimate god?

I would like to point out that atheists would be very unhappy supporting atheism upon these arguments. It is evident from how when asked for arguments (as I have observed on this site) the first thing they do is point out that atheism needs none. Perhaps this is because the arguments in no way justify the overwhelming confidence that many atheists have in their atheism.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:50 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I would like to point out that atheists would be very unhappy supporting atheism upon these arguments. It is evident from how when asked for arguments (as I have observed on this site) the first thing they do is point out that atheism needs none. Perhaps this is because the arguments in no way justify the overwhelming confidence that many atheists have in their atheism.

Or perhaps it's that some of us simply don't think that theists have made a case for their positive claim.

Nah, that can't be it.

(July 11, 2012 at 1:02 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:50 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I would like to point out that atheists would be very unhappy supporting atheism upon these arguments. It is evident from how when asked for arguments (as I have observed on this site) the first thing they do is point out that atheism needs none. Perhaps this is because the arguments in no way justify the overwhelming confidence that many atheists have in their atheism.

Or perhaps it's that some of us simply don't think that theists have made a case for their positive claim.

Nah, that can't be it.

From this, atheism doesn't necessary follow. At best it would be agnosticism that follows.

(July 11, 2012 at 1:06 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 1:02 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Or perhaps it's that some of us simply don't think that theists have made a case for their positive claim.

Nah, that can't be it.

From this, atheism doesn't necessary follow. At best it would be agnosticism that follows.

Somehow I doubt you understand the difference, or why they are not mutually exclusive.

(July 11, 2012 at 1:09 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 1:06 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: From this, atheism doesn't necessary follow. At best it would be agnosticism that follows.

Somehow I doubt you understand the difference, or why they are not mutually exclusive.

I hate getting bogged down by definitions. My point was that if there is an absence of evidence of God it doesn't mean you are necessarily justified in believing that there is no God. If you are, please explain why.

(July 11, 2012 at 1:48 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 1:09 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Somehow I doubt you understand the difference, or why they are not mutually exclusive.

I hate getting bogged down by definitions. My point was that if there is an absence of evidence of God it doesn't mean you are necessarily justified in believing that there is no God. If you are, please explain why.

I don't believe that there are no gods. I lack belief in any of them, a subtle but important difference.