Defining what is God.

[Sarkus]

then how do you determine what is the absolute limits of what is possible in nature?

There's the rub - you should stop claiming things as supernatural and trying to identify them for what they are!

To claim something that occurs as supernatural is absurd - as you have observed it - and thus must be within the laws of nature (albeit laws that we don't fully understand). So rather than saying "it is supernatural" you should go out and investigate it - and do some science!

However, to claim something for which we have no evidence as supernatural means that you are saying it IS beyond the laws of nature. Everytime we push back our understanding of the laws of nature - this thing (for which we have no evidence) is BEYOND those.

But nothing can "currently be supernatural - but tomorrow it might not be, depending on our understanding". That is ridiculous and a gross misuse of the word.

 

[swivel]

Many things can be described as both impractical and real. Your analogy assumes that because the impractical equates to "not able" with regard to teaching someone about that which they are ignorant.

Your analogy fails not because impractical equates to rational but because rationality is sacrificed by intellectual dishonesty. Rather than admit that your arguments don't hold up, you retreat to the cowardly position that your critics aren't capable of learning your secret knowledge because they're ignorant.

You go on and on crying and bitching about how the big, bad moderator has "ad hom'd" you, but you do the very same thing by calling your critics stupid.

And I ask every single person that has read this thread to offer their opinion on LG's analogy as he stated above: is my criticism fair?

Of course it is fair, and LG is hiding behind his misuse of the phrase ad hominem again. Seriously, this guy is just bad for the forum and should be banned as quickly as possible. He bullies people while pretending to be bullied, and is intellectually dishonest about the entire affair.

And yes, his analogy has no legs. Quit trying to convince him, everyone else is convinced, and that is all that matters.

 

[SnakeLord]

He certainly bothers me more than the average theist, (even more then Visitor sometimes), with his inability to answer anything, his overuse of faulty analogies and yeah this constant claim of "ad homs" when I have had to point out that he is more guilty than most.

Still, such is life..

 

[geeser]

so would it be incorrect or correct to say that a jungle tribesman views a telephone as supernatural?

the definition sarkus posted is the correct one, the jungle tribsman is just ignorant of the true nature of the telephone, when he's informed he will know it's true nature. but something supernatural is beyond anybodys knowledge, it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
so in answer to you question, it would be incorrect to say, that a jungle tribesman would view a telephone as supernatural, because it could not appear to him, or anybody else if it were supernatural.

 

[Prince_James]

Snakelord:

Can you point out one instance where Light Gigantic has used an argumentum ad hominem?

Light Gigantic may or may not hold erroneous beliefs, but he does not contravene the rules of debate.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

It might not be reasonable - but it is the logical conclusion if one is in search of the "superior" god - as this thread is out to do.
So I say again - the "superior" god did not create us.
If anyone is looking for a definition of their god that they think did create us - there IS a more "superior" god - and that "superior" god did not create us.

In as much as creation entails a conscious act that is not dependent upon the laws of nature conspiring towards creation, I agree. In as much as all things occur in existence - which fullfils what can be said are Godly attributes - then clearly, "God" is a creator in the non-miraculous sense.

But yes, I agree - creation implies a whole load of inferior qualities.

I thought this part was about creation outside of the eternal attributes?
But if not - then the more superior god does not require change (cause/effect) within the eternal attributes - as he already has them all - eternally.

Certainly not within the eternal attributes, but change occurs in the non-eternal ones. That is to say, the component parts of infinity, the finite, certainly change - we can see this all around us.

If there is cause then there is an absence beforehand of a certain position (i.e. a lack).
After the effect the certain position has been reached, but there is now an absence of the previous position (i.e. a lack).
The superior god has no lack.
It thus does not act.
It did not create.
It is thus a meaningless concept - but IS the logical conclusion of LG's search for the "superior" god.

It isn't meaningless, just not worshippable in the strong sense.

 

[Sarkus]

Snakelord:

Can you point out one instance where Light Gigantic has used an argumentum ad hominem?

Light Gigantic may or may not hold erroneous beliefs, but he does not contravene the rules of debate.

Please tell me what the "rules of debate" are?

An Argumentum Ad Hominem is merely one of any number of logical fallacies - and LG is guilty of a vast swathes of those in one form or another. Most people unfortunately are. It is difficult to avoid them entirely.

So is one logical fallacy any more a contravention of the "rules of debate" than any other?

And remember - an Ad Hominem attack is different to a mere insult.
Ad Hominem attacks are usually personal attacks offered as evidence against that person's position.

e.g. "You're wrong because you smell".

An insult is, e.g. "You're wrong - you ba****d!"

The insult is not offering the personal attack as evidence in the argument.
The Ad hom is.

 

[Sarkus]

Certainly not within the eternal attributes, but change occurs in the non-eternal ones. That is to say, the component parts of infinity, the finite, certainly change - we can see this all around us.

And any non-eternal attributes are created (must be, by definition). Created implies lack implies inferiority.
So in this case it is not the on-going changes - but the fact they are non-eternal that is the implication of inferior.

It isn't meaningless, just not worshippable in the strong sense.

Fair enough - I agree that my use of "meaningless" needs qualification - so I'll withdraw it for the sake of not wanting to get embroiled in trying to explain what I do mean.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

And any non-eternal attributes are created (must be, by definition). Created implies lack implies inferiority.
So in this case it is not the on-going changes - but the fact they are non-eternal that is the implication of inferior.

This does not follow.

Non-infinite, non-eternal attributes of God/existence need not be created. They are necessitated by the fact that we can discuss infinity, eternity, et cetera. What is an infinity without parts? What is eternity without moments? And an infinity of each?

Accordingly, we get the temporal and limited from the infinite, and the infinite from the temporal and limited.

But yes, to say that a tree is inferior to a forest is certain. But to say the forest could exist without the trees is silly.

Fair enough - I agree that my use of "meaningless" needs qualification - so I'll withdraw it for the sake of not wanting to get embroiled in trying to explain what I do mean.

Yes, and this is pretty much a non-issue for the debate.

 

[Sarkus]

This does not follow.

Ah - but it does. It most certainly does.

Non-infinite, non-eternal attributes of God/existence need not be created.

Yes they need be.
Non-eternal = has a beginning = created.

I'm not necessarily talking about *poof* creation from thin air - but created as in caused.

If you have A that causes B then at the point you have A you lack B, and when A causes B you then lack A.
Lack = inferior.

They are necessitated by the fact that we can discuss infinity, eternity, et cetera. What is an infinity without parts? What is eternity without moments? And an infinity of each?

Indeed - what is infinity without the sum of the parts.

Yet, amazingly, when you remove one constituent part from the infinite whole, you are still left with the undiminished infinite.

What value the part, my friend. What value the part!


My point is that the LG "superior" god must have, using the "A causes B" from above, BOTH eternal A and eternal B - and both MUST be eternal attributes.
Any god that has A that leads to B is, by logic shown above, either lacking in A or lacking in B at any given time.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Yes they need be.
Non-eternal = has a beginning = created.

I'm not necessarily talking about *poof* creation from thin air - but created as in caused.

Is an effect created by its cause? Or is it simply caused?

That is to say, I contend that we can indeed speak of things which are caused yet not created. That is to say, creation implies a conscious action, whereas causation does not necessarily, although creation would be a subset of causation, in as much as effects can be produced by conscious beings.

However, you seem to agree that we're speaking about causes, not creation ex nihilio. In as much as that is true, then we are in agreement, although we almost got into a scuffle over semantics, it seems.

If you have A that causes B then at the point you have A you lack B, and when A causes B you then lack A.
Lack = inferior.

Certainly do I agree that to lack is inferior to that which lacks nothing. However, it cannot be said that anything which is infinite can be made of anything else but lacking parts.

Yet, amazingly, when you remove one constituent part from the infinite whole, you are still left with the undiminished infinite.

Actually, I contend otherwise. To claim that one can take away even a single part from infinity implies that the prior infinity was either infinity + 1 (as it does not require the prior part in order to be infinite) or that one has created a void, in which case infinity is not infinite, as does not extend infinitely. In either case, you produce an absurdity.

Infinity - 1 may not be sensible, as one cannot be truly one away from the infinite, yet to take away anything from the infinite would be to diminish it.

 

[lightgigantic]

There's the rub - you should stop claiming things as supernatural and trying to identify them for what they are!

To claim something that occurs as supernatural is absurd - as you have observed it - and thus must be within the laws of nature (albeit laws that we don't fully understand). So rather than saying "it is supernatural" you should go out and investigate it - and do some science!

actually my point was that the living entity is always in the constitutional position of perceiving the "supernatural" because they are not in a position to have a full grip on the natural laws - thus god appears supernatural from our perspective, but to be "supernatural" is the "natural" position of god (in other words he is just like a phone technician and we are just like the jungle tribesmen in regards to the telephone)

However, to claim something for which we have no evidence as supernatural means that you are saying it IS beyond the laws of nature. Everytime we push back our understanding of the laws of nature - this thing (for which we have no evidence) is BEYOND those.

therefore in scripture you do not find recommendations for evidencing god by empiricism (empiricism can however bring one to the point of deciding to apply the processes advocated for perceiving god, namely surrender and service)

But nothing can "currently be supernatural - but tomorrow it might not be, depending on our understanding". That is ridiculous and a gross misuse of the word.

Actually i didn't bring up the word "sueprnatural" in connection with god - In a round about way I am suggesting that a better word would be omnipotent

 

[lightgigantic]

the definition sarkus posted is the correct one, the jungle tribsman is just ignorant of the true nature of the telephone, when he's informed he will know it's true nature. but something supernatural is beyond anybodys knowledge, it can have no effect on the natural, least it become natural.
so in answer to you question, it would be incorrect to say, that a jungle tribesman would view a telephone as supernatural, because it could not appear to him, or anybody else if it were supernatural.

thats the point - the workings of the telephone are not visible to the jungle tribesmen, so until the phoine technician whois capable of educating them comes around they will view it as supernatural - much inthe same way that until one comes in contact with a saintly person, the idea of god will appear excessively "supernatural"

 

[geeser]

thats the point - the workings of the telephone are not visible to the jungle tribesmen, so until the phoine technician whois capable of educating them comes around they will view it as supernatural

wrong, I repeat " it would be incorrect to say, that a jungle tribesman would view a telephone as supernatural, because it could not appear to him, or anybody else, if it were supernatural." "something supernatural is beyond anybodys knowledge, it can have no effect on the natural, unless it becomes or is natural." or is that to hard to grasp

 

[Prince_James]

Technically, Geeser, religious and magical systems purport to give the person an understanding of the workings of supernatural forces in order that they might become comprehendable and work in the material world.

 

[lightgigantic]

Technically, Geeser, religious and magical systems purport to give the person an understanding of the workings of supernatural forces in order that they might become comprehendable and work in the material world.

agreed

Just to remove the magical mystical haze that people tend to associate with 'supernatural religion', I brought up the issue earlier how newton's theory of gravity was initially disregarded on the grounds that it was 'supernatural' because it was not contingent on any existing axioms

 

[Prince_James]

Which is true: Many systems which shake the paradigms which currently guide enquiry are held to be erroneous before later being accepted.

Newton is a prime example of this, as is Einstein.

However, one must be careful to note that it was the empirical evidence which did this. It is at least partially the case that religion does not afford such a robust proof of its claims, yet clearly it is disingenious to at least not attempt some of the aspects of religion in order to verify the claims, even if the verification can only come from a personal view.

 

[nds1]

newton's theory of gravity was initially disregarded on the grounds that it was 'supernatural' because it was not contingent on any existing axioms

Or, it was not contigingent on any of the truths that were known by mankind at that time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Or, it was not contigingent on any of the truths that were known by mankind at that time.

hence it was regarded as 'supernatural' at the time

 

[nds1]

yeah, I'm just saying that you could substitute "axioms" with "truths."