HRG

But identifying cause amd effect requires the ordering relation "later in time". Without that, there are only (almost) perfect correlations between events. Given time ordering and such a correlation, we call the earlier event "cause" and the later one "effect".

Without time, "the universe created God" and "God created the universe" are indistinguishable.

Regards,
HRG.

Kassiana

sikh:
God's definition:
Creator.

Kass:
Cool! I'm a God! I create stuff, therefore I'm a creator, therefore I'm a God! WORSHIP ME!

Or just send me money. I'll take that, too.

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant:

Broadly, a "personal being" is anything of which conscious states can be attributed. More narrowly, a "person" is a rational agent or self. A "self" is usually understand at that which unites one set of conscious states in the life of a single person.

A "necessary being" is anything which simply exists unconditionally. In other words, nothing has to be the case in order for it to be the case. It simply IS.

Some people seem to think that the universe is a necessary being or beings.

sotzo

Arriving into this DB late, but here is an answer to the challenge in the initial post:

From the Westminster Confession Chap II:

"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."

cheers,
jkb

tergiversant

I did not stipulate any parameters myself, I merely pointed out the limitations on the meaning of "existence" in our language due to our experiential understanding of the real-world phenomenon of existence. To say that something "exists" in some manner wholly unlike existence as we understand the phenomenon is quite simply to talk incoherent nonsense.


tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

Philosoft

Well, if God is alleged to be a type of thing that performs actions that affect material things, it must itself be a material thing (as opposed to an abstract thing) as we currently define it. Therefore, a definition of 'God' would also include or entail either an additional definition of 'material thing' (or 'abstract thing') that allows non-material existence but material action.

Philosoft

This isn't a definition, it's a series of descriptors and actions. It, too, assumes God the being has already been defined.

SmartBlonde57

Proof of atheism? It doesn't work that way.

Atheism is a lack of belief. How the heck do you prove a negative? How do you prove your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny? See?

Mary

Ron Singh

Thanks philosoft,

What I mean is, what is criteria for formulating a definition of anything in general?

Thanks, ~Your friendly niehgborhood 15yr old Sikh

Philosoft

I'd say intersubjective agreement.