A distinguishable supreme entity.
God is "dead"
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
so how do you propose that he is not distinguished then?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Oh but I DID comment on the excerpt. But you were too concerned about the biased censorship of views you don't agree with to notice:
"Here's one explanation for the hiddenness of God that hasn't been considered here. I personally find it inadequate. A God in the very least should be able to reveal himself physically to all humans no matter how allegedly "wretched" humans become."
If you really want to delete some posts, why don't you get started on the foreign language spam that was plastered all over this forum overnight.
That brief comment did not warrant quoting 90% of a lengthy text. If your only comment was pertaining to "wretchedness" quoting the last large paragraph would have more than sufficed. Like I said, you are free to repost a more focused quote.
And I have already deleted the spam in the Religion forum (that showed up since I was on early this morning, local time).
ETA: And if this were censorship, that link would not have been left.
Last edited:
What are its distinguishable characteristics?
What is your idea of GOD?
There are many ideas of GOD. Which 'idea of GOD' do you think is dead?
GOD and Christianity are not synonymous. So, why should Christianity die(even though you think that god is dead)?
Your idea of GOD may be dead but others idea of GOD is still alive.
Irrationally supposing any thing about the nature of Gods is silly, at least a supposition of death is born out by the lack of evidence for its existence. Speaking of irrational inconsistencies, an omnipotent being does not have the capacity to die?
I'm sure you sure you could type volumes defending the existence of free will, though I doubt it would have little to do with good reason.
IOW because I am an atheist god doesn't exist so I am allowed to utilize a poetic license to fabricate the argument I am refuting in any way I imagine for the sake of fabricating more flame-worthy strawmen
:shrug:
if you want to talk about absurd behavior you should take a look at an individual who types out volumes of arguments in an attempt to convince others about the non-existence of free will.
First, an eternal existence is just one of the typical traits ascribed to a god.
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Second, by definition, an omnipotent being cannot do something it is incapable of ever reversing. Although as long as there is some way to stipulate that "death" can only occur for some specified period of time, it is possible as a temporary state.
Your "supposition of death" is only coherent if you have assumed a prior existence.
As far as free will goes:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org...human/a-sobering-message-about-free-will.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17835-free-will-is-not-an-illusion-after-all.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580438,00.html
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/
That's a truism, obviously.
Irrationally supposing any thing about the nature of any thing is, clearly, silly. That's what being irrational is: silly.
You still haven't answered my question, though:
If you are using the terms "God" or "distinguishable supreme entity" then surely you mean something by them; otherwise, you couldn't use them.
I'm asking you to clarify.
Speaking of irrational inconsistencies indeed ...
You're right in your doubt: defending the existence of free will has a lot to do with good reason, not just a little.
Omnipotence is not simply a measure of energy output like horsepower; it’s the quality of complete control over all that exists, which would include the possessor/wielder. Such an entity should have the capacity to do what ever it desired, including pulling its own plug.
My supposition of death is in response to the supposition of a living god that should by all accounts be discernible as such, yet fails to meet that expectation.
Interesting articles, but don't contain a shred of reason that would support the proposition that our will is independent of the determined processes that have been shown to define our existence.
I’m not the one with the need to postulate the existence and qualities of a supreme being. For those compelled to do so, and wish to present it in a rational way, I would suggest that they show a currently valid need for the existence of the entity and a means to distinguish it from other processes.
Oh, but you are, as long as you make claims about said supreme being; such as that said supreme being does not exist or is dead.
How can you say God is dead or that God has no identifiable life signs, when so far, it's not clear whether you could even distinguish God from broccoli.
Order, order, order in the court!
Arbitrary, my dear Wynn.
Once we learn that God is not an abstract "it," but a specific "him." An unruly subjective personality replaces the indifferent mechanical precision associated with the concept of God. God can then punish those who have offended him.
Even if we define an "it" into existence through an endless string of pointless conversations, we know that just because we can conjure something up doesn't mean it can exist in reality. It is just a childish ontological argument. Most agnostics see no problem with space-faring teapots. However, it is not the teapot that concerns the atheist; it is that which is being served.
Mad Hatter: Would you like a little more tea?
Alice: Well, I haven't had any yet, so I can't very well take more.
March Hare: Ah, you mean you can't very well take less.
Mad Hatter: Yes, you can always take more than nothing.
Arbitrary, my dear Wynn.
Once we learn that God is not an abstract "it," but a specific "him." An unruly subjective personality replaces the indifferent mechanical precision associated with the concept of God. God can then punish those who have offended him.
Even if we define an "it" into existence through an endless string of pointless conversations, we know that just because we can conjure something up doesn't mean it can exist in reality. It is just a childish ontological argument. Most agnostics see no problem with space-faring teapots. However, it is not the teapot that concerns the atheist; it is that which is being served.
Mad Hatter: Would you like a little more tea?
Alice: Well, I haven't had any yet, so I can't very well take more.
March Hare: Ah, you mean you can't very well take less.
Mad Hatter: Yes, you can always take more than nothing.
I assume that if you were talking about space faring teapots you could at least distinguish them from, say, broccoli ... even if it is only on a conceptual level (and lets face it, as far as atheism goes, what else do they have recourse to except the conceptual level)..
So once again, if someone is going to make the comment that "god is a distinguishable supreme entity", one would expect that they have at least some sort of distinguishing qualities in mind.
If they don't, well I guess they don't even make the grade for a conceptual discussion.
:shrug:
Ah, the Humpty Dumpty again!
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
In other words, you're refusing to take any responsibility for your epistemological processes.
Who implied anything even remotely like "horsepower", as if omnipotence had a magnitude? Omnipotence does not necessitate that the impossible obtains, like a square circle. The omnipotence that can be permanently ended, by any means, is not omnipotent at all. You have foolishly assumed a temporal impotence (inability to overcome past states) that is contrary to the very "capacity to do what ever it desired" that you assert. No more existence equals no more capacity for desire, i.e. defeats omnipotence.
Living? Surely you mean vital rather than having vitals.
Monotheism usually denotes a living god as being true and active in contrast with false, inanimate idols. This is discernible in actions such as charity in contrast with greed.
There is no accounting for your confirmation bias.
Said HYPOTHETICAL supreme being has no demonstrable signs of existence outside the fantasy realm of its origination, so there’s no reason for ME to assume otherwise. If one were to claim an actual existence and vitality for said supreme being, then one would have to accept that a lack of evidence for those qualities are indicators of non existence or death.
Identifying the actualities of hypothetical beings posited by others is their responsibility not mine. It’s up to adherents to rationally distinguish broccoli, a man, a sun, or a universe from God.
So let gets this straight :
You say god has no demonstrable signs of existence outside of the fantasy realm.
You have no responsibility to elaborate on what these demonstrable signs are.
How do we know (or even you for that matter) know you are not talking about broccoli?
- Status