Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 25, 2007.
I thought God was omnipresent.. I mean, where would he go ??
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Why would God respond like that? The universe is self-perceptual, not self-destructive. God obeys logic and created it too. The boundary of the universe must be infinitely complex to be both inclusive to itself and yet contain itself. This gives rise to self-perception somehow. It's very difficult stuff to explain.
How can one know the inconceivable?
What are you trying to show with this one?
What do you think the boundary of the universe must consist of? Consider that objects exist in space and time but reality does not. At the most fundamental level of reality the concrete and the abstract are one and the same. It was demonstrated as a logical necessity to say so and its at the forefront as a resolution to some important questions like that of the set of all sets.
If the correct epistemology is learned from the right authorities then the indisputable ontology of the absolute becomes self-evident.
This is what a retard sounds like when he's trying to act like he knows what the hell he's talking about.:scratchin: :truce:
All evidence points to consciousness being an effect of the brain which is an effect of environmental pressures. For a 'God' to be a cause, it would have to literally be environmental pressure... which has displayed no sentience.
A simple, "No, someone else made it up" would have sufficed.
what if god calls it quits.... then i gues were fuked...he gets his pension and retires in a nice little bungolo somwere
this thread, however, deals with god as a given
if you want to define god as something different than what he is understood to be due to speculation ("all evidence" ???? - hardly)
out of curiosity how do you define the characteristics of being properly situated under god's shelter?
if I said that it might give you the false confidence in thinking that your opinion is as valid as any one else's on the subject
even serenity is an emotion - of course if someone was chewing tasty food while hungry they may manifest slightly different emotions - more different again would be the emotions likely to be encountered by chewing rusty nails ...
there are many - but in this particular instance we are discussing his characteristic, as brought up by the pearls on a thread verse, of being the primary foundation of all substance and order, or the resting place of everything (in sanskrit it is called sthana)
by acting in such a way as to receive inconceivable mercy
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm trying to get an answer from Lightgigantic, and to show that his arguments are not consistent.
I fail to see how this has any relevance to me claiming LG's comments were non sequiturs?
Maybe you can explain.
Meanwhile I await a response from LG to see if he recognises his comments as being non sequiturs or not - and if not, why not.
Then yes, his substitute would have that quality of God. I don't see why that doesn't address the question of what would happen if God left. The answer, in this particular instance, would be.. nothing.
see post 78
for a start it is an exclusive quality of god
Yes thanks - doesn't change the equivalence of the cause and effect.
Differences arise due to mass etc, but conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum still apply.
Cherrypicking your "cause" and "effect".
How ? Someone with infinite knowledge already knows EVERYTHING. Hence "infinite". If there is a limit (i.e. open to expansion) then it is not INFINITE - by definition.
You stated that this person must have ALL properties to the maximum.
The richest person also being the most intelligent?
Can they be the poorest as well? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As originally stated it remains a non sequitur.
Only in your head and within your sophistry, and in your subjective assessment of value.
If you continue to make the claim, then prove that milk "is or has more than" yoghurt.
it enables the distinction between the two ....
lol - feel free to indicate any cause and effect you like
if the knowledge has a limit it is no longer infinite
one who is the cause richness and intelligence
yes, if they are omnipotent
if cause and effect are equal
and if milk is the cause of yoghurt
what is the problem?
to start with milk is more versatile than yoghurt - you can make so many things out of milk, of which yoghurt is one.
And? I'm not sure what your point is, God can do anything can't he? Surely if he wanted to, he could share some of that exclusive quality to something else.
God can't quit...because....because....He's FIRED!!!!!!!!!!
He can't be fired either...he's dead.
then that thing would become an expansion of god's potency - just like you can take one candle and light it with another and another and another. There is no qualitative difference between one candle and another, although one is held to the original and the others secondary.
maybe with a name like ashura you are aware that the vedas describes this precisely with Vishnu and his plenary portions
The difference I see is that one would be the creator (God) and one would be the creation (God's substitute).
Separate names with a comma.