PDA

View Full Version : god's indefinite capability



mask
February 20th, 2004, 07:15 PM
now god can do everything( by definition),
can he create a very very huge rock that he himself can't carry it ??

Apokalupsis
February 20th, 2004, 07:56 PM
This isn't a "logical riddle/puzzle". It belongs in the Philosophy forum.

btw, no, he can't because it is a logical impossibility. It's like asking:

Can God create a square circle. It's called a "category mistake". It's an illogical question.

Thread moved.

F1Fan
February 20th, 2004, 08:01 PM
What god?

RTShatto
February 20th, 2004, 08:25 PM
What god?
Irrelevant.

Fyshhed
February 22nd, 2004, 05:43 PM
Irrelevant.
what god?

F1Fan
February 22nd, 2004, 05:46 PM
Another question: can god make a promise that he's then powerless to break?

Fyshhed
February 22nd, 2004, 05:47 PM
Another question: can god make a promise that he's then powerless to break?
can god create a thing that can create him?
can god create a thing that can destroy him?

answer: man

Sklic
February 22nd, 2004, 07:05 PM
now god can do everything( by definition),
can he create a very very huge rock that he himself can't carry it ??

you are talking about two different things. a rock is physical, God is metaphysical, two totally different things. Physical things are finite, while metaphysical things are infinite. the answer is God cannot because you cannot make a rock infinitely big, God is not a God of confusion, he made all things physical to have a limit. there's your answer.

Sklic
February 22nd, 2004, 07:07 PM
can god create a thing that can create him?
can god create a thing that can destroy him?

answer: man

no, God is metaphysical, thus he needs no cause like physical things do (causality). All things that are physical, finite, limited need a cause. God first of all being metaphysical lives outside our physical realm, thus, time is not applied to him as it is to us. So, in his realm he's in, time is non-existent, thus no beginning, no start, he just is.

Sklic
February 22nd, 2004, 07:08 PM
Another question: can god make a promise that he's then powerless to break?

God is perfect. He does not make a promise that he will break.....

Fyshhed
February 23rd, 2004, 11:17 AM
God is perfect. He does not make a promise that he will break.....
I want my own dimension too.
:(

F1Fan
February 23rd, 2004, 11:25 AM
God is perfect. He does not make a promise that he will break.....

So god (at least this version) CAN create something that he is then limited to, or powerless to change.

Thanks for invalidating your own previous explanation.

Fyshhed
February 23rd, 2004, 11:41 AM
So god (at least this version) CAN create something that he is then limited to, or powerless to change.

Thanks for invalidating your own previous explanation.
I was about to say...
If he can do anything, ANYTHING, then he should be able to define impossible. But impossible cannot apply to him because he can do anything.
Then again he can't exist if he infinitely contradicts himself. :o

Sklic
February 23rd, 2004, 05:42 PM
I was about to say...
If he can do anything, ANYTHING, then he should be able to define impossible. But impossible cannot apply to him because he can do anything.
Then again he can't exist if he infinitely contradicts himself. :o

wrong, God is perfect, when he promises something, he keeps it. He is not a contradiction, he can do anything, but he is honest to his word. He is limited by his ability to what's right, it's like a perfect circle of non-contradiction. You will never see God break a promise. He will not break a promise, he is bound by his word, that is not a contradiction.

Fyshhed
February 23rd, 2004, 05:47 PM
wrong, God is perfect, when he promises something, he keeps it. He is not a contradiction, he can do anything, but he is honest to his word. He is limited by his ability to what's right, it's like a perfect circle of non-contradiction. You will never see God break a promise. He will not break a promise, he is bound by his word, that is not a contradiction.
I'll never see god break a promise because God does not exist to promise at all, not to mention keep or break it. Very few perfect circles exist, and if God created man in his own image, he certainly must have his share of faults. Then again anyone who creates a pathetic mockery of himself must truly be sadistic.

Marisad_uk
February 24th, 2004, 02:45 PM
can god create a thing that can create him?
can god create a thing that can destroy him?

answer: man


Man created God.

Apokalupsis
February 24th, 2004, 02:48 PM
btw, no, he can't because it is a logical impossibility. It's like asking:

Can God create a square circle. It's called a "category mistake". It's an illogical question.

kaleidoscope
February 24th, 2004, 04:38 PM
In reading all this, I am reminded of a quote of Epicurus':

"Is God willing, but not able, to prevent evil?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing nor able?...Then why call him God?"

I don't know....it's something to think about. If we think metaphorically, then the original question asked by Mask about the rock, etc, then let's see: if god created man, then it follows logically that he created man's nature. Evil is created from this....evil is in the nature of some people. Therefore, if god was able to "carry the rock" that he created (the metaphorical rock being "evil" in this case) then why is evil still around?

F1Fan
February 24th, 2004, 06:49 PM
wrong, God is perfect, when he promises something, he keeps it. He is not a contradiction, he can do anything, but he is honest to his word. He is limited by his ability to what's right, it's like a perfect circle of non-contradiction. You will never see God break a promise. He will not break a promise, he is bound by his word, that is not a contradiction.
Problem is, this is you saying this. Why should I take your word for it?

Fyshhed
February 25th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Problem is, this is you saying this. Why should I take your word for it?
He's accepting what he was told like any good Christian. Follow suit, pull out your bible, and stop thinking :)

Apokalupsis
February 25th, 2004, 11:22 AM
That's rather absurd. The concept of God comes in many forms. When one argues of the concept of God, it is usually from the concept that one believes in (when defending), or one that is being objected to (from the opposition).

sklic is arguing of course, from what he believes to be the true concept of God. And he is absolutely correct. He doesn't need to prove it scientifically, only philosophically.

It would seem, that a great number of our members here are in need of an introduction to philosophy course. This is rather elementary stuff. And atheists believe they are "progressive thinkers"? 1/2 of the posts made by them here refute that notion right at the start...they are their own worst enemies, exposing their emotion and misunderstanding of critical thinking, philosophy, and logic.

When one discusses the "nature of X", it is within the boundries and context that X is described, known, and/or claimed.

When a Christian speaks of God, of course he speaks of a Christian God. If this concept of universe of discourse is really that challenging to atheists here, I fear a pretty challenging road ahead for them.

Fyshhed
February 25th, 2004, 11:25 AM
That's rather absurd. The concept of God comes in many forms. When one argues of the concept of God, it is usually from the concept that one believes in (when defending), or one that is being objected to (from the opposition).

sklic is arguing of course, from what he believes to be the true concept of God. And he is absolutely correct. He doesn't need to prove it scientifically, only philosophically.

It would seem, that a great number of our members here are in need of an introduction to philosophy course. This is rather elementary stuff. And atheists believe they are "progressive thinkers"? 1/2 of the posts made by them here refute that notion right at the start...they are their own worst enemies, exposing their emotion and misunderstanding of critical thinking, philosophy, and logic.

When one discusses the "nature of X", it is within the boundries and context that X is described, known, and/or claimed.

When a Christian speaks of God, of course he speaks of a Christian God. If this concept of universe of discourse is really that challenging to atheists here, I fear a pretty challenging road ahead for them.
Atheists argue while assuming there is no God.
Chrisitians argue while assuming there is.
Because of the nature of debate and human stubbornness, none of these posts will have a "winner."

Apokalupsis
February 25th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Wrong. And this is a fundamental of philosophy. The EXISTENCE of God is not being debated here. The nature of God within the proper universe of discourse (the positive position that he does exist), is what is being discussed.

It is saying: If the Christian God exists, then he must have certain characteristics. These are the characteristics: X, Y, Z.

Discussing characteristics X, Y, Z has NOTHING to do with God actually existing or not.

One can discuss Santa Clause even though he doesn't exist. Santa has definite qualities. We can debate where he lives, when he comes out, what he does, what he is thought to look like traditionally, etc...

NONE of the proves nor disproves his existence and it doesn't need to. We can still come out saying:

Santa (the idea, concept, myth, whatever) is X, Y, Z.

The argument that he exists or doesn't, is an entirely separate issue. I think this is one of the more confusing concepts to many people here. It would seem that the refutation (as being given by the atheist) to a claim of Santa wearing red, using reindeer, giving boys and girls toys on Christmas, would be: "Santa doesn't exist!"

2 issues altogether. No one has claimed here, nor even attempted to claim that God exists. Only what the nature of God is (with the positive and inferred premise that he does exist).

Poi
February 25th, 2004, 03:28 PM
I believe that God surpasses human reason, which, being tainted by sin, is incapable of analyzing God in His entirety. Accordingly, I think that God could create a square circle. Or, in this case, that He could create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it. And then He could lift it.

Fyshhed
February 25th, 2004, 03:36 PM
I believe that God surpasses human reason, which, being tainted by sin, is incapable of analyzing God in His entirety. Accordingly, I think that God could create a square circle. Or, in this case, that He could create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it. And then He could lift it.
God cannot lift a rock he cannot lift if he cannot lift it.
And in order for a circle to be a square, it must have the 4 sides/angles, which it cannot. What does a square circle look like? Only God knows?

Poi
February 25th, 2004, 03:43 PM
You are applying human reason and logic to a being that transcends human reason and logic. What about the miracles in the Bible? Jesus made water from wine. Isn't that logically impossible?

3rdPersonPlural
February 25th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Logically, if God transcends human reason then he also transcends human comprehension.

That having been said, we can reasonably conclude that anybody who claims knowledge or understanding of God is either a charlatan or, politely put, talking out of their A**.

Frankly, a general comprehension of this would make life ever so much more spiritual, wouldn't it?

Apokalupsis
February 25th, 2004, 04:33 PM
You are applying human reason and logic to a being that transcends human reason and logic. What about the miracles in the Bible? Jesus made water from wine. Isn't that logically impossible?No, it is not logically impossible...it is naturally impossible. Logic is merely the validity of reason (or for more detail, see the thread Logic 101 in the general debate forum).

God does not transcend logic at all. If he did, God would be illogical. God would be both existing and non-existing, he would be both supernatural and natural, he would be self-caused and without cause, etc... He would be all good and all bad. These are logical contradictions that cannot ever be.

God cannot do ANYTHING. God can only do that which is possible, even if it is impossible for finite beings to do.

And the fact that we may not know all things about God, does not mean we do not know SOME things about God.

Poi
February 25th, 2004, 04:38 PM
So what about miracles in the Bible? Jesus healing the sick, loaves and fishes, etc.?

mask
February 25th, 2004, 05:40 PM
you are talking about two different things. a rock is physical, God is metaphysical, two totally different things. Physical things are finite, while metaphysical things are infinite. the answer is God cannot because you cannot make a rock infinitely big, God is not a God of confusion, he made all things physical to have a limit. there's your answer.

i didn't say infinitely big, it's still like any other rock, just very big

mask
February 25th, 2004, 05:44 PM
So god (at least this version) CAN create something that he is then limited to, or powerless to change.

Thanks for invalidating your own previous explanation.

he says god doesn't make a promise then break it, he didn't say can't break it he said chose not to break it.

mask
February 25th, 2004, 06:11 PM
Problem is, this is you saying this. Why should I take your word for it?

u should coz u don't know god coz u don't believe in him,besides more importantly what he said lies within the mere DEFINITION of the word god.he is by definition indefinitely capable and indefinitely rightous if he's not then he's not god.just by saying god ur implying all that he was explaining.

F1Fan
February 25th, 2004, 06:16 PM
That's rather absurd. The concept of God comes in many forms. When one argues of the concept of God, it is usually from the concept that one believes in (when defending), or one that is being objected to (from the opposition).

sklic is arguing of course, from what he believes to be the true concept of God. And he is absolutely correct. He doesn't need to prove it scientifically, only philosophically.

The phrase "concept of god" implies directly that we are not speaking of a reality, but of what is imagined. So anything that extends from this declaration should be consistent with "concept" and not truth, or reality.



It would seem, that a great number of our members here are in need of an introduction to philosophy course. This is rather elementary stuff. And atheists believe they are "progressive thinkers"? 1/2 of the posts made by them here refute that notion right at the start...they are their own worst enemies, exposing their emotion and misunderstanding of critical thinking, philosophy, and logic.
Yes, indeed. It seems some believe that "opinion" means fact.



When one discusses the "nature of X", it is within the boundries and context that X is described, known, and/or claimed.
When the premises that are put forth to assert X are assumptions, those making the assertion should acknowledge (mostly to themselves) that the assumptions are not facts, nor truth. It seems apparent that when discussing various concepts of god that non-believers are more aware that an idea is being discussed, not an actual god. That believers are debating the "nature" of an imaginary god does not validate the god exists naturally.



When a Christian speaks of God, of course he speaks of a Christian God. If this concept of universe of discourse is really that challenging to atheists here, I fear a pretty challenging road ahead for them.
Well Christianity is a pretty broad stroke. On one side you have fundamentalists who are literalists, believe in creation. It goes through those who believe in the Trinity, then through Catholics who believe in a different conception of god, that communion is crucial, to those who believe in a less structured concept of god, Unitarians. Now within the whole spectrum of Christian belief the attributes of this "one" god are going top be different. Which is the right depiction? Yours? And not other Christians?

Until Christians can agree and get the construction of their god right, then it might be a stretch to speak with the implication of unity.

F1Fan
February 25th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Discussing characteristics X, Y, Z has NOTHING to do with God actually existing or not.

Exactly, which is why it cannot be assumed god exists. And the Christian's choice to debate the validity of his god suggests that he is uncertain about it, especially if many Christians cannot come to agreement about what attributes their god should have. If their god was such a reality, then why are they so confused about it?

One Christians can be sure about the attributes he assigns. But the fact that the group of Christians as a whole believe in the same basic god, yet cannot agree to the attributes it has suggests we are dealing with a myth, and not a real and inherently valid thing. Of course they object. Why? Because it looks foolish to not be able to come to a consensus. Had the Bible been written with more clarity, I doubt Christianity would have become the religions of "anything goes".

Apokalupsis
February 25th, 2004, 06:34 PM
The phrase "concept of god" implies directly that we are not speaking of a reality, but of what is imagined. Absolutely not and you will be hard pressed to find any philosopher to agree with that claim. The concept of god is merely the concept of a higher being, that which is often seen as a god in the religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc... The concept of god is a phrase that denotes merely the supernatural being of God...it never implies we are not speaking of reality and what is imagined. There is no connection.


So anything that extends from this declaration should be consistent with "concept" and not truth, or reality.Negative.



When the premises that are put forth to assert X are assumptions, those making the assertion should acknowledge (mostly to themselves) that the assumptions are not facts, nor truth.Not at all. Again, this is a fundamental error that opposes the basis of philosophy. An assumption of what is true, is not equitable to the presumption or inference of truth from another argument.



That believers are debating the "nature" of an imaginary god does not validate the god exists naturally.No one is claiming that God exists or does not exist, in the argument of what the traits of God are. These are 2 entirely different arguments.


Exactly, which is why it cannot be assumed god exists. An assumed existence is well within the universe of discourse of the argument. It is an inferred supposition and does not need to be argued. It is the same as the Santa argument.

Discussing the attributes of Santa, is not refuted by the opposition stating that Santa does not exist. It's a red herring.



And the Christian's choice to debate the validity of his god suggests that he is uncertain about it,So anyone who debates topic X in the for position, means that this person is uncertain about X? That's a concept I've never read any philosopher, logician, professor state or teach. Can you expand on this? For if it were true, then everyone who argued X, would be by default, unsure of X. That doesn't sound very reasonable. ;)



especially if many Christians cannot come to agreement about what attributes their god should have. I don't know of any Christians who do not know what attributes God has. Who are they and what are their claims?


If their god was such a reality, then why are they so confused about it?Confused about the nature of God? You claim they are...so please explain how the nature of God is confused by Christians.

F1Fan
February 25th, 2004, 06:35 PM
NONE of the proves nor disproves his existence and it doesn't need to. We can still come out saying:

Santa (the idea, concept, myth, whatever) is X, Y, Z.

Santa in America is different than Santa in Europe. Why is that? Because it is a cultural idea, not reality, and subject to human influence.

So then, what is the intention of claiming a god of your choice exists? What other reason could there be than to extend the basic insecurity of the claimant? Since gods are highly personal judgments, they can go far to validate the believers own self conception. So there a vested interest in a believer trying to prove this particular concept has validity. It's ironic and sad that a human has to resort to validating some idea to feel self worth.

Apokalupsis
February 25th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Santa in America is different than Santa in Europe. Why is that? Because it is a cultural idea, not reality, and subject to human influence.Great! Then that is what is discussed and debated. The TRAITS of Santa...not the argument of whether he exists or not which is an entirely different argument altogether.



So then, what is the intention of claiming a god of your choice exists? Depends in what "forum" or arena you refer. Some faiths believe that their God expects them to spread the word and teach others about him. Some people share their experience in their faith. There's numerous "reasons" or intentions behind why one would claim (or proclaim) that God exists.


What other reason could there be than to extend the basic insecurity of the claimant? This doesn't make any sense.

"I am not sure if God exists...so to help myself believe more, I'll tell someone else about God."? Is that what you are saying?

Also, in this SPECIFIC forum, I don't know of ANY theist who has claimed God exists in a form other than a response, refutation, or rebuttal to an argument. But the idea that X is claimed because X is unknown, is rather silly IMO. X is claimed because X is believed to be true. When we make a claim, we make a truth claim. That truth claim can be just about anything...but it makes a specific claim. The claim itself is supported, refuted, changed, strengthened, weakened, etc... The idea that it is claimed BECAUSE it is uncertain that it is true, is an idea that I truly do not believe that any philosopher in the history of humanity would make. Now, this doesn't mean that it isn't true...but it just doesn't make any sense.

Person A: Santa has a bushy white beard.
Person B: You are only saying that because you are uncertain he has a bushy white beard.

Doesn't seem very reasonable. Our legal system definitely doesn't work that way, nor our political system, nor do our collegiate, or any other academic debate.


Since gods are highly personal judgments, they can go far to validate the believers own self conception. So there a vested interest in a believer trying to prove this particular concept has validity. What is "self conception"?


It's ironic and sad that a human has to resort to validating some idea to feel self worth.Support that this is the case. I don't know of a single person who does such a thing. If you know of any, bring 'em to the board. It would make for an interesting conversation. ;)

F1Fan
February 25th, 2004, 06:54 PM
No, it is not logically impossible...it is naturally impossible. Logic is merely the validity of reason (or for more detail, see the thread Logic 101 in the general debate forum).

Excellent. So as a believer in myth, can you explain the process of how one transcends the logic to the supernatural? Or does it not apply in personal beliefs?




God does not transcend logic at all. If he did, God would be illogical. God would be both existing and non-existing, he would be both supernatural and natural, he would be self-caused and without cause, etc... He would be all good and all bad. These are logical contradictions that cannot ever be.

Your version of god would not transcend logic if it actually existed, you should say. Your whole post is speculative. Such posts/claims that imply, quite assured and naturalistically, that a certain version of god exists, is quite disturbing. Especially from one who champions logic so often.

Now you might dismiss my comment. However you're not speaking of god as a subject, but as a fact, or tangible object, or as a given. Would you be comfortable if I assumed my invisible friend Harvey existed, as common knowledge, and you the natural fool for not being part of the in crown who believes?

I see you attempting to try to bypass the rules of logic for your version of god. Now, I'm just an average guy, and I caught you. So I wonder, are you trying to fool yourself? Because you need to do better to fool me. It seems I'm a lot more discriminating that you are when it comes to god (at least this version of god), so I suspect you're trying to fool or satisfy yourself, or justify your own way of thinking. This is not uncommon in religious justification, because it is NOT in their personal interest to. The religious don't see it, because, they are the ones who choose not to. Thus forms their arguments.....




God cannot do ANYTHING. God can only do that which is possible, even if it is impossible for finite beings to do.
This is incredibly anthropomorphic. Now why doesn't this match what other Christians claim of their god (which is supposted to be the same concept)? Hmmm, makes me doubt that much more Christians have a handle on things.



And the fact that we may not know all things about God, does not mean we do not know SOME things about God.
So how can you claim anything, or assert any type of argument for a god of your choice. It's absurd. You can't even show your god exists, and now you're finally conceding some humility that you don't (or properly shouldn't) know all details about the god of your choice. Think how hard it is to decide between a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder, and Christians have to decide what attributes their god has, AND be certain about it (or appear certain).

Hanegraaff himself knows Christianity is in Crisis, I have his book right here. Why can't the individual get the message in his or her own mind? Yet they want to preach?

Poi
February 25th, 2004, 08:29 PM
You're ignoring the fact that there are normal Christian beliefs. One must adhere to these beliefs in order to be Christian. Those who don't assent to normal Christian views are by definition non-Christian. The Bible is the Christian's normative theological guide, and provides knowledge, limited though it may be, about God's nature. For instace, all Christians will assent to the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus's resurrection. If someone claims to be Christian and disputes any of the above, he removes himself from the category of Christianity.

F1Fan
February 26th, 2004, 06:52 AM
You're ignoring the fact that there are normal Christian beliefs.
Is this an admission to there being abnormal Christian beliefs as well? And what is "normal" in belief?

Apokalupsis
February 26th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Excellent. So as a believer in myth, can you explain the process of how one transcends the logic to the supernatural? Or does it not apply in personal beliefs?1) I'm not a believer in myth. You've just made a positive truth claim that my belief is mythical. Feel free to start up a new thread with this topic.

2) Logic is the process of ordered thought. Ordered thought applies to all systems.



Your version of god would not transcend logic if it actually existed, you should say. The existence of God is another topic.


Your whole post is speculative. Such posts/claims that imply, quite assured and naturalistically, that a certain version of god exists, is quite disturbing. Especially from one who champions logic so often.What exists and what doesn't exist is outside the scope of the argument of the nature of X (which could or could not exist). Believe it or not, this is an elementary concept of logic (which I apparently, "champion" so often ;) ).


Now you might dismiss my comment. However you're not speaking of god as a subject, but as a fact, or tangible object, or as a given.Irrelevant to the argument of the attributes of X.


Would you be comfortable if I assumed my invisible friend Harvey existed, as common knowledge,If you are arguing for the existence of Harvey, I would challenge the claim of existence. If you were arguing that Harvey has certain qualities, I would challenge the claim that he has those alleged certain qualities. You would have presented 2 different and distinct arguments.

Improper form would be:

F1: Harvey exists.
Apok: Harvey isn't very bright.

or...

F1: claim X is true.
Apok: claim Y is false, therefore X is false.

This is exactly what you are doing repeatedly here.

Also, the other argument...

F1: Harvey is very bright.
Apok: Harvey doesn't exist.

F1: claim X is true.
Apok: claim Y is false, therefore X is false.

It's a straw man argument. It's fallacious.



and you the natural fool for not being part of the in crown who believes?What? Irrelevant.



I see you attempting to try to bypass the rules of logic for your version of god. Now, I'm just an average guy, and I caught you. Incorrect. You have a gross misunderstanding of what logic is and its application. Can you support your understanding of logic and application?


This is incredibly anthropomorphic. Now why doesn't this match what other Christians claim of their god (which is supposted to be the same concept)? Hmmm, makes me doubt that much more Christians have a handle on things.You continue to make claims without support. Again, what exactly is it that other Christians claim that God can do that opposes what I have stated? Be specific and give examples. I believe this is yet another gross misunderstanding on your part here.



You can't even show your god exists, and now you're finally conceding some humility that you don't (or properly shouldn't) know all details about the god of your choice. I'm not conceding anything. I've never once claimed that finite beings have infinite understanding. It's a straw man argument. If you disagree, please support your claim.


Think how hard it is to decide between a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder, and Christians have to decide what attributes their god has, AND be certain about it (or appear certain).
Welcome to philosophy. Thank goodness no philosopher (at least that I know of) accepts your methodology. ;) No discussion about Santa is possible because he doesn't exist (which is the same as you are doing with the discussion about God)? I must say, it's definitely a first.



Hanegraaff himself knows Christianity is in Crisis, I have his book right here. Why can't the individual get the message in his or her own mind? Yet they want to preach?Your entire argument in almost every post, is that "God doesn't exist". I understand you do not believe God exists. However, most threads here do not deal with the specific issue "Does God exist?" These are separate and distinct philosophical, theological, metaphysical arguments. If you want to start a new thread, feel free to.

Also, Hanegraaf has nothing to do with the discussion about God's infinitism, nor his nature.

F1Fan
February 26th, 2004, 09:06 AM
1) I'm not a believer in myth. You've just made a positive truth claim that my belief is mythical. Feel free to start up a new thread with this topic.

How many new threads does it take to have a discussion? Anyway, I've seen no evidence that any Christian god is based on reality in this thread. This thread addresses the inherent weakness and limitation of the concept of the Christian god. Should I use logic to conclude otherwise?




The existence of God is another topic.

and

What exists and what doesn't exist is outside the scope of the argument of the nature of X (which could or could not exist). Believe it or not, this is an elementary concept of logic (which I apparently, "champion" so often ).
How it exists would be an element of this thread, if this version of god were incapable to perform certain tasks due to a possibility (or likelihood) of it being non-existent. If the argument assumes a nature that encompasses everything, then any ancillary element to the argument would be implied as relevant. Unless there is some exemption made, which the initial post did not.



Irrelevant to the argument of the attributes of X.
If the claimant changes his topic from subject to an implied reality, only by implication of a given attribute or nature, then the claimant has stepped outside of his own argument.



If you are arguing for the existence of Harvey, I would challenge the claim of existence. If you were arguing that Harvey has certain qualities, I would challenge the claim that he has those alleged certain qualities. You would have presented 2 different and distinct arguments.

Exactly my point. When someone makes a claim about a god (as a subject, not implied as a reality) then the discussion extends from this understanding. When a claimant (or new debater) makes it a personal issue, and begins to advocate for a god that he or she assigns a 'real' quality to and argues via an assumption of reality, then this changes the complexion, and is out of context. This is why I challenged the assumption of a real and "natural" god. Looking back I should have been more aware and pointed out how it's irrelevant.




You continue to make claims without support.

Like a certain version of god exists? A lot of that going around.




Your entire argument in almost every post, is that "God doesn't exist".

Which god is it that does?



I understand you do not believe God exists.
Seems we're both making mistakes. I never said a god doesn't exist. But I see no evidence to support any versions that man has invented, and believe true. There are arguments, and traditions, but nothing concrete, and valid to the degree that is supportive to sound logical constructs.

Apokalupsis
February 26th, 2004, 10:39 AM
How many new threads does it take to have a discussion? As long as the discussion is on-topic, or it contains only smaller side-arguments, just one. If the thread completely goes off track from topic X and topic Y is discussed, we have 2 threads.


Anyway, I've seen no evidence that any Christian god is based on reality in this thread. This thread addresses the inherent weakness and limitation of the concept of the Christian god. EXACTLY! Nothing more, nothing less. Although, I wouldn't make the claim that perfection is a weakness. ;)



How it exists would be an element of this thread, if this version of god were incapable to perform certain tasks due to a possibility (or likelihood) of it being non-existent.Absolutely not. You, a non-believer could debate with another non-believer what the Bible says about God. Neither are making the claim that God exists, only what is claimed about God. Enter a believer....the believer also discusses what the Bible says about God, and makes no claim that God exists. You have 3 people discussion X about God. NOT that he exists, but what is described of him (much like Santa).


If the argument assumes a nature that encompasses everything,How does it encompass "everything"?



If the claimant changes his topic from subject to an implied reality, only by implication of a given attribute or nature, then the claimant has stepped outside of his own argument.Not at all. The original poster is merely presenting an inquiry as to what the nature of God is. No claim, nor inquiry is made as to the existence of God. The nature of God is independent of the discussion of God's existence.

Again, you are suggesting that since Santa doesn't exist, we can't speak of Santa's nature. Philosophers of all time have debated, theorized, discussed God's nature (even leading atheist and agnostic philosophers (Russell, Kant, etc...). They never argued that God exists in their arguments of his nature, they argued the nature of God in those arguments.



Exactly my point. When someone makes a claim about a god (as a subject, not implied as a reality) then the discussion extends from this understanding.This isn't what you quoted me as saying. I'll reiterate:

X exists vs X contains qualites a, b, c are independent arguments.


When a claimant (or new debater) makes it a personal issue, and begins to advocate for a god that he or she assigns a 'real' quality to and argues via an assumption of reality, then this changes the complexion, and is out of context. No it doesn't. Else Santa can't be discussed.



Like a certain version of god exists? A lot of that going around.To my knowledge, I've never made any argument that claimed God exists.



Which god is it that does?Irrelevant and off-topic.



Seems we're both making mistakes. I never said a god doesn't exist. But I see no evidence to support any versions that man has invented, and believe true. There are arguments, and traditions, but nothing concrete, and valid to the degree that is supportive to sound logical constructs.That's fine, but again, outside the scope of this discussion.

xennaq
February 27th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Guess it’s time to ruin this thread to eh’.


now god can do everything( by definition),
can he create a very very huge rock that he himself can't carry it ??

God can create a rock that Jesus can’t pick up therefore Jesus (Who is God in the form of man) cannot pick up the rock.

can god create a thing that can create him?
can god create a thing that can destroy him?

God also has the power to destroy himself (Jesus) when in the form of man.

Another question: can god make a promise that he's then powerless to break?

God can break any promise and tell any lie for any reason but he won’t because then he wouldn’t be God. He has the power to do anything but he won’t do everything. And Yes he can make a square circle but he we might have to alter the way we perceive reality to see things.

God made man in his imaged but we fell from perfection with the original sin. God gave Man and Angels free will. He didn’t hardwire being good into his creations. God has free will and he also has the ability to do evil. But he never ever will because he is perfect. He knows and sees all so you arent gonna get away with tricking him into eating a forbidden fruit. We were made perfect (god’s image) but not all powerful. We sinned and fell from perfection. God created gods but not GOD.

3rdPersonPlural
March 5th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

KevinBrowning
March 6th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Guess it’s time to ruin this thread to eh’.


God can create a rock that Jesus can’t pick up therefore Jesus (Who is God in the form of man) cannot pick up the rock.

God also has the power to destroy himself (Jesus) when in the form of man.

God can break any promise and tell any lie for any reason but he won’t because then he wouldn’t be God. He has the power to do anything but he won’t do everything. And Yes he can make a square circle but he we might have to alter the way we perceive reality to see things.

God made man in his imaged but we fell from perfection with the original sin. God gave Man and Angels free will. He didn’t hardwire being good into his creations. God has free will and he also has the ability to do evil. But he never ever will because he is perfect. He knows and sees all so you arent gonna get away with tricking him into eating a forbidden fruit. We were made perfect (god’s image) but not all powerful. We sinned and fell from perfection. God created gods but not GOD.
Interesting. I have never seen Jesus considered in one of these, "Can God create a rock so large He cannot lift it?" debates. I guess people only consider God the Father, in this kind of discussion concerning physical omnipotence. I do not have any valid refutation to this answer. Apparently God can create a rock so large that He cannot lift it. Unless there was an implied initially-accepted postulate that we are considering only God the Father in this discussion of physical limitation. But I consider that to be a contradiction, because in a discussion involving whether God can do something, "God", in the Christian worldview the majority will understand it as, means the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and does not exclude any personality of the Triune Deity from consideration.

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Original question was:
now god can do everything( by definition),
can he create a very very huge rock that he himself can't carry it

I find this question very well illustrates man's inability to ever comprehend even one scintilla of God's great design for the Universe.

A person is only fooling themselves if they think they can justify the existence of God by looking for hard "facts". Matters of faith are not matters for the head...When it comes to faith and religion the head can not go where the heart has first not traveled.

F1Fan
March 13th, 2004, 10:53 PM
I find this question very well illustrates man's inability to ever comprehend even one scintilla of God's great design for the Universe.
Then how can man ever come to a conclusion that god has any design for the universe, let alone a great one?


A person is only fooling themselves if they think they can justify the existence of God by looking for hard "facts". Matters of faith are not matters for the head...When it comes to faith and religion the head can not go where the heart has first not traveled.
So you must deny any hard concept believed true by mainstream religion.

So I now wonder, if you believe this above, why and how can you argue for a god's existence at all? If you're arguing for god's existence, then there's some doubt it's true, and it is not evident objectively. So then, how is any such concept an issue for faith? You can't have faith in an idea, it's abstract, of the mind. You can have faith in yourself as a believer, that you are reliable. But then, faith assures no competency or certainty. So whether faith or belief, there's an underlying uncertainty about the idea's validity.

FruitandNut
March 22nd, 2004, 04:14 AM
To those who pose the question, 'Who/What is God'? I say, how can we know; this side of the River Styx anyway? If he does exist, and I for one am irrational enough to believe it to be so, then how can something that has clear limitations (humanity), ever hope to come anywhere near fathoming the (almost?) unfathomable?

God must be both within and without the envelope that shrouds creation whereas we are only within.

When Moses said to the Burning Bush, "Who are you lord"? - The Popeye like answer he got back was, "I am that I am". Or as The Bard of Avon put it, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet'.

When that time comes for me to answer for my actions will I be bold enough to ask God the following questions- or will I bottle out?

1/ If You are perfect then where did the flaws in the most important of your creations (that we know of) obtain their imperfections?

2/ If you are all compassionate then why let those who are not able to defend themselves suffer?

3/ Free will? Why are some people more able to exercise it than others?

4/ If You have been around for all eternity, then all eternity must have passed before You created the Universe, whenever that was. A neat 'trick' that confounds all the physical laws of the Universe. Yes, I know You created the laws in the first place.

5/ Is this Your first attempt at sentient life - if so that might explain a lot of things - better luck next time?

6/ I don't believe You play dice with us Lord, but do you have a sense of humour? - I hope so! - It would explain why you give some of us an insatiable sense of curiousity and a Pandoras Box to rummage in; but so little time.

Ps. According to definition, God must have limitations, though few.

a) He cannot do evil.
b) He cannot undo that which has happened; he can moderate it but not undo it. That which was done was done. Even erasing(English English) it from some kind of collective memory will not alter that.
c) He cannot erase Himself(sic).

pps. Whats with all the debate about lifting big rocks - all He(sic) has to do is create a physical law to suit!!!!!!!!!!!
The Universe is a kind of - 'however many' dimentional figment of God's imagination anyway.
If He(sic) chooses to he can 'forget' us and we cease to exist - scary prospect for some!!!!!!!!!!

lush1976
April 14th, 2004, 07:53 AM
now god can do everything( by definition),
can he create a very very huge rock that he himself can't carry it ??

The answer my father gave me and the answer to the riddle is "God doesn't waste his time with foolish things like that"

Sophoi
April 21st, 2004, 07:35 PM
Without 'evil' where is our freewill?

Is there any value in the 'good' or 'right' without an existence of 'non good' (evil), or 'not right' (wrong)?

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 10:05 AM
Does God not have certain qualities that define Him and make Him who he is? And wouldn't His violating such qualities change the very nature that they in fact define?

Let me put it this way...

If God truly exists and is a distinct and seperate self (in the way that you are distinctly you; and I, me) there must be things about Him that make Him who He is.

However, each defining characteristic a thing has limits the nature of what it is. To say something is this way and not that, removes for us what it isn't, and gives shape and form to what remains.

Everything that exists has form, or essence if you will. Its what seperates it's presence (existence) from it's absence (non-existence). Form gives things shape and boundaries, and therefore limitations to what it is.

My point is that...

God is not exempt from limitations!

Nothing that exists is.

To say that 'God can do everything (by definition)' is to imply that He has no limitations. And if He has no limitations He has no form or essence. So He simply cannot be defined because He has no form or essence to define. And as such, it would follow from this definition of His existence that He does not exist.

Symantix
April 23rd, 2004, 10:09 AM
Does God not have certain qualities that define Him and make Him who he is? And wouldn't His violating such qualities change the very nature that they in fact define?

Let me put it this way...

If God truly exists and is a distinct and seperate self (in the way that you are distinctly you; and I, me) there must be things about Him that make Him who He is.

However, each defining characteristic a thing has limits the nature of what it is. To say something is this way and not that, removes for us what it isn't, and gives shape and form to what remains.

Everything that exists has form, or essence if you will. Its what seperates it's presence (existence) from it's absence (non-existence). Form gives things shape and boundaries, and therefore limitations to what it is.

My point is that...

God is not exempt from limitations!

Nothing that exists is.

To say that 'God can do everything (by definition)' is to imply that He has no limitations. And if He has no limitations He has no form or essence. So He simply cannot be defined because He has no form or essence to define. And as such, it would follow from this definition of His existence that He does not exist.
excellent argument.

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 10:17 AM
Thank you.

F1Fan
April 23rd, 2004, 10:35 AM
My point is that...

God is not exempt from limitations!

Nothing that exists is.

To say that 'God can do everything (by definition)' is to imply that He has no limitations. And if He has no limitations He has no form or essence. So He simply cannot be defined because He has no form or essence to define. And as such, it would follow from this definition of His existence that He does not exist.
The dilemma here is that god is not defining himself, but humans. So what is imposed onto the god we define as having "limitations" is really self implicating, and says nothing about god, just our concept and definition. This includes the notion of assigning the quality of "existing" as an attribute. What it means that something exists in our understanding of space/time again says more about the action of the human mind (it's act of reason within space/time) than it does what idea the mind is creating.

Now, I know it's fun to ponder all this. But perhaps this might help explain why i think the term "god" is way too generic to imply a reality, especially in use to justify arguments. We can use the term, but in doing so implies only an abstract, not a reality.

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 11:07 AM
F1Fan...Do you suppose it's impossible to know anything about God, including whether He really exists or not?

Apokalupsis
April 23rd, 2004, 11:11 AM
hehe Every argument boils down to "God does not exist." for F1Fan. ;)

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 11:16 AM
F1Fan...Do you agree with the general principle that the same thing cannot act or be affected in two opposite ways at the same time?

F1Fan
April 23rd, 2004, 11:30 AM
F1Fan...Do you suppose it's impossible to know anything about God, including whether He really exists or not?
Since it is a mind that is doing the "knowing" it depends upon how much we understand about this instrument. And it depends upon what it is meant by "knowing".

As I said, when we define something in an attempt to understand it, yet have no way to test for it, or our abstract concept, then it boils down to human subjectivity. If the definition for knowledge is equal to guesswork and hypothesis, and is under our control and manipulation, then we can easy claim knowedge (not to be mistaken for having actual objective knowledge). But then this would also have to close the door to inquiry to protect the hypothesis from its logical faults.

To have a sense of what some might call god is different to what is conjured in the curious mind, with its rampant imagination and many subconscious influences. So it is more an issue of method and approach than parameters of knowledge.

F1Fan
April 23rd, 2004, 11:32 AM
hehe Every argument boils down to "God does not exist." for F1Fan. ;)
And some strive for their own imortality by defining a god which mysteriously conforms to a personal concept.

F1Fan
April 23rd, 2004, 11:37 AM
F1Fan...Do you agree with the general principle that the same thing cannot act or be affected in two opposite ways at the same time?
If you mean a car cannot be both traveling north and south at the same time, then yes. And why would I disagree?

Apokalupsis
April 23rd, 2004, 11:49 AM
I "strive" for no immortality...only for truth. If evidences lead to valid conclusions, those conclusions will be accepted as valid despite my personal wishes or desires for it to be true or false. To do otherwise, would be lacking intellectual fortitude.

Meng Bomin
April 23rd, 2004, 11:51 AM
For those of you making claims regarding the existence of God/Goddess/gods/goddesses, what are your evidences?

Apokalupsis
April 23rd, 2004, 11:53 AM
That is off-topic and all discussions concerning the proving or disproving of God's existence will be removed. Please start a new thread, or see the many threads that already exist covering this topic.

Symantix
April 23rd, 2004, 11:55 AM
Indeed. The premise of this thread assumes that God exists. You must move from that point forward.

Meng Bomin
April 23rd, 2004, 11:55 AM
Fine, fine, fine. To answer my comment please see the Why do you believe? (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=489) thread started by supercamo.

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 01:03 PM
As I said, when we define something in an attempt to understand it, yet have no way to test for it, or our abstract concept, then it boils down to human subjectivity. If the definition for knowledge is equal to guesswork and hypothesis, then we can easy claim knowedge. But then this would also have to close the door to inquiry.

Great point. I agree entirely.

When I asked you about the - lets call it the 'exclusion principle', you said...


If you mean a car cannot be both traveling north and south at the same time, then yes. And why would I disagree?

Good, I'm glad you agree. And I have no idea why you would disagree. The reason I asked you was because...

without this 'exclusion principle' any certain knowledge of God would be well beyond our grasp. However, we do have it, and it is the very thing that allows us to reach beyond the direct knowledge we have of a subject. It's also a means by which we can test our beliefs and perceptions.

Passing the test doesn't make our beliefs and perceptions any more true than they were before, but knowing that they don't conflict with the things we're certain about makes them all the more believable.

F1Fan
April 23rd, 2004, 01:28 PM
without this 'exclusion principle' any certain knowledge of God would be well beyond our grasp.
How can you claim anyone has "certain knowledge" of god? And within their grasp? If we look at the vast variety of claims of "certain knowledge" about god that are incompatable and different, something is prolematic, and surely it shows the subjectivity of it.


However, we do have it, and it is the very thing that allows us to reach beyond the direct knowledge we have of a subject. It's also a means by which we can test our beliefs and perceptions.
We do have it? What is it? And what is it that is objective and allowing us to test beliefs against?


Passing the test doesn't make our beliefs and perceptions any more true than they were before, but knowing that they don't conflict with the things we're certain about makes them all the more believable.
What is the test to pass?

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 07:39 PM
without this 'exclusion principle' any certain knowledge of God would be well beyond our grasp. However, we do have it, and it is the very thing that allows us to reach beyond the direct knowledge we have of a subject.


We do have it? What is it?

The 'exclusion principle'



How can you claim anyone has "certain knowledge" of god?
And within their grasp? If we look at the vast variety of claims of "certain knowledge" about god that are incompatable and different, something is prolematic, and surely it shows the subjectivity of it.


And what is it that is objective and allowing us to test beliefs against?


What is the test to pass?

Believe me when I tell you I have no intentions of cheeting you out of the answers to these questions. But in order to provide them, I see no other way but to first shed light upon the foundations on which they stand. Only in this way will we discover why our dissension exists, if at all.

It appears we find ourselves in the center point of the arena which some refer to as epistemology.

In fact, you hit the very core of this subject in a statement you made earlier...


Since it is a mind that is doing the "knowing" it depends upon how much we understand about this instrument. And it depends upon what it is meant by "knowing".

I absolutely agree. To make headway then lets eliminate as much ambiguity as possible. It appears to me that the easiest way to do this would be to begin by seperating the elements involved in such a matter as 'knowing'. For example,

1. Us ('seekers' of knowledge)

2. The subject of our knowledge (i.e. what it actually is apart from our understanding of it)

3. Our knowledge of the subject (i.e. our understanding of the subject apart from what it actually is)

4. The degree of deviation between (3)'our knowledge of the subject' and (2)'the subject of our knowledge'

We could also distinquish perhaps two more elements:

5. The amount of knowledge that there is to know of a subject

6. How much of (5) that knowledge that there is to know is actually known

What are your thoughts? And if the seperation of these elements suffice with you, what are the names by which we shall refer to them?

3rdPersonPlural
April 23rd, 2004, 07:49 PM
I suppose that the accuracy of responses and the variety of responses among adults to Sophoi's questions, if posed about "GOD", would be similar to the accuracy and variety among preschoolers if asked about, say, superstring theory.

We simply don't know if "god' even exists, let alone if he has opinions, let alone what his characteristics are. I'm serious when I wonder aloud why we bother to futz with a question which, by definition, we'll never know that we have arrived at a satisfactory answer?

Go get a job or something. Jeez!!

Sophoi
April 23rd, 2004, 09:33 PM
I'm serious when I wonder aloud why we bother to futz with a question which, by definition, we'll never know that we have arrived at a satisfactory answer?

It is frustrating. But the question of whether God exists or not is one of much significance, and each one of us is faced with. In regards to ‘arriving at a satisfactory answer’, the only person to whom our answer to that question needs to satisfy is our self.

I believe there are things we can come to know that will help us find resolve on the issue, and I'll show you what they are if you'll follow me on the course I've set out on in my last post.

3rdPersonPlural
April 24th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Sophoi, the answers to 5 and 6 are 'nil'.

That makes the rest of the exercise fruitless.

We have a better chance of using your exercise to find a cure for cancer or something. We can responsibly presuppose that there IS a solution, but we can also use your mechanics to demonstrate the existance of a pink unicorn.

All we have to do is assume that one exists.

F1Fan
April 24th, 2004, 10:24 AM
The 'exclusion principle'
How does this principle (am I right that it is basically that one thing cannot do two opposing actions?) apply to knowledge of god? Or better yet, what one thinks is knowledge of god?


Believe me when I tell you I have no intentions of cheeting you out of the answers to these questions.
Good, I'd hate for this to end up in court.


I absolutely agree. To make headway then lets eliminate as much ambiguity as possible. It appears to me that the easiest way to do this would be to begin by seperating the elements involved in such a matter as 'knowing'. For example,

1. Us (the knower)
I hate to stop you here, but isn't it presumptuous of call us the knower? Wouldn't "seeker" be more accurate? Or investigator?


2. The subject of our knowledge (i.e. what it actually is apart from our understanding of it)
This sounds on par for science.


3. Our knowledge of the subject (i.e. our understanding of the subject apart from what it actually is)

4. The degree of deviation between (3)'our knowledge of the subject' and (2)'the subject of our knowledge'

We could also distinquish perhaps two more elements:

5. The amount of knowledge that there is to know of a subject

6. How much of (5) that knowledge that there is to know is actually known

What are your thoughts? And if the seperation of these elements suffice with you, what are the names by which we shall refer to them?
I have no problem with this being an epistemological approach. However, given the dilemma man has always had with "knowing" god, I don't see how this model can apply and be objective and accurate. At best it can be applied to the basic dogmas and human conceptual designs, and any religious sources and rituals being the basis of "fact" from which to derive a conclusion.

None of what you revealed applies to solving the problems I have pointed out about an absence of rational knowledge for the essence of god. Like I said, if we humans are dependent on how we define god in order to have "knowledge" of god, then there's an immediate self deification. And that is subjective, judgment, and belief, not knowledge.

F1Fan
April 24th, 2004, 10:34 AM
It is frustrating. But the question of whether God exists or not is one of much significance, and each one of us is faced with. In regards to ‘arriving at a satisfactory answer’, the only person to whom our answer to that question needs to satisfy is our self.
It is significant not because there is an inherent significance in it, but because of the fear of the alternative: no god exists in the way it is popularized in the myths of human civilization. It becomes a constant 'chasing a tail', in that we expend so much effort and resources trying to turn fast enough to catch a glimpse of what is just behind us.

I assert that this desperate searching is what prevents the awareness of essence that some might call a god. Like in a Buddhist saying: one searches for an ox while riding an ox. What is the essence is present. But the ignorance of how the mind works in creating so much illusion through fears and insecurity, humans want their gods to fit the illusions and models they already are attached to and have invested time and interest. Thus, the person becomes his own god. And the essence, the universal energy that permeates everything is tuned out.

I suspect your elaborate exercise above is an example of tuning out: so lost in the workings of the mind that intuition cannot be heard.


I believe there are things we can come to know that will help us find resolve on the issue, and I'll show you what they are if you'll follow me on the course I've set out on in my last post.
Your course isn't unique, and it has profound problems. Why not stop with the foreplay and explain what you have concluded.