Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Lightgigantic:
The difference between a wealthy man and God, is that it is an afront to God for him to find a lack of something in anything. That is to say, if he finds something which is not pleasing to himself, he has found a want. To find a want, is to find an imperfection. Something which God cannot say he has - satisfaction with the standards of joy of one of his creations - is a deficiency.
The difference between a wealthy man and God, is that it is an afront to God for him to find a lack of something in anything. That is to say, if he finds something which is not pleasing to himself, he has found a want. To find a want, is to find an imperfection. Something which God cannot say he has - satisfaction with the standards of joy of one of his creations - is a deficiency.
Let's say God does have lacks, or deficiencies.
In this case, God would still be perfect in all other areas, such as power, energy, creativity, etc. So the only lacks he would have are "mental" lacks, such as the desire to share his greatness, a feeling of lonliness, a desire for entertainment.
But in any case, his ability to fulfill those wants or lacks would have to be superior and unsurpassable.
In fact, maybe the God of this universe is one of many God's which all live in the same realm, but our God owns our universe. Then all these God's serve an even higher God, and the hierarchy ends at one ultimate perfect God.
In this case, God would still be perfect in all other areas, such as power, energy, creativity, etc. So the only lacks he would have are "mental" lacks, such as the desire to share his greatness, a feeling of lonliness, a desire for entertainment.
But in any case, his ability to fulfill those wants or lacks would have to be superior and unsurpassable.
In fact, maybe the God of this universe is one of many God's which all live in the same realm, but our God owns our universe. Then all these God's serve an even higher God, and the hierarchy ends at one ultimate perfect God.
Sarkus:
Yes.
Indubitably.
With certainty.
I concur.
What about the necessary non-eternal nature of the changing world? THings live, grow, and die.
What about my argument regarding "non-miraculous cause"? That is to say, as everything is God (owing to the notion of omnipresence) and there are causes and effects (I think this can be admitted?) in contingent things (rocks falling down hills...) then it would seem to be proper to say that, in one way, God is a cause as all causes act within him and exist because of him (I.E. he is the necessity from whence we can discuss contingent).
What of a naturalistic cause resulting from the laws of causality? I.E. God not as a creator, but God as the medium in which the causal events take place which lend themselves to human through, say, the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution?
Yes.
Indubitably.
With certainty.
I concur.
What about the necessary non-eternal nature of the changing world? THings live, grow, and die.
What about my argument regarding "non-miraculous cause"? That is to say, as everything is God (owing to the notion of omnipresence) and there are causes and effects (I think this can be admitted?) in contingent things (rocks falling down hills...) then it would seem to be proper to say that, in one way, God is a cause as all causes act within him and exist because of him (I.E. he is the necessity from whence we can discuss contingent).
What of a naturalistic cause resulting from the laws of causality? I.E. God not as a creator, but God as the medium in which the causal events take place which lend themselves to human through, say, the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution?
Okay - then this god, the one with eternal attributes that change form (e.g. us) is inferior to the god that has all the same eternal attributes in every form that don't change. For the superior god has all of them at all time.
So I go back to the "cause of all causes" god is not the superior.
This is no different to the "changing" world above.PJ said:
The fact that there are changes to the nature of the eternal attributes within this god means that he CAN NOT be the superior to the god that has all the attributes eternally.
This is merely saying that god IS "Cause and effect".PJ said:
So who created the creation initially? An inferior god? Are you going for a polytheistic approach - one inferior creator god and another superior "cause and effect" god?
then how would god have any potency for lordship if everything was composed of the same infallible nature as himself (part of god's potencies are different gradations of inferior energies - just like the sunlight is an inferior energy of the sun, ie it has some qualities of the sun but not all of them, just like the living entity has some of the qualties of god - consciousness, independence - but not all of them - absolute consciousness, absolute independence etc.
God has everything - even the independent meanderings of his conditioned seperated parts and parcels (the living entities in the material world) are within his complete power
God however does not take possession of one's independence, since to do so would place us on the same level as inanimate matter (rocks etc)
That's part of the issue - you want the "superior" god and yet can't accept the logical implications of it.
Until you can put up a logical argument that allows for us, his creation (whether internal or external to his eternal attributes) AND allows him to be the "superior" god, your only recourse is to accept the logical impossibility of any creator-god being the "superior" god.
Furthermore, why would a "superior" god want or need "lordship" over others? Surely god is perfection without such things?
Ah - another dip into analogies.LG said:
Please explain what makes one energy "inferior" to another.
Please also explain what the "energy of the sun" is that makes it "superior".
You're right Snakelord, He does like to be praised, and His goodness is quite a contrast to the fallen nature of the creation and humankind, but things will return to as they once were.
I bet it makes him feel all tingly and warm inside. In fact I have decided to create a bunch of robots that call me nice things so I too can feel all good about myself. I'm sure it does wonders for the ego.
A) Who created those humans?
B) Who made them fall by putting a tree and the universes only talking snake in front of them?
C) Who made these beings with a seemingly unavoidable need to do things that god doesn't like? We certainly didn't.
D) Why is it that not only can god not control his human creation but apparently hasn't done too well with his angels either?
When gods "goodness" results in the death of everything on this planet and the destruction of the universe? Whoopie doo..
After Armageddon, Jesus will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years, then the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Good point Kendall, kinda like blaming the cookie monster for obesity.
Sarkus:
It is not reasonable to conclude that such a God can exist, as an infinite space, for instance, requires an infinity of finite spaces - hence the infinite depends on the finite, and vice-versa (in as much as there can be no finite without the infintie as such is the ground of existence).
SEe above, then.
Presuming eternity, there cannot be a beginning or end to the causal chain.
Lightgigantic:
It would either seem that such a scenario you describe is impossible if we construe of God as perfect, or God is imperfect and accordingly things are so composed as to allow for this.
Assuming the latter, St. Anselm's argument was wrong - God is not the greatest thing imaginable.
It is not reasonable to conclude that such a God can exist, as an infinite space, for instance, requires an infinity of finite spaces - hence the infinite depends on the finite, and vice-versa (in as much as there can be no finite without the infintie as such is the ground of existence).
SEe above, then.
Presuming eternity, there cannot be a beginning or end to the causal chain.
Lightgigantic:
It would either seem that such a scenario you describe is impossible if we construe of God as perfect, or God is imperfect and accordingly things are so composed as to allow for this.
Assuming the latter, St. Anselm's argument was wrong - God is not the greatest thing imaginable.
God must love the depraved, he created so many of them.
Certainly, what was the point?
The assertion was that this god exists and due to some need for inflating it's own ego requires and needs worship from us little folk. The next assertion was that this god is full of "goodness" unlike us humans that have somehow created ourselves to be bad. I then thought it worth pointing out that through all our badness, from a biblical perspective it is actually god that kills all humans and destroys the entire universe.
If you think I believe the tripe featured in the bible and minds of theists, then you're having a laugh.. but I will play along for the sake of discussion.
Long time ago, but yeah..
To whom it may concern,
I would advise against anyone taking advice on "biblical perspective" from someone with the name "SnakeLord"....
It is the "snake lords" literally that kill humans and destroy the universe.
They are destroyers...spiritual chargers that think of humans as no more than cattle.
It is God that came in the flesh, born of a woman to die for the human race to save us from these demons overlords......and ourselves.
He has made a way for your freedom, but you have to take it.
and you know this, how!
perhaps you cant read, visitor, I bet joined up writings a task for you too.
this is what snakelord said "If you think I believe the tripe featured in the bible and minds of theists, then you're having a laugh.. but I will play along for the sake of discussion." he's not offering any advice, so no need for anybody to take any is there.