Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 11-15-2002, 03:44 PM

rdalin, that's a good procedure, and is in fact the way I normally approach the question, and why I call myself an atheist most of the time instead of an igtheist. With Christians though, it often helps to demonstrate to them that there is not one god, but billions- one (at least) for every believer. Getting them to realize that their God is a supernatural entity is also useful.

onegreatperson · 11-15-2002, 03:57 PM

Jobar. What god?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Tercel · 11-15-2002, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
It seems to me as though you're using "god" as an undefined term and using 1-5 above as axioms (ie statements about how a "god" behaves).

I was defining the word "God". To me I would consider it correct to call something "God" if and only if it meets those criteria.

Quote:

However, I'm a bit concerned about 2. What do you mean by the relation "x is more powerful than y" (where x and y are beings)?

Hard to say really, which is why I left it vague. I was thinking along the lines of the idea of power allowing you to "do stuff". Something like: if x could accomplish something non-trivial which y could not do and accomplish everything non-trivial that y could accomplish then x would be more powerful than y.

Quote:

How do you know that such a relation forms a linear ordering and not a partial ordering? In other words, what if there exist two beings--call them x and y--such that x is not more powerful than y and y is not more powerful than x?

Then either x or y would meet criteria 2.

Quote:

If the "power" relation only gives us a partial ordering and not a linear ordering, then why must there be a biggest element amongst the set of all beings ordered under power? (ie what if there is no such thing as "the most powerful being")?

I didn't assume a biggest distinct element - point 2 was deliberately phrased negatively. I didn't say God had to be the "most powerful being" only that he wasn't allowed to have lesser power than a non-God.

Tercel · 11-15-2002, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
What if there was a being that was:

1) Uncreated
2) Supreme
3) Created the Universe
and
5) Immortal

but not 4) Personal and Intelligent?

would it still be God?

I don't think so. Actually I consider (4) the single most important criteria there. You could probably drop any one of the criteria except (4) and with a bit of persuasive arguing convince me that the being was still God.

But if you drop (4) then this alledged "God" seems to become nothing more than some kind of force akin to the laws of physics. That, to me, is not what "God" means.

Tercel · 11-15-2002, 04:48 PM

Biff,
The requirements were simply what I would feel is appropriate to use the term "God" (with a capital G) to refer to. A "god" (small g), is a different matter.
And of course this is simply my own opinion - not everyone agrees with me. Pointing out examples of people disagreeing with me does not prove me wrong.

Quote:

You don't have the meet any of these requirements to be a God. These are just claims of one specific God, not of a God in general.

Christians claim quite a few more things about God than I mentioned there. This was simply the what I consider necessary attributes of a being before I would call it "God".

Goliath · 11-15-2002, 09:36 PM

Tercel,

Quote:

I was thinking along the lines of the idea of power allowing you to "do stuff". Something like: if x could accomplish something non-trivial which y could not do and accomplish everything non-trivial that y could accomplish then x would be more powerful than y.

Hmmm...what do you mean by "non-trivial?"

Quote:

Then either x or y would meet criteria 2.

Then you agree that your (rather ill-defined) ordering of "power" is indeed not necessarily a linear ordering. So, are you a monotheist, or a polytheist?

Sincerely,

Goliath

onegreatperson · 11-16-2002, 08:23 AM

Everyone of these post has about proven what I am saying to the "T" if you will. No not the arguments that state weather or not what "god" is. But the fact that all of you can't come to an agreement. I think the most important thing to consider is that every one individual, no matter what belief, they all have different objectives on what "god" is. So when you have different opinions and objectives a sort of disagreement seem's to arise, and therefore you really cannot agree, which has been my point.

Oh well Confucius Say: It is good for girl to meet boy in park, but better for boy to park meat in girl. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Anyway here it is

Jobar · 11-16-2002, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onegreatperson:
<strong>Jobar. What god?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> </strong>

Why, the subjective and imaginary ones that every believer totes around in his or her head, o'course.

Tercel · 11-16-2002, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
Hmmm...what do you mean by "non-trivial?"

I was thinking of certain questions concerning the ability of God to do things that are raised from time to time on these boards. In attempts to prove that God can't be omnipotent people keep coming up with a variety of extremely pointless things that God supposedly couldn't do, and I'm pretty sure someone alleged there was something that they could do that God couldn't (I forget what exactly expect that I laughed at the time because it was completely trivial in nature) because if God could do it there'd apparently be a nasty self-referencing system. I was thinking to exclude such pointless arguments by saying "non-trivial".

Quote:

Then you agree that your (rather ill-defined) ordering of "power" is indeed not necessarily a linear ordering. So, are you a monotheist, or a polytheist?

I'm an agnostic on lots of things - whether or not "power" is linearly ordered being one.
Apart from that I'm a Trinitarian - and I've seen enough arguments here over which category that comes under that I'm not even going to comment.

kctan · 11-18-2002, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Oh well Confucius Say: It is good for girl to meet boy in park, but better for boy to park meat in girl. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Confucius never said that.

"If you know that you don't know & claims that you don't, that's knowing, if you know that you don't know & claims that you does, that's not knowing." - Confucius

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-15-2002, 03:44 PM	#31
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	rdalin, that's a good procedure, and is in fact the way I normally approach the question, and why I call myself an atheist most of the time instead of an igtheist. With Christians though, it often helps to demonstrate to them that there is not one god, but billions- one (at least) for every believer. Getting them to realize that their God is a supernatural entity is also useful.

11-15-2002, 03:57 PM	#32
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Jobar. What god? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

11-16-2002, 08:23 AM	#37
onegreatperson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 22	Everyone of these post has about proven what I am saying to the "T" if you will. No not the arguments that state weather or not what "god" is. But the fact that all of you can't come to an agreement. I think the most important thing to consider is that every one individual, no matter what belief, they all have different objectives on what "god" is. So when you have different opinions and objectives a sort of disagreement seem's to arise, and therefore you really cannot agree, which has been my point. Oh well Confucius Say: It is good for girl to meet boy in park, but better for boy to park meat in girl. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Anyway here it is <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.