Minimalist -

It's a fair hypothetical question, posed by an atheist, Tavarish, which my answer adequately addresses.

(July 10, 2010 at 1:04 pm)Godhead Wrote: No I don't need to do either. I've offered an adequate, hypothetical answer, to a hypothetical question.

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon which can be tested in some way which ideally either proves or disproves the hypothesis. For the duration of testing, the hypothesis is taken to be true, and the goal of the researcher is to rigorously test the terms of the hypothesis. When someone formulates a hypothesis, he or she does so with the intention of testing it, and he or she should not know the outcome of potential tests before the hypothesis is made. When formulating a hypothesis, the ideals of the scientific method are often kept in mind, so the hypothesis is designed to be testable in a way which could be replicated by other people. It is also kept clear and simple, and the hypothesis relies on known information and reasoning.

So, as Min said, your answer is not a hypothetical, it's bullshit.

Anything that exists can be measured. God cannot be measured. Therefore god does not exist.

If I may join in with this debate...

(July 10, 2010 at 4:25 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok so we've established I understand where you're coming from and you're not seeing my perspective entirely. Let’s see if I can take this step by step.
1-I think I can clear up things. From your logic, omnipotence itself is contrary on an absolute scale. How can something have the power to do something that is against its own nature? Once you do that thing it then becomes part of your experience and then part of said character. The limits of logical omnipotence have to have at the very least a limit of “All power, within individual’s nature”. Hopefully from that you can see where your definition of omnipotent is illogical in itself and you’ll hopefully use the definition I provided to try and grasp the theological perspective.

Okay, that's fair enough. Just so long as you understand that omnipotence in its truest form would be logically impossible, I'll let you define it in a way so as to be logically coherent.

Quote:5- Completely ignoring transcendence, I’d like to see where any experiments (including the QM theories) on consciousness prove that self-identity can be eliminated entirely physically. Alter yes, I’ve seen experiments on that, but I don’t think science has yet proven the physicality of consciousness yet. If I’m wrong please enlighten me with references.

Indeed, no experiment has yet proved 'the physicality of consciousness'. That may be more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, anyway. What science has shown overwhelmingly is that consciousness is dependent upon a material, physical brain which is operative.

Quote:6.1-Yes, God exists outside the universe by definition, but through God’s revelations he interacts with this universe and can thus be described and defined. This is of course dependant on how we perceive reality.

These revelations are contradictory, if you hadn't noticed, both between religions and within religions.

Quote:6A- And you’re entitled to exclude what you feel is appropriate. For the record, I’ve never ( here or anywhere else) changed the attributes I attest to God. You’re assuming I have defined a God that has no creator. That’s simply not in a Christian’s prevue and I’ve defined clearly the Christian understanding of God (to which you’d be hard pressed to find one that disagrees on the basics).

Most Christians believe God is uncreated, as he is generally understood to be eternal. Something eternal by definition cannot be created. Besides, creating definitions which are compatible with logic doesn't make that being's existence likely.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-I think I can clear up things. From your logic, omnipotence itself is contrary on an absolute scale. How can something have the power to do something that is against its own nature?

Who says an omnipotent being has to carry a nature?

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: Once you do that thing it then becomes part of your experience and then part of said character.

So you're applying more attributes to your God. Nice. Is there any reasoning you can provide that demonstrates this statement?

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: The limits of logical omnipotence have to have at the very least a limit of “All power, within individual’s nature”.

Again, why? Why does an all-powerful being need a nature? Why is your God necessarily confined to a nature?

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: Hopefully from that you can see where your definition of omnipotent is illogical in itself and you’ll hopefully use the definition I provided to try and grasp the theological perspective.

If you're trying to make the point that God indeed has ultimate power only within a certain framework, that means a few things:

1. God was necessarily not the author of his nature, as he is immutable - meaning there is no point in which he chose a nature over another.

2. God is necessarily finite, as his power is necessarily limited to things he would do.

3. God's morality is not his own, as his nature is based on what is right, and in premise 1, God was necessarily not the author of his nature.

So here we are, with a necessarily finite being with a morality that is necessarily not his own. If he indeed create the universe, I don't understand how in any context he would be considered omnipotent, as you would only have to look to something outside his nature to see what he can't do, using your definition. In addition, with your definition, you are omnipotent in the same way - you have power over things that are within your nature.

It's a very weak argument, and not one you should use to strengthen the plausibility of a being hailed as the Alpha and the Omega.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 5- Completely ignoring transcendence, I’d like to see where any experiments (including the QM theories) on consciousness prove that self-identity can be eliminated entirely physically. Alter yes, I’ve seen experiments on that, but I don’t think science has yet proven the physicality of consciousness yet. If I’m wrong please enlighten me with references.

Consciousness is an product of something physical, namely a brain. You need a brain to experience consciousness. You can eliminate consciousness by eliminating the physical venue in which it resides. There are different types of consciousness, such as perception, self-identity, and memory - but all require a physical medium to develop. If you have any evidence of consciousness outside of anything physical, I'm all ears.

Here's a good, but lengthy blog post about the primacy of consciousness:

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 6.1-Yes, God exists outside the universe by definition, but through God’s revelations he interacts with this universe and can thus be described and defined. This is of course dependant on how we perceive reality.

So if this is dependent on subjective perception, how is it at all consistent?

If he interacts with this universe, he can manifest in reality - which is demonstrable. If he indeed does this, there should be reliably consistent methods of obtaining objectively verifiable evidence. Can you provide me with such evidence?

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 6.2- I see what you’re saying. You’re saying if a rock exists independent of consciousness, why attribute a consciousness to the universe. Allow me to explain my perspective. The consciousness you’re using is assumed to be human(or any current living species that qualifies) consciousness.

Yes, I'm using the consciousness that is demonstrable in reality.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: Then to that I would say a rock exists regardless of the observer.

Observation is a type of consciousness. You're effectively saying the same thing. In order to observe, you have to be conscious of the object you're regarding.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: It just so happens that I believe in God as, by my definition (which is shared), omniscient. He is a default observer when no other qualifiers are present, but it has little to no effect on the rock’s existence.

So the rock exists regardless of any observers, EXCEPT for God. Explain to me how this isn't special pleading.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: 6A- And you’re entitled to exclude what you feel is appropriate. For the record, I’ve never ( here or anywhere else) changed the attributes I attest to God. You’re assuming I have defined a God that has no creator. That’s simply not in a Christian’s prevue and I’ve defined clearly the Christian understanding of God (to which you’d be hard pressed to find one that disagrees on the basics).

I'm willing to bet that most Christians will make the case that God is the Alpha and Omega and had no creator, not to mention eternal - which by definition could not have been created.

If you define God as possibly having a creator, I ask how you can justify the infinite regress that follows.

(July 8, 2010 at 6:19 am)tackattack Wrote: That’s all I have the energy for tonight, but it’s progress I think. When we can get past this I'll deal with the God just is or God just is evolved enough

Ok. Although I find major flaws in your reasoning and logic and don't agree with your view at all, I greatly appreciate that you've made well-thought out responses and kept it civil. Thanks!

In this mind -

The hypothetical question was asked and I gave the adequate answer.

(July 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm)Godhead Wrote: In this mind -

The hypothetical question was asked and I gave the adequate answer.

No, you didn't.

In this mind-

Yes, selfexistence adequately explains how god would not have a creator.

(July 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm)Godhead Wrote: In this mind-

Yes, selfexistence adequately explains how god would not have a creator.

You were asked to provide a definition of god. You did not.

Since you cannot demonstrate that self-existence is even a real thing or even define IT, you may not use it as an explanation.

In this mind -

The question posed in the title of the thread was very specific and I've given the adeqate answer.

(July 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm)Godhead Wrote: Minimalist -

It's a fair hypothetical question, posed by an atheist, Tavarish, which my answer adequately addresses.

You will never understand.