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!
You don't understand at all. A hypothetical question still works within the framework of logic and reason. You can't throw out assertions onto a figure you have yet to define, and then say that it answers the question. You have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate why a self-existent God is at all plausible and should be regarded as a reasonable answer to this question.
Right now, you're trying very hard to say that your answer of "he just is" is sufficient. I asked if the eternal attribute of God is at all logically possible, and you came back with "he's self-existent, so there". Zero explanatory value. Zero backup of assertions. Zero intellectual honesty.
(July 10, 2010 at 9:25 pm)Godhead Wrote: Tavarish -
The hypothetical question assumes the existence of god.
Fucking DEFINE what you think God is first, before you get to any attributes. There's one thing that gets on my nerves - it's rampant willful ignorance. Please answer the question, then we'll get on to the issues with your assertion.
(July 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:
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.
Of course feel free to join in.
1-I tend to believe the most practical definition, not necessarily the simplest, is the truest most reliable definition. Yes I do recognize though that the simplest definition of all powerful is logiclly impossible as are most absolutist definitions.
5-Of course conscousness is dependant on a physical brain, as an influence. I'm saying that if that were the only dependancy then someone who was brain dead then revived, would lose all idea of self-identity, which has been shown not to be the case.
6.1-Those revelations are personal, therefeore of course they're subjective to the point of objective uselessness. A relationship with God is personal and his revelations are too. If you've never had any revelations from God, then it would be unrealistic for you tobeleive in God. Howevr, one of the reasons I think I'm here is to prevent a healthy skepticism turning to unabashed cynicism or hateful rejection.
6A- My point about God's creation was thus: He's either a) unborn and powerfull enough to create the universe b) born and evolved complex enough to create the universe or c) doesn't exist and then it only mattered that I lived a productive and good life.
(July 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(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:
(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!
1- By being a being (no pun inended) he exists and existence caries with it a nature, that nature, when coupled with a consciousness allows for a will. I'm not adding anything more than I've already defined. If it wasn't stated outright, I was assuming that we were under the assumption that I thought God existed.
My question still stands "How can something have the power to do something that is against its own nature?"
1.3- OK I'll work within your framework. a) Yes God is immutable, not because of a choice or decision, but because a nature is a key aspect of exitence and thus an entities nature is always that entities nature. b) yes God is not omnipotent (defined as all powerful without limits) because all entities are defined by their natures and thus limited. c) How could God's morality not be his own? Morality is a component of consciousness, part of an entities nature.
5- Such a broad term of consciousness needs clear definition. I was under the assumption we were using consciousness as a being aware of it's surroundings and aware that it's aware. While many aspects of self-identity are reliant on sensory memory, etc. at it's basest form I've explained in 5 above why existence of consciousness is not completely reliant on the existence of the physical material being alive. While communication of that identity is reliant on the faculties to do so. And sorry, but I couldn't accesss the link behind the Govt firewalls, I'll try and visit it at home.
6.1- There is, but you've already dismissed my evidence (I believe) based on our differing opinions of reliability, self-affirming bias and concensus of opinion.
6.2- No the rock exists regardless of any observers, INCLUDING God. I don't think this is special pleading. IF it is, then it is.
6A- I think I explained in the 5 above that whether God was created or not (that's debateable even among Christians) has nothing to do with the creator attribute we define God as. I don't know which God was nor do I think it matters (from my perspective within the universe) to the label I define God as a creator of this universe.
Glad I could be allowed to share and I always try and keep it civil.
"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
