Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 129

Thread: God is not an Entity?

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,013
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,604
    Rep Power
    61
    God's not an entity? Shit. He needs to go to our Supreme Court, which established corporate personhood in 2010. Even Jiffy Lube and Burger King have souls and can invoke religious objections when needed. Are you saying God has less magnitude than Jiffy Lube???

  2. Top | #12
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    5,550
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    22,379
    Rep Power
    76
    I recall a certain Gamera over in Talk Rational. He once argued that God existing would make God subject to Being. However, I could never figure out what that was supposed to mean.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,168
    Archived
    20,351
    Total Posts
    23,519
    Rep Power
    52
    Is a cloud an entity?
    Do human beings have free will? I can't decide.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    What about an entity that "can think" and has awareness. That is something distiguishable from cloud at least, regardless of whether we know the Entity's material make up or not.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,885
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,331
    Rep Power
    65
    This seems to be another semantic argument.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,706
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    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.
    ^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
    It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.

  7. Top | #17
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,857
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,896
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    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.
    ^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
    It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.
    All of which means that my god is just however I feel it is. And if I had a god I'd feel the same way because imaginary creatures are exactly that.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,706
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    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.
    ^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
    It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.
    All of which means that my god is just however I feel it is. And if I had a god I'd feel the same way because imaginary creatures are exactly that.
    But the point is that even though every theists' God is just their feelings, they lie about this fact and lie about their feelings in order to defend the obvious absurdity and irrationality of their belief from being exposed.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    I missed being drunk (for a while) and singing in the street / rain, being silly and all the other things that go with it.

    That was definitely a good feeling but then .... God!

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes...
    What a gutless and lazy way to avoid engaging with the arguments.
    Accusing your opponent of not 'really' believing what they plainly say is their position.
    ...you're a liar. No you're a liar. No YOU are. Yeah, well I said it first. Liar liar pants on fire
    Pathetic!

    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    ...It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God.
    Oh FFS!

    EXISTENCE & NATURE OF GOD
    Defenses of various arguments for God's existence along with reflections on some of His attributes.
    Why Does God Exist?
    March 05, 2016
    Are we there yet? No...only up to chapter 11 of defining God
    The Doctrine of God (part 11)
    July 15, 2007 Time: 00:46:33
    We have been thinking about the attributes of God over the last few months...
    Surely this can't go on forever.
    Doctrine of God (Part 21)
    August 12, 2015
    WAIT! There's more? Yep we haven't covered the Trinity yet.
    Doctrine of God: Trinity (Part 5)
    August 10, 2016
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org
    Thousands and thousands and thousands of words written about the doctrine of the nature of God. One of the thousands of websites where mainstream Christianity answers the theological question ronburgundy says we refuse to answer - what do you mean by God?

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
  •