Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 129

Thread: God is not an Entity?

  1. Top | #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    996
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,795
    Rep Power
    52
    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.
    God exists because atheists are unwilling/unable to define god.

    You come across as a smart guy, but you say some incredibly stupid things sometimes. Atheists deny the existence of all gods, whether based on the Bible, Quran or other religious scripture. Every Tom, Dick and Harish on the planet who believes in god(s) likely believes in something different. Even the fucking Pope issues proclamations changing the dogma of the Roman Church from time to time: "This is what we believe about limbo right now, but stay tuned, because we may change the dogma next year". Why you think it is incumbent on atheists to define your gods for you God only knows.

  2. Top | #112
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,201
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,085
    Rep Power
    59
    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.
    Oh, we can do that. Again, I have a little concept I call the God Zoo. All the various kinds of God mankind has invented. Not in the sense of Zeus, Jehova, Odin, but in a deeper sense. Omni-everything creator Gods. Process theology Gods that are not omni-everything. idealist Gods ala George Berkeley. nature Gods, multiple Gods of non-monotheistic religions. And more. No God you can conceive of can with stand critical scrutiny.

    But I usually aim my criticism at the omni-everything creator God of standard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam etc. The pest religions. But this type of God is not the only God I can define, and critique, and do not believe in. the problem with these sorts of debates is that theists like to dodge defining their God in detail because it makes it easy to point out the deep theoretical problems with a specific definition. And so we get these little games.

    Is your God the Simple God of standard theology, not made of parts? This has been used by theologians to not have to explain what God's substance is and where these essences of God came from and what metaphysical process combined these essences into one substance. God then is the truly basic foundation of all existence, there is no metaphyisical world beyond God that creates god or makes God what God is.

    But then God creates all the metaphysical necessities of the world, including logic. And if God is good, he could then by fiat create a world where moral evil cannot exist. We don't live in such a world. what is wrong with the basic Simplicity of God theory? The whole God theory demands a lot of ad hoc rationalizations such as the ancient Simplicity of God hypothesis, which collapse when examined critically.

    The greater the God proposed by theologians, the easier it is to demonstrate that God is not logically coherent or logical. Theology cannot escape naturalism.

    Now, what God Zoo denizen do you believe in?
    Cheerful Charlie

  3. Top | #113
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,717
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,463
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
    I thought the whole Christian thing was that God was outside the material world? And then reaches in now and again. Which I guess is immanence. Is that what you mean?

  4. Top | #114
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,717
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,463
    Rep Power
    54
    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.
    That's called "post atheism". Atheism is when there's a dominant religion in a society and those who don't believe in that god are atheists. When a society reaches a point where theists can't agree on a definition of their god/gods then atheism stops being a coherent identity. Today religion as a collective identity is dying everywhere. Religious faith is becoming an individual choice as well as dying outright. Which is why theists today have no hope in agreeing on anything.

    So we're increasingly shifting over to the post atheistic mindset. "Post atheism" is when religion and God stops being a thing we talk about or even feel the need to relate to. It's when blasphemy stops being taboo and exiting. It's when God has been reduced to nothing but a punchline for jokes. That's the world we are increasingly living in today. Non-believers like that, of course will struggle with defining what gods they don't believe in.

    All these words sprung up in specific contexts. We've left the French Enlightenment era which gave birth to the modern term atheism. We don't live in that context anymore.

    It's an irreversible trend. The moment religion becomes a personal choice, and not something society and family forces upon you, it's dead already. It's just a matter of time. And society is only getting less and less collectivist and more and more individualistic

    Anyhoo... that's why "atheists" today struggle with defining what they're not. The thing they're not is dying.

  5. Top | #115
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,928
    Rep Power
    19
    Why is this ontological concept of "entity" causing you guys so much grief?

    The etymology of the word means "to be". (Many languages disambiguate the verb "to be" so as to distiguish between the being of living entities and the being of inanimate objects.)

    In order for God to do anything (omniscience, omnipotence, immanence,) God has TO BE an entity.

    I get it that you don't think He exists - is not a real entity. But are you really so philosophically challenged by such a basic notion as "entity" even for a hypothetical entity?

  6. Top | #116
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,928
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    ...But I usually aim my criticism at the omni-everything creator God of standard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam etc.
    Yes.
    And that shows that you know very well what an (Abrahamic) monotheist like me means by the word God.

  7. Top | #117
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,267
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,744
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Why is this ontological concept of "entity" causing you guys so much grief?
    It isn't. You appear to be projecting.
    The etymology of the word means "to be". (Many languages disambiguate the verb "to be" so as to distiguish between the being of living entities and the being of inanimate objects.)
    Yes. Well done, have a gold star.
    In order for God to do anything (omniscience, omnipotence, immanence,) God has TO BE an entity.
    Indeed. And god isn't, so it can't.
    I get it that you don't think He exists - is not a real entity. But are you really so philosophically challenged by such a basic notion as "entity" even for a hypothetical entity?
    Not at all. There are thousands of gods that exist as fictional constructs. Fictional characters are not an uncommon phenomenon, and many of them are gods, or wizards, or superheroes, who can (within their stories) do things that are impossible in reality.

    None of this is problematic in any way to any of the atheists in this thread.

    It's certainly not a cause for grief amongst us. Though it appears to be giving you plenty.

  8. Top | #118
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,717
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,463
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Why is this ontological concept of "entity" causing you guys so much grief?

    The etymology of the word means "to be". (Many languages disambiguate the verb "to be" so as to distiguish between the being of living entities and the being of inanimate objects.)

    In order for God to do anything (omniscience, omnipotence, immanence,) God has TO BE an entity.

    I get it that you don't think He exists - is not a real entity. But are you really so philosophically challenged by such a basic notion as "entity" even for a hypothetical entity?
    I don't think that holds up. An entity is a type of object. It has to have distinct features. We have to be able to talk about some quality or qualities of it and we immediately know what you are referring to. Can you think of any quality of God that is universal for all definitions of it? I can't, apart from the fact that it's the focus of worship. But God itself seems to be an empty concept.

    I think Habermas formulated God better than anybody. God is what we call our hopes and dreams. It's the symbol that gets to encompass it. He saw God as an empty container or surface upon which we project onto. It means that God is us. It also means that we create God. As in that God only exists in our heads. Anyway, that's why God is different things to different people and why theists struggle to agree on what God is. Because different people will have different hopes and dreams.

  9. Top | #119
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,242
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
    I thought the whole Christian thing was that God was outside the material world? And then reaches in now and again. Which I guess is immanence. Is that what you mean?
    Immanence is much deeper than that; it sees material existence itself as an emanation or manifestation of the will of God; the universe and God are not separate entities, but neither is this pantheism; the material universe and god are like, say, the sun and the light of the sun. Matter cannot exist without the other as its source, but we also have matter alone with which to perceive the otherwise inacessible (to us) workings of God. The whole of creation is, in this sense, a manifestation of God just like the Scriptures; these are all signposts meant to point the mind in the direction of the Source which has always been accessible to us, given that we are made of the same stuff as everything else. As the prologue of John's Gospel puts it, "In the beginning was the Logos (ie, the principle ordering force of the material universe, see Philo of Alexandria) and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. It was with God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In it was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."

    There is no "whole Christian thing" when it comes to metaphysics, any more than there is a "whole Muslim thing" or a "whole Western secular philosophy thing" or a "whole particle phycisist thing". Any intellectual tradition is going to bear diverse fruits and the occasional argument; this is how we learn.

  10. Top | #120
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,717
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,463
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
    I thought the whole Christian thing was that God was outside the material world? And then reaches in now and again. Which I guess is immanence. Is that what you mean?
    Immanence is much deeper than that; it sees material existence itself as an emanation or manifestation of the will of God; the universe and God are not separate entities, but neither is this pantheism; the material universe and god are like, say, the sun and the light of the sun. Matter cannot exist without the other as its source, but we also have matter alone with which to perceive the otherwise inacessible (to us) workings of God. The whole of creation is, in this sense, a manifestation of God just like the Scriptures; these are all signposts meant to point the mind in the direction of the Source which has always been accessible to us, given that we are made of the same stuff as everything else. As the prologue of John's Gospel puts it, "In the beginning was the Logos (ie, the principle ordering force of the material universe, see Philo of Alexandria) and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. It was with God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In it was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."

    There is no "whole Christian thing" when it comes to metaphysics, any more than there is a "whole Muslim thing" or a "whole Western secular philosophy thing" or a "whole particle phycisist thing". Any intellectual tradition is going to bear diverse fruits and the occasional argument; this is how we learn.
    Meh. These are all metaphors for vague stuff. The secret sauce of all religions is maintaining mystery around God.

    When I did logic, my logic professor said, just because you have a logically consistent model, doesn't make it true. These theological models are all untestable. Each is as good an explanation as any other. What that tells us is that no theologian knows what they are talking about. It's all just word salad. While interesting in a purely logical/mathematical sense, it shouldn't be interesting to anybody outside that sphere. These concepts shouldn't be all that fun to play around with for laypeople.

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
  •