Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 129

Thread: God is not an Entity?

  1. Top | #1
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    5,808
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    22,637
    Rep Power
    76

    God is not an Entity?

    Some "sophisticated" theologians maintain that God is not an additional entity to be added to other entities whose existence one recognizes.

    But if God is not an additional entity, then what is God? Another name for something whose existence we already recognize? Like in pantheism.

    For instance, Metacrock claims that God is being itself, and the ground of being. The first one seems an awful lot like pantheism, and the second one seems like adding another entity.

  2. Top | #2
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,362
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,839
    Rep Power
    81
    God is, like all non-existent phenomena, not an entity.

    It amuses me when theologians conclude that God is indistinguishable from nothing, but then cannot manage to complete the obvious train of thought and recognise the therefore Gods do not exist.

    Of course, one might instead claim that 'God' is a synonym for something real that is generally referred to by another name; But that's also a pointless and futile exercise. If 'God' is a synonym for 'everything', why not just say 'everything' and avoid confusion?

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,138
    Rep Power
    10
    It’s very simple. “God” is anything a cult member wants it to be so that no one outside of the cult can deprogram them.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,791
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,635
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    It amuses me when theologians conclude that God is indistinguishable from nothing, but then cannot manage to complete the obvious train of thought and recognise the therefore Gods do not exist.
    The first problem with negative theology is that, if God is described solely in terms of negation,
    it is impossible to distinguish him from non-existence—“any Being which had to be characterized
    entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no Being at all.” God is not matter;
    neither is non-existence. God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence. God is not
    visible; neither is non-existence. God does not change; neither does non-existence. God cannot be
    described; neither can non-existence. And so on down the list of negative predicates. If the theist
    wishes to distinguish his belief in God from the belief in nothing at all, he must give some positive
    substance to the concept of God
    --George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

  5. Top | #5
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    5,808
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    22,637
    Rep Power
    76
    Metacrock does some proof-texting with the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14. In it God says:

    (Masoretic Hebrew): ehyeh asher ehyeh "I am that I am" or "I will be that I will be"
    (Septuagint Greek): egô eimi ho ôn "I am the being"

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    17
    I don't understand how an extant God could be a non-entity, non-being, not apart from us (not additional). That IS very 'sophist'.

    Is there a useful analogy to explain this ontology?
    An unborn baby and their mother? Separate entities?
    In "The Mind of God", Paul Davies references Soviet physicist Andrei Linde's idea of a 'Mother' universe giving birth to a 'Baby' universe. Is the baby a created addition? Separate?


  7. Top | #7
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,785
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,285
    Rep Power
    73
    It's the God of the Gaps.

    If you assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause, you define God as not being a thing that began to exist. Slide God in there where ever.

    If Occam's Razor cries foul when you add unnecessary entities to your hypotheses, then God is not an entity. Add Him without fear.

    Whenever someone has a difficulty crafting a godproof that needs to treat god different than everything used to come up with the proof, reach for the footnote tab and mark Him out of bounds.

  8. Top | #8
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    10,698
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    11,405
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    If 'God' is a synonym for 'everything', why not just say 'everything' and avoid confusion?
    Why waste three syllables on "everything" when you can just say "god"?

  9. Top | #9
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,941
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,980
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Some "sophisticated" theologians maintain that God is not an additional entity to be added to other entities whose existence one recognizes.

    But if God is not an additional entity, then what is God? Another name for something whose existence we already recognize? Like in pantheism.

    For instance, Metacrock claims that God is being itself, and the ground of being. The first one seems an awful lot like pantheism, and the second one seems like adding another entity.
    Or as presuppers like to say, "existence exists!" Somehow this demonstrates that a god is something real, when it's just word gibberish.

    I'm going with god being a fictitious, imaginary being same as all things supernatural.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    17
    Existence just exists.
    I like it.
    You could say that about the universe. It just IS. A past-eternal, perpetual motion, Groundhog Day machine.
    No need to explain the imaginary ontological category of non-existence.
    Boy, wouldn't THAT kill religion.
    ...and existential angst.

Similar Threads

  1. What kind of entity is a fictional character?
    By ficino in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 04-16-2016, 09:31 AM

Posting Permissions

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