Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
yeah... even theistic evolutionists fall for the 'god is timeless therefore doesn't need a creator', circular reasoning. it all comes down to whether or not you want to believe there are an infinite number of turtles holding up the earth. i tried explaining the problem of that argument to my logics teacher (who had no degree in related subjects but taught it by the book): the argument is a cop out -- you could say 'God is mysterious therefore doesn't need a creator' and make just as much sense to the layman or even Nobel Prize winning physicists.
(June 26, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
1a- It's unlimited power over this universe and unlimited authority over his creation (meaning this universe not his own). I never used immutable, nor is it an attribute any theist I know attributes to God. I don't think anything can be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does.
1b-omniscience does not negate omnipotence. How does the fact you see every possibility have any affect on the power/force you use to direct your will. Let me try and give a metaphor, becuase there's obviously a disconnect here: If the universe is a lake, God loks into the lake and sees every little fish and algae in it and everything they're thinking and doing. He also knows everything about the lake itself (omniscience). He sees some shark about to eat a particularly important fish. He uses his underwater taser (omnipotent) to stop the shark. how does one limit the other?
2- I suppose with consistent demonstratability.
3- You're going to have to either dub that down a bit for me or wait till I get some sleep and some fresh eyes. I reread it twice.
4- They might add more attributes, I don't think they'd take away any of them and that they'd agree to the definitions presented. Consistency is also a product of truth, but you're more than welcome to believe we're all delusional nut cases, everyone else does.
1. So you just demonstrated that God isn't omnipotent, since he can't change the parameters of his existence, and assert that his power is necessarily confined to our universe (whatever that means).
By the way, immutability is quite common on Christian doctrine:
1b. Because omniscience isn't simply seeing the possibilities of what can occur, it's knowing with absolute certainty what WILL occur at any point. With that, God cannot stray from his own path without compromising his omnipotence.
I'll follow your lake analogy:
God knows that he will be surveying a lake and tasering a shark to save a fish. Now God KNOWS this ahead of time, and therefore has no way of making a choice NOT to do it, otherwise he would not know what he was going to do with absolute certainty. If he could change his actions, that would necessarily mean he was mistaken in his knowledge, and if he couldn't change his actions, that necessarily means he is not only not omnipotent, but impotent.
Do you understand now?
2. Please be more specific.
3. Boils down to two axioms - primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness. I outlined them for you in the previous post. If you support the primacy of consciousness (that existence is dependent on a mind), how do you distinguish the real from unreal, and how can you be certain that mind is necessarily God with the attributes that you list?
4. I'll ask them to chime in.
Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I should probably make another thread for that.
1- No I stated he was omnipotent and our perceptions of his power can only be seen from within the only frame of reference we have (within our universe). His power maybe finite outside this universe, idk, but since he's the creator of this universe and has power over it and in it, he's more powerful than it. From our perspective he's all powerfull, but that doesn't necessarily apply outside the universe.
1b-I think I can see what you're talking about. If over the course of 15 billion occurences of 1 incident he's done or will do every possible action and in that way would be unable to change his course of action because at some point in eternity he's done it. In this universe/space time/dimension he can only have one contributing influence on one event at one point in time.
2-I don't think I can be any more specific than that. I don't think God can be objectively proven to exist materialisticaly nor do I make that claim.
3- I think existance isn't based off of a mind. A rock will be a rock if no one is around to see it, and it exists.
(June 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote: Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I'll oblige.
Sounds spot on apart from: "God has a [will and] design" seems odd. Dunno what you mean by that tack.
Like tack said we all agree on the basics. God's nature is constantly being revealed to all of us. We accept it's not something we can know completely. Even collectively. But we all do know and agree upon those basics.
Sure I'll elaborate.
Jerimiah 1
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD. 9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."
Jeremiah 29:11-13 (New International Version)
11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
IT's simple he has a plan for us, sometimes I substitute plan for design, they're interchangable in my mind.
1. Let's boil this down to a few simple statements. I'll assume the existence of God for a moment.
First, frame of reference has nothing to do with truth claims. An apple is an apple even if it's being perceived as a rutabaga. The claim is that God is omnipotent and can make literally anything happen (With God all things are possible), not just within the confines of "our" universe.
Second, if he had been created, this would mean that he is not the author of the parameters of his existence, making him necessarily finite and not eternal or timeless.
Third, if he is necessarily finite (in any context), he is not omnipotent, as in there are definitely things he cannot do.
Fourth, if you make the distinction that such a being can very well be impotent, how can you then say that he is necessarily omnipotent within our universe? For him to exist, he would have to conform to parameters that were there before him - parameters that are readily demonstrable as we speak - the condition of existence.
Scope doesn't justify calling an apple an orange. Because an apple may look like an orange from 500 yards away doesn't make it an orange. Do you understand?
Saying "God is omnipotent from our perspective" doesn't mean anything because it's not assigning a truth value to anything.
1b. Yes, that would make God necessarily impotent.
2. So "consistent demonstrability" is not possible. Got it.
3. If you agree with the primacy of existence, then why make the claim that the universe was created necessarily by the will of a consciousness? It's an inconsistent position to say "A rock will be a rock if no one's around to see it, it exists" and then say "The rock's existence is dependent on God willing it into existence"
Let's recap:
By your own admission, you have demonstrated that:
a. God may not be omnipotent, and is in fact impotent.
b. God may not be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time (logical contradiction).
c. God's existence isn't demonstrable or distinguishable from non-existence.
d. Things exist regardless of conscious will.
Now, please explain to me how this construct isn't just imaginary, and if it isn't, why I should believe in such a contradictory, vague, and necessarily convoluted concept.
(June 28, 2010 at 7:44 pm)tavarish Wrote: OK, what are the basics?
When I say consensus, I mean consensus among people, not among people that are already a part of your religion. I wrote "theists" rather than "Christians" for a reason.
OK I was answering Tacks specific Christian definitions that you asked about. Definitions of God may not be as refined, but they all address the same subject, and that subject is limited. I don't see how it helps from my point of view, to diversify into personification of deities.. simply because it's a long winding road around the core concept.
The concept in hand is of very little interest to me. Considering the creation of God is an entirely scientific exercise.
(June 29, 2010 at 2:06 am)tackattack Wrote: Sure I'll elaborate.
IT's simple he has a plan for us, sometimes I substitute plan for design, they're interchangable in my mind.
Oh I see. I thought you were saying that God had a design - not that God had a design for...
June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am (This post was last modified: July 6, 2010 at 11:46 pm by tackattack.)
(June 29, 2010 at 10:40 am)tavarish Wrote:
(June 29, 2010 at 2:06 am)tackattack Wrote:
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote:
(June 26, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote:
(June 26, 2010 at 3:48 am)tavarish Wrote:
(June 26, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
1a- It's unlimited power over this universe and unlimited authority over his creation (meaning this universe not his own). I never used immutable, nor is it an attribute any theist I know attributes to God. I don't think anything can be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does.
1b-omniscience does not negate omnipotence. How does the fact you see every possibility have any affect on the power/force you use to direct your will. Let me try and give a metaphor, becuase there's obviously a disconnect here: If the universe is a lake, God loks into the lake and sees every little fish and algae in it and everything they're thinking and doing. He also knows everything about the lake itself (omniscience). He sees some shark about to eat a particularly important fish. He uses his underwater taser (omnipotent) to stop the shark. how does one limit the other?
2- I suppose with consistent demonstratability.
3- You're going to have to either dub that down a bit for me or wait till I get some sleep and some fresh eyes. I reread it twice.
4- They might add more attributes, I don't think they'd take away any of them and that they'd agree to the definitions presented. Consistency is also a product of truth, but you're more than welcome to believe we're all delusional nut cases, everyone else does.
1. So you just demonstrated that God isn't omnipotent, since he can't change the parameters of his existence, and assert that his power is necessarily confined to our universe (whatever that means).
By the way, immutability is quite common on Christian doctrine:
1b. Because omniscience isn't simply seeing the possibilities of what can occur, it's knowing with absolute certainty what WILL occur at any point. With that, God cannot stray from his own path without compromising his omnipotence.
I'll follow your lake analogy:
God knows that he will be surveying a lake and tasering a shark to save a fish. Now God KNOWS this ahead of time, and therefore has no way of making a choice NOT to do it, otherwise he would not know what he was going to do with absolute certainty. If he could change his actions, that would necessarily mean he was mistaken in his knowledge, and if he couldn't change his actions, that necessarily means he is not only not omnipotent, but impotent.
Do you understand now?
2. Please be more specific.
3. Boils down to two axioms - primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness. I outlined them for you in the previous post. If you support the primacy of consciousness (that existence is dependent on a mind), how do you distinguish the real from unreal, and how can you be certain that mind is necessarily God with the attributes that you list?
4. I'll ask them to chime in.
Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I should probably make another thread for that.
1- No I stated he was omnipotent and our perceptions of his power can only be seen from within the only frame of reference we have (within our universe). His power maybe finite outside this universe, idk, but since he's the creator of this universe and has power over it and in it, he's more powerful than it. From our perspective he's all powerfull, but that doesn't necessarily apply outside the universe.
1b-I think I can see what you're talking about. If over the course of 15 billion occurences of 1 incident he's done or will do every possible action and in that way would be unable to change his course of action because at some point in eternity he's done it. In this universe/space time/dimension he can only have one contributing influence on one event at one point in time.
2-I don't think I can be any more specific than that. I don't think God can be objectively proven to exist materialisticaly nor do I make that claim.
3- I think existance isn't based off of a mind. A rock will be a rock if no one is around to see it, and it exists.
(June 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote: Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I'll oblige.
Sounds spot on apart from: "God has a [will and] design" seems odd. Dunno what you mean by that tack.
Like tack said we all agree on the basics. God's nature is constantly being revealed to all of us. We accept it's not something we can know completely. Even collectively. But we all do know and agree upon those basics.
Sure I'll elaborate.
Jerimiah 1
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD. 9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."
Jeremiah 29:11-13 (New International Version)
11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. IT's simple he has a plan for us, sometimes I substitute plan for design, they're interchangable in my mind.
1. Let's boil this down to a few simple statements. I'll assume the existence of God for a moment.
First, frame of reference has nothing to do with truth claims. An apple is an apple even if it's being perceived as a rutabaga. The claim is that God is omnipotent and can make literally anything happen (With God all things are possible), not just within the confines of "our" universe.
Second, if he had been created, this would mean that he is not the author of the parameters of his existence, making him necessarily finite and not eternal or timeless.
Third, if he is necessarily finite (in any context), he is not omnipotent, as in there are definitely things he cannot do.
Fourth, if you make the distinction that such a being can very well be impotent, how can you then say that he is necessarily omnipotent within our universe? For him to exist, he would have to conform to parameters that were there before him - parameters that are readily demonstrable as we speak - the condition of existence.
Scope doesn't justify calling an apple an orange. Because an apple may look like an orange from 500 yards away doesn't make it an orange. Do you understand?
Saying "God is omnipotent from our perspective" doesn't mean anything because it's not assigning a truth value to anything.
1b. Yes, that would make God necessarily impotent.
2. So "consistent demonstrability" is not possible. Got it.
3. If you agree with the primacy of existence, then why make the claim that the universe was created necessarily by the will of a consciousness? It's an inconsistent position to say "A rock will be a rock if no one's around to see it, it exists" and then say "The rock's existence is dependent on God willing it into existence"
Let's recap:
By your own admission, you have demonstrated that:
a. God may not be omnipotent, and is in fact impotent.
b. God may not be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time (logical contradiction).
c. God's existence isn't demonstrable or distinguishable from non-existence.
d. Things exist regardless of conscious will.
Now, please explain to me how this construct isn't just imaginary, and if it isn't, why I should believe in such a contradictory, vague, and necessarily convoluted concept.
1a- I would not say God is omnipotent unless it was for ease of terminology. I would be specific and say God has all power over this universe in accordance with his nature, I'm really not that concerned with things happening outside this universe. I would agree by the strictest definition you're using of omniotent God a) can't be omnipotet, or b) if he is it's unknowable. I don't feel that's a theologically sound definition though, I think I defined it well before. What it boils down to is if God did create this universe then he should be powerful enough to affect anything in it (similar to the clockmaker analogy). The fact he is an attributable entity we're supposing has a cosciousness (and therefore a self-identity) and can only be himself would mean he could do anything in his nature to do.
1b- So if someone can and either has or will do every single possible action in the course of their life they're impotent? I get what you're saying but the connotation most atheists use it in is a crippled or feeble way, when all you're saying here is he's unproductive with his omnipotence.
2- I didn't say consistently demonstratable, I said objectively demonstratable. Subjectively God consistantly demonstrates his will, power and love in my personal life.
3- I make the claim that matter needed a creator because to the best of our knowledge, only an infinetesimal portion of our known universe requires has shown where something comes from nothing.
So to recap-
A-I admit that God may not be omnipotent, and is in fact unproductive if he is both all knowing and all powerful.
B- I see where you've changed my definitions of omnipotent and omniscient, but I still don't see a logical contradiction
C- God's existence is not objectively demonstratable
D-Things exist regardless of conscious will.
To answer your question. The concept is complicated because of the complexity of the problem it answers. I don't think it's vague and I think I've been specific. I don't think it's logically contradictory. I don't ask that you should believe in it. I don't believe it's imaginary because perception preempts definition. I percieve revelations that sometimes corespond to my understanding of God. Where they don't I find they either are personal epiphany or my understanding of God was lacking.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
July 7, 2010 at 3:06 am (This post was last modified: July 7, 2010 at 3:10 am by tavarish.)
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: 1a- I would not say God is omnipotent unless it was for ease of terminology.
Words mean things. Omnipotence necessarily means unlimited power.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: I would be specific and say God has all power over this universe in accordance with his nature, I'm really not that concerned with things happening outside this universe. I would agree by the strictest definition you're using of omniotent God a) can't be omnipotet, or b) if he is it's unknowable. I don't feel that's a theologically sound definition though, I think I defined it well before.
So we're shifting the goalposts a bit, are we? (I'll paraphrase)
"He may not be all powerful, but he has power in this universe."
"He may have been created, but I don't care"
"He may be finite but he's infinite when you look at him from this angle."
The being you're proposing raises lots more questions than answers. If such is the case, here are questions that should be pertinent to your basic beliefs about God:
1. What, if anything, created God?
2. Are his morals necessarily absolute because of an already existing standard, or are they absolute because he says so?
3. How can you account for his nature, or any nature at all prior to a conceivable reality?
4. Is there an author of these natures? If so, who, and why did they choose those over any others?
This leads to an infinite regress of questions. This is what happens when you have a logically invalid premise for an argument.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: What it boils down to is if God did create this universe then he should be powerful enough to affect anything in it (similar to the clockmaker analogy). The fact he is an attributable entity we're supposing has a cosciousness (and therefore a self-identity) and can only be himself would mean he could do anything in his nature to do.
That's simply asserting a tautology. "He can only do things that he could do" isn't an argument for anything. It doesn't establish anything of explanatory merit, nor does it address any questions I've asked.
You haven't outlined WHY God's will is effective rather than ineffective, in this universe or any other, if the case is that he only operates in ours.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: 1b- So if someone can and either has or will do every single possible action in the course of their life they're impotent? I get what you're saying but the connotation most atheists use it in is a crippled or feeble way, when all you're saying here is he's unproductive with his omnipotence.
No, the fact that he knows what he will do and cannot do anything against that knowledge is necessarily impotence. He can't do anything other than what he is already destined to do, and he does this with full knowledge the entire time. This effectively makes God somewhat of an enslaved robot. It has nothing to do with being productive, it outlines the fact that God is a logically impossible concept. You can't have a being that acts, knows everything, and has the ability to change its mind and still be right about everything.
Something's gotta give.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: 2- I didn't say consistently demonstratable, I said objectively demonstratable. Subjectively God consistantly demonstrates his will, power and love in my personal life.
But that's hardly consistent, isn't it? How can you say something is consistent if it's not demonstrable in any other venue?
I'll give you an example.
Gravity is demonstrable in every venue in the known universe. No matter where you look in this universe, gravity can be observed, demonstrated, and measured. It also doesn't matter who does it, as measurements don't change depending on who looks at them. Gravity doesn't reverse just because people believe it to be so.
It is, in every sense of the word, demonstrable and consistent.
You believing in God's existence does not stand up to the rigors of inquiry by others, as your assertions are necessarily subjective. Being that they are not demonstrable to anyone else but yourself, they are not consistent, nor do they represent reality in any scope. This is the kind of evidence that is at best inadmissible, and at worst severely faulty and biased.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: 3- I make the claim that matter needed a creator because to the best of our knowledge, only an infinetesimal portion of our known universe requires has shown where something comes from nothing.
There isn't a connect there.
Forget the part where you're making the claim that God willed the universe from nothing, the assertion that a small part is somehow inadmissible to the majority (and I'm granting you the vague use of terms such as "creator") is nuts.
Is the phrase "The human body is comprised of 80% water" the same as "the body is completely made of water"?
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: So to recap-
A-I admit that God may not be omnipotent, and is in fact unproductive if he is both all knowing and all powerful.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: B- I see where you've changed my definitions of omnipotent and omniscient, but I still don't see a logical contradiction
I gave you textbook definitions, and reiterated the logical contradictions a few times now.
A being cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: To answer your question. The concept is complicated because of the complexity of the problem it answers. I don't think it's vague and I think I've been specific.
What about the complexity of the problems it creates, which are orders of magnitudes more convoluted than the original queries?
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't think it's logically contradictory.
I just explained to you a few times the fallacy in such reasoning.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't ask that you should believe in it.
I didn't accuse you of preaching or proselytizing.
(June 30, 2010 at 7:35 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't believe it's imaginary because perception preempts definition. I percieve revelations that sometimes corespond to my understanding of God. Where they don't I find they either are personal epiphany or my understanding of God was lacking.
We're going back to the same argument I've heard time and time again. You attribute things in your life that you don't understand to God. The things that you can confirm become part of his will, and things that you can't rationalize are written off as lack of faith. You know what I don't see in your statement? Any room left for doubt or skepticism.
I understand that some people don't believe in god, but if you're going to discuss the attributes or qualities of god, even if just hypothetically, you have to understand what you're discussing. For example, if I claim that god exists and has no creator, you can't discuss god in the same context that you'd discuss anything else. An example of this is when Richard Dawkins talked about how if there's a god, it must be extremely complex if it is to be able to create everything, and so it must have started out simple, and evolved. To me that shows a lack of understanding of what is being discussed. Here's why :
- If god created everything, then in order to create, it must create from itself, as there is nothing else to create from, since god is the creator of every thing
- So, if god is directly the source of everything, and nothing exists other than god and what it creates, then there can be nothing that can or would create god
- By definition god would not have evolved, as that involves changing. For something to change there must be a framework, a reference, a context. If god is the creator of every thing, this would include any framework, reference or context in which it would change. And if god is the creator of every thing, then everything that has and ever will occur is already within god's capability.
- If a proposed creator of literally every thing exists, then it is not like us. What applies to us doesn't necessarily apply to god. We evolve, whereas a creator of every thing, by definition, wouldn't.
So if there's a god, then this god isn't a creation, it is selfexistent.
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: I understand that some people don't believe in god, but if you're going to discuss the attributes or qualities of god, even if just hypothetically, you have to understand what you're discussing. For example, if I claim that god exists and has no creator, you can't discuss god in the same context that you'd discuss anything else. An example of this is when Richard Dawkins talked about how if there's a god, it must be extremely complex if it is to be able to create everything, and so it must have started out simple, and evolved. To me that shows a lack of understanding of what is being discussed. Here's why :
I don't think Dawkins meant it in such a way, but I'll entertain your argument. A being who created everything must be, by definition, more complex than his creation. Whether God is immutable (unchanging) or has any other attributes is not the question.
What I want you to do is to read my first post, and reply to it. I wrote specific questions that I would like theists to answer.
Please clearly define your God, and clearly convey the best explanation of why an infinite regress is not possible, and preferably one that does not negate the qualities or necessity of the God in question at the same time. Thanks.
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: - If god created everything, then in order to create, it must create from itself, as there is nothing else to create from, since god is the creator of every thing
First, that's a bit of circular reasoning. You start with the conclusion, and end at the conclusion.
Second, what does "it must create from itself" mean? It sounds like an utterly vague and vacuous concept.
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: - So, if god is directly the source of everything, and nothing exists other than god and what it creates, then there can be nothing that can or would create god
Why does nothing exist other than what God creates? Why is God's will effective rather than ineffective?
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: - By definition god would not have evolved, as that involves changing. For something to change there must be a framework, a reference, a context. If god is the creator of every thing, this would include any framework, reference or context in which it would change. And if god is the creator of every thing, then everything that has and ever will occur is already within god's capability.
That doesn't answer anything, nor does it address any of my questions or arguments.
You're also not making an account for the nature of God, which he is confined to. If he is the author of such a nature, why did he choose such a nature over any others?
I can't really go any further without you making a definition of God and his attributes, however.
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: - If a proposed creator of literally every thing exists, then it is not like us. What applies to us doesn't necessarily apply to god. We evolve, whereas a creator of every thing, by definition, wouldn't.
Now please explain to me how this isn't special pleading, and what evidence you have to suggest that this is at all true.
(July 7, 2010 at 8:19 am)Godhead Wrote: So if there's a god, then this god isn't a creation, it is selfexistent.
You haven't explained why. You've just made assertion after assertion. Please answer my first request and we can get the ball rolling.
July 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm (This post was last modified: July 7, 2010 at 1:47 pm by Godhead.)
Tavarish -
I believe that the "creator" doesn't create in the sense that we use the word to apply to ourselves. When we create, we take something, and mold it or assemble it with something else or both, which means that we need "things" to work with. But I believe that god manifests, and everything that exists is that manifeststion. So to say that the creator must be more complex than the creation is irrelevant to that, because I'm saying that all things are manifestations of god. It's a totally different paradigm, so what you're saying there doesn't apply. If all things are manifestations of god, then there's no issue or question of what is more complex than what, or of what needs to evolve in order to become complex enough to create something. I believe that god is the source of all things, however when people think of something being the source of all things, they think of creating, or causing to come about. But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about manifesting, therefore already existing. Creation doesn't come into it, and neither does its implications.
I agree with your assertion Tav that the concept of God is illogical, there simply is no way that he can be explained or described in a coherent manner. The bibles explanation for God is simply that he is the alpha and the omega (the beginning and the end) he always was, is, and forever will be.
Godhead, when you read the creation myths contained in the bible it clearly states what method its god used for creating, he simply spoke things into existence. I don't normally get into all these philosophical discussions on the nature of god or in this case where he came from because I personally think it is a waste of time and energy. But for all the attributes that your bible ascribes to your god I can show you in that very same bible how it contradicts them.
I am of the opinion that god does not exist and cannot exist for many of the reasons tav has given in this thread.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
A second time I'm asking you to first define your God first and be specific. I can't keep up with the various intricacies of personal biases and things you've convinced yourself of, nor do I wish to go on a wild goose chase to find out what you actually do believe.
(July 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Godhead Wrote: Tavarish -
I believe that the "creator" doesn't create in the sense that we use the word to apply to ourselves. When we create, we take something, and mold it or assemble it with something else or both, which means that we need "things" to work with.
Yes, creation requires materials.
(July 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Godhead Wrote: But I believe that god manifests, and everything that exists is that manifeststion.
Is there any way of distiniguishing or verifying this?
(July 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Godhead Wrote: So to say that the creator must be more complex than the creation is irrelevant to that, because I'm saying that all things are manifestations of god. It's a totally different paradigm, so what you're saying there doesn't apply.
In that case, all things are a dream of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I believe this because it feels right to me. Why do you believe your version and not mine?
(July 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Godhead Wrote: If all things are manifestations of god, then there's no issue or question of what is more complex than what, or of what needs to evolve in order to become complex enough to create something. I believe that god is the source of all things, however when people think of something being the source of all things, they think of creating, or causing to come about. But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about manifesting, therefore already existing. Creation doesn't come into it, and neither does its implications.
Again, you're simply asserting things. I'd love to get into tangents, but I don't actually know what you believe God to be. Please define God, with a reasonable amount of detail so we don't trip over each other in the conversation.
i tried explaining the problem of that argument to my logics teacher (who had no degree in related subjects but taught it by the book): the argument is a cop out -- you could say 'God is mysterious therefore doesn't need a creator' and make just as much sense to the layman or even Nobel Prize winning physicists.
