Why God, Why not Gods?

[SnakeLord]

Its more the case that you have god, and wherever there is god there is his contingent potencies.

Incorrect. It's more the case that you have gods, and where there are gods there are their contingent potencies.

You're not saying anything.

Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.

Kind of like without heat, fuel and oxygen you don't have fire. Your analogy fails given that it requires a triangle. You do not get fire without fuel. You do not get fire without oxygen, you do not get fire without heat. What is the value of your analogy, it requires more than one, (three in fact)?

You're looking at a result and claiming that the result is god (lol, when is god ever a "result" which is what your 'fire' actually is - yes, "fire" is a result of various creators). Concede the analogy as stupid or continue arguing flawed analogies. What instead you should be considering is that the parts are gods and that the result is actually the result of having gods. So... you have a god named "heat", you have a god named "fuel" and you have a god named "oxygen". You end up with something called "fire". It's equal creation and is quite recognisable in life. It's symmetry of "parts". This holds true in life all the time - as an analogy consider what it takes just to create life. No my friend, it's not just one - it's teamwork, (you both did it intentionally at the very same time whilst being equally powerful).

I don't think I have ever phrased god as being immaterial .... mainly because the notion of an immaterial thing bearing a consequence on a material thing poses problems.

My apologies although the latter part is pointless. they're omnipotent.

Stating that god is immaterial is often a term that sits comfortably with atheists

I disagree although I can't guarantee that I, an atheist, know anymore atheists than you do. Frankly, as an atheist, I contend that the word 'immaterial' sits very uncomfortably with atheists. It's somewhat akin to non-existent.

since they are very agreeable to the notion of a god that can't bear any influence in the world

Peculiar. You're the one that said immaterial entities can't bear any influence on the material world. I contend that they can but then, unlike you, I don't put such restrictions on 'omnipotence'.

Can you see the absurdity of positing omnipotence in a linear time frame or do you require more details?

I don't need to resort to reading other threads - that's for certain. I notice you haven't contested my statement so if you wouldn't mind doing so or conceding.

Omnipotence does not override logic

Nobody, (but you apparently), ever said it does. I have maximum power as do you. You choose to make a flying banana for some bizarre reason. It does not in any logical way negate my ability to go back in time, undo your creation and do it for myself. Of course there's no actual reason to - unless we don't get along but why wouldn't we?

For instance demanding an omnipotent entity create a square circle is more of an exhibition of one's limitations of language use than anything else ...

Oh most certainly. I wouldn't expect any omnipotent entity to create a married bachelor or something similar. Can you kindly, if you get a moment, explain the comparison between the ability to create or to go back in time and undo something as being a logical absurdity in the nature of married bachelors. Many thanks.

 

[Cris]

signal,

You said: "The proper definition of a god does not exist".

Why then do you engage in discussions about God?

I don't. I engage in discussions with others about god concepts.

Because you do engage in such discussions, a lot. Which suggests that you are in fact operating with some definition of God already. Just look at your discussion here with LG.

If you follow the discussion you will see I am creating properties or values for imaginary gods as I see fit, and trying to stay within the rules of logical reasoning. I am also somewhat attempting to stay within the bounds of LGs specific vision of what a god might be like, and at the same time attempting to point out the absurdity of his self-imposed constraints. If the subjest was pantheism then the nature of that type of concept would take on an entirely different flavor. Or the Deist god, which I've debated in the past, or the polytheism and multi-godhead nature of Hinduism.

It is not so much that I have an idea of what a god might be but rather that I am examining what theists are proposing and break those ideas apart. If something could withstand such analytical critiques then it might have merit. LG responds in kind while attempting to stay within the bounds of his belief system.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
2) difficulties arise when one tries to determine who (or what) caused the environment that the two or more gods interact in - The god who caused the phenomenal world would be more greatly omnipotent than the other god/s that didn't.
”
That does not follow. The possesion of an ability is not altered by its use or not. Neither is it posible to be more greatly omnipotent, one is either omnipotent or not.

It certainly does follow when it is necessary for a given.

For instance, while you can either be dead or alive, it is meaningless to talk of you simultaneously being both dead and alive.

Or alternatively, while a shape can be either a square or a circle, it is meaningless to talk of a square circle.

Similarly, while you could talk of several personalities having the option/capacity of creating the phenomenal world that they all interact in, it is meaningless to discuss more than one personality being ultimately responsible.

IOW there are very clear instances that, although one could posit a range of options, the very nature of the act requires a singular response.

Manifesting the phenomenal world through the agency of a singular omnipotent personality is one such example.

If three building contractors compete for the right to build a specific house where only one contractor can win then the abilities to build a house of those who do not win are not diminished because they didn't get this contract.

The problem is that some sort of environment is required for the three contractors to exist in before they could begin discussion.
(but if you want to talk of issues of secondary creation, sure, you can have any number of creators)

Discussions about the phenomenal world (or ultimate context in which all things exist/are placed) require a solo effort ..... and furthermore, there is a requirement for omnipresence/omnipotency etc (which, again, sends the idea of three or more to the trash)

“
Even if these marginalized gods engineer another aspect of the phenomenal world at a later date, they would technically owe their cause to the god that caused the original phenomenal world which obliged them their capacity to act.
”
You appear to have a confused sentence, your subject is unclear. There is no issue of a god creating other gods.

actually I am discussing issues of contingency

All gods in this scenario have equal abilities to create.

which ultimately makes them all contingent to the phenomenal world and by necessity, somewhere beneath omnipresence

That one creates and the others do not has no implication for any of them owing anything. But even if so then so what? It doesn't alter the fact that multiple gods are in existence.

It doesn't seem you are introducing the idea of "space" into your thinking of the term "existence"

“
This point leads to the idea that being the cause of all causes is the quality that omnipotence, omniscient and being all powerful are contingent on.
”
This is dogma, not logic.

feel free to reveal the logic behind the suggestion otherwise .....

The statement is fundamantally flawed. It does not follow that the qualities and possession of omnipotence and omnisciece are dependent upon the holder being the cause of all causes. Again, capabilities are not dependent on their use.

So how do you propose that omnipotence be utilized in a manner that one is acting as the cause of all causes?

IOW what logic are you calling upon to suggest that an omnipotent personality is bereft of some potency that nullifies their claim to being the cause of all causes?

Or alternatively, what is it that is lacking in a personality that is the cause of all causes that prevents them from being labeled "omnipotent"

“
Cris attempts to negotiate this by saying that the gods were all uncaused but it doesn't answer the question of what is the relationship of the phenomenal world with a group of equally supremely omnipotent gods
”
I do not see an issue. One creates while the others do not. There is no conflict. If they all wish to react with the inhabitants of the world then so be it. I see no necessary limitation why multi-god relationships with the created universe could not exist.

as stated, you don't offer any light on the issue of what relationship the phenomenal world has with a group of equally omnipotent gods.

If one understands that potency is the direct subject of cause and effect (for instance, the potency of a battery determines the effulgence of a light bulb), its not clear how one can fabricate either

1. an effect (ie the phenomenal world) as being beyond the purview of an omnipotent personality ("yup they're all omnipotent but it just so happens that all but one of them have nothing to do with the effect of the phenomenal world)
   
2. or an effect as being causeless within an environment of omniptence personality/ies (ie the phenomenal world is causeless and simply houses a range of personalities with claims to omnipotence)

“
if one wants to advocate that there are many omnipotent etc gods one is relying on a corruption of terminology for one's arguments (either not using the proper definition of god as the cause of all causes or not using the proper definitions of omniscient etc)
”
The proper definition of a god does not exist.

a god as the cause of all causes (or 'omnipotence", if you like) certainly does follow the standard path of proper definitions.

There is no consensus on what the term "god" means. And as stated the possession of such abilities does not depend on their use.

since there is a consensus on what the word "omnipotence" or "cause of all causes means" one can certainly draw out what the definition does and does not depend on. What we are actually discussing here is the issue of omnipotency, not the the myriad of social interpretations of godhood popular amongst atheists when they do their philosophical window shopping.

You have no case to logically justify the existence of a single god in preference to many gods.

To save yourself further trouble, you might want to reread the posted link where we had this discussion before.

It might help you understand the inconsistencies in your argument before you post them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Its more the case that you have god, and wherever there is god there is his contingent potencies.
”
Incorrect. It's more the case that you have gods, and where there are gods there are their contingent potencies.

whatever the case then, it seems you have moved off the idea of there being "god(s)" + "nothing"

You're not saying anything.

I am saying that the idea of "nothing" in an equation with god(s) is a bogus interpretation

“
Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.
”
Kind of like without heat, fuel and oxygen you don't have fire.

Hence the folly of terming fire as causeless

Your analogy fails given that it requires a triangle. You do not get fire without fuel. You do not get fire without oxygen, you do not get fire without heat. What is the value of your analogy, it requires more than one, (three in fact)?

the value of the analogy is that it highlights issues of contingency.

IOW its not an issue of "fire" + "nothing".
Rather it is an issue of "fire" + "heat" + "smoke" etc
(and as you so adroitly pointed out, you look for issues of contingency in the other direction, since a fire is not causeless)

Regardless, I think we've finished with your idea of "nothing"

You're looking at a result and claiming that the result is god (lol, when is god ever a "result" which is what your 'fire' actually is - yes, "fire" is a result of various creators).

actually it was a response to your suggestion that all understandings of god suggest there was "god" + "nothing".

Once again, just in case you missed it in the above responses, the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

Have you got that?

Concede the analogy as stupid or continue arguing flawed analogies. What instead you should be considering is that the parts are gods and that the result is actually the result of having gods. So... you have a god named "heat", you have a god named "fuel" and you have a god named "oxygen".

And the god called "space" (or the place in which all things rest/exist) is the one that has privy to a quality that none other can, namely, omnipotency, etc etc

You end up with something called "fire". It's equal creation and is quite recognisable in life. It's symmetry of "parts". This holds true in life all the time - as an analogy consider what it takes just to create life. No my friend, it's not just one - it's teamwork, (you both did it intentionally at the very same time whilst being equally powerful).

A discussion of the symmetry of parts does not discuss how they are caused.
If it were otherwise, they would have scope to language other than the tacit.

“
Stating that god is immaterial is often a term that sits comfortably with atheists
”
I disagree although I can't guarantee that I, an atheist, know anymore atheists than you do. Frankly, as an atheist, I contend that the word 'immaterial' sits very uncomfortably with atheists. It's somewhat akin to non-existent.

And you don't see a stark connection between the philosophy that god doesn't exist" and a stated position of "non-existence" on the subject?

“
since they are very agreeable to the notion of a god that can't bear any influence in the world
”
Peculiar. You're the one that said immaterial entities can't bear any influence on the material world.

I did?

I contend that they can but then, unlike you, I don't put such restrictions on 'omnipotence'.

I'm not sure you read the response properly.
I was discussing the modus operandi of atheism.

“
Can you see the absurdity of positing omnipotence in a linear time frame or do you require more details?
”
I don't need to resort to reading other threads - that's for certain.

Pity your reserves of magnanimity don't permit you to read the single post linked

I notice you haven't contested my statement so if you wouldn't mind doing so or conceding.

I guess you have the choice of undergoing the rigors or a single mouse click or maintaining the demeanor of a paranoid schizophrenic being chased through a minefield by aliens.

:shrug:

“
Omnipotence does not override logic
”
Nobody, (but you apparently), ever said it does. I have maximum power as do you. You choose to make a flying banana for some bizarre reason. It does not in any logical way negate my ability to go back in time, undo your creation and do it for myself. Of course there's no actual reason to - unless we don't get along but why wouldn't we?

Once again, issues of secondary creation (something which you can comfortably place a flying banana) can involve any number of "creators".
Issues of primary creation (such as space, time, etc) are necessarily singular.
Such is the nature of objects and their activities and the space or categories they utilize.

“
For instance demanding an omnipotent entity create a square circle is more of an exhibition of one's limitations of language use than anything else ...
”
Oh most certainly. I wouldn't expect any omnipotent entity to create a married bachelor or something similar. Can you kindly, if you get a moment, explain the comparison between the ability to create or to go back in time and undo something as being a logical absurdity in the nature of married bachelors. Many thanks.

about 300 words for your enlightenment.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Me? No I was quoting. Did you mis the ""s?



Throw a wine and cheese and invite the philosophy dept. At the door hand every one a philosophy d'jour.

Philosophy academics are usually pretty down to earth.
They realise that their profession is borderline ridiculous, but they are philosphical about it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Hence the folly of terming fire as causeless

Eh? I don't remember saying fire was causeless. Having said that, I do drink a lot so I might have missed it. Kindly point it out to me before continuing.

IOW its not an issue of "fire" + "nothing".
Rather it is an issue of "fire" + "heat" + "smoke" etc

Umm no - "fire" is the result, it's not a part of the creators, (heat, oxygen, fuel).

(and as you so adroitly pointed out, you look for issues of contingency in the other direction, since a fire is not causeless)

I don't understand. If you're saying that a fire isn't causeless, (which it isn't), but a god is causeless, then we might as well just abandon the analogy and wonder why you even mentioned it in the first place.

the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

The analogy uses a caused material entity (loose usage of 'entity') and somehow you think that fits in this discussion how? The gods aren't caused entities, they just are.

And the god called "space"...

What? Space is a 'creation', it's an effect.

A discussion of the symmetry of parts does not discuss how they are caused.

What? They're gods, they're uncaused.

And you don't see a stark connection between the philosophy that god doesn't exist" and a stated position of "non-existence" on the subject?

What is this even relevant to

Peculiar. You're the one that said immaterial entities can't bear any influence on the material world. ”
I did?

I don't think I have ever phrased god as being immaterial .... mainly because the notion of an immaterial thing bearing a consequence on a material thing poses problems.

Ok, you said "problems", my bad.

I was discussing the modus operandi of atheism.

With respect, but I have long since got over listening to theists explanations of what atheists are, do, believe or how they operate.

Pity your reserves of magnanimity don't permit you to read the single post linked

With respect, I'm a rather busy person that can't just go through another entire thread just to find whatever it is you expect me to find there. Can't you just summarise it here?

I guess you have the choice of undergoing the rigors or a single mouse click or maintaining the demeanor of a paranoid schizophrenic being chased through a minefield by aliens.

Unfortunately this pointless waffle doesn't argue against my statement. Where did this garbage even come from?

Once again, issues of secondary creation (something which you can comfortably place a flying banana) can involve any number of "creators".
Issues of primary creation (such as space, time, etc) are necessarily singular.

Incorrect, any act of creation can involve multiple beings. If you contend that any act of creation cannot involve multiple entities, kindly show why.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Hence the folly of terming fire as causeless
”
Eh? I don't remember saying fire was causeless. Having said that, I do drink a lot so I might have missed it. Kindly point it out to me before continuing.

Perhaps it is the alcohol that made you unaware that you were talking about the causes of fire as some sort of "checkmate" on the whole analogy

Maybe you need a bigger font.

Me - Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.
”
You - Kind of like without heat, fuel and oxygen you don't have fire

“
IOW its not an issue of "fire" + "nothing".
Rather it is an issue of "fire" + "heat" + "smoke" etc
”
Umm no - "fire" is the result, it's not a part of the creators, (heat, oxygen, fuel).

errr ... actually I was talking about the results of fire

“
(and as you so adroitly pointed out, you look for issues of contingency in the other direction, since a fire is not causeless)
”
I don't understand. If you're saying that a fire isn't causeless, (which it isn't), but a god is causeless, then we might as well just abandon the analogy and wonder why you even mentioned it in the first place.

Once again, just in case you missed it in the above responses, the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

“
the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.
”
The analogy uses a caused material entity (loose usage of 'entity') and somehow you think that fits in this discussion how? The gods aren't caused entities, they just are.

Perhaps your comments would be relevant to a discussion of causelessness. Perhaps we can move onto that topic after we have finished with the one at hand, namely, contingency.

“
And the god called "space"...
”
What? Space is a 'creation', it's an effect.

Really?
like fuel, heat and oxygen ....
?

“
A discussion of the symmetry of parts does not discuss how they are caused.
”
What? They're gods, they're uncaused.

Then I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining space (or more specifically, omnipotency, etc)

“
And you don't see a stark connection between the philosophy that god doesn't exist" and a stated position of "non-existence" on the subject?
”
What is this even relevant to

your suggestion that the notion of a non-existent god strikes terror into the hearts of atheists

“
I was discussing the modus operandi of atheism.
”
With respect, but I have long since got over listening to theists explanations of what atheists are, do, believe or how they operate.

I wasn't aware that stating atheists are most at home with the notion of a non-existent god is a radical take on the philosophy.
“

Pity your reserves of magnanimity don't permit you to read the single post linked
”
With respect, I'm a rather busy person that can't just go through another entire thread just to find whatever it is you expect me to find there.

hence my benevolence it linking a single post of about 300 words

Can't you just summarise it here?

I thought it convenient to link due to its short and concise nature

“
I guess you have the choice of undergoing the rigors or a single mouse click or maintaining the demeanor of a paranoid schizophrenic being chased through a minefield by aliens.
”
Unfortunately this pointless waffle doesn't argue against my statement. Where did this garbage even come from?

.... off to the minefield I guess

“
Once again, issues of secondary creation (something which you can comfortably place a flying banana) can involve any number of "creators".
Issues of primary creation (such as space, time, etc) are necessarily singular.
”
Incorrect, any act of creation can involve multiple beings. If you contend that any act of creation cannot involve multiple entities, kindly show why.

For more details of the "why", just try and replace your flying banana with an issue from the primary creation.

 

[SnakeLord]

Me - Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.
”
You - Kind of like without heat, fuel and oxygen you don't have fire

I don't see how this answers that which followed on from your accusation. Here it is again:

Eh? I don't remember saying fire was causeless.

errr ... actually I was talking about the results of fire

Why are we talking about results instead of causes?

the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

Wait.. You say there can't be multiple gods and then mention how fire causes smoke and hence... what with relevance to anything?

Really?
like fuel, heat and oxygen ....
?

Yes.. and fire and so on. How does this help?

Then I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining space (or more specifically, omnipotency, etc)

The gods caused it. 'Space' is a result of the creation of the gods. What now?

your suggestion that the notion of a non-existent god strikes terror into the hearts of atheists

Where did I suggest that the notion of non-existent gods strikes terror into the 'hearts' of atheists? Kindly quote it.

I wasn't aware that stating atheists are most at home with the notion of a non-existent god is a radical take on the philosophy

Wtf? You said that atheists were comfortable and at home with the notion of 'immaterial', I said that typically the notion of 'immaterial' typically sits alongside the notion of non-existent. Are you actually awake at the moment or should we perhaps just do this later?

For more details of the "why", just try and replace your flying banana with an issue from the primary creation.

Banana replaced. So there were multiple gods that engaged in multiple creation. What now?

 

[lightgigantic]

“
Me - Kind of like wherever you have fire you have smoke, heat and light.
”
You - Kind of like without heat, fuel and oxygen you don't have fire
”
I don't see how this answers that which followed on from your accusation. Here it is again:

Eh? I don't remember saying fire was causeless.

Then please explain why pointing out fire is contingent on other ingredients in order to display things like smoke, heat and light is such a problem.

“
errr ... actually I was talking about the results of fire
”
Why are we talking about results instead of causes?

because we are in the middle of discussing contingency and not causes/causelessness.

Once again, its a noble topic to embark on, and perhaps we can begin on it once we finish with the one on hand.

“
the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.
”
Wait.. You say there can't be multiple gods and then mention how fire causes smoke and hence... what with relevance to anything?

Analyzing the relationship between smoke, heat and light is an analysis of contingency (wherever there is smoke there is fire, although smoke doesn't, necessarily, cause fire).
In the same manner, god is attributed as having certain contingent potencies that always accompany him (such as the material manifestation and the host of living entities for instance).
IOW a discussion of god and nothing is as ridiculous as a discussion of fire and nothing.

Whining about how even fire is dependent on other things in order to manifest smoke etc (IOW discussing the causes of fire) simply points out that fire is not causeless (unlike the claimed position of god).

I was using fire to discuss issues of contingency
You are using fire to discuss issues of cause.

Once again, the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes ... repeat ..... the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

comprendo?

”
The gods caused it. 'Space' is a result of the creation of the gods. What now?

Then, by necessity, you have entities that cannot occupy the position of omni-present

“
I wasn't aware that stating atheists are most at home with the notion of a non-existent god is a radical take on the philosophy
”
Wtf? You said that atheists were comfortable and at home with the notion of 'immaterial', I said that typically the notion of 'immaterial' typically sits alongside the notion of non-existent. Are you actually awake at the moment or should we perhaps just do this later?

Its never struck you that atheists commonly refer to god being non-existent?

“
For more details of the "why", just try and replace your flying banana with an issue from the primary creation.
”
Banana replaced. So there were multiple gods that engaged in multiple creation. What now?

Your multitude of gods can't occupy the "omni" position

 

[Hapsburg]

Your multitude of gods can't occupy the "omni" position

Which doesn't stop them from being gods. At all.

 

[Doreen]

Which doesn't stop them from being gods. At all.

Somewhere in all this is a struggle between immanence and transcendence and concreteness and abstractness. I think when the latter qualities are seen as better, the former must be looked at as degraded, base, polluted, incomplete, shadows on the wall or the like. Sadly enough.
and I agree with you.....

 

[SnakeLord]

Then please explain why pointing out fire is contingent on other ingredients in order to display things like smoke, heat and light is such a problem.

"Fire" is created by more than one 'entity' and hence I don't see where your analogy has any relevance in this thread. You are trying to argue that there can only be one god while using something created by several creators as an analogy. Apologies but that's silly and fallacious.

Fire is not only created by several creators but also creates several things of its own. This does not in any way whatsoever argue against multiple creators, infact it relies upon it.

In the same manner, god is attributed as having certain contingent potencies that always accompany him

Interestingly they involve personal attributes, not things like 'space' - which is a creation. If space, (hence the universe and everything in it), is 'god' then what are we even talking about? God is dog poop [which is a part of the universe etc]?

IOW a discussion of god and nothing is as ridiculous as a discussion of fire and nothing.

Only if you consider this 'god' a created entity - just like "fire", which is created by three 'beings'.

Whining about how even fire is dependent on other things in order to manifest smoke etc (IOW discussing the causes of fire) simply points out that fire is not causeless (unlike the claimed position of god).

With respect but you're the one that raised the entire fire analogy without even recognising that 'fire' is a created entity. If you're now saying that it's silly to compare gods with fire, (I agree), then there goes your analogy. If gods are causeless, you can't argue that there can be only one.

the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.

No - the analogy illustrates that created entities such as fire, rely on several creators and likewise create several other things. If you contend - as you do - that space, (which includes everything), is a property of this god, then you can't make claim to it being a creating entity. Everything that exists is god, claiming that it "creates" is redundant.

Then, by necessity, you have entities that cannot occupy the position of omni-present

Utter nonsense - gods are immaterial and omnipotent - they can do anything they want.

Its never struck you that atheists commonly refer to god being non-existent?

What in the world has this got to do with your original statement and my disagreement with it? Please, do explain..

Analyzing the relationship between smoke, heat and light is an analysis of contingency (wherever there is smoke there is fire, although smoke doesn't, necessarily, cause fire)

You're talking an outcome, a creation of something: (in this case heat/fuel and oxygen which creates fire which creates smoke, light, burnt buildings and dead people).

Now.. I don't even understand your statement in brackets.. Who is suggesting that "smoke" causes fire? "Smoke" never causes fire - heat, fuel and oxygen do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which doesn't stop them from being gods. At all.

sure, but they occupy the position of being products of universe as opposed to producers of the universe

 

[Hapsburg]

How? Polytheism isn't of one set theology. There's many different ways of looking at the gods; some of which see them as the be-all-end-all creators of existence. Some, OTOH, see them as creations of a higher god, and themselves the creators and maintainers of the physical universe. And various other views.

Either way, my point still stands: it doesn't stop them from being gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Then please explain why pointing out fire is contingent on other ingredients in order to display things like smoke, heat and light is such a problem.
”
"Fire" is created by more than one 'entity' and hence I don't see where your analogy has any relevance in this thread.

I brought up the analogy as a critique of your suggestion that there was god + nothing.
I brought it up to suggest that just like it is ridiculous to discuss fire + nothing (since it has contingent potencies like smoke and heat), it is ridiculous to discuss god + nothing.

In short, its ridiculous to discuss an energetic source bereft of energy.

There are a range of analogies one could bring up to illustrate this. I could just have easily used a light bulb and its light, a magnet and its magnetic force or even a rose and its aroma. In all of these examples, they all fall short of being causeless.

I didn't anticipate this being a problem since most people understand that an analogy bears a similarity to a singular aspect. For instance when a father describes his daughter as beautiful as the sun, he usually doesn't mean that she has an exceptional gravitational force that threatens to absorb all nearby objects within her fiery effulgence.

You are trying to argue that there can only be one god while using something created by several creators as an analogy. Apologies but that's silly and fallacious.

I agree

Much like it is silly and ridiculous to describe one's daughter as capable of incinerating the surface of the earth and potentially capable of ending life as we know it.

Nevertheless, some persons still insist on using the analogy of the sun to describe their daughter.

Fire is not only created by several creators but also creates several things of its own. This does not in any way whatsoever argue against multiple creators, infact it relies upon it.

similarly, the sun is created by universal agents over eons of time, and not by a human man and woman who have a maximum life expectancy of around 100 years.

“
In the same manner, god is attributed as having certain contingent potencies that always accompany him
”
Interestingly they involve personal attributes, not things like 'space' - which is a creation.

A little bit of reading on the subject suggests otherwise.
Google prakriti, mahat tattva, pradhana, etc etc

If space, (hence the universe and everything in it), is 'god' then what are we even talking about?

the relationship between space and an omnipresent personality, and the necessity of it being singular.

Given your preference for the minefield, its obvious you haven't stopped to consider exactly how two (equally) omnipresent personalities can co-exist.

God is dog poop [which is a part of the universe etc]?

no more than your anus is just like your mouth since its connected by the same surface

“
IOW a discussion of god and nothing is as ridiculous as a discussion of fire and nothing.
”
Only if you consider this 'god' a created entity - just like "fire", which is created by three 'beings'.

Er.... No

Regardless of whether god is causeless or caused, it still remains ridiculous to describe it as god + nothing.

Much like regardless of whether fire is causeless or caused, it still remains ridiculous to describe it as being bereft of smoke, heat etc.

“
Whining about how even fire is dependent on other things in order to manifest smoke etc (IOW discussing the causes of fire) simply points out that fire is not causeless (unlike the claimed position of god).
”
With respect but you're the one that raised the entire fire analogy without even recognising that 'fire' is a created entity.

Actually you are the one who failed to recognize that the analogy was about contingency ... which is ironic since you initiated it with "god + nothing"

If you're now saying that it's silly to compare gods with fire, (I agree), then there goes your analogy. If gods are causeless, you can't argue that there can be only one.

If you have "god + nothing" you can't argue anything (anymore than you can argue what a fire is capable of when you insist it has no heat, smoke, etc)

“
the analogy illustrates issues of contingency and not being the cause of all causes.
”
No - the analogy illustrates that created entities such as fire, rely on several creators and likewise create several other things.

perhaps if one insists on using it as an analogy to illustrate cause.

I, however, used it to illustrate contingency.

Strange as it seems, I was following the intelligence of your argument. It was a response to your statement about god + nothing. IOW you made the suggestion that god is bereft of contingent potencies, thus I raised fire, as an analogy to counter that.

If you contend - as you do - that space, (which includes everything), is a property of this god, then you can't make claim to it being a creating entity. Everything that exists is god, claiming that it "creates" is redundant.

what do you suppose is the relationship between space and an omnipresent personality?

“
Then, by necessity, you have entities that cannot occupy the position of omni-present
”
Utter nonsense - gods are immaterial and omnipotent - they can do anything they want.

immaterial is impotent

IOW something that has zero contingent potencies can't do jack shit.

“
Its never struck you that atheists commonly refer to god being non-existent?
”
What in the world has this got to do with your original statement and my disagreement with it? Please, do explain..

your atheistic delight in the notion of an immaterial god of course

“
Analyzing the relationship between smoke, heat and light is an analysis of contingency (wherever there is smoke there is fire, although smoke doesn't, necessarily, cause fire)
”
You're talking an outcome, a creation of something: (in this case heat/fuel and oxygen which creates fire which creates smoke, light, burnt buildings and dead people).

wow

seems like your finally on the J curve

now try and imagine how many people would die in a fire that has zero contingent potencies (such as smoke and heat)

Now.. I don't even understand your statement in brackets.. Who is suggesting that "smoke" causes fire? "Smoke" never causes fire - heat, fuel and oxygen do.

fancy that, eh

 

[lightgigantic]

How? Polytheism isn't of one set theology.

there is a philosophical requirement for singularity when you start to breach issues of omnipotency, omnipresence, etc.
For instance try and explain how two equally omnipresent and omnipotent personalities can co-exist.

Some, OTOH, see them as creations of a higher god, and themselves the creators and maintainers of the physical universe. And various other views.
There's many different ways of looking at the gods; some of which see them as the be-all-end-all creators of existence.

the moment you start moving into issues of omnihood however, the pantheon becomes reduced to a singular aspect.

For instance the mayavada (vedic polytheism, if you like) take of many gods sees them as expansions of the brahmajyoti.

The greek pantheon sees them as having arisen from the "chos".

Of course if you are simply concerned with issues of secondary creation (like planets, galaxies or even as snakelord suggested, flying bananas) as opposed to primary creation (or the "stuff" of creation, eg space, time, etc), you can entertain a billion different gods comfortably.

Either way, my point still stands: it doesn't stop them from being gods.

and thus my point stands - they remain products of the universe as opposed to producers of it

 

[swarm]

there is a philosophical requirement for singularity when you start to breach issues of omnipotency, omnipresence, etc.

Only if you are concerned about "authority."

For instance try and explain how two equally omnipresent and omnipotent personalities can co-exist.

Equally, through perfect cooperation and harmony. You godders sure don't consider these things very deeply.

the moment you start moving into issues of omnihood however, the pantheon becomes reduced to a singular aspect.

Of course not.

many gods sees them as expansions of the brahmajyoti.

The greek pantheon sees them as having arisen from the "chos".

And we came from the earth, but that doesn't mean we are the earth or the earth is a super personalty or some form of super human.

Singularity is just personal hubris and spiritual selfishness projected on the god fantasy.

they remain products of the universe as opposed to producers of it

All formulation of god/s are merely products of human imagination.

 

[SnakeLord]

I brought up the analogy as a critique of your suggestion that there was god + nothing.

Try again then. There were gods and nothing else. Using 'fire', (a created thing) in reference to the gods is meaningless idiocy.

I brought it up to suggest that just like it is ridiculous to discuss fire + nothing (since it has contingent potencies like smoke and heat), it is ridiculous to discuss god + nothing.

Hence the problem: Fire is a creation.

I could just have easily used a light bulb and its light, a magnet and its magnetic force or even a rose and its aroma. In all of these examples, they all fall short of being causeless.

Oh my goodness, you're right! All of the examples you use are creations!! Now try an analogy with something that isn't a creation. If you don't, it's inapplicable to gods.

I didn't anticipate this being a problem since most people understand that an analogy bears a similarity to a singular aspect.

Aye, and most people understand that there's no point whatsoever in giving an analogy that is irrelevant. Why are you giving me an analogy regarding created entities in reference to uncreated ones? We have a few words we use for such people.

Much like it is silly and ridiculous to describe one's daughter as capable of incinerating the surface of the earth and potentially capable of ending life as we know it.

Wtf?

A little bit of reading on the subject suggests otherwise.

I apologise but ancient Indian texts are not a sufficient argument against the statement that there could be many gods.

Given your preference for the minefield, its obvious you haven't stopped to consider exactly how two (equally) omnipresent personalities can co-exist

Incorrect, I've already explained it. You refused it on the basis of [insert irrelevant analogy concerning created entities here].

no more than your anus is just like your mouth since its connected by the same surface

Incorrect, butt and mouth occupy different space and contain different atoms. Not so for omnipresence which is a part of them all.

Regardless of whether god is causeless or caused, it still remains ridiculous to describe it as god + nothing.

You're one for statements, not one for explanations. I offer you the chance.

If you have "god + nothing" you can't argue anything

Kindly explain.

IOW you made the suggestion that god is bereft of contingent potencies, thus I raised fire, as an analogy to counter that.

I see, the old fallacy that that within the universe is applicable to that outside of it. So basically atoms are invisible to the human eye, you're composed of atoms - hence you're invisible to the human eye. I get it, it's a fallacy. I don't do them, kindly try again.

No my friend, you can't be using created within the universe entities as an analogy to anything beyond it. Originally there were just gods, no universes to mention. They all co-opted to make a universe/s and that's that. It's got no relevance to fire.

what do you suppose is the relationship between space and an omnipresent personality?

They made it. To use an analogy, it's like you and your buddies all getting together to make... a fire. Further from that it's like the three things that went together to make that fire work.

immaterial is impotent

Awaiting evidence.

your atheistic delight in the notion of an immaterial god of course

Wtf? I don't believe in gods, (hence why I'm called an atheist, although that's seemingly lost on you), hence no "delight" in notions of gods - be they immaterial or material. What are you talking about pal?

now try and imagine how many people would die in a fire that has zero contingent potencies

What has this got to do with entirely uncreated entities that are dependant upon nothing other than nothing? (yes, your analogy of "fire" is dependant upon other things). Kindly explain to me where your analogy is relevant to anything.

fancy that, eh

Fancy what, your ignorance? No thank you.

My statement for benefit: "Now.. I don't even understand your statement in brackets.. Who is suggesting that "smoke" causes fire? "Smoke" never causes fire - heat, fuel and oxygen do."

No doofus, smoke does not cause fire.

 

[Hapsburg]

For instance try and explain how two equally omnipresent and omnipotent personalities can co-exist.

Irrelevant. You are stuck in the "omni" definition of god.
That is not my god(s). So, your rambling about omnipotence and singularity has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

and thus my point stands - they remain products of the universe as opposed to producers of it

No, they remain products of other gods. If that is "the universe", then so be it. Once a-fucking-gain: it does not stop them from being gods. What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there is a philosophical requirement for singularity when you start to breach issues of omnipotency, omnipresence, etc.
”
Only if you are concerned about "authority."

well yeah .... the authority of philosophy

“
For instance try and explain how two equally omnipresent and omnipotent personalities can co-exist.
”
Equally, through perfect cooperation and harmony. You godders sure don't consider these things very deeply.

I wasn't asking how they would get along (which is already assuming that they can already co-exist)
The problems of two equally omnipresent and omnipotent personalities co-existing is greatly similar to the problems that surround placing two litres in a one litre jug.

IOW if you have even one omnipotent and omnipresent personality, the very definitions of these words exclude the possibility of another one in the same medium .... and if you want to talk about several different mediums housing the several different personalities, once again we are back at issues of secondary creation.

“
the moment you start moving into issues of omnihood however, the pantheon becomes reduced to a singular aspect.
”
Of course not.

Of course if one is not inclined to think deeply about such matters, perhaps they might be inclined to follow such trains of thought ....

“
many gods sees them as expansions of the brahmajyoti.

The greek pantheon sees them as having arisen from the "chos".
”
And we came from the earth, but that doesn't mean we are the earth or the earth is a super personalty or some form of super human.

It means we owe our cause to something else and cannot lay claim to the title of "omnipotent".

Singularity is just personal hubris and spiritual selfishness projected on the god fantasy.

Actually its about the philosophical requirements the word "omnipotent" and the relationship it has with cause.
“

they remain products of the universe as opposed to producers of it
”
All formulation of god/s are merely products of human imagination.

Sure

Its obvious that's the way you imagine it.