Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tavarish]

You have still to explain WHY God has a specific nature, which was my question.

Why do you have a personality?

Non-sequitur. I'm not an infinite being, nor do I possess the ability to go against the laws of nature to which I am bound. My personality is largely irrelevant and a bad analogy.

---

1. You didn't answer my question. I asked you why God has a nature, not if he HAS to have a nature. Why does God have a particular nature instead of no nature or a different nature?
2. First, I'm not alleging that I'm the author of my being, or the author of the natural laws I'm bound by. I'm a finite being, which isn't a good analogy. I'm asking if God can do things like lie and create a squared circle, and if not, why not?
3. What constructs have to be in place in order for a being such as God to have an effective will rather than an ineffective will? It is assumed God is the creator, but why is this so?
4. So why is he bound by a nature if there isn't anything he can't do?

Is there anything about God's existence that distinguishes him from being non-existent? Not that I can currently measure.

So if there isn't a way that God is distinguishable as being existent, how can you make the claim that he exists? Is there any good reason or argument you can put forth that would convey such a thing?

1- Why does God have one nature as opposed to another nature or anything nature at all? As an entity it's defined by having a definite, individual existence and is real in itself. Surely God believes God is real.

That made no sense and didn't answer the question, but it could be that I just didn't understand it properly. Can you rephrase it please?

2- I suppose God could lie or create a square circle, yes.

So why doesn't he?

3a-I'm tired you're going to have to define "effective will" and "ineffective will" for me please.

Effective will = God wills something and it happens, something akin to Genesis 1.
Ineffective will = God wills something and it doesn't happen.

What constructs have to be in place in order for things to follow God's will?

3b-The Judeo God is considered the creator because design is seen in nature and the Bible states he created.

So the Christian God is the creator because Christian doctrine says so.

4-I don't think God is bound by the "laws of nature" but bound by his nature as an entity, you're confusing the definition.

WHY is God bound to a necessary nature?

Keep in mind I'm assuming for the sake of argument that God is the author of natural law. It would not follow that he would have to be bound by a specific nature if he is in fact a prescribing force.

[ecolox]

You have still to explain WHY God has a specific nature, which was my question.

Why do you have a personality?

Non-sequitur. I'm not an infinite being, nor do I possess the ability to go against the laws of nature to which I am bound. My personality is largely irrelevant and a bad analogy.

You have to explain WHY you have a personality.

But, I would guess God has a specific nature because He wants to behave in a particular way in relation to His creation. I don't know why anyone should have to tell you that.
edit: God created a circle and a square...and your question is why doesn't God create square circles or circular squares? Why would God want to break the order He established? A square circle would just be chaos in geometry...is that what you want? Is God not allowed to make things that are different from each other?

---

tavarish: So why doesn't he?

If God doesn't do something He must not want to. Go figure.

tavarish: So the Christian God is the creator because Christian doctrine says so.

If the Christian God is the creator its because He created the universe.

[tavarish]

You have to explain WHY you have a personality.

I have a personality as a result of my physiological development and my life experiences acting in a way that influence my consciousness, not to mention hereditary traits that also dictate various facets of my persona. My personality is bound by certain criteria - namely that it resides in my brain and manifest through my actions. I don't have the ability to change the parameters of this arrangement, nor am I an all powerful being that is given necessary authority over natural law.

Now can you please explain how your obfuscation is at ALL relevant to the conversation at hand?

But, I would guess God has a specific nature because He wants to behave in a particular way in relation to His creation. I don't know why anyone should have to tell you that.

So you're saying God acts in a certain nature because he feels like it. May I ask why?

If God doesn't do something He must not want to. Go figure.

And why is that?

If the Christian God is the creator its because He created the universe.

Seriously, stop presenting tautology.

The Christian God is the creator because he is the creator.

Great argument there.

---

edit: God created a circle and a square...and your question is why doesn't God create square circles or circular squares? Why would God want to break the order He established?

And you miss the point entirely. I'm asking why he would necessarily create a certain order or natural law, rather than no law/order or a different law/order.

If your answer is "Because he felt like it", then on what basis are you establishing the motive and intentions of such a being?

[fr0d0]

So can God act against his nature?

Why is anything we work out bound by our logical construct? Answer: because that's what makes sense to us. We can't conclude the illogical, unless that is our intention.

God isn't 'bound' by anything.

1. You didn't answer my question. I asked you why God has a nature, not if he HAS to have a nature. Why does God have a particular nature instead of no nature or a different nature?

God's nature is what we try to understand it to be. It's how we label things. Like his signature... it's what, given what we've all worked out from simple deduction, we can expect him to do.

You have still to explain WHY God has a specific nature, which was my question.

Did you see my first reply to you (above)?

God only has a specific nature because we worked it out. If you sat down and worked it out, you would have to reach the same conclusions.

I'm asking if God can do things like lie and create a squared circle, and if not, why not?

It follows from our logical construct of God. If he did create everything, then he is a positive force. Etc.. God could do whatever the hell God wanted. We could get very theoretical but it doesn't help understand God much.

How would that be a positive force?

Creation is destructive? I can't see how you could possibly justify that. I'm going to need to to provide a logical example that equates with creation in the sense of God creating the universe.

And if God could do something else, like act in another fashion, why does he not do it?

God isn't a God of chaos. It's part of his nature that WE define. It follows logically when you think about what God is. A God of chaos would be anti God. (I've covered all this before with you so forgive me for not going into detail again)

It is assumed God is the creator, but why is this so?

It fits with the rest of the idea. Theology describes the whole of humanly perceived reality.

That doesn't make sense. You essentially said God is assumed to be the creator because it fits with the idea that God is the creator - a tautology.

Not really. Creation is part of the subject, as geometry is to Math.

His nature is that he can do anything. His signature is what he's done in our reality.

So why has he conformed to a specific nature? What's stopping him from doing "anything"?

He didn't 'conform' to anything. This just is him. We worked out what he can be, he didn't. If he did "anything" then he wouldn't be God. We have other names for that.

[tavarish]

God only has a specific nature because we worked it out. If you sat down and worked it out, you would have to reach the same conclusions.

You're still not understanding. Why do we consider certain attributes over others?

And I disagree. I'd reach the conclusion that an entity that cannot be demonstrably distinguished from being non-existent is most likely a fabrication of the person asserting it. Also, the sheer fact that your claim that "You would have to reach the same conclusions" is demonstrably false. Look at all the religions and denominations in the world, there is no consensus on the definition of what God is specifically.

Creation is destructive? I can't see how you could possibly justify that. I'm going to need to to provide a logical example that equates with creation in the sense of God creating the universe.

I'd say as far as positive and negative energy is concerned, the universe is a system with a net energy of zero. Just as many positive "forces" there are acting in it, there are negative ones acting just as well. I think you're referring to positive force as being "good", but that's not what I meant at all, nor did I say creation was destructive.

God isn't a God of chaos.

And why isn't he?

It's part of his nature that WE define. It follows logically when you think about what God is. A God of chaos would be anti God. (I've covered all this before with you so forgive me for not going into detail again)

OK. Since there is no consensus on the term "God" and his necessary attributes and motives, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this one.

It is assumed God is the creator, but why is this so?

It fits with the rest of the idea. Theology describes the whole of humanly perceived reality.

That doesn't make sense. You essentially said God is assumed to be the creator because it fits with the idea that God is the creator - a tautology.

Not really. Creation is part of the subject, as geometry is to Math.

I'll plug in your example. Geometry is math because Geometry fits with the idea that Geometry is math.

Is that any clearer?

He didn't 'conform' to anything. This just is him. We worked out what he can be, he didn't. If he did "anything" then he wouldn't be God. We have other names for that.

1. Why does he have these attributes? You didn't answer my question. You just said "well he wouldn't be God if he didn't have these traits", but it's not getting to what I'm asking of you.

I'll give you an example.

I ask "Why does an orange have orange skin?"
You say "well, it wouldn't be an orange if it didn't have orange skin"

That doesn't answer the question at all.

2. How do you work out the intentions of an entity of which you can't establish its existence?

3. Given that there are certain criteria for God, is there anything that can happen that would convince you that there is no God in control of all this? I'm talking about an event so unlike his nature that it would negate your version of his alleged attributes.

[ecolox]

And you miss the point entirely. I'm asking why he would necessarily create a certain order or natural law, rather than no law/order or a different law/order.

If your answer is "Because he felt like it", then on what basis are you establishing the motive and intentions of such a being?

To be sure, I don't know anything beyond "He felt like it".

[fr0d0]

God only has a specific nature because we worked it out. If you sat down and worked it out, you would have to reach the same conclusions.

You're still not understanding. Why do we consider certain attributes over others?

We consider everything. We apply what fits.

And I disagree. I'd reach the conclusion that an entity that cannot be demonstrably distinguished from being non-existent is most likely a fabrication of the person asserting it. Also, the sheer fact that your claim that "You would have to reach the same conclusions" is demonstrably false. Look at all the religions and denominations in the world, there is no consensus on the definition of what God is specifically.

No you wouldn't because you couldn't. I'd very easily dispose of your idea. Same with any wildly illogical statement. What you have with a coherent and logical God model is something you can't dismiss. I'd disagree that there isn't a consensus. Show me any actual Christian definition and I'm sure I'd agree with it. Same goes for any mature consideration of god (mature conforming to the intellectually coherent).

Creation is destructive? I can't see how you could possibly justify that. I'm going to need to to provide a logical example that equates with creation in the sense of God creating the universe.

I'd say as far as positive and negative energy is concerned, the universe is a system with a net energy of zero. Just as many positive "forces" there are acting in it, there are negative ones acting just as well. I think you're referring to positive force as being "good", but that's not what I meant at all, nor did I say creation was destructive.

Destructive/ negative. Given creation adds then the balance that takes away is anti God. Positive is good.

God isn't a God of chaos.

And why isn't he?

Because God as creator observably made order. To make chaos would be the opposite. Evidentially we have a God of creation & not destruction. God, again, is unrestricted and can do as he wants. In this reality, we observe order.

It's part of his nature that WE define. It follows logically when you think about what God is. A God of chaos would be anti God. (I've covered all this before with you so forgive me for not going into detail again)

OK. Since there is no consensus on the term "God" and his necessary attributes and motives, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this one.

I can't see how it's possible to deviate from the consensus. It's how I'm arguing with you : because I have a coherent model and so does every other religious person that argues this model.

Not really. Creation is part of the subject, as geometry is to Math.

I'll plug in your example. Geometry is math because Geometry fits with the idea that Geometry is math.

Is that any clearer?

So you're saying there's no problem with creation being to God what geometry is to Math? We're in agreement then?

He didn't 'conform' to anything. This just is him. We worked out what he can be, he didn't. If he did "anything" then he wouldn't be God. We have other names for that.

1. Why does he have these attributes? You didn't answer my question. You just said "well he wouldn't be God if he didn't have these traits", but it's not getting to what I'm asking of you.

You misquoted me unfairly there. He has these attributes because we have worked out that we can logically apply them.

I ask "Why does an orange have orange skin?"
You say "well, it wouldn't be an orange if it didn't have orange skin"

Being a physical object with known causes, we can give evidential proofs as to the formation of the orange colouring.

In the static model of God, we can demonstrate logical progression to each attribute similarly.

2. How do you work out the intentions of an entity of which you can't establish its existence?

From the logically deducible from evidence. Establishing existence is contrary to the logical model, and would be contradictory to the model.

3. Given that there are certain criteria for God, is there anything that can happen that would convince you that there is no God in control of all this? I'm talking about an event so unlike his nature that it would negate your version of his alleged attributes.

I don't see how. Belief isn't external but internal. At any point I could decide not to believe which would be extremely minor in comparison, but fundamentally crucial to my world view.

[Purple Rabbit]

2. How do you work out the intentions of an entity of which you can't establish its existence?

From the logically deducible from evidence. Establishing existence is contrary to the logical model, and would be contradictory to the model.

Yes and there is where the illogical faith part steps right in. It's like a last stronghold against reason. The place where logical deduction from evidence seamless merges with the impossibility to do just that, as if there never was a contradiction involved. And all lived happily deluded forever after.

[fr0d0]

Faith steps in but it doesn't impinge on the logical solidity of the concept. The seeming illogicality of an unnatural choice makes for a conclusion that is entirely robust and stands against any rebuttal. Call it what you like, it remains empty name calling.

[Welsh cake]

It's shorter than an explicative definition and similar to love if love had an absolute moral true.

Just what is your definition of God's unique blend of love then?

You're still not changing your perspective. I'll use my hillbilly speak for this.

If you can't convince me otherwise regarding the Biblical God's apparent immorality through educated premises then you need to go back and rethink your argument, not start making uneducated guesses about its supposed nature.

Y'all okay with that?