Samhain

What exactly is "Divine infinity" that is comprehensive to the human mind?

Samhain

Defending my argument, though, to possibly grasp the idea of infinite qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc. is an impossibility for the human mind, let alone how such a being could have such qualities. While we understand what the words mean, in an extremely vague sense, we do not know what exactly they entail, and, like the quality of timelessness (which a majority of theists hold to be true), we could not possibly understand the being with such qualities, or how a being could possibly have these qualities. Thus, since these seem to be the only qualities or attributes that we know of "God", we are reduced to knowing only a few, and incomprehensible, things about "God". We know that "God" has a vague and truly undefined, attributes which are not possibly understandable for the human mind. Thus, "God" is reduced to this definition. All have an extremely vague and undefined concept of what "God" is, but they can truly say nothing further as to the qualities of "God" except that "He" has vague qualities that cannot be understood by the human mind. This is the only thing one can truthfully say about "God" if one wishes to hold that the incomprehensible omni-qualities are true. Once again, Hume's argument comes to mind.

Tercel

Hmm, I see this thread has been hijacked. But I think the original question is reasonable enough to be worth answering - even given that it was asked in a deliberately confrontational way.

For one, I don't see how this is a challenge to theists per see. You, I would hope, have some understanding of what you mean by the term "God" (since I imagine you have probably said numerous times that you lack a belief in such an entity).
What do I mean when I speak of God? What properties of the "God" I believe in are his by definition, and which are incidental? An interesting question...
I would suggest that the following properties define "God" (which I would distinguish from "god"). That is to say that if a being lacked one or more of these, I would not consider it proper to refer to that being as "God"; and if a being satisfied these properties I would consider it sufficient to refer to such a being as God.

* Uncreatedness & Primacy. The existence of God is not the result of any decision by an intelligent being who does not also satisfy the definition of God. God did not begin to exist temporally, logically, ontologically, or causally later than any being who does not also satisfy the definition of God.
* Supreme Power. There exists no being of greater power than God who does not also satisfy the defintion of God.
* Creator. Our universe's existence is causally connected to God's decision to create it.
* Intelligence and Personal. God possesses something at least moderately similar to a mind and intelligence as we would understand it. This is to say that God is not a mindless "force" but rather has a Will and Pupose.

Those are, at least, what I would say constitute the properties that it is necessary and sufficient for "God" to have. Thoughts? Comments?

Philosoft

I feel like I'm being ignored.

Can anyone provide a definition of 'being' that is not especially created to contain the singular thing "God"?

In other words, is it possible to define "God" so as not to ad hoc molest the definition of "being" or "exist"?

Samhain

Tercel:

By whom? Where has it been hijacked? The discussion of dark matter is over as far as I can tell. Did you mean something else? If so, what has anyone said that hasn't been part of the reasonable cycle of debate in this thread? Some have propositions, others have rebutted them, thus the cycle continues until a compromise or a concession is made. Did you read the whole thread?

A clever statement, but remember, atheism is a negative statement, not a positive assertion.

Ok, so basically, timelessness, correct, except it would seem that your definition does not extend into the future. Is that a reasonable assumption? "God" witnesses things as they happen and is subject to time, but somehow has created time from himself? From what I can derive you seem to say "God" has no beginning, but has always been there, an infinite property of timelessness, even if it does not happen to extend into the future. Once again this attribute exceeds human understanding except in the vaguest sense. Also, the problems extend further. Are all things then a result of "God's" actions? Was anything in existence prior to "God"? The answer would seemingly be "no". Thus, the Divine Command theory in regards to morality would come into play, would it not, or is morality still somehow seperate from "God"? I could go on, but I think you can see where this is going.

Ok. So "God" does not have to be "all-powerful" or omnipotent, but just has to be the most powerful being around, right? Might makes right in a sense, correct?

Ok, so there was nothing in existence before "God". That clears that up, but as I said previously, presents numerous problems as to the understanding of "God" and of morality, free-will, etc. etc.

Ok. Curious, though, isn't it? "God" may very well have a will and a purpose, but this seems to conflict with the idea of "Supreme Power" does it not? "God" does not seem to exercise his will much, does he? Does he care? Is his will or purpose to allow suffering? Does he exercise his will with suffering? I see that perhaps his will is to allow us to exercise free-will, but this idea has its problems as well.

Gemma Therese

Fortunately, I cannot devote my entire life to posting on a message baord. In addition, I do not have a photographic memory. What questions about Islam are you referring to?

Gemma Therese

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Tercel

Well I personally thought discussions on dark matter and rantings on the evils of the Catholic Church (somebody has serious issues there they need to get sorted) didn't exactly constitute discussions on the topic of the original post...

So you say...
It is irrelevant at anyrate. You surely have some idea of the what attributes a being would have to have before you'd think it reasonable to regard such a being as "God".

Please understand that my definition of "God" above, was a hypothetical "If there existed a being that had these attributes I would regard it as a God". It was not intended as a definition of the Christian God. And so you might want to consider being helpful instead of attacking my definition...

No. Not timelessness, nothing to do with timelessness whatsoever. You've completely misunderstood everything I'm getting at here.
I'm simply saying that God(s) must exist first, before any other intelligent beings.

Good point about extending into the future though. It seems another attribute is necessary:
Immortality
-A God's existence cannot be terminated by any being who is not a God.

It may have been, it may not. I'm not fussy: except that it something did exist prior to God(s) then it wasn't intelligent.

Nothing to do with "might makes right". A God is supposed to be a powerful entity. If I was more powerful than another being and I'm not a God, then it's difficult to regard that other being as a God.

Wow you're good at misunderstanding me. How do you manage to squeeze that interpretation out of my statement?

Samhain

Tercel:

Yes, it seemed that the post diverted, but it also seems that it came back again.

Well, I know me. I know that if there hasn't been a definition of a "god" which has satisfied me yet, there probably will never be one. The definitions of "god" either shift the burden of proof into the impossible (a clever ploy, but ultimately fallicious), or they do not meet my expectations of what would constitute a "god". Maybe I'm being too picky? I don't really think so, I feel that if everyone had the same standards as I such nonsense would not be necessary. Of course, this does not mean that there is nothing which satisfies my expectations of a "god", but it seems highly unlikely if one has not been explored as of yet.

And I commend you for your definition, it is a much more sane definition of what a "god" could be than other things I have heard previously. Of course, I do not agree that I, personally, would call such a being a "god". Well, maybe I would define a being with these properties as such, perhaps, but worship is doubtful. I'm just trying to understand fully such a definition. Pardon me if I pick at nits in it, but I feel that you have a right to know if it's fallicious. I haven't tried to assert such as false yet, you're definition seems incomplete as stated, though, so pardon if I do ask questions.

I never thought it was, it obviously isn't what is commonly defined as the Christian "God".

Sorry if I come across as "attacking". I'm trying to lend criticism to understand better such a position, as I stated earlier.

Ok. Of course, you realize that arguments as far as the "uncreatedness" attribute still holds. How can we discuss an attribute which is seemingly incomprehensible to the human mind?

Ok. Want to make this clear, though. Things may have existed prior to the existence of "God(s)", but our universe was not one of them, and the "God(s)" were not a result of any action which may have occurred or resulting from the things which may or may not have been present before the "God(s)" (sort of like a big-bang theory for the "God(s)", random occurance or particle collision, or whatever resulting in the creation of the "God(s)")?

*Nods* So ideas of "omnipotence" in your definition can be considered null and void, correct? We must just hold that the "God(s)" are the most powerful beings around.

Sorry, I assumed you weren't going to discuss alternate planes of existence, as that would seem to present problems as well.

Tercel

Why is it incomprehensible? We can understand what "create" means, why does something that wasn't created become "incomprehensible". I thought I'd made it easy to understand by leaving open the possibility of natural forces causing God. If you can find evolution comprehensible, I see no reason why you should find the idea that God wasn't created by an intelligent being incomprehensible.

Spot on up to here.

???
Try: None of the things possessed intelligence - and hence they did not deliberately create the "God(s)". The "God(s)" may have been caused by the things via naturalistic forces though.

Correct. The "God(s)" may or may not be omnipotent (whatever that is taken to mean), but they are the most powerful beings around.

tergiversant

geoff:
I cannot tell that "God exists" is any of those things, without first unpacking the meaning of "God" and considering in what sense this being may be said to exist. The only form of existence of which I am aware is that of matter/energy within space/time.

geoff:
The phrases "necessary being" and "possible worlds" are quite familiar from my experience in modal logic, but they nevertheless do not seem to me to express thinkable concepts. Could you perhaps explain them further? Are you talking about ontological necessity/possibility here, or something else?

The idea of underlying "stuff" that exists which could not possibly cease to exist seems understandable enough. If conservation of mass/energy is true, then all matter in the universe exists necessarily in this sense. I doubt this is what you mean, however.

I imagine you actually mean to refer to some "mind" which exists which cannot fail to exist. This begs the question of in what sense minds may be said to exist. I experience my mind thinking entirely in terms of space and time. I am uncertain what else a mind may do.

As to the compatibility of the three divine properties you mentioned (omnipotence, omniscience, necessary existence) I have a few questions:

Power vs. Existence
1) Does it have the power to cease its existence?

Knowledge vs. Existence
2) Does it have experiential knowledge of it is like to exist contingently?

Power vs. Knowledge
3a) Does it have the power to limit its knowledge?
3b) Does it have experiential knowledge of being limited in power?

Note that we humans have the all of the various kinds of power and knowledge listed above. It would seem rather odd to say that an omnipotent and omniscient being lacks them.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

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

"Atheists are OK."