Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 119

Thread: Define God Thread

  1. Top | #61
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    2,156
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    5,818
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharakov View Post
    Define perfect being.

    I'm not rabbit holing you, I just want to know your specific definition.
    That's legitimate. You yourself aren't perfect as we all know so I can cut you some slack.

    Perfection here means God lacks no quality and that he didn't have to be created to exist, unlike anything that isn't God himself.

    It also means he cannot be made to cease to exist and cannot be corrupted, i.e. he cannot loose any quality.

    That's sort of thing.
    EB

  2. Top | #62
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    2,156
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    5,818
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by joedad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    1. God is a perfect being
    2. God is unique (he is the only perfect being)
    3. God created the universe where we are
    EB
    What is "perfect' or are you just using the words 'god" and "perfect" interchangeably?

    How is god unique? Are there any other beings exactly the same as yourself or are you also unique and therefore perfect as yourself in this same sense?

    How is the universe not unique and perfect as it is, along with everything in it?
    I don't know if I could be unique.

    I suppose I am but I don't know. Maybe there are bilions of exact copies of our universe running in parallel but there can be just one God.

    Also, even if there are other things that are unique although they are not God, these things are not perfect. They will have defects. They may have qualities but not all qualities and not all the time. And any quality they have they can loose it and they will loose it.

    Totally unlike God that.
    EB

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    2,156
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    5,818
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I'm writing for a maximally average audience.
    Bilby picked apart your statement and showed what was wrong with it. And that' the best you can come up with?

    BTW, the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas made the same argument. But with the rigour of a philosopher. He's still considered the greatest Christian philosopher by the Catholic church. The problem of course it's that it's just nonsense. As the critique of Thomas Aquinas has shown.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas...as_philosopher
    It does show that Thomas Aquinas was less than perfect.

    Still, none of us are, which is why we are not and could be God.
    EB

  4. Top | #64
    Veteran Member DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Malmö
    Posts
    4,881
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    10,627
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Bilby picked apart your statement and showed what was wrong with it. And that' the best you can come up with?

    BTW, the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas made the same argument. But with the rigour of a philosopher. He's still considered the greatest Christian philosopher by the Catholic church. The problem of course it's that it's just nonsense. As the critique of Thomas Aquinas has shown.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas...as_philosopher
    It does show that Thomas Aquinas was less than perfect.

    Still, none of us are, which is why we are not and could be God.
    EB
    The Arthur C. Clarke argument. Sure. But it also means we could identify perfection even if it hit us in the face. A less than perfect being (humans) do not have the ability with which to identify a perfect being. So we should stop saying that God is perfect. Anybody making the claim that God is perfect is just letting everybody know that they have no idea what they're just using long words they don't master, and is just hoping that whoever listening isn't smart enough to question it.

    In Thomas Aquinas defence, his mission wasn't to prove God's existence. He already "knew" God existed. Universities back then were propaganda institutions with the singular purpose of coming up with more convincing arguments for what everybody already knew. They all had access to Greek pagan texts. Thomas Aquinas' arguments is completely dependent on accepting Aristotelian logic and Aristotelian philosophy. So we know Aquinas had read and understood Aristotle, a Pagan. It's impossible to overstate the dominance of Aristotle in medieval Christian philosophy and theology. They didn't even need to name him. They could just write "the philosopher" and everybody immediately knew they were talking about Aristotle.

    Philosophy back then didn't have the purpose philosophy has today.

    So using a Thomasinian argument in a non-Christian brainwashed community makes no sense. His theories are written for people who already are Christian. They're dumb. And any non-Christian will immediately identify them as such. I have no idea why his philosophy is not referred to as "Aquinasinian". It's just not done. Anyhoo.

  5. Top | #65
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    2,156
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    5,818
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    It does show that Thomas Aquinas was less than perfect.

    Still, none of us are, which is why we are not and could be God.
    EB
    The Arthur C. Clarke argument.
    Who is Arthur C. Clarke? A perfect being? Because I don't know him.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Sure. But it also means we could identify perfection even if it hit us in the face.
    Not 'we could if'. We do. Or at least we can. Yes we can. Or at least some of us can. Precisely when he decides to hit us in the faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    A less than perfect being (humans) do not have the ability with which to identify a perfect being.
    That's obviously not necessarily true. I'm sure some people don't have that ability but you cannot deduce in any way that nobody has it. You're making stuff up as you go. You're less than perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    So we should stop saying that God is perfect.
    You seem to be a very prescriptive sort of guy. I rather like diversity and plurality.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Anybody making the claim that God is perfect is just letting everybody know that they have no idea what they're just using long words they don't master, and is just hoping that whoever listening isn't smart enough to question it.
    I don't agree. Possibly most, but not necessarily anybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    In Thomas Aquinas defence, his mission wasn't to prove God's existence. He already "knew" God existed. Universities back then were propaganda institutions with the singular purpose of coming up with more convincing arguments for what everybody already knew. They all had access to Greek pagan texts. Thomas Aquinas' arguments is completely dependent on accepting Aristotelian logic and Aristotelian philosophy. So we know Aquinas had read and understood Aristotle, a Pagan. It's impossible to overstate the dominance of Aristotle in medieval Christian philosophy and theology.
    I think it was because of the first sceptic views being expressed at the time rather publicly. They had to respond but they had been impressed and really perverted by Aristotle's work and the philosophical principle of arguing your views. They tried to argue faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    They didn't even need to name him. They could just write "the philosopher" and everybody immediately knew they were talking about Aristotle.
    Yeah, same thing for God. You just have to say "perfect being" and we all understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Philosophy back then didn't have the purpose philosophy has today.

    So using a Thomasinian argument in a non-Christian brainwashed community makes no sense. His theories are written for people who already are Christian. They're dumb. And any non-Christian will immediately identify them as such. I have no idea why his philosophy is not referred to as "Aquinasinian". It's just not done. Anyhoo.
    I don't think your interpretation is correct. The schoolmen tried to argue faith not because they knew they could get away with it preaching to the converted but because they didn't know any different. They thought they could convince the sceptics, or future would-be sceptics, by using rational arguments because they had steeped for too long in the Aristotelian bath. They didn't know any better. Later, the Church put a stop to it. You just don't argue faith.
    EB

  6. Top | #66
    Veteran Member DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Malmö
    Posts
    4,881
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    10,627
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    The Arthur C. Clarke argument.
    Who is Arthur C. Clarke? A perfect being? Because I don't know him.
    It's a science fiction author.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Sure. But it also means we could identify perfection even if it hit us in the face.
    Not 'we could if'. We do. Or at least we can. Yes we can. Or at least some of us can. Precisely when he decides to hit us in the faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    A less than perfect being (humans) do not have the ability with which to identify a perfect being.
    That's obviously not necessarily true. I'm sure some people don't have that ability but you cannot deduce in any way that nobody has it. You're making stuff up as you go. You're less than perfect.
    How? How could you possibly know? We don't even know the limits of our own imagination.

    Yes, I'm less than perfect. Yes, I'm making this up as I go. As is everybody speculating on perfection. It's like a group of people discussing the interior decorating of a room none of them has visited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    So we should stop saying that God is perfect.
    You seem to be a very prescriptive sort of guy. I rather like diversity and plurality.
    I'll rephrase that. Anybody who wishes to be talked to like an adult should use adult language. You're of course free to say whatever silly things you want. But people aren't going to take you seriously if you veer off too far into fantasy-land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    They didn't even need to name him. They could just write "the philosopher" and everybody immediately knew they were talking about Aristotle.
    Yeah, same thing for God. You just have to say "perfect being" and we all understand.
    I don't agree. What's so perfect about being blue? You are talking about Krishna aren't you?

  7. Top | #67
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    2,156
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    5,818
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Sure. But it also means we could identify perfection even if it hit us in the face.
    Not 'we could if'. We do. Or at least we can. Yes we can. Or at least some of us can. Precisely when he decides to hit us in the faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    A less than perfect being (humans) do not have the ability with which to identify a perfect being.
    That's obviously not necessarily true. I'm sure some people don't have that ability but you cannot deduce in any way that nobody has it. You're making stuff up as you go. You're less than perfect.
    How? How could you possibly know? We don't even know the limits of our own imagination.
    Obviously but your last question does show one limit of your imagination.

    As somebody said, the only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. You could try it. That won't make a perfect being out of you but it could make you a better man.

    So, how could a less than perfect being like we all are possibly know that there is such a thing as a perfect being?

    This is not such a really terribly difficult question. Should I tell you or do you want to think about it some more? Remember, it could really make you a better man.
    EB

  8. Top | #68
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    .
    Posts
    3,054
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    6,437
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post

    'Maximally greatest'? That's not so much theology as tautology.

    As my three year old niece would no doubt say, 'the most bestest in the whole wide world ever ever the end'. Which is a lovely string of superlatives, but still lacks a noun to which they might apply. 'Being' is a metasyntactic variable, and has no meaning without a context.

    So God is a thingy, and not only that, God is 'the most bestest thingy in the whole wide world ever ever the end'.

    Having made every possible attempt to extract an actual definition from your statement, I still am not able to see any actual definition of God therein - just a rather childish emission of emotional froth, with no substance at all. Saying 'maximally greatest' instead of 'bestest ever' adds exactly no gravity to your claim, only loquaciousness.
    I think God is the maximally greatest being ever in the same sense as Trump is the maximally greatest president ever.

    Biggly.
    God- Stings like a butterfly, floats like a bee. You know, because of dimensions.

  9. Top | #69
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    .
    Posts
    3,054
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    6,437
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharakov View Post
    Define perfect being.

    I'm not rabbit holing you, I just want to know your specific definition.
    That's legitimate. You yourself aren't perfect as we all know so I can cut you some slack.
    You're joking, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Perfection here means God lacks no quality and that he didn't have to be created to exist, unlike anything that isn't God himself.

    It also means he cannot be made to cease to exist and cannot be corrupted, i.e. he cannot loose any quality.
    So God knows the length of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set at 10^33 iterations before God calculates the boundary length of the Mandelbrot set at 10^33 iterations? That's weird, unless God was created in a previous iteration of the universe, and all knowledge already exists.

    [. tangent .]


    Side note, which might be semi pertinent. I had a brain fart the other day in regards to SR/GR (relativity of both varieties). I realized that the zero point was such, in the equations I was using, that actual spacetime distance (not just space- space distance had discrepancies) was remaining exactly equal for all particles in existence (according to the math I was using).

    So basically, multidimensional spacetime would have particles that remained equally spaced within it forever- an unchanging distance ratio between all particles.

    No matter which particle you choose, it is equally spaced from all other particles in spacetime, and its mass/energy/momentum would be the same as all other particles like it, although it would have a unique space trajectory (total spacetime traveled would be exactly the same for all particles).

    This leaves out the effects of consciousness having an effect upon spacetime trajectory...


  10. Top | #70
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    10,336
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    34,836
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Not 'we could if'. We do. Or at least we can. Yes we can. Or at least some of us can. Precisely when he decides to hit us in the faith.
    That's cute.
    How do you know what God is? God is perfect.
    How do you know what perfect is? God shows us.


    Your claim that God cannot be corrupted makes me think of The Fonz and the episode where he nearly got married. One of his requirements for a bride was that she be a virgin and his fiancé qualified.
    I think it was Potsey that asked, " How do you know she is a virgin?"
    Fonz said, "Virgins don't lie."




    Say that there is a god, but he's the deist god, totally hands-off as far as the inhabitants of his creation are concerned.
    Say further that the being you perceive as your deity is actually Satan.
    How would you detect the deception?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •