A discussion with tack

[Ryft]

I'm pretty sure that you must have a confused apologetic understanding of God ... The Bible doesn't limit God's power to [the] logically possible.

I know this is tautological but at times it needs to be stressed because for some reason it gets forgotten. When it is said that God is omnipotent it is meant that he has "the power to do anything that power can do." The logically impossible is not subject to power; that is, if the logically impossible could be become possible given sufficient power, then it was never logically impossible to begin with but merely difficult. The logically impossible remains impossible regardless of how much power might be applied. It is definitional.

To suggest that literally nothing is impossible given sufficient power (omnipotence) is to toss the laws of logic straight out the window; in other words, it suggests that there is no such thing as the logically impossible—that things like square circles are actually possible but just really, really difficult—which is self-defeating and absurd. People who take this approach with an omnipotence paradox end up proving too much, for by their very own argument the paradox vanishes! See my response to Rayaan in the thread "Musings about omnipotence and perfection." [1]

The very nature of resurrection is illogical.

A fascinating claim. Now prove it.

----------
[1] Ryft (2011, February 8). "Musings about omnipotence and perfection," Msg. #29.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5851-page-3.html

[eric209]

Prove it? I'm not the one claiming it happend. The Christians claim it. The burden of proof is on them.

You seem to be giving God attributes of your own design. Our understanding of logic obviously does not apply. Here is a verse again.

For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. – Luke 1:37

The bible being God inspired would not have room for any errors by omission. An all knowing all powerful God would easily be able to get it right the first time. If there were limits to Gods power they would be listed as they are. If you wish to agree the bible is written without Gods inspiration then I think its safe to put in the same category with all other holy books of the time.

I personally believe the bible is nothing but a bunch of myths and legends and see it no more valuable then any other cultural book.

[Ryft]

Prove it? I'm not the one claiming it happend.

Uh... what? Thanks for putting your reading comprehension skills on public display. Notice that I did not ask you to prove it happened. That was not your claim. It is a little weird that I have to remind you what your own claim was, but you said that "the very nature of resurrection is illogical." That, sir, is the claim I asked you to prove.

I am very familiar with logic. If you are too, then please prove that the nature of resurrection is illogical.

You seem to be giving God attributes of your own design.

Then this simply reveals more about your comprehension skills, since I did nothing of the sort (i.e., omnipotence is not something I came up with).

Our understanding of logic obviously does not apply.

That might be something obvious to you, but it is not obvious to most everyone else. But thanks for so publicly and completely failing to interact with anything I said. Again, quite revealing.

I am beginning to wonder if you are as unfamiliar with philosophy as you appear to be with logic. You see, there are more categories which fall under "impossible" than just logic; for example, there is metaphysically impossible, epistemically impossible, ethically impossible and so forth, as well as logically impossible. You want to get into a textual discussion? Great; provide us the exegesis of Luke 1:37 that shows which category of impossible it is referring to there. Since you are calling upon the text, I can only assume you have already done that homework. I mean, you're not the sort of person who just pulls claims out of his ass—right?

I personally believe the Bible is nothing but a ... [snip rest]

So what? You are critiquing Christian claims, a task for which your personal beliefs have zero relevance.

[Zenith]

OK, it seems tack did not answer so far.


@Ryft:
if you desire, feel free to reply to anything you want that I said.

---

The very nature of Resurrection is illogical. Death has no logical reversal.

The nature of resurrection can be logical if there is a 'soul' (if this world has more than 3 dimensions, then perhaps to belong there and that dimension to be called "spiritual world", or some kind of energy that would be the person). And if a soul and a creator exists, then death does have a logical reversal.

[Zenith]

Im pretty sure that you must have a confused apologetic understanding of god. The bible is very clear about that fact its not mistaken.

But Jesus looked at them and said, With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God. – Matt. 19:26
For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. – Luke 1:37
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The bible doesnt limit gods power to logically possible.

First point: what has 2 Timothy 3.16-17 have to do with Matt 19.26 & Luke 1.37? First off, the "scripture(s)" refers to the Old Testament (the scriptures available then to people) and second off it says that it is good for the 'education' of a man.

ok, regarding Matt 19.26 & Luke 1.37... let's see... I found in a lexicon the greek words translated and explained...

---

Matt 19.26, regarding "With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God":
impossible = ἀδύνατος meaning:

1. without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled
   
2. unable to be done, impossible
   

That word seems to be derived from δυνατός (which is the antonym of the word and is translated in this same verse as "possible").
possible = δυνατός meaning:

1. able, powerful, mighty, strong
   
   1. mighty in wealth and influence
      
   2. strong in soul
      
      1. to bear calamities and trials with fortitude and patience
         
      2. strong in Christian virtue
         
2. to be able (to do something)
   
   1. mighty, excelling in something
      
   2. having power for something

now "all things" in greek seems to be πᾶς which means:

1. individually
   
   1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
      
2. collectively
   
   1. some of all types

So we should have something like, all (as a whole) are in God's power.

---

Luke 1.37: "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (in KJV it is only this)
And we have a literal translation something like "for not impossible with God all/any matter"
where,
not = οὐ = "no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer"
impossible = as above
all = as "all things" of above
matter = ῥῆμα meaning:

1. that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word
   
   1. any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning
      
   2. speech, discourse
      
      1. what one has said
         
   3. a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)
      
      1. an utterance
         
      2. a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative
         
         1. concerning some occurrence
2. subject matter of speech, thing spoken of
   
   1. so far forth as it is a matter of narration
      
   2. so far as it is a matter of command
      
   3. a matter of dispute, case at law
      

So we should have something like, no word spoken [by God] is impossible to Him.

This is what I found. If I had studied koine greek then perhaps I could have given a more in-depth explanation.

[tackattack]

I apologize for the length in time for a response. I tried typing a response immediately after twice and the computer jacked up upon submition, then it got lost in the moderator shuffle. No Excuses and I appreciate your PM on this.
@Ryft, you can feel free to jump in anytime as this is not a debate and there has been little if anything I have disagreed with you on theologically.

---

To the other guys: you may not be interested in this discussion. It's a discussion I & tackattack continue from other thread to this thread.

---

---

1-That plenty and covers the basis. If you’re interested [url= http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/....html]here are more[/url]
All of them are spoken from within this universe. To say there is nothing God can’t do, would suffice. It would be picked apart for the absolutist terminology because when someone from within this universe typically says the phrase above they’re actually saying there is nothing God can’t do that is possible within this universe. Therefore I simply tried to explain and simplify by saying omnipotence is about the power to do anything that is logically possible to do. If you want to use the Gnostic definition and be tautological and define omnipotent as power to do anything, even the impossible, then I would have to say God would not fit that definition.

That thing with "within this universe" sounds a bit odd, and very unclear. And it doesn't sound to be similar to "anything that is logically possible to do".

I'll say my view on 'omnipotence'. First off, it refers to God's power (i.e. amount of power, perhaps that is more suggestive), not by illogical phrases and phrases you use with the word "can". So "can God cease being wise?", "can God forget?", "can God lie?", "can God be evil?", "can God cease being God" have nothing to do with the amount of power God has. Even if God couldn't be evil "because of His nature", that would not be against God's power (by the way, God's nature to be good and not evil... I don't find anywhere in the bible to be written so). It's the same with a man who can't torture a baby: the fact that he cannot torture the baby does not make him less powerful/mighty.

Also the question "can God create a being more powerful than Himself?" appears to be a logical contradiction. But because "all" the power belongs to God, there can logically be no power greater than the power of God.

Also the question: "can God create a squared circle?" - a "squared circle" is not a thing, it's only a combination of words that results in something meaningless/stupid/illogical. If the 'amount' of power that belongs to God is ultimate, then the answer "no" does not contradict His attribute "Almighty".

OK, now some verses that talk about 'omnipotence':
Gen 17.1 - the word "Almighty" - from hebrew, as I found - can mean "Almighty" or "most powerful" (and the word in hebrew derives from a word meaning "powerful").

As about phrases with "all", you will find very many verses in both the Old Testament and the New, where you will notice that it does not mean "absolutely each individual", one example could be Exodus 9.25 versus 10.12 (and there are very many verses like this throughout the bible). I don't know how exactly this word in both hebrew and greek can be translated properly in english, in some certain cases it may be "as a whole" or something like that.

---

---

2-Then the next step would be to determine what you would qualify as evidence of God/gods interacting with you. Answer?

I assume you mean here, not at the 'judgment day' of God/the gods. Well, if God or some gods would appear to me (and not me alone, but perhaps something like 100 persons or more) and say that they are the true gods (or He is the true God), and also give good arguments why we should believe them that they are the true gods, or that He is the true only God, and would give me (or give us) the power to do supernatural things for a period of time (e.g. 10 days) and therefore both see for myself, and also have evidence from others that I haven't lost my sanity, then yes, that would be an evidence, and I would believe those gods (or, that God).

Or, did you mean something else?

2a- My position on Hell is fairly standard. Hell as is commonly used is the lake of fire (Revelation 20:9-15) at the day of judgment. That coupled with verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Matthew 10:28 and tons of others Biblically support that in the second death your soul is destroyed, not suffering eternally. That’s not to say you might or might not suffer in Ghenna or Hades, and nowhere does it say how long it takes to destroy the soul. My opinion is that the doctrine of the eternalness of the soul is a Platonic influence and corrupts proper exegesis of scripture in its entirety.

Actually, 2 Thessalonians seem to specify an eternal [time of] ruin/death. It seems to be different than "destroyed for good" or something like that.
And how do you explain Mark 9.43-44 and Matthew 25.41,46; 13.40-42, Revelation 14.9-11, 20.10?

---

---

3-Yes I am non-denominational. That means I’m opposed to the division of the Church (as the body of Christ in the Bible) along dogmatic lines. I lean on the only church I know, the church of experience and scripture.

What exactly is that church? is it a definition invented by you or the 'definition' is from the bible?

3a-I say God & Satan can speak in our minds. You would have to determine first if it was actual or illusory communication. Then scripturally and spiritually determine its origins. Then decide whether you’ll listen to it or not.

ok,
first: is there a biblical support for God & Satan speaking in our minds?
then, how would you determine if it was actual or illusory communication?
then, how exactly would you determine its origins?

3b-I don’t think I ever listed a specific case. But I would say, as the morally superior standard, if you followed all of 3a and God commanded an unjustifiable action deemed immoral, than he would be immoral and not God. I’ve yet to see an instance of this in the Bible.

Perhaps that discussion had derived to something else in the meantime.
In your discussion (you & Welsh cake) it was so:

3- Humanity advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, and used God as an excuse. The Bible is clear on doing things for the gain of wealth in this world and unjust murder and simply declaring it God’s will, without the sacrament of confirmation, is not only flagrantly selfish and un Christian, but fanaticism at it’s worst.

Yes that's what happens in the real-world for the various atrocities stated, in the Bible however, it is Yahweh that is speaking in the first-person, he is giving the orders and commandments to his chosen people to murder and/or enslave other peoples and races.

---

---

5a- Hell- See 2a. Yes there’s a Hades, Ghenna, Hell , Valley of Hinnom, Sheol,

If you insist that Hades and Sheol are actually hell, then show me a place in the bible where it is suggested something like that. The places where I see sheol & hades, they quite support my theory - the 'spiritual' place where dead people's souls go.

Me personally, I am with Thomas Aquinas on this reward or punishment should not precede the judgment. I think we cease to be until the second coming at death and it’s like our souls are sleeping there.

With this occasion, how do you understand Luke 16.22-23? (notice that the judgment day had not arrived there yet: there were his relatives on earth).

5b- Heaven- There’s 3 Heaven the scripture talks about. Heaven = sky, Heaven = universe, Heaven =
Where God sits.

The last is pretty vague, if we consider God to be omnipresent. And here is where my understanding fits better: the 'spiritual' realm.

Typically in the vernacular almost everyone is speaking only of the third instance. Also called "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" as you stated.

ok, if there is a heaven, then why is there also a kingdom of heaven? isn't there a contradiction to say that "X = something of X"?
With this occasion, perhaps you can find me a place in the Bible where "heaven" (alone) refers to the place where 'good' people go after they die (i.e. the modern "heaven").

5c- As far as God in Hell, it’s logically impossible. God has no need to judge himself, so why would he have need to send himself to destruction. If Heaven is the kingdom or oneness with God, then Hell would be eternal absence of God… logically exclusive.

If you insist that Sheol = hell, this should be a bit tricky for you:

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Note that the hebrew word for "hell" in the above verse is the hebrew "Sheol" (and it is a... mistranslation... at least until you can prove me otherwise).

Anyway, the fact is that if God is omnipresent, it doesn't mean that it hurts Him if His presence is not ended by hell. After all, hell must have been His creation, so how could His creation harm/destroy Him? Why would God create something that is able to harm/destroy Him? (if that's even possible)

As about "If Heaven is the kingdom or oneness with God, then Hell would be eternal absence of God… logically exclusive."
If heaven is 'everlasting union with God' then hell must rather be 'eternal disunion with God' (where man is left in oblivion by God).

Also, I think you should explain more about "oneness" with God and how that is based on the bible.

---

---

6a- Here we can discuss whether God does evil. It’ll be short, God can do evil, but it’s counter to his nature (good) and can any of us mortals envision doing anything outside our very nature (if we knew it in its entirety).

Please show me from the Bible where you see that God's "goodness" is His "nature" (which seems to confine Him to be in a certain way or something).

7- Well first we need to establish a definition of a soul. I’m not really interested in a 2000 year old definition, just yours. I’ve stated mine, we can go with that or you could state one and we could come to a consensus. I’ve listed several times and places on this site that to my definitions the existence of the soul can be demonstrated, if necessary I’ll rehash those. Definition first, though.

Well, the definition you gave (i.e. "A soul is the hypothetical immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life") seems good enough. As I cannot 'touch' souls and cannot study souls myself to see how and what exactly they must be, I don't know if I can be certain on a definition or something. For instance, I cannot imagine "immaterial essence", but because I don't know all secrets of the universe, I'll consider it as a possible thing.

---

1) Several others have already answered this point. From the human perspective within this universe, there is no power God can not exert to accomplish what can be accomplished within this universe. Whether outside this universe he is the lesser power among other God's is irrelevant as to us he is the creator and originator and has sufficient power to accomplish anything logically possible within this universe.

2) No that is what I meant. So you would have to be part of the empowered group to believe or just a witness of it?

2a) Actually without pulling out my lexicon I'm fairly certain that I would fine 2 thes. an eternal (duration) consequence (punishment/ restitution/ payment/ ruin). The finality of absolute destruction wouldn't be an eternal (won't change over time) consequence (is punishment for crime)?

3)The Church of God is a reference to body of believers with Jesus at their head referencing 1 Corinthians 12:12-26; Ephesians 1:18-23; Colossians 1:17-20

3a)first: is there a biblical support for God & Satan speaking in our minds? Psalm 85:8; Jeremiah 7:23-24 both talk about hearing God's words.
then, how would you determine if it was actual or illusory communication? Since it is strictly internal... there would be no valid way of determining that objectively. However if I wasn't having illusions, hallucinations or delusions prior and didn't have them after and was medically fine it wwould either be e fluke or actually perceived.
then, how exactly would you determine its origins? The Bible gives tons of scriptures on this. There are a lot of determiner, but basically to test it against what the Bible says, what interpret it with your own Holy Spirit, and verify it with your personal morality (listen to the laws on your heart). It also doesn't hurt to look for outside verification from trusted peers.

3b)I'm sure there are plenty of instances in the Bible of God commanding believers to kill. If it was truly God telling them to and not justified then God would be not righteous, and therefore immoral. If you state a case here I'll rebut it.

4) & 5) Where did they go?

5a)I am not saying that Sheol is the lake of fire we call hell. The opposite in fact.

5b) Ok I'd say the modern heaven then is the Spiritual realm where God reigns (if that makes the seated analogy any clearer). I believe the verse you're looking for is Luke 18:26-30. John 14 is also a good chapter on heaven.

5c) see 5a

6) where did it go?
6a)Psalms 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

7) If you can't even imagine an immaterial essence, then there's really not much fruit going to come of that tree.


Again I apologize for the length of time for a response.

[leo-rcc]

Prove it? I'm not the one claiming it happend. The Christians claim it. The burden of proof is on them.

Sorry, but that is not how this works. You asserted that the very nature of resurrection is illogical. You would need to demonstrate that it is, it is a claim you are making.

[Zenith]

@tackattack:

sorry for the delay. I have been busy with other stuff, and also lost my enthusiasm for discussions & debates.

Here is my response to your statements:

1) Several others have already answered this point. From the human perspective within this universe, there is no power God can not exert to accomplish what can be accomplished within this universe. Whether outside this universe he is the lesser power among other God's is irrelevant as to us he is the creator and originator and has sufficient power to accomplish anything logically possible within this universe.

Regarding "this universe" stuff: what if there is no other universe? Perhaps it is illogical (and I believe it is illogical to believe) that there are more than one universe. I say that "perhaps it is illogical" because our knowledge is limited - to know for sure what is illogical and what is not - and because all this stuff with multiple universes and teleportation in time have been born out of our imagination only - and may end there. After all, thousands of years ago people believed that if they build something as high as to reach the sky, they would reach the god(s), but now that we have the technology to build something that high, we know that it is logically impossible. We can indeed imagine and make movies with teleportation in time and multiple universes, but as with the teleportation in time, multiple universes may be logically impossible.

2) No that is what I meant. So you would have to be part of the empowered group to believe or just a witness of it?

Part of the empowered group. It's because:
a) if I see someone else doing such things, I would say to myself that it is a trick or something, that it isn't real. But if I did it myself, I would know that it is indeed real.
b) as I said, such a thing must happen in a group of people, because otherwise I would say to myself that I've lost my sanity.

And yeah, as you might have realized, I don't expect such a thing to ever happen. After all, if I were Zeus, there would be no reason I would do such things for people (i.e. to appear there and give them powers and stuff like that).

2a) Actually without pulling out my lexicon I'm fairly certain that I would fine 2 thes. an eternal (duration) consequence (punishment/ restitution/ payment/ ruin). The finality of absolute destruction wouldn't be an eternal (won't change over time) consequence (is punishment for crime)?

I'm trying to understand what you said... but you weren't too clear. You mean that the destruction would have an eternal consequence (i.e. not living afterwards for an eternity to come)?

Anyway, please tell me:

And how do you explain Mark 9.43-44 and Matthew 25.41,46; 13.40-42, Revelation 14.9-11, 20.10?

3)The Church of God is a reference to body of believers with Jesus at their head referencing 1 Corinthians 12:12-26; Ephesians 1:18-23; Colossians 1:17-20

Given that fact, please clarify to me these statements of yours:

While God speaking directly is the exception, not the rule, it would still have to be weighed against the consciousness and in agreeance within the Church

I lean on the only church I know, the church of experience and scripture.

Because I can't understand. For instance "I lean on ... the body of christians of experience and scripture."??
And as the first statement, you mean that you rely on the things that have been accepted as "truth" by the majority of christians? Or what should this "agreeance within the Church" mean?

3a)first: is there a biblical support for God & Satan speaking in our minds? Psalm 85:8; Jeremiah 7:23-24 both talk about hearing God's words.

There are some problems both with Psalm 85.9 & Jeremiah 7.23-24:
first, in translations such as NIV we have "I will listen to what God the LORD says;" (not "hear") - and for good reason, because in hebrew that word means either to hear or to listen to (the latter, in the meaning of "to obey"). For instance, this word "hear"/"listen - in the meaning of obeyed" in Psalm 85.9 is found in Gen 14:14 as "heard": "And when Abram heard that ...". As for "obeyed", that same hebrew word ("to hear") is translated in KJV as "obeyed" in verses such as Gen 22.18, Gen 22.7 and very many other.

second off, even if one insisted that this word should be translated as "heard" and not "listened" (the latter rather meaning - in the context of Psalm 85 as many other instances - to put your heart to obey to what had been said long time ago & written down), there is no hint in Psalm 85 that God speaks things in people's minds.

Also, you didn't provide any verse to mean or suggest that Satan is speaking in our minds.

then, how would you determine if it was actual or illusory communication? Since it is strictly internal... there would be no valid way of determining that objectively. However if I wasn't having illusions, hallucinations or delusions prior and didn't have them after and was medically fine it wwould either be e fluke or actually perceived.

I'm not sure I understood what you said. I meant, how would you determine that it was God speaking and that they were not simply your own thoughts in your head? Or you hear literal voice, clear as a normal voice, talking to you??

then, how exactly would you determine its origins? The Bible gives tons of scriptures on this. There are a lot of determiner, but basically to test it against what the Bible says, what interpret it with your own Holy Spirit, and verify it with your personal morality (listen to the laws on your heart). It also doesn't hurt to look for outside verification from trusted peers.

OK, I'll give you a phrase, let's imagine that 'someone' tells me that in my mind: "Go and buy a bread." - should I understand this as from God or from myself? or other example: I see a poor man that needs food, I have food and because I pity him, I give him food (having the thought in my head "give him some food.") - should I understand this as from God of from myself? You may give some verses in the Bible, if you wish - and indeed can - to determine which of them really is.

As about "what interpret it with your own Holy Spirit" - I thought that the Holy Spirit is only one (i.e. you seem to say that X has a Holy Spirit while Y has another Holy Spirit - I actually thought that both X and Y should have the same Holy Spirit). Then the question is, how do you access 'your' Holy Spirit to ask Him about that thought? And how does 'your' Holy Spirit answer to you regarding that thought in your mind?

"verify it with your personal morality" - that's... outstanding: so the Bible may say that it is from God, the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) may tell you that it is from God, but after these, that thought both have agreed upon can ask you to do an immoral thing. This means that both the Bible and the Holy Spirit taught you to do an immoral thing. Awww.

3b)I'm sure there are plenty of instances in the Bible of God commanding believers to kill. If it was truly God telling them to and not justified then God would be not righteous, and therefore immoral. If you state a case here I'll rebut it.

As I said,

I would only answer if we have a specific case we're talking about.

I know that in the Bible God told the jews to go and conquer the land of Canaan. And in other cases when they conquered something, I guess there was the saying afterwards - i.e. when they saw that they had conquered the city - "God has given the city in our hands".

And... I think there is a grammar error or something in this phrase - "If it was truly God telling them to and not justified then God would be not righteous, and therefore immoral" - reason why I cannot understand very well what you meant.

4) & 5) Where did they go?

I answered to 5).
As about 4), I don't have what to say, I mean:

I just can’t see him caring too much about a corruptible useless body to necessarily need to remove it molecularly, especially since it is part of a natural cycle.

You "just can't see him caring too much ..." . I see a debate over "would God destroy for good, or only the body as a whole?" too... pointless.

5a)I am not saying that Sheol is the lake of fire we call hell. The opposite in fact.

Do you say, therefore, that "hell is what we call the lake of fire which is Sheol"? Please be more specific/clear.
Also, I expected an answer to:

With this occasion, how do you understand Luke 16.22-23? (notice that the judgment day had not arrived there yet: there were his relatives on earth).

5b) Ok I'd say the modern heaven then is the Spiritual realm where God reigns (if that makes the seated analogy any clearer). I believe the verse you're looking for is Luke 18:26-30. John 14 is also a good chapter on heaven.

Neither Luke 18.26-30 nor John 14 does contain the word "heaven" (as my question was "perhaps you can find me a place in the Bible where "heaven" (alone) refers to the place where 'good' people go after they die" - if you didn't mean to answer to this, then I don't know what you referred to).

5c) see 5a

I would have enjoyed if you had been more specific...

6) where did it go?

what?? I answered 6) back then.

6a)Psalms 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Sorry tack, but from these verses you didn't prove that

God's "goodness" is His "nature" (which seems to confine Him to be in a certain way or something).

The verses simply say how God is - not why God is so.
One can simply assume that God chose to be "good" long before He created anything & anyone, and therefore, because He can be as He decided to be, then He is so.

7) If you can't even imagine an immaterial essence, then there's really not much fruit going to come of that tree.

Sorry, I really cannot make an image of an immaterial essence - so therefore, "immaterial essence" is unimaginable to me.
I also can't think of immaterial essence in terms of properties, because I don't have any idea what properties it could/should have.
So "immaterial essence" doesn't sound any more concrete than "an unspecific something that tackattack imagines".

[The Grand Nudger]

Could it not be said simply, that if enough provisions are made, and if we allow enough leeway for the believer to define favorable terms for himself...that a general concept of god can be argued for within the realm of logic or philosophy? That the concept of god thus obtained does not resemble the concept of god as advertised in any holy book we've ever written may be unsatisfying to us is a notion which some believers may not wish to address. If one wishes to corner their god within the confines of logic or philosophy, so much the better, as it only assists one in divorcing that concept from observed reality. It leaves a god who is not a god. Besides, arguing for the finer points of the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy any less imaginary.

---

Sorry to insert myself into your conversation if either of you feel that it is unwarranted, sometimes I simply cannot hold my tongue. I'll attempt more restraint going forward.

[Zenith]

---

Could it not be said simply, that if enough provisions are made, and if we allow enough leeway for the believer to define favorable terms for himself...that a general concept of god can be argued for within the realm of logic or philosophy? That the concept of god thus obtained does not resemble the concept of god as advertised in any holy book we've ever written may be unsatisfying to us is a notion which some believers may not wish to address. If one wishes to corner their god within the confines of logic or philosophy, so much the better, as it only assists one in divorcing that concept from observed reality. It leaves a god who is not a god. Besides, arguing for the finer points of the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy any less imaginary.

---

Sorry to insert myself into your conversation if either of you feel that it is unwarranted, sometimes I simply cannot hold my tongue. I'll attempt more restraint going forward.

---

Is it only me who can hardly understand what you guys are saying??
I understood your point with the "god", at least. But a "god" can be anything or anyone that is being worshiped (and always understood as superior to the worshiper). As for a "God", it/He only needs be a Creator in order to be a God - at least how I understand the word "God". So saying "It leaves a god who is not a god" sounds quite absurd (or, how do you define the word "god"??).

P.S. I don't mind other people (e.g. you) posting things on this thread.