Defining what is God.

That wasn't quite what I meant by "in depth". Any chance you could give it another go because I am still confused as to the point or relevance of "cause of all causes".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LG - answer me these - firstly with either a Yes or a No. And then please explain your answer.

Is a God that is eternal superior to one that is not?

Is a God that does not want superior to a God that wants?

Is a God that is eternal and does not want superior to a God that is eternal but wants?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its a chain of events, nothing more. We are not any closer to transcendental knowledge because beyond that knowledge is another mystery. You don't know what is going on inside an ants head, he may have the answer already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cause of all causes - the means of all causes

yes

tricky question - you would have to elaborate on the nature of want - because on one extreme there is the idea that it is impossible to seperate consciousness (cit) from desire (so is your question "is a god that is conscious superior to one that is not" - the answer would be "no") and on the other extreme there is the idea that want is synonymous with "material desire " (name, fame adoration and distinction), in which case is your q "is a god that does not have material desire superior to a god that does ?" the answer would be "yes"

[/QUOTE]
depends on which angle of "want" you are going with

Unless you are familiar with what is beyond that mystery, how would you know?
Just like you may be in th emiddle of the pacific ocean and you may think that there is nothing but water going on for infinity - the body of water may exceed your capacity, but that does not mean it has no end or conclusion

your house is probably an "infinity" for an ant, your city is probably an infinity for a mouse and your country is probably an infinity for a dog and your continent is probably an infinity for a horse, and so and so but it is god which has the scope on the scale of all these infinities, therefore cultivating knowledge of him (which is difficult to do in any body outside the human form, as previously outlined) grants a way out of relativity

 

In depth please!

Furthermore you seemingly forgot that I also asked you to point out its relevance to the gods that I mentioned, or to gods in general for that matter. (It's the latter part I'm actually more interested in).

 

if something is caused that is not caused by god, how can there be a claim for god's omnipotence?
And if god depends on some other cause to function, how can there be claims for god's independence?

 

Being omnipotent doesn't mean the being must cause everything. The ability to do everything doesn't mean you have to be responsible for causing everything.

There are hundreds of gods. One of those gods used his omnipotence to create this universe and everything in it. Another god used his omnipotence to create another universe and everything in it. And another god used his omnipotence to make invisible ice cream. No matter which of them caused what to be, they're all still equally omnipotent.

Why would multiple gods depend on some other cause to function?

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1186460&postcount=7

 

LightGigantic:

I respect your patience in dealing with people that evidently don't want to present arguments to contradict notions of omnipotence, omniscience, et cetera.

 

With all due respect but you'll find I have done just that many times now. However, we are all entitled to opinions so fair enough.

The main problem really is that 'omnipotence' isn't actually any more or less worthy in a post that allows people to openly and happily define a god, (except when Light puts limits on what you can or can not add based upon his own personal opinions concerning god definitions), and indeed makes faulty statements such as "cause of all causes" which has little bearing on anything.

Of course the opinions and thoughts of atheists are completely and instantly dismissed by Light: "I am unaware of any atheist definition of god that is not mundane", which is brought about solely through self righteous opinion - that 'my god is tougher than your god' - and people have been disputing this adamantly ever since to deaf ears. Since when did a god being "mundane" in the opinion of Light have any bearing on the reality of that definition/existence or non existence of that being? Simply put, it doesn't - and yet Light has assumed the role of untouchable.. My god or no god. It's futile to debate 'omnipotence' or anything else when the only possible outcome is that Light is right, everyone else is wrong.

Besides, 'omnipotence' is a no-go as you yourself would surely agree: "god cannot exceed the infinite, or it would not be infinite. THerefore, God is beholden to space and time."

By god's inability to do that, it is clearly not omnipotent and thus the argument ends. If we were to require more we could start with the square-circle arguments. While sure, some will argue against it, "omnipotence" as it's defined would enable a god to make a square circle regardless to the illogic of the whole thing as us humans see it, (this argument however I tend to just ignore on the basis that if anyone were to ask if my god could make a square circle I'd just say "yes" and be done with it). But there are many such arguments that reduce omnipotence to it's knees.

In the case of multiple entities and omnipotence I fail to see the issue given that being omnipotent does not mean must but can.

Let it be said though that the argument itself has no more validity than any other claim concerning gods. Maybe there are millions - one omnipotent, the rest lesser. Maybe there are millions where they are all omnipotent, (much like Q in Star Trek), Maybe there is one god and it isn't omnipotent but limited to a few abilities such as universe creating or perhaps there are no gods at all and everyone's wasting their time. As it stands, not one of these is any less valid than any of the others - it's pure opinion, nothing more.

Lights inability to even look at other options makes this a hard debate to engage in.. "god, by definition (supreme controller) can only be singular" He has made up his mind without allowing anyone the opportunity to debate against it and then you tell me I'm not presenting arguments, (which is inaccurate), when the truth is they are just ignored: because I'm an atheist, "unqualified", not a saintly person and therefore like a fruit vendor and because "this is what god is, end of case". How exactly would you like me to debate against that? And again with.. "In short, the specific nature of god (omnipresent, omnipotent, the cause of all causes, etc) make it impossible.." which I had to rebuke him for. After all, I was barely even given the chance to provide a definition before he went ahead and told me exactly what that definition is - accept it or be damned. If it is of any value I will happily quote every single time in this thread alone that I have pretty much been told I'm not allowed to answer: because I'm an atheist etc, and how many times I have been told what's what because that's what Light believes - and because he believes it to be true everyone else must.

So, given that I'm still here.. who has the patience?

 

Why bother contradicting that which lacks evidence to begin with. LG et al can "conceptualize" gods of all flavors in their imaginations all they want. But one's imagination does not create a god nor a need for a god.

 

appreciating the atheists claims that god is an imagination, I have created a thread that challenges them to use their imagination to come up with a more water tight defintion of god then that that is found in scripture or claimed by saintly persons (who assert that god is not an imagination of course) - rather than making qualities of god up I am footnoting such assertions on th eultimate defintion of god by scriptural quotes- ironically, rather than discuss this, the athiestic feel compelled to discuss every other topic under the sun that has been discussed on other threads
... of course that is hardly a precedent

 

the difference is that you have made no progress in understanding the implications of omnipotence

 

And what are the implications of that which appears to exist only in your credulous imagination? Indeed, what is the definition of "god" that can be summarized from the 20 pages of imaginative ramblings, most of which is yours?

 

Support your claim.

 

well for a start, it doesn't seem you have come any closer to introspectively analyzing what you deem as imagination as distinct from substantial claim

but aside from that, which wasn't really the ambitious task of this thread, I have noted that those few contributers who have actually posted in accordance with the OP have given definitions that fall within the claims of scripture - thus it appears that the defintions of god in scripture are beyond the empirical effort to better

 

i pointed out that it is not you who is faulty but your defintion
here's the link againm in case you lost it
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...60&postcount=7

 

With all due respect, but that should have been apparent from page 1, once the omni's have been mentioned. What existing word or term is above "all powerful", "all knowing" etc? What are you left with.. all powerful +1? Unless of course we're free to just come up with non existing terms in which case I define a god as being sdhskjakdb which is better than omni.

 

I read the link and assert that it is your definition that is faulty. What now? I suppose we could just ad hom each other for the rest of our days.

 

then you have the task of logic ahead of you to establish what qualities your word has that are lacking in omnipotent.

Actually what the analysis of these words indicates, is that most people, your humble self included, are not aware of what the implications are - as such discussions about the nature of god frequently fall flat on their face due to the absence of a theoretical foundation