Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

Thread: God is not an Entity?

  1. Top | #101
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,977
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,017
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
    So if I'm reading the definition right, it seems like you're saying,

    "This thing you call a rock? I call it 'God,' and I claim it has a personality. That I interact with. And it tells me things."

  2. Top | #102
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    ...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.

  3. Top | #103
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,237
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    ...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
    No, we are back to one specific theist here being unable and unwilling to defend a definition of what it is that he believes in. Every time someone attempts to engage you on what you mean, you dance away with the excuse that the problem is with THEIR definition, not yours. Atheism is a denial of belief in any god, not just yours. But please feel free to tell us about yours, because, if we attempt to define what gods are, you will always come back with a denial that we are talking about your god.

  4. Top | #104
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    Use the effing quote function and show where I have said...

    This thing which you atheists call an inanimate object, well I call it an animate object. This thing which you say isn't sentient, well say that it is sentient. This rock, unlike all the other rocks, has a personality"

    There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God. The contention of atheists isn't that biblical theists are confusing rocks and God. Atheists and theists alike have the same definition of inanimate objects called rocks. Rocks exist.

    The contention is about the existence of God. Does exist. Does not exist. Pretty basic epistemology.

    But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"

  5. Top | #105
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,689
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,728
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Use the effing quote function and show where I have said...

    This thing which you atheists call an inanimate object, well I call it an animate object. This thing which you say isn't sentient, well say that it is sentient. This rock, unlike all the other rocks, has a personality"

    There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God. The contention of atheists isn't that biblical theists are confusing rocks and God. Atheists and theists alike have the same definition of inanimate objects called rocks. Rocks exist.

    The contention is about the existence of God. Does exist. Does not exist. Pretty basic epistemology.

    But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
    Well, god is just the name of a particular kind of ghostly delusion. Let's be rational, please.

  6. Top | #106
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    20,439
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    30,916
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God.
    The definition??

    There are fucking HUNDREDS of mutually exclusive definitions.

    God is a guy with one eye, a long beard, a cloak and a big hat. He rides an eight legged steed, and has a number of children who are also gods - notably Thor and Baldr. He is the overseer of Valhalla, where half of all those who die in battle spend the afterlife - the other half hang out with the goddess Freya, in the meadow of Fólkvangr.

    I presume that this is NOT the thing you mean when you say "God"?

    You, judging by your posing elsewhere on this board, subscribe to 'God' as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. That god is very different from other gods worshiped by various Christian sects; The RCC likes to call the differences 'heresies', but from outside the church, they are just disagreements about the definition. Of course, other religions - both extant and historical - have even more diverse ideas about what the word 'god' might mean.

    Your claim that there is only one definition is demonstrably false; so it fits in well with many of your other claims about this 'god' entity. Our observation of reality over the last several centuries leads to the inescapable conclusion that the god defined by the RCC is a work of fiction. As are any other gods that intervene in human life, or any theologies that include an afterlife. These things are demonstrably impossible - but fortunately for you, demonstrating this is quite difficult, and requires a level of education in physics and mathematics that most people do not have. Anyone who actually cares could obtain such an education however. There's nothing arcane, secret, or reserved about this knowledge, it is freely available to anyone.

  7. Top | #107
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,977
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,017
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    ...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
    So are you going to answer my post or are you going to change the subject because the answer points out the absurdity of your definition?
    You defined a Thing. We are discussing YOUR definition of A Thing. And the fact that your definition is internally inconsistent and functionally meaningless.

    .

    But you're ranting in the back row when the math teacher asks you how to factor (X2-4) and shouting, "HOW COME YOU CAN'T DEFINE POE'S 'ON WALDEN POND,' HUH?!?"
    .

    Keep trying. But your tactic is pretty transparent. You don't know how to factor (X2-4) in the math class when you said you knew all the math.

  8. Top | #108
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,977
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,017
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Use the effing quote function and show where I have said...

    This thing which you atheists call an inanimate object, well I call it an animate object. This thing which you say isn't sentient, well say that it is sentient. This rock, unlike all the other rocks, has a personality"
    Okay,
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    God's entity is entailed in His immanence.

    There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God.
    Which god, now?

    Are you claiming there is only one god?
    Christians and Jews and Muslims can't even agree on a theological definition of the god they share.
    Even Christians alone can't agree on a theological definition of the god they share.

    The contention of atheists isn't that biblical theists are confusing rocks and God. Atheists and theists alike have the same definition of inanimate objects called rocks. Rocks exist.
    Yabbut, you just said your rock contains a god that you can get messages from.
    "of or relating to the pantheistic conception of God, as being present throughout the universe" I.e. that it doesn't have a being/entity outside of the natural univer, that it indwells there. Looking forward to the bible verse about how your god created its own body - what was it before?



    The contention is about the existence of God. Does exist. Does not exist. Pretty basic epistemology.
    But in order to determine if a thing exists, don't we have to first determine, "which thing, now?"

    But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
    LOL. No. Since Christians can't agree on a definition of their god, then in a discussion about a god's existence it is required for us to determine from teh one we're talking to, what they think is a god, their god. Or is it fair for us to just debunk Zeus here and you're hunky-dorey with that? And here we were giving you the benefit of assuming that you meant Yahweh. But if it's no holds barred debunking of any god thereby debunks yours, then... well, you've just made things pretty simple.

  9. Top | #109
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,237
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    ...

    But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
    What you said was that God was "immanent". That means that God is in everything, including rocks. All you are saying in reply seems to be that God has a property of immanence, not that God is immanence. So you don't want to claim that any specific thing is God, just that your deity has the property of being in all things that exist. Nobody here denies the existence of physical reality, but atheism is still about denying the existence of your god (along with others) as entities that merit worship. You do worship your god, don't you? That is, you attend church services and pray to it. You have some idea of its nature that goes beyond the mere property of immanence. It is the nature of this entity that we are discussing, not just one aspect of it.

    As I've been at pains to explain elsewhere, definitions are not to be confused with meaning. They are merely succinct descriptions of word senses. They are heuristic in that they allow people to discover the full meaning of a particular sense by distinguishing the usage of that sense from other senses of the word and from words with similar meanings. So a more appropriate description of what any of us mean by "god" or "deity" would be a list of properties that are more or less true of it. Not all uses of the word will have all of the same properties or all of those properties to the same degree.

    What might such a list look like? Perhaps something like this:

    A god is an entity that is...

    1. Immaterial (i.e. a spirit)
    2. Intelligent
    3. Emotional (i.e. has likes, dislikes, desires, moods...)
    4. Able to manipulate reality at will (i.e. perform miracles)
    5. Very powerful
    6. Immortal
    7. Extremely knowledgeable
    8. Worshiped by people
    9. Benevolent (i.e. worthy of worship)
    10. Influenced by worship and prayers
    11. Etc.


    The list of properties need not be comprehensive for our purposes, and there will be some instances of word usage that do not include all properties on the list. This is the kind of entity that atheists reject belief in.

    Your god represents a subclass of this kind of entity. We could describe it with a list of additional properties:

    God is...

    1. A god
    2. Immanent
    3. Omnipotent
    4. Omniscient
    5. Omnibenevolent
    6. The creator of physical (material) reality
    7. Singular (i.e. there are no other gods)
    8. The specific god referenced in the Christian Bible
    9. Etc.

  10. Top | #110
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,689
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,728
    Rep Power
    72
    I think to a believer the word "god" contains its own definition that cannot be defined. It literally means everything and anything the holder wants it to mean at any time because the believer is constantly struggling with the concept. That's what makes it god and that's what god means. It's impossible to define because it is everything and anything forever. It kinda means unlimited anything.

    Also I think that to believers they kind of resent any bible because it doesn't say this about god. A book about god cannot and should not contain any writing. A song about god would not have any words or notes. Poems would have no verse. This is the only description that can be god. They have it, you don't. It's all or nothing.

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
  •