(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.