Lobstrosity

Could you please first for the love of god define what it means to "be infinite"? Once you're done with that, please explain where you get off assuming that God is "infinite." Sure, you might define him as infinite, but that doesn't mean he is infinite.

xian

"Could you please first for the love of god define what it means to "be infinite"? Once you're done with that, please explain where you get off assuming that God is "infinite." Sure, you might define him as infinite, but that doesn't mean he is infinite."


No. I think the word "infinite" is pretty clear in its meaning.

Majestyk

The original post does have some merit.

1. Belief in a supreme being, soley on the basis of a two thousand year old text that doesn't accurately describe the world in which we live, is as valid as believing in the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

2. I cannot claim that a supreme being does not exist. I can and do however claim that I have never been made aware of any credible evidence that suggests one does..

3. Am I mistaken or can the initial post be condensed to: "You cannot deny the existence of my diety because, I refuse to define what my diety is."?

xian

"3. Am I mistaken or can the initial post be condensed to: "You cannot deny the existence of my diety because, I refuse to define what my diety is."?"



Yes, you are mistaken.

Lobstrosity

Actually, no, it's annoyingly vague. "Infinite" has no meaning on its own. Mathematically it has meaning, but you're applying it out of context, so you need to either define it or stop using it. You're statement that "God is infinite" is like my statement "love is infinite" or "fleas are infinite." The natural question that should arise in all readers is: "what the hell do you mean?"

If you wish to debate philosophical implications of infinite gods, you need to first define the "infinity" to which you are referring.

philechat

Shouldn't we use the Bible as the basis of understand this "greatest possible being"? Are you sure this "greatest possible being" is the same guy mentioned in the Bible? Come on, the Deists beat you head on here.

Or, could the "greatest possible being" be defined in your way, but becomes Spinoza's pantheism? Spinoza also used the idea of infinite attributes for God, and...voila his God cares rat's arse about us weak humans.

There you go. I am back to worshipping Dionysus.

Wyz_sub10

No, I think xian is defining his deity. But I think he's doing so in such as way as to make that deity indistinguishable from another other "omnipotent being".

I believe, xian, what you are saying is akin to:

"Only *one* thing can be omnipotent, omiscient, etc. by deifntion. Therefore, anything *you* define using those terms, *must* be god."

The problem with this statement is that it does not consider the *other* attributes and doings of the J/C god...as I've already pointed out and you've chosen not to address.

If the only things attributed to god were "omins", then you could make your argument (although such a definition would be meaningless with regards to providing moral direction, etc.).

But we all know that those aren't the only things to be said about the J/C god, or allah, or zeus.

Therefore, you must address the conflicts that arise from these differences.

I gave the IPU akll the omni attibutes.

You do likewise for Yhwh.

Is the IPU actually Yhwh?

No...because for one, the IPU orders us "to covet our neighbours wives, because they are hot."

Yhwh does not do this. In fact, he states the opposite.

So obviously, they cannot be one in the same.

Furthermore, because only one omni+ being can exist, one of us must be mistaken.

That's why your argument is flawed.

AJ113

As anologies go, this pretty crap frankly.

The earth is round, or spherical to be exact. This is a fact and can proved to be so.

So now that we demolished your contention that we are both flat earthers, perhaps you can show me the reason behind your own flat earth beliefs.

After that, since I kindly proved to you that the earth is round, perhaps you can kindly prove to me that your god exists.

xian

uhhh, nope.

There can be only one GPB. I do not know all the inctricacies of this beings attributes, and it is not necessary. The GPB is an objective being, and logically I know there can be only 1. Whether or not a limited, subjective, finite human being has a full grasp of the objective attributes of the GPB is irrelevant.

Lobstrosity

And logically you know there might very well be none. All you're doing is defining an entity as "something there can only be one of" and then proclaiming that it's something there can only be one of. Well duh. Your arguments are circular and carry no probative value. Logically, according to your vague definition, there could be an infinite number of distinct GPBs (you've provided no valid arguments to imply this cannot be so), but more than that there's no reason that a god has to be a GPB, so why are we even talking about GPBs? It seems like you're just setting up a strawman for yourself.