Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender,
Dood...

Ender's Game was wack.

l33t hax0r

Ender

I remain impressively unimpressed with the latest non-sequitur from the house of SOMMS.

NEXT!

Samhain

SOMMS:

Doesn't it bother you that you have to write a sentence every time you sign your name here?

Anyhow:

What is "God" a specific instance of? Saying that "God" is a god is redundant, you'd have to be able to define what a [g]od is, as we can see that we can define what a person is. Also, suggesting that [G]od is a [g]od suggests that [G]od is not the only type of [g]od in the universe. Therefore, your statement that [G]od is a specific instance of (I'm assuming) a [g]od is self-refuting if your belief holds that your [G]od is the only [g]od. Therefore, we must be able to either define what [G]od is, or what a [g]od is. If [G]od is the only [g]od, then it is not a specific instance, but the only instance, therefore defining [G]od or [g]od becomes the same thing. Thus in the end, you're argument of [G]od being a specific instance, and therefore we cannot define him/her/it is somewhat ridiculous.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Sam,
You can define what a 'person' is but you can't define a particular person. You can only describe a particular person.

As stated above you can't define 'Abraham Lincoln'. You can, however, describe Abraham Lincoln and who he was. In the same way you can describe God but not define Him.

One could describe God as Websters does...
God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

..or the typical
God is the omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator of the Universe.

Yet these things don't 'define' God as much as describe who God is.

Uh...no. As stated above, if we can't even define 'Abraham Lincoln' then we can't hope to define 'God'. Descriptions however, are another thing.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

David Gould

SOMMS,

If we describe Abraham Lincoln and in that description there are contradictory statements (for example, Abraham Lincoln died when he was twelve and Abraham Lincoln became president at age 46) then we know that one part of the description is wrong. We will therefore know that an Abraham Lincoln such as described cannot possibly have existed.

The same applies to God.
If God is described as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, we know that the description must be wrong and such a God cannot possibly exist.

Whether you use the word 'described' or 'defined' makes no difference to the argument.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

David,

Last point first.
Agreed. As a matter of fact I would even hold that there is no real difference between a good description and a definition...especially if we are talking about 'instances' of things or individuals.

The reason I bring this up is that occasionally an atheistic position is
'God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being is not a definition.' In some sense this is correct...it is description. I couldn't care less what you call it as long as both parties know what they are talking about.


My 'You cannot define God' post is saying nothing more than just that...in the strictest sense of the term 'define' you can't define God...or anyone else for that matter.


Right. This would be the part where I call your bluff and say 'prove it'.

However, I suspect you've already gone through these motions many times and by now any true sense of intellectual exploration you may of had initially has been reduced to wrote reenactment of the 'Why is there suffering?/Because there is free will' dialog.


So let me quickly present my position and you can decide if you want to play.

As a theist I hold:
-Suffering is an eventual consequence (not punishment) of sin.

-God is in no way obligated to change the universe simply because mankind occasionally makes choices that have sufferable consequences.

-Furthermore, one cannot prove 'An all-good God is incoherent in the context of suffering.' For in assuming God's existence one must also assume the consequences of his existence, namely his benevolence which entails that everything he does is 'good' and that he is the objective standard/authority of 'good'. Thus God's 'goodness' is a tautology which cannot be disproven. And let me head you off at the pass...there ARE useful, meaningful tautologies...math and logic are examples.

-Natural evil need not be reconciled. That is there is no moral value to 'drought', 'meteor' or 'tectonic pressure release'. Those these things do affect human suffering in many cases human suffering can be minimized or avoided all together.

-Lastly, suffering can actually be a good thing...it can present opportunites and motivation for people to turn to God. After all God took the worst possible thing that could ever happen...the death of God...and turn it into the best thing that could ever happen...the redemption of man.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

G B Mayes

Brent said:
SOMMS said:
David Gould said
Surely we can work together and come up with a definition or description that a group of Secular Web believers, non-believers, and agnostics can agree to as base line. It won't be perfect but something we can live with for reference in discussion. Does Websters definition serve adequately?

David, I'm not clear on your meaning above. Is it that it implies a God exists, or that you believe the omni's are contradictory? Personally I wouldn't buy the omnibenevolent. I'm not sure where that idea comes from relative to God. In fact, I'm not sure omnibenevolent is even a word.

I would say something like this: (remember,this being may or may not exist)

God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe.

Can I sell this definition/description to anyone?

-Brent

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: G B Mayes ]</p>

David Gould

SOMMS,

I suspect you've already gone through these motions many times and by now any true sense of intellectual exploration you may of had initially has been reduced to wrote reenactment of the 'Why is there suffering?/Because there is free will' dialog.



I suggest that you discuss this with Ender as he is more qualified than I to discuss the incoherencies of free will and the contradictions inherent in the listed omnis.

Ender

David Gould:

Fat chance of that ever happening. SOMMS has used up all his credit with me with countless evasions, non-sequiturs, and other contortions in linguistics such as a petulant refusal to recognize blatant human suffering as "evil."

All in all, the topic of evil is his addiction, his heroin. But his puerile rationalizations leave much to be desired!

~WiGGiN~

Philosoft

Sure I can. Abraham Lincoln is the concept of the collection of matter who was the 16th President of the US of A. That matter still exists, of course, just not in the collection it once did when it was Abraham Lincoln. Not that it really matters. Even if Abraham Lincoln's actions were actually performed by a 6 year old girl who used the pseudonym 'Abraham Lincoln,' I'm still confident there was a chunk of matter that performed those actions.

<strong> All I know is there are millions of books that tell tales of Abraham Lincoln's actions and those actions were performed by a chunk of matter.

<strong> I'm perfectly happy with 'Abraham Lincoln' defined as a concept since I can tell you exactly what I see in my head when I conceive 'Abraham Lincoln.'

<strong> Whatever you want. Thus, 'Abraham Lincoln' is a concept.

<strong> Hmm. You know it also means, "I'm going to sit in that chunk of matter."

<strong> Great. I can also point to the chunk of cat-shaped matter on my bed and say, "Kramer." As far as I know, Kramer can't be a specific instance of the class 'cats' without also being a chunk of matter.

<strong> God is likewise what? A specific instance of the class 'deity'? Great, that means he must be a chunk of deity-shaped matter somewhere. Let's see him.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>