Theli

Intensity...

I would say that free will is simply the abillity to perform actions within the constrainsts of our own nature.
I've heard the argument that without evil we would not have free will. But evil or not evil is merely a question about abilities. To only be able to do good would only limit your abilities/power, not your will.

Omnipotence is an illusion. If a being could perform every action imaginable, that being can not have any nature to constrain it.
And without a nature, it cannot be said to exist. There would be nothing to perform the actions.
Neither Omnipotence or Omniscience should be considered natures, but rather a measure of ability/power. To say that god's power comes from his omni abilities is a circular argument.

I just can't see how a being can be omnipotent and exist at the same time.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Anything that has desires must change. Or it will never achieve any form of stasis. Anything that changes requires time. If God has desires and hence requires time, then he is operating within time and thus is not transcendent.

But whats the point he is nothingness and therefore does not exist.

Ted Hoffman

I have never heard anything so beautiful

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

sotzo

Why would a omnipotent god need people worshipping him?

He doesn't need it...he wants it.

And also, can you give us some argument to why god would even wan't that?

Like a deductive argument? I'm not sure what you are looking for here. God's desires derive from his character. Since He desires loving fellowship with man and the only way in which that fellowship can occur is within the context of him being righfully honored as God, he wants us to worship him.

Clearly we were given free will. Why did god give us free will when our purpose was to be "worshipping zombies"?

Wrong assumptions here. Our purpose is not to be "worshipping zombies", but to use our free-will to exercise love toward him out of desire. Please explain why you believe our purpose is to be "worshipping zombies".

If that was true, there wouldn't be any atheists, agnostics or polytheists.

That simply doesn't follow. If you wish it to follow properly you need to show that God's intended design cannot be broken. You've already granted that "clearly we have freewill" so you've shown yourself how such peopole as atheists, agnostics, and to a lesser extenet polytheists exist (ie, break the design).

This negates our free will. If we were to live our lives after a blueprint, (however perfect it might be) we would still be zombies.

You're not following the thread here. The question put by Intensity was "If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think?". This is, essentially asking why we should trust God over ourselves in the matter of how we should live. My answer - because he is the Designer. You, rather, are addressing the question as to whether or not God compels us to live a certain way. You're confusing why questions with how questions.

Neither eternal, infinite, unchangable nor immaterial insures perfect knowledge. Straw man.

I didn't intend for this list of God's attributes as an exhaustive list, but rather to address the specific concerns of Intensity. So, since the appropriate time has come in the discussion to introduce another attribute, I will - God also has perfect knowledge. And no, the first four attributes don't ensure perfect knowledge, but that wasn't in question.

"If you crawl at my feet and submit to my will, I'll forgive you for being yourself. If you don't, I'll beat you to death." Do I love you?

Are you seriously going to propose that the above statement is the Gospel message presented in the Bible?? Note that I am not asking you to believe it is true. I am asking if you think you are internally critiquing Christianity properly. The Gospel includes, among other things, the Father executing the Son on our behalf. This does not jive with your above inference that God is on a mission to "beat us to death".

Read my post above. Why didn't god create cows in his own image?

Because he didn't. What bearing does how God could have created have on how God did create? You're inferring conclusions from a dataset you don't have.

Because... drum roll... We created god in our own image.

The drummer can't even pick up his sticks until you show how the answer to the cow question is an appropriate premise for your conclusion.

So, everything with sufficient intelligence to even know about big bang could have been created in god's image?

No, but sufficient intelligence is required to carry on a personal relationship between you and I, you and your family, friends, etc. It is no different between us and God. Since cows cannot meet this prerequisiste they are excluded. I'd be willing to hear of any other creatures that you believe fit this prerequisiste.

Further, he has revealed the special case of man being created in his image in Genesis, but I'm not asking you to buy into the Bible (not at this point in the discussion anyway.)

Are you saying that (comparing intelligence), god is just as smart as a human, or is his creations are "dumber" than him?

Neither. God has infinite perfect knowledge, we have finite imperfect knowledge. "Dumber" is a poor choice of words because of the semantic baggage associated with it. Just because we "know" less perfectly and less content than God, we are not therefore rendered "dumb".

He can't? So much for omnipotence.

Okay, I'll bite. God's omnipotence is bound by his own attributes. One attribute of God is his own internal consistency (ie, God cannot lie). Therefore, God cannot make an object a sqaure and a circle at the same time and in the same way. Similarly, God cannot create a Being like himself since to do so would violate his claim to be the only true God.

And about omnipotence... I never got an answer on this question.

Sorry. I'll give it a shot now

If you believe in an omniscient/omnipotent god, do you have faith in (A.) god's omniscience/omnipotence or (B.) the obervation made by a human that god is all-knowing/all-powerfull?

Well, I come to the conclusion of A via B since the only way I can have such faith is through my own "observation". This question is a false dichotomy.

A. If you have faith in god's omnipotence, regardless of any observations, then you admit that the attribute "omnipotence" is invented by yourself, and has no link to reality. Since omniscience/omnipotence is not required (even by god).

I dont' understand when you say "since omniscience/omnipotence is not required (even by God)".

B. How can one from a brief observation of a being reach the conclution that, that being is allknowing? In order to do so, you must practicly ask every question that could possibly exist. And for you to verify the answers given to you, you must be omniscient yourself.

Or He must reveal it so that it can be understood by us. (We're nearing a discussion on Scripture.) You are assuming that man must autonomously arrive at all conclusions for truth to be known. I would ask that you defend such an assumption.

I don't see how this works.

It doesn't work, but that is because your assumptions are wrong.

Desire, desire desire...Not very omnipotent, if you ask me.

But "we clearly have freewill" as you've said! This He provides within the context of his omnipotence and it (our freewill) is also an answer to how God's desire for us to love him fits with his omnipotence.

But he does desire our subjugation and love?

Yes, he desires it. No, he doesn't need it. Loosely analogous would be yes I desire a BMW. No, I don't need one. I'm not sure what the confusion is on this.

How can you from a brief observation reach the conclution that a being is timeless?

Because my brief observation came from an infallible, all-knowing source, to wit: his revelation in Scripture and his revelation in creation which began to exist and which therefore, requires a timeless cause.

And how an unchanging being appear in a casual chain of events?

Because the very existence of a "causal chain of events" requires a timeless, unchanging being.

What does immaterial mean?

The absence of matter.

And did you make this up yourself, or is there any reasoning behind it?

Neither. I was forced to accept it. I am one of the unlucky ones who could not escape the indoctrination of clever theists who wished to govern my life with the threat of damnation. Long live Jerry Falwell! Long live Pat Robertson!

(I hear Koy coming!

cheers,

jkb

Ted Hoffman

Sotzo
No, but sufficient intelligence is required to carry on a personal relationship between you and I, you and your family, friends, etc. It is no different between us and God. Since cows cannot meet this prerequisiste they are excluded. I'd be willing to hear of any other creatures that you believe fit this prerequisiste.
Wrong, a cow can carry on a personal relationship between herself and another cow (say a bull). They can have sex and even bring up kids. You however cannot carry on a meaningful personal relationship with a cow (unless you choose to exploit it for milk and meat - and thats not a relationship, thats ownership) but you believe that you can do so with God. What makes you think that cows cannot carry on a relationship with God - is God only human? God knows how a cow feels doesn't he?
If our purpose is to worship him then we are his tools of worship - not his junior partners, he owns us and he exploits us by making us pander to his great insatiable need to be praised and worshipped.

you say "Since cows cannot meet this prerequisiste they are excluded" excluded by who? Where is your evidence that they have been excluded? Your anthropomorphisms?

This is hyopthetical to the point of almost no value since, to our knowledge, a cow is unable to reflect on what qualities a Being such as a god would have.
If a cow could think and reflect on the nature of what a loving God is then ask the cow to draw, would you expect the cow to draw a man or a cow?
Its hypothetical but there it is. Reason out.

For example, a white God as drawn in many books is based on White religion (since "white" people adopted christianity).
Indian gods look Indian, Egyptian gods looked and dressed as Egyptian, African gods were black and so on. You get my drift?
Beings represent their gods as things/ beings they can relate to.

This is what separates us from cows and so we can, at best, only ask why persons apply such characteristics to God. To answer you question, the basis for knowing God's personhood is similar to how we know a friend's personhood - that is, He reveals it to us.
God has not revealed himself to me. I do not understand what you mean when you say he reveals "it" to us - how? Is he a tall man? Does he smile a lot? How is his voice like? bass?

No, since our definition of God above contains qualities that man cannot possess and still remain man (ie, immaterial, infinite, etc.)
The very definitions of nothingness? Are you saying God is nothing?

Second, because God cannot create a second eternal, unchangeable, infinite, immaterial Being that is on par with him. If he could, he would cease to be God and we would then be talking about the gods of polytheism.
And what would be wrong with that? God wants all the credit?
And you are also saying God is NOT omnipotent?

First, God doesn't "need" another being. He is self-sufficient in and of himself.
Why would a self-sufficient being need to create anything?

Second, I have no idea what I would do if I were omnipotent (ie, God).
I asked a direct question. Your honour, hostile witness, move to strike. (*the judge leans forward and says "please answer the question"*)

Again, I have to say, I don't know what I would do. This is sort of like asking what type of man I would prefer if I had been born female
This is a cop-out. Its a direct question. Give it a shot.

Because a Being that was on par with God would not be functioning properly if he were to worship God. Worship presupposes a rightful honor, respect due another which would not be the case with identical gods.
So its your assertion that rightful honour and respect can only come from inferior beings?

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that He could even create such beings then it would seem they could perhaps challenge him, but that because they were identical it would end up that there would be no "winner". It would essentially be two or more Beings in eternal gridlock. Again, this is quite hypothetical.
Why would we need any winners?
They could for instance sit and ask themselves "how did we get here?" and the game of life could be played at a higher level - how about that?
Because he wanted to. As for us not being able to percieve him, I disagree, but that is another discussion
I know we can all imagine him. Its just that sometimes we wish too strong and imagination becomes real.

One in which we worship him out of love for him.
This is a non-sequitur. You did not mention love for him, nor where it comes from. Love is a product of our evolutionary development.

It tells us that he is a Being that is eternal, infinite, unchanging, and immaterial...
God is nothing again?


And I would appreciate your response on my question to WJ:
What kind of God is it that is so insecure as to fear an equal? Doesn't he want companionship? What about new ideas such a companion would
bring? Why surround himself with inferior beings? Is that the only way to preserve his almighty stature? Would an intelligent being create black
things then claim whiteness? What kind of intelligence would that be?
And would that whiteness be something to be proud of? and demand recognition for? In other words, we are inferior NOT because we are inherently inferior, but because God created us inferior

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

WJ

Intensity,

(Parent-child relationships differ because:
= A parent was once a child so he/she can relate.
= A child's mind/ reasoning capacity is not yet fully developed to make the right decisions: they need guidance. But we are adults.
= A parent is not omnipotent otherwise he would not have to advise/ guide his child. He could for example make the child capable of making the correct decisions and not have to guide them.
= Parents don't create children and there is parental love involved (a product of evolution perhaps).



I don't think that would not be accurate analogy because you are in effect saying that humans, once becoming adults, are fully developed in an absolute sense of omnipotence/epistemology. Otherwise, why do adults continue to seek to know or learn things (or search for guidance)?



Too, parents create children only in the sense of human procreation. What is your argument?

(So, the parent child relationship does not fit. )

Yes it does. Please respond to my argument above.

(God has no experience living as a human being, he has not had a human perspective, felt human pain, hunger, lust, fear, joy, mortality, disease and so on. And his advice is likely to be based on assumptions and exclude the "human element".)

That too would not be accurate. You imply you know the mind of God. What gives you the privilege? Otherwise, in Christianity, Jesus was three persons and as such was part human...

("Free-will" does not cut it when you have been created without omniscience and omnipotent. By our very nature, we are constrained within the limits of human capabilities in terms of action and thought. This free-will you are talking about operates within a set of verylimited possibilities. How free is that wholly free? 20% free? Can we choose to fly? Can we choose to grow beaks? Can we choose not to die? Then which free will are you talking about? Its like you write a program that can add, divide, multiply and perform other arithmetic operations then give the program the ability to choose any of the operations then you tell it it has "free-will". Does being able to do only what you can do constitute free will?)



I think there is partial agreement there. Except that you overlooked the inference/hypothesis of planned obsolescence. Beyond this, the 'program' is indeed limited as our free-will only includes those choices from the 'program ' that seems logical to us. If we cannot fly, by our volitional existence and/or physical limitations, neither can we be 'all good' all the time. Our mind wills one thing, but our bodies another. I see no difference, do you? Otherwise, one is left with the fact that not being able to fly, has a purpose or meaning or intended design attached to it.

(So its a carrot people are chasing. Reward system. Why can't God grant it to all his creations? Is there a case of limited resources? Man has hankered for immortality throughout the ages. This "goals" what are they? wealth? immortality? In your acts of worship. You have excluded sacrifice. Like sacrificing ones own children to a deity.)

Indeed, the game of life exists here. Knowing the rules and limitations are important for our sense of temporal happiness. Beyond this, life appears meaningless. Of course, in Christianity, there exists a thing called FH&L. The 'goals' relate to anything that is considered virtuous by standards that support the love for mankind. Perhaps the next question relates to what and where are these standards of consciousness and conscience and where and why do they exist? What comprises their essence?

(Pragmatically? We have no experience of this scenario. I would appreciate if you could reason out exactly how it works out. For example, if we generate a new intelligent species in the lab, do we have monopoly over what they should eat, how they should live and think? Isn't it possible that we may end up making them live very miserable lives? Wouldnt the best thing to do be let them live and provide anything they could need?)



I meant 'prgamatically' in an OT sense of ethics and purpose to life (Wisdom Books). Though I think I know where you are going with your concern as it relates to the concept of an all good God. As I said , I can't say that anyone knows the mind of God and the intent of his creation other than to provide for each individuals freedom to choice between the alternatives available in working towards some thing that is good. If that notion seems inadequate, it probably is. And that is because we do not know why we posess volitional existence (let alone higher levels of consciousness). Nonetheless, I think you are suggesting the 'concept' of heaven on earth. Does that make sense to you [within the framework of Christianity, that is]?

(A car is not intelligent. False analogy).

I though you were discussing the privity of knowledge from a 'designer's point of view? If so, what is your argument against designer's of artifical intellegence, or other analogous types of creations by human designers? If not, I'm afraid I lost your point. (?)



(Anyway, we dont care about what is possible. More about what is probable.)

Agree.

(Admiration and worhip are ugely different sir. Role model, Icon etc DO NOT equal GOD.
If a hero asks you to sacrifice your child/ wife to him - will you object?)

Yes, many would, but some did/do not [ie Abraham, Jim Jones follower's, cults, passonate adulturers who kill their spouses, murderer's who value and worship themselves over other's, etc..] Worship exists at all levels of behaviour. Beyond this, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue. (?)

(Is this your answer? A chessmatch takes place and is meaningful between people who have relatively equal capabilities "level playingground" so to speak.In any case, mystery is an artifact of ignorance. We are talking an omniscient God here. Are you saying God avoided making a superior being to preserve his ignorance about how such a being would react to him? )



There again, you are suggesting you are *not* ignorant. How is this possible that you know everything? Or that you know the mind of God? Or the nature of God exnihilo? or the nature of your own existence for tht matter? Beyond this, the game is only meaningful to the particpants who choose to play. And if our volitional existence, in essence, is without our choosing, then we are back to mystery and ignorance. In otherwords, no matter how you look at it, the nature of creation is a mystery, just like many other things in life that we've just briefly touched on.

(So God created us to fear him and worship him. Not to love him and have companionship with him? There is no such a word as "obsolescience".)

You're right, obsolescence. I don't agree that God does not will humans to love him in hopes of ultimate companionship with this creator known as God. Hope that helps some.

(Ahhh, so the Almighty God fears a challenge? Perhaps he fears a revolution? Or maybe in that same vein we are applying anthropomorphisms to the scenario?
What kind of God is it that is so insecure as to fear an equal? Doesn't he want companionship? What about new ideas such a companion would bring?Why surround himself with inferior beings? Is that the only way to preserve his almighty stature? Would an intelligent being create black things then claim whiteness? What kind of intelligence would that be? And would that whiteness be something to be proud of? )

Doesn't there already exist revolution? I've lost your point here?


(DO you mean our life is just a game for God? Are atheists part of that game of life? )

Free-will exists. I think we touched on that one. No?

(We then swiftly cut off the head of love because it's an anthropomorhism. Then we wipe the blood on our pants and sheath our blades then continue reasoning.)

(?)


(Human standards are all we have got.
You want us to disregard them? Even creation of God is just a poor attempt at creating a "logical" world.)

Did I imply that?


(Maybe there was no big bang. Maybe it was a small bang. Quantum Physics has indicated that matter (vaccum fluctuations) can come from nothing (ex nihilo) so there is nothing entirely huge about something not being contigent upon another.)

What created the laws of physics? Why do they exist? Can you create a universe?

(In any case, if God just popped out of nothingness that implies he has an even humbler beginning (no one invested anything on him), why then should we worship him? Because he has no one to thank for his existence? If a mountain popped into existence from nothing and we arose from creation by a sentient being, does the mountain then occupy a higher plane of existence compared to us? Are we more superior than our shadows? Do we have shadows even when we are dead?)

I've lost you on that one.

(?)

Walrus

Ted Hoffman

WJ,
For the record, you havent responded to my counter-argument comprehensively. So some of my refutations still stand.

I don't think that would not be accurate analogy because you are in effect saying that humans, once becoming adults, are fully developed in an absolute sense of omnipotence/epistemology. Otherwise, why do adults continue to seek to know or learn things (or search for guidance)?

Omnipotence is a superfluous characteristic and is not necessary for one to be capable of making the right decisions concerning his/ her life thus it is not a necessary condition for the human - God relationship to suit our purpose.

So adults may not be omnipotent, but they can make decisions concerning how they should live. A kid, OTOH, cannot make the right decisions. In any case, the Christian God for example makes mistakes too and tries to set things right via mechanisms like floods. So even beings that have been said to be omnipotent make mistakes. To claim omnipotence as a condition is a quibble.

Too, parents create children only in the sense of human procreation. What is your argument?
Parents have no power to genetically alter the personality/ needs of their children. God, OTOH, can, In other words, Parents operate within certain constraints while God does not. Parents have to help their children (babies are born helpless) while God can make man able to take care of himself - without having to rely on God.

That too would not be accurate. You imply you know the mind of God. What gives you the privilege? Otherwise, in Christianity, Jesus was three persons and as such was part human...

As I mentioned earlier, even God makes mistakes. And regrets them. Given the choice between God and man about how I should lead my life, God being an alien who created man, I think mans advice would have more merit because its based on practical experience. Gods advice on the other hand could be idealistic. For example God might tell me to turn the other cheek, but man might tell me to defend myself or call the cops when someone assaults me.

Our mind wills one thing, but our bodies another. I see no difference, do you? Otherwise, one is left with the fact that not being able to fly, has a purpose or meaning or intended design attached to it.
So you are advancing an teleological argument. Our minds will one thing and our bodies will another? Can we will not to feel hungry? Anyway, my point is this "free-will" argument can be applied very narrowly (ie good verses evil) but even then, it has limitations like in ethical dilemmas the choice of doing "good" sometimes escapes us totally when we have to choose the lesser of two evils. And when presented with situations like heaven or hell, there is no free-will at all. The biggest false dilemma of all.

Indeed, the game of life exists here. Knowing the rules and limitations are important for our sense of temporal happiness. Beyond this, life appears meaningless. Of course, in Christianity, there exists a thing called FH&L. The 'goals' relate to anything that is considered virtuous by standards that support the love for mankind. Perhaps the next question relates to what and where are these standards of consciousness and conscience and where and why do they exist? What comprises their essence?
Your question is unclear - "standards of consciousness"?
What does "FH&L" mean?
Standards that support the love for mankind? Don't you know that "love for mankind" can motivate an individual to kill mankind?

...I can't say that anyone knows the mind of God and the intent of his creation ...
If we dont know his mind, how do we know he wants us to worship him? How do we know he regards some things as sin?
Dont you find it a bit arrogant of humans to think they know what their creator thinks?

Nonetheless, I think you are suggesting the 'concept' of heaven on earth. Does that make sense to you [within the framework of Christianity, that is]?
I was not suggesting any heaven anywhere. I am sorry if it came across that way.

I though you were discussing the privity of knowledge from a 'designer's point of view? If so, what is your argument against designer's of artifical intellegence, or other analogous types of creations by human designers? If not, I'm afraid I lost your point.
Sorry. You might have noticed I use the word "intelligent" so many times. "Intelligent robots" and so on. There is a reason - to make the analogy fit.

There again, you are suggesting you are *not* ignorant
I just asked some questions. That implies I am all-knowing?

How is this possible that you know everything? Or that you know the mind of God? Or the nature of God exnihilo? or the nature of your own existence for tht matter? Beyond this, the game is only meaningful to the particpants who choose to play.
We don't know the mind of God so how come we know it displeases him when we desire someones wife?

You are reducing "this" to a game. Whats the point of the game. Do we get to score? Can I get a substitute? Is there a refree/ umpire? Is the playing ground level or we just have to play the way it is?

And if our volitional existence, in essence, is without our choosing, then we are back to mystery and ignorance. In otherwords, no matter how you look at it, the nature of creation is a mystery, just like many other things in life that we've just briefly touched on.
What is the "nature of creation"?

You're right, obsolescence. I don't agree that God does not will humans to love him in hopes of ultimate companionship with this creator known as God. Hope that helps some.
I had no idea I needed help. Anyway, "ultimate companionship" doesn't cut it. Would you create beings inferior to yourself for companionship?
I assert that if God needed company, he would create beings with the same capabilities as him. Anything else is "dominance" "containment" "ownership" and "worship" and of course exploitation, manipulation and slavery.

Doesn't there already exist revolution? I've lost your point here?
There is no revolution because there is no evidence of his existence. What we have is rejection of beliefs about the existence of God, Not rejection of God.
So, there is no revolution.
And going by theists, "this" is not a revolution, but a protest.

(Human standards are all we have got.
You want us to disregard them? Even creation of God is just a poor attempt at creating a "logical" world.)

Did I imply that?
Did you? I think its clear that you did.

What created the laws of physics? Why do they exist? Can you create a universe?
Laws of physics resulted out of existence of physical matter. They weren't created: they were established and articulated.
I believe I can create a universe if I can heat (hydrogen?) to 10^999999999999999 degrees Kelvin.
That would be my big bang.

I've lost you on that one.
I have great difficulty believing that.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

sotzo

Hi Intensity:

Wrong, a cow can carry on a personal relationship between herself and another cow (say a bull).

Yes, but what you now need to show for your hypothesis to work is that cow relatioships are comparable to human relationships and or a God/man relationship. It is not enough that you just use "relatioship" in a broad context since what you end up comparing are apples and oranges. So please show that it is valid to make such comaparison between cow relationships and human relationships.

They can have sex and even bring up kids.

Yes, but even those acts between cows are worlds apart from how humans perform those acts. Without going into too much that is obvious, we know that a cow would not discipline her calf for stealing cud from a neighboring cow. This is but one among many examples of how your human/cow comparison is misguided.

You however cannot carry on a meaningful personal relationship with a cow (unless you choose to exploit it for milk and meat - and thats not a relationship, thats ownership) but you believe that you can do so with God.

Correct.

What makes you think that cows cannot carry on a relationship with God - is God only human?

Cows cannot carry on a relationship with God since they are not able to exercise their wills toward him. And no, God is not human but by virute of the fact that we are created in his image, we expect to find human-like charcateristics in Him. More correctly we find God-like qualitites in us such as the ability to carry on personal relationships.

God knows how a cow feels doesn't he?

Yes.

If our purpose is to worship him then we are his tools of worship

If you mean that through us God is worshipped then fine. Whether the connotations you put forth by the word "tools" holds up, I would have to know what you mean in more detail.

- not his junior partners,

No, we are not his junior partners. He is God, we are the created. But that distinction doesn't mean man isn't important to God. In fact, Christoloigcally believers inherit all of the rights to be called sons/daughters (but that is, again, another discussion).

he owns us and he exploits us by making us pander to his great insatiable need to be praised and worshipped.

How does he exploit us? Have you no freewill? You've obviously chosen not to praise and worship him so why do you act shackled?

Further, just to leave theism for a moment and reverse the "exploit" comment back onto a naturalistic worldview....on the assumptions of the latter, we are in a Darwinian survival of the fittest race. On those terms, I SHOULD want to make use of every opportunity to exploit others to my benefit. This will throw the probability in my favor for my progeny.

Therefore, on the terms of your own worldview, from whence comes a charge of explotation as a negative thing?

you say "Since cows cannot meet this prerequisiste they are excluded" excluded by who?
Where is your evidence that they have been excluded? Your anthropomorphisms?

Excluded on the basis that they are incapable of having a meaningful relationship with God. Now, empirically, I can't verify that cows aren't capable of such a relationship. I am not a cow and I cannot get into the mind of one to observe it. But we are going to end up in some pretty serious absurd discussion if we request empirical evidence for demonstrating the ability/desire of cows, amoebas, chairs, donkeys, etc. to carry on personal, human-like relationships.

Can you demonstrate why an assumption about cows, such as the one I'm making is an inappropriate assumption?

If a cow could think and reflect on the nature of what a loving God is then ask the cow to draw, would you expect the cow to draw a man or a cow?

Well, we've arrived at the absurdity faster than I expected. You are now asking me to hypothesize on what a cow would do if:

1. Cows could reflect and think on the nature of God
2. Cows could draw

My answer is the same as it would be if you were to ask me what a fish would do if he could walk and perform math calculations - which is, I don't know. The only other possible answer is that he would walk and perform math calculations which is assumed by the question in the first place.

Its hypothetical but there it is. Reason out.

I have no idea what would be a valid way to reason about what a cow would do if he could think about God and draw.

For example, a white God as drawn in many books is based on White religion (since "white" people adopted christianity).
Indian gods look Indian, Egyptian gods looked and dressed as Egyptian, African gods were black and so on. You get my drift?
Beings represent their gods as things/ beings they can relate to.

Okay, this is at least dealing with something that is a reasonable hyopthetical unlike the cow situation. However, using this argument to conclude God does not exist is a non-sequitur. What you have to show is how such anthropomorphic "assigning" to God results in God not existing.

God has not revealed himself to me. I do not understand what you mean when you say he reveals "it" to us - how?

He has in the person of Jesus, in his Scripture, in his creation (especially if the first premise in the Kalam argument holds true). You may disagree with these sources, but bring up the charges and we'll discuss. As for the time being, I can only answer your question as to how he has revealed himself.

Is he a tall man? Does he smile a lot? How is his voice like? bass?

Since God is immaterial, he is none of these nor their opposites.

The very definitions of nothingness? Are you saying God is nothing?

Infinite, unchanging, immaterial are part of the deinition of nothingness!?!? How so? The notion that God is immaterial clashes with your materialistic worldview and forces you to conclude, for consistency sake, God doesn't exist. However, we are in the middle of an internal critique of theism, particularly Christian theism, and it makes absolutely no sense to bring materialism in as the referee. If you wish to debate whether or not materialism is true, then we can in another forum. As it stands, the purpose of this thread by your own design is to ask theists to answer questions based on their worldview.

And what would be wrong with that? God wants all the credit?

Yes he does, because it is rightfully his. Further, see my last response for an answer as to why God cannot violate his own nature with regard to creating duplicates of Himself.

And you are also saying God is NOT omnipotent?

No. See my last response.

Why would a self-sufficient being need to create anything?

Because he wants to. See my BMW illustration in my last post.

I asked a direct question. Your honour, hostile witness, move to strike. (*the judge leans forward and says "please answer the question"*)

Are you seriously inferring that a judge would allow such a hypothetical question within the bounds of proper questioning?!?!?

Imagine - during a murder trial the attorney asked the defendent where he was the night of the murder and the defendent answers "at home". The attorney then asks, "if you hadn't been home, where would you have been"? Unless that question was both:
1. Relevant to the case
and
2. Within his means to answer

The judge would shoot down such questioning.

Moving back to our discussion, you are asking me what I would do if I were omnipotent. Even if you could meet criteria 1 above, there is no way it could meet criteria 2. You are essentially asking me to tell you what I would do if I had power so great that I could create the universe. This would not be admissible in a court nor could I answer it (other than in a purely arbitrary way) if it were.

This is a cop-out. Its a direct question. Give it a shot.

Direct question, therefore good/proper question is fallacious reasoning. Just for fun, I'll answer it...if I were omnipotent I would force Geddy Lee to give me backstage passes to all upcoming Rush shows. I would then make myself appear at each show and force him to let me get up on stage with them with my guitar. I would then force the crowd to wildly applaud for me while Alex Lifeson stands back and watches a flawless solo to Limelight. Seriously!

So its your assertion that rightful honour and respect can only come from inferior beings?

No, but it is the nature of the case between God and man which is the subject of this discussion.

Why would we need any winners?

Because God number one would require to be worshipped as the supreme God and so would God number 2. Both being of the same infinite strength, there would be no outcome.

They could for instance sit and ask themselves "how did we get here?" and the game of life could be played at a higher level - how about that?

Sounds cool and I understand what you're saying, but for the reason above I think this is highly improbable.

I know we can all imagine him. Its just that sometimes we wish too strong and imagination becomes real.

Or possibly it is because he is real that we are able to imagine him so well at a level that we can even debate his attributes.

This is a non-sequitur. You did not mention love for him, nor where it comes from.

It comes from God's nature.

Love is a product of our evolutionary development.

Then if evolutionary development eventually leads to a production of rampant hate, you should logically have no problem with that.

God is nothing again?

See above on the nothingness issue.

And I would appreciate your response on my question to WJ:

Sure. Allow me some time though...I gotta run! I'll do it next go round!

cheers,

jkb

Ryanfire

as posted by me elsewhere on the board:

Assuming we're talking about the god that created "everything".
Any god that needs me to worship him is insecure.
Any god that needs my money, is a fraud.
Any god that expects perfection, should design perfection.
Any god that needs to intervene, needs to go back to design school.
Any god that is understanding, should understand why I question his existence.
Any god that uses fear or hate, should not expect my love.
Any god that must make his presence known to man, should check his ego at the door.

Therefore, I cannot agree with mosts gods created by man.

I however accept that the universe is, and I can live a fulfilling life with or without a god.
I think life is special gift, something we don't necessarily need to understand, but we do need to help each other through existence, and explore what's out there. This journey is to be on our own, and how is that a bad thing? If the world could just grow up, and realize we can do whatever we imagine, we just have to work hard for it to come true. Don't be so afraid to be a human with imperfections. Life is a gift to have fun with, we should help each other achieve happyness. Imperfections are just as beautiful as perfection. Beauty surrounds us all. Sunsets, beaches, animals, people, space, matter, energy, time, it's all part of an unknown. When

We were once babies, seeing everything for the first time, we could not express our feelings. Seeing color, seeing nature, recieving nuturing from our parents, having fun being a human with no cares about just being themself, just trying to comprehend existence, not hurting anyone in the process, just loving everything or anything that could bring you to a better understanding of the world.

We're all in here for the long run, so do we kill each other, or do we help one another?

Tolerance is the biggest key to understanding imo.

seebs

Do you mean "do I know why (assertion)" or "do I know why I can't prove (assertion)"? For the former, not really, for the latter, because most of these issues are so close to axioms that I have found proof to be a dead-end game.

No, because there are lots of gods believed in who are not worshipped, because they are conveniently distant enough not to merit any kind of response.

We don't know, but I have a theory about what it would be. I'm certainly open to the possibility that someone will identify a thing which is unequivocally a god, and to which there is no evidence that worship is a natural response. In the mean time, I'll stick with my answer.

I don't know. What exactly do you mean by "rational"? Is it rational to feel relieved when peeing after really having to go? Is it rational to plan your life in accordance with a specific goal, although you may have simply selected that goal because it "makes you feel good", with no real consideration of why or how it makes you feel good? Is it rational to drop a line of reasoning as "apparently non-productive"?

"rational" is a very broad term, too.

I don't see why you call this "romanticizing". I think the world in general is pleasant and interesting, often beautiful. Going crazy doesn't strike me as beautiful in general, but my wife has written stories which make a good case for at least some cases being beautiful. Rotting in a grave? It doesn't meet my physical aesthetic sense very well, but it's a beautiful thing to watch nature continue making more living things from dead things, over and over.

That I exist is just a claim. That all those bipeds I see walking around have self-awareness is just a claim.

I accept no burden of proof; I only have a burden of proof if I wish to convince someone to believe me, or act in a given way. I am quite comfortable with the fact that most people will not believe in God, just as a fair number of people don't seem to really believe that all the other bipeds are self-aware in any meaningful sense.

You're an exceptionally open-minded person, what with your firm standards that no one should think anything without proof, and that nothing is worth considering if someone only thinks it might be true.

Anyone. It's pretty clear that your mind is made up, and that no sequence of words would constitute a reason for you to change your mind at this point. You don't appear to be interested in how other people think, or how their systems of axioms work together; you're just interested in showing that you can disbelieve those axioms consistently. Very good, we're all very impressed.

I don't understand the question. I know it because I'm a Christian, and I believe I have understood your questions, and I can make sense of them only by redefining words in terms that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of my belief system.

The question I read, which, I admit, may not be the one you meant to ask. Your original questions are very hard to understand as meaningful ones within my set of axioms; I can switch axioms to answer them, but that hardly helps you understand anything. However, I see no evidence that understanding is high on your list of goals; this reads a lot more like an attack than an inquiry.

I would expect you to be able to cope with the idea that not everyone has a complete and perfect answer to everything. Maybe your belief system allows you to do this; mine doesn't. I have accepted any number of things as practical answers, so I have a basic model of the world, but I don't know that I'd call that "certainty".

I expect you, if you ask questions, to be able to accept that the answers may not be the kinds of answers you would have accepted yourself. Philosophies other than your own are often strange and unusual.

I'm sober, I just don't know that I've ever really thought about exactly what does, or doesn't, constitute "worship". The word has a number of meanings, and I tend to assume the context in which I use it normally - which simply excludes most of those meanings. I would have to think a bit more on it.

The thing is, your question of "why would someone worship a god" turns out to have many different answers; pretty much one for each cross-product of "what kind of god" and "what kind of worship", and a very large number of them get the answer "you wouldn't".

So, for instance, if by "worship" you mean "cut out people's hearts and burn them", and by "god" you mean one of the Aztec gods, the answer might be "to ensure that the sun keeps rising". If by "worship" you mean "treat with respect, and recognize as more important than things of the physical world", and by "god" you mean the Judeo-Christian God, then the answer might be "as a way of showing gratitude for the glory of creation".

In most cases, the answer only makes sense if you presuppose the surrounding theology.