Fiach

I'm saying that the OT god is in part a human interpretation of the divine.

So God is dependent on how we see him. That suggests that when we cease to believe, He will fade away like Baal and Set.

Sure, I'd even say there was some rationalization going on--but remember it would have been based on very different ideas about ethics and morality than we have--we have advanced in our understanding, and hence we understand god better.

So there are no Judeo-Chrsitian moral or ethical constants. It is all relative, situational, and ultimately what humans determine it to be. It isn't even God's capricious mood that determines morality, because even God is molded by our subjective imaginative image of him.

Fiach

Cipher Girl

Well, after thinking about it, one way to put it is, I think that god is kind of defined in a way that makes this logically impossible--god is more or less the greatest, most powerful being that there is--but that means there's no space for god to split "into".

Hey, I did say the universe is expanding. Maybe that leaves more room for the ameoba gods. Methinks the_cave doesn't like the idea of multiple gods.

You left out the part where I said it was an analogy, and not a model

I'm simply showing you a few problems with your analogies. BTW all of your analogies take place only in the natural world, with natural laws only, no matter the dimensions. So if you say that god is supernatural, like some theists do, your analogies definately don't match.

myself don't know the solution, other than to say that the original one stops existing after it splits.

How do you know this? After all if one god can be created from nothing, then why not many?

I'm saying that the OT god is in part a human interpretation of the divine. Sure, I'd even say there was some rationalization going on--but remember it would have been based on very different ideas about ethics and morality than we have--we have advanced in our understanding, and hence we understand god better.

What about the flood, wasn't that about god being unhappy with the way he created people? If such an event took place, what does that say about how good god is? There was no room for misunderstanding by people on that one.

Albert Cipriani

Wiploc asks,
As much as I may like to trip you up, I can’t. You have to be responsible for your own fall. That’s one of the rules of my “unattractive religion.” And it applies to even the highly unattractive people.

That’s the trouble with you people: you want us theists to do everything for you. Isn’t it enough that we spoon-fed you bible verses ad nauseum? Must we also cause you to go to hell as well? I think you’re doing a good enough job of being bad enough to get there on your own lack of power, thank you. – Insincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

winstonjen

Considering the abundance of spiritual blackmail and the inherent unfairness of god's laws, I think I'll go to hell where I can sin for all eternity.

the_cave

I'm saying that this isn't the kind of god I'm talking about. It's not a matter of Zeus vs. Odin, or Vishnu vs. Shiva. It's a matter of speaking of the greatest being--of which there can be only one, seems to me.

Would you like some analogies from the supernatural world? I doubt it If god is "supernatural", I personally think it's only in a manner of speaking--that is, perhaps s/he is a part of a larger nature which includes, but is not limited to, spacetime. If god exists, presumably he's a natural being--since what else could something be, if it really exists?



I'm not saying that--I'm talking about an actual amoeba, or anything that is divided. Does a hammer exist after you've taken the head off the handle? It's a philosophical debate. It's also a philosophical debate whether an amoeba exists after it divides. I say, philosophically speaking, it doesn't. Not entirely. So a god that divided itself (? somehow?) would cease to exist in the way it did before.

I am skeptical that such an event really took place so this isn't a concern. But I think that you're referring to the verse that says god regretted that he had created humankind. Well, sure--after seeing what they had done (events which he did not know would occur, and could not have known. Some Christians will claim otherwise, but I think that they're wrong.)

the_cave

I certainly agree that if humankind collectively somehow suddenly stopped believing in god, they would no longer worship him!

Oh, I'm not saying that--I'd have to believe that human ethics were relative and situational, which I don't. There are some ethics that endure over time, and those we can trust pretty well. In addition to that, god's revelation unfolds over time--modern Christianity and Judaism, are quite different from the world of Moses. Sure, things are what we determine them to be--but so are the truths of science. You don't want to claim that those are relative and situational, do you?

the_cave

There are different answers to this, but I think the best one is, god isn't really defined as existing "in a space"--he both permeates and transcends space, like the physical laws of the universe do. So there's nothing to divide into, and there's nothing to really "divide". God is what being is--how could being turn itself into unbeing? It's sort of like physical conservation laws

...I am speaking from a Christian standpoint. Do you argue that there is anything besides the created universe? No? Then why should I assume there is, either? I'm talking about god, who I find to be a philosophical consequence of the observed universe. I'm not bringing in anything else besides the observed universe--of which god is a natural, philosophical extension (vice versa, actually).

Why do you think he would wish to?

No, but it's conveniently compatible

I'm not up on my angelology (or demonology, for that matter!) but I'm pretty sure these, if they exist in any way, are created beings, just like us--except they're not made of matter. It's not very central to my faith.

Mageth

There are different answers to this, but I think the best one is, god isn't really defined as existing "in a space"--he both permeates and transcends space, like the physical laws of the universe do. So there's nothing to divide into, and there's nothing to really "divide". God is what being is--how could being turn itself into unbeing? It's sort of like physical conservation laws

Well, if he permeates space, he exists in space, at least in some sense. I'm not exactly sure what "transcends space" means. Does this mean he's non-dimensional, or N-dimensional? If he's not in space, non-dimensional, then he has no dimension, occupies "nothing", and another god could just as easily occupy an equal amount of "nothing" without violating any logical laws I know of.

BTW, the physical laws don't "transend" the universe, as far as I know. Permeate, perhaps, but not transcend.

...I am speaking from a Christian standpoint. Do you argue that there is anything besides the created universe? No?

First, I don't argue there's a created universe! Whether the universe was "created" (in the "loaded" or "unloaded" sense of the term) is not known.

And I sure wouldn't argue that there's nothing but the universe. For all I know, there might be countless other universes. Technically, my answer to "is the universe all there is?" is I don't know.

Then why should I assume there is, either?

And why should you assume there is not? I don't.

I'm talking about god, who I find to be a philosophical consequence of the observed universe.

And I, speaking from a non-theistic standpoint, find that god is not a philiosophical consequence of the observed universe. All we can (tentatively) deduce from our universe is contained within the universe.

I'm not bringing in anything else besides the observed universe--of which god is a natural, philosophical extension (vice versa, actually).

Of course, I disagree on the "natural, philosophical extension", or vice versa, bit. Such philosophical arguments for god have convincing (to some, at least) counter-arguments.

And if there are other universes (a possibility, at least), perhaps there are other gods that are "natural, philosophical extensions" to those universes. Bottom line, we don't know.

Why do you think he would wish to?

Why do you think he would not wish to?

No, but it's conveniently compatible

But if three can exist as one, why not another one (or more) besides the three co-existing with the three-in-one, or existing totally separately from the three-in-one? That would be "conveniently compatible" for the amoeba god argument, would it not? I really don't see the difference.

I'm not up on my angelology (or demonology, for that matter!) but I'm pretty sure these, if they exist in any way, are created beings, just like us--except they're not made of matter. It's not very central to my faith.

Well, speaking from a Christian standpoint, the bible indicates they do exist. It even describes (in Job) Satan having a little face-to-face chat with God, in an (evidently) dimensional "space" called heaven.

AFAIK, the bible describes angels/demons as "spirit". I'm pretty sure that's the same kind of "stuff" God is supposed to be made of, and I don't recall the bible differentiating among different types of "spirit stuff." But that's conjecture on my part; perhaps someone could clarify if they know more.

Albert Cipriani

Mageth says,
Spirit is a word that denotes that which is not material, i.e., that which is non-stuff. To say that God and the angels are "made of" any kind of stuff let alone made of the same kind of stuff is to contradict the notion that they are spirits. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

the_cave:
Sure, things are what we determine them to be--but so are the truths of science. You don't want to claim that those are relative and situational, do you?

Well, yes. They are. Hard to resist the obvious reference to the theory of relativity, here. And although the situations in which any particular law or theory applies are very tightly constrained by the precision of the mathematics in which the law or theory is expressed, and by the exactitude of the physical data plugged into the theory, all scientific theories are indeed situational.