Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: The Definition and Existence of God

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    No I do not "define" Him as such. I signify him by the sign "Yahweh", this is litterally in Hebrew the statement, "I am".
    Then I do not understand what reason you felt you had for bringing it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    Ever the heard someone say, "You can't describe what love feels like, you just know when you feel it"?
    Yes. Have you ever heard someone say that god doesn't exist?

    Just wondering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    Stop being antagonistic, and stop acting like I'm trying to wind you up
    Just answer my question, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    God, like love, is manifest. Please see below.
    Okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    You will never adaquately define me, or yourself.
    But I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    You can describe observable attributes, imperfectly, or actions, but not the substance of being.
    What do you mean by "substance of being"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    Yet, you have a name and you exist.
    Yes, and we can say that I exist because we can define me, as I have done. We cannot say that "god" exist if we cannot define it, because if the word "god" doesn't have a definition, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    No, no atheist has done this. That would be the ultimate definition of insanity, to talk to someone you believe doesn't exist. You cannot talk to God because you have not acknowledged his existence, and therefore he will not reply.


    I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

    If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

    I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    Both those definitions merely describe actions or roles, "one who creates with intelligence", or "One who created the universe". They say nothing much at all about such a creator.
    Yes, I did say they fail, didn't I?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    Anyway, why do you keep demanding this definition of this thing that doesn't exist.
    When did I say it doesn't exist? I have all along said that I do not know what "it" is, so how could I say it doesn't? If you define "god" as "doors", then sure, I'll say that "god" exist.

    The reason why I ask for a definition of the word "god", is that without one, we can't go any further. Speaking of anything concerning "god" is futile and pointless until we have a working definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
    See the thing is, I don't understand your concept of rationality that you apply to these definitions. Rationality in your mind (as I conjecture from your post) requires a kind of "proof" but you have not exactly defined what kind of proof. Is it empirical proof? Is it to show that the definition is a logical truth and must necessarily be true?
    Yes, it needs to be logical, and it needs empirical evidence. Making things up can be fun and all that, but to pretend that it is actually true without any evidence would be irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
    For example, a concept of God that I could purport would be: "God is the necessary, non-contingent being who is the uncaused cause of every contingent being (beings and events)"
    This doesn't really say much at all, though. This doesn't really say much at all, though. All it seem to say is that "god" supposedly created the universe, all beings and every event, which are things that "god" supposedly did, but not what "god" actually is. It's a "being", okay, and that being must be uncaused. As for non-contingent, could you please explain what you mean by that?

    Why is god "necessary", and what for?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
    The position: The universe always existed and has no creator is one that there is also no proof of (well there are actually proofs for both this position and the opposite but as you have not actually defined proof...) and yet I cannot deny it is rational. I think it is wrong, but it is intelligible and consistent.
    Correct. This is where we use Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and just saying "the universe has always existed" is simpler because it doesn't needlessly introduce another step.

    In any case, I do not claim that it is so, only that that is more probable, and there's no need to invent a creator. If you wish to do that, the burden of evidence is on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
    I think the point people are bringing up here about definitions is that precise definitions are very difficult to express, at least in everyday life about everyday concepts (in math it is easier). There are many vague predicates, such as God, truth, rational, proof, and so on, that have people having different ideas about what they are, and even beyond that, are difficult to actually articulate completely.
    I know, but as I said to PVC earlier, I do not look for a perfect, all-encompassing definition, just the minimum requirement that something must achieve to be "god".

    As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-08-2009 at 20:10.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO