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.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by bilby
--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against GodThe 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
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"
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?
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.
Why waste three syllables on "everything" when you can just say "god"?
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote