FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-17-2002, 08:19 AM   #111
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,567
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by Lack of Paint:
<strong>Only inside your own mind.

Please refute how God is synonymous with the laws of physics. Your entire argument is refutable because you based it on a false definition. Tah.</strong>
I did. But apperantly you didn't even read my post.
Physical laws doesn't exist as an independent being/force, but the supposed creator-god does.
Further more, your definition of "god" is still too skinny.
Can you name a religion where people reffer to god as not being conscious?
Why should I change "laws of physics" to "god"?
It's just a word-excange.
If you want to invent a new language where all words are swapped around to fit your theories, then by all means do so, but don't expect me to adapt to that language.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>
Theli is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 12:15 PM   #112
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 248
Post

I think the most popular definition of God that I know of is an uncaused, timeless, personal, unchanging, necessary cause of the universe. I know this is what Christianity and Judaism go by. Sure there are many other definitions, but these seem to be the popular ones around these parts of the web.

If this God exists, then pantheism must necessarily be false. Why? Because God contains properties that contradict the properties of pantheism. God is timeless, and the universe is not. God is personal, the universe is not. God is uncaused, the universe is not. etc.
LinuxPup is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 11:48 PM   #113
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,567
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LinuxPup:
I think the most popular definition of God that I know of is an uncaused, timeless, personal, unchanging, necessary cause of the universe.
Personal + unchanging...


I love this little paradox.
How can you have personal relationship with something that is unchanging/static/dead?
The christian god is built on inconsistencies and onfounded assumptions. Such as "timeless".

[b]
Quote:
I know this is what Christianity and Judaism go by. Sure there are many other definitions, but these seem to be the popular ones around these parts of the web.

If this God exists, then pantheism must necessarily be false. Why? Because God contains properties that contradict the properties of pantheism. God is timeless, and the universe is not. God is personal, the universe is not. God is uncaused, the universe is not. etc.[/qb]
The definition of the word "god" you are using is both biased and inconsistent. Not all god's have created the universe.
If Trebaxian Vir would like to draw a parallel between the specific judeo-christian god and natural laws, he has alot of work to do.

How can natural laws speak to people?

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>
Theli is offline  
Old 06-18-2002, 06:15 PM   #114
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Post

Quote:
LinuxPup wrote:

<strong>I think the most popular definition of God that I know of is an uncaused, timeless, personal, unchanging, necessary cause of the universe.</strong>
Which isn't a definition at all. It's the same as saying, "This previously identified thing, which we refer to as God, is uncaused, timeless, personal, unchanging, and necessarily caused the universe." All the while blithely begging the question that God has been identified in the first place.
Philosoft is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.