kx000
Valued Senior Member
God is part of the universe. I believe He is asserting nature...
On theist-secular relations
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
God is part of the universe. I believe He is asserting nature...
That's not an answer, Jan. You need to tell me what qualities the universe has that mandate a creator at all, and from there why it necessitates only one creator. Otherwise you're just making claims you can't support.
I'm not making any claims. You asked a question, and I offered an answer.
Please explain why you believe what you believe?
Thanks.
jan.
What's with you guys insisting upon personal definitions? The answer you gave is a claim. You claimed that universe demonstrates necessity for both a creator, and that the creator be singular. If you can't support that claim, retract it. You can make the claim on faith that one god created the universe without having to dirty your hands in factual claims.
I already have. There are no inherent qualities to the universe that demand a singular creator. The model operates without reference to a creator at all, let alone to a singular being, so in order to assert that there is one, and only one, the claimant needs to provide evidence.
same old story..
Prove there is only one creator..
no..you prove there isn't any..
both sides of that argument fail..so don't even go there..
Prove there is only one creator..
no..you prove there isn't any..
both sides of that argument fail..so don't even go there..
You misrepresent the argument. I asked Wynn why she insisted there is only one god, if the universe was created. Both her and Jan have tried to the turn the question around, but in truth I have not said that there could not be a singular creator. I simply said that there is no quality to the universe that would suggest such a necessity. The only one making a claim that has not been supported is Wynn. And now Jan.
Logically, there can be only one entity that is omnipotent.
The usual definitions of God define Him as being omnipotent.
Logically, omnipotence has a hard time standing up as a concept. I'm sure you've heard the old proposal: "Can God create a rock too large for him to lift?"
The usual monotheistic definitions of god, you mean. There are plenty of creation stories featuring multiple creators. Or think of the Roman and Greek creation stories, where the earth simply appears out of nothingness. Omnipotence itself is a very monotheistic idea. So if you insist upon this particular image of god, you must therefore reject all other possible images. On what grounds do you do this? Or have you simply not put enough thought into this?
we are yet to see that although its kind of a no-brainer that a god with a phenomenal world that sports things greater than him works a gem for your purposes
and just for you, since it looks like you might be new to this shrugging business
:shrug::shrug:
Try again in English?
You should join my new social group, Shruggin' With Lightgigantic!
greater than god can lift or greater than god can create would = something in the phenomenal world greater than god
I can also tell you in english the relationship the phenomenal world is commonly said to have with god if need be ...
that's what inspired me to give you a special dose last post
but just again coz I know you need it
:shrug::shrug::shrug:
What is "the phenomenal world?" Can someone please get me a Wynn/LG-to-English dictionary, please?
The premise is quite simple: Can God create a stone he cannot lift?
Please, by all means.
you know, the world with rocks (varieties of ones that are both heavy and also quite light) , bunnies, trees, atheists, stamp collectors and other wonders of god's great earth
the idea of god creating something greater than himself is somewhat problematic (much like the notion of you being your biological father)
well if you have an entity credited with omnipotence, summum bonum (btw technically that is not an english word .... just in case you were wondering) etc you can't (logically anyway) have an effect of the said entity being greater than it..
IOW the notion of god creating anything greater than himself is a concept flawed from the onset ... much like a square circle or a married bachelor or you being your own biological father
:shrug:
and two more for good measure
:shrug::shrug:
Last edited:
So this world.
It's not quite creating something greater than himself, it's creating something that is beyond his means to move. But yes, that's still a problem, and why omnipotence is a logical paradox.
But concepts like "Squared circle" and other gambits are also of his creation, so he's essentially limiting himself, which is a paradox.
You're like a poet in his prime with these shrugs. Keep em coming!
I guess as an atheist it doesn't leave you too many options huh?
the only paradox I can see is you talking about him creating something greater than himself and then saying he is not creating something greater than himself in the same breath
:shrug:
well no they are not.
The concepts are not determined by resources or recourse to value (like having the strength, money, intelligence, etc - ie potency - to do something).
Rather they are determined by having values that contradict or exclude the other ...
For instance its not like any particular flavour of wistful ambitions in technology and science will ever permit you to get a response other than "sorry sir the position is already taken" if you go into a sperm bank demanding to be your own biological father ... simply because the problem is one of logic and not technology
:shrug:
What can I say?
You are such an inspiration at times
:shrug:
I'm sorry, you're not being clear.
That's not what I'm saying at all. As usual, you have to twist my words in order to make your point.
But god creates those limitations and contradictions. The fact that omnipotence is limited by logic means that omnipotence is a logical fallacy. Unless you're positing that god can create a stone greater than he can move, of course.
Please. You shrug literally in every post. It's more likely a nervous tick than a reaction to anything you've read on the forums.