Show me your definition of GOD(s).

[downbeatplumb]

God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.

In the very real possibility that the first cause was found out to be natural, what then?

I would bet that you would find another gap to fit your god in.

[goodnews]

Apologies for my atrocious spelling, good thing I did not join the Benedictines, its also fortunate, I do not require myself to go give money to the most opulent house in town and then confess my infractions to a man who claimes to know God by haveing discernment of His Book , yet his teachings contradict every page in his favour.

[Gearbreak]

God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.

In the very real possibility that the first cause was found out to be natural, what then?

I would bet that you would find another gap to fit your god in.

Even if that first cause is found theists can still say god was what made that happen. or that what we understand to be the cause was god. Whatever first cause is found, it's not going to be airtight enough for theists not to be able to squeeze god in there somehow.

[Tex]

God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.

Thanks but neither of those mean anything to me. Both are just fancy sounding hypotheticals.

I know they don't mean anything to you. You're an atheist. Why would the the definition mean anything more than the word "God" itself?

God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.

In the very real possibility that the first cause was found out to be natural, what then?

I would bet that you would find another gap to fit your god in.

The first cause can't be physical (ancients use "natural" in a different sense). Philosophers have known this for 2350 years. Starting with Plato, then Aristotle, continuing to Avicenna and Aquinas, and further to Descartes (debatable) and Kant. Even closer to modern day, Heidegger believed a god was first causer(Being and Time).

If the first cause were physical, it would need something to cause it's existence, thus making that causer the first causer (This is the gap that is never air tight according to Gearbreak). This goes forever unless the first causer is Existence itself. Existence itself is obviously more than a physical body.

The first cause must be a being because the Existence is the only thing non-contingent and there are other things. That means the other things are chosen to exist. Because of the will, Existence shows itself as a being.

[Dawud]

God is considered to have no Gender in traditional Islamic scholarship -

They don't take their theology from Atheist Forums.

Don't you have it when some theist comes along and tries to define atheism in silly ways?

---

The Arabic usage doesn't imply gender - just as referring to a ship in English as she does not mean that someone must hold that the ship is a female.

Muslim scholars - male and female - hold God to be without gender.

Try to tell us we've misinterpreted your 'real' u understanding of Islam but don't just pretend Islam is something it is not...

---

Why must material precede thought? Are disembodied thoughts a logical impossibility?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Recently one of our Christians explained that God was everything.

God must be complete since by definition it cannot lack anything. It already contains everything that could possibly be. As such, only the totality could be the “Supreme Being”. If there was something other than the Supreme Being then the largest entity, i.e. the totality would be greater than the two and would actually be the true Supreme being. This does not mean that the Supreme Being, is the same thing as physical reality. Reality includes so much more. And I am not a pantheist. I'm a panentheist.

[Tex]

In what respect does God "not lack anything?" Certainly, I am not God, nor even a part of God. I would agree that I am dependent on God at every moment, but I don't know if I literally am God. That would make God a sinner.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In what respect does God "not lack anything?" Certainly, I am not God, nor even a part of God. I would agree that I am dependent on God at every moment, but I don't know if I literally am God. That would make God a sinner.

You are a finite being. You lack the fullness that is God. As a finite being your incompleteness makes you less that perfect. That is what it means to be a sinner. But that does not in itself make you unrighteous. You can be righteous within the limits of your own finitude. John 15:5 among others supports the idea that you are in God and He is in you.

[Whateverist]

God must be complete since by definition it cannot lack anything.

X must contain Y since by definition X lacks nothing .. = contains everything .

The missing premise would seem to be:

If anything exists which meets the definition X, then it must possess those attributes which define it. That makes it a hypothetical. The mere definition of something such as God cannot serve as proof that god exists.

[goodnews]

Ivan Panin and his mathimatical numeric patterns found in the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew OT + Greek NT prove the Bible to be the work of God . This in itself is irrefutable evidence of the original scriptures being divine. This trully amazeing, astounding discovery can not be simply over-looked or left out of any theist/atheist debate ?