Why God, Why not Gods?

[lightgigantic]

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.

Then I guess you have a critically disabled definition of god(s) since effects require potency.

(I understand however that many atheists feel more comfortable with their world outlook by entertaining critically disabled definitions of god(s))

Once again, regardless whether one accepts god or fire as caused or causeless, there is still the requirement for potency

“
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.

would you argue that a theoretically causeless fire wouldn't have smoke or heat?

“
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.

Interesting.

God is attributed as having the unique quality of being causeless and now you want an analogy to illustrate this.

“
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.

errr ... I was giving you the analogy about contingency since you brought up the topic about a contingency-less god ("god + nothing").
:shrug:

“
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?

Well what the hell do you think a person is describing when they say their daughter is a beautiful as the sun? Her creation ?

“
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.

More sufficient than your uninformed hearsay on the role god is assumed to play in the phenomenal world

Snakelord - Interestingly they involve personal attributes, not things like 'space' - which is a creation.
“

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].

I guess I was awaiting something more philosophical than what you've tenured.

“
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.

I guess there is some recourse that you can at least distinguish between part and parcels when it comes to tableside manners if not philosophy.

“
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.

Hopefully the bit in bold won't slip your web browser this time

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.

“
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.

Given that your clues that surround the workings of this universe are few and far between, its not clear what body of knowledge you are calling upon to determine the nature of a spiritual universe (or even the relationship between a spiritual and material universe).

Actually at this point I am simply bringing to your attention that in order to bear an effect, a potency must be present.
You may have an idea that something capable of bearing an effect does not have as a potency, but at this point it seems to be an idea painfully lacking in philosophy.

“
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.

So what do you suppose an omnipresent personality is occupying before they create space?
Or even better, in the absence of space, how do you propose that several omnipresent personalities come together to begin creating it?

“
immaterial is impotent
”
Awaiting evidence.

If you are awaiting evidence of the immaterial bearing potency, you have a longer wait ahead of you ......

“
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?

the practical requirements for atheism

“
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?

the fact that if their potencies are also nothing, they can't create a brass razoo.

(yes, your analogy of "fire" is dependant upon other things).

Much like the analogy of one's daughter being just like the sun indicates that her cause is due to universal shifts over eons of time?

Kindly explain to me where your analogy is relevant to anything.

The bit in where I write in bold "its an analogy about contingency, not cause".

Seriously, I don't know whether you are just pretending to be stupid or being very good at it.

“
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.

/applause

 

[lightgigantic]

Habsburg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

Inasmuch as philosophy is stuck in an omni defintion of god who has a jurisdiction beyond secondary creation

That is not my god(s).

hence you have a god(s) that is a product of the universe and not a producer of it

So, your rambling about omnipotence and singularity has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

If you have no need to discuss primary creation, you have no need to discuss omni

“
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?

the part where you don't reconcile the philosophical requirements of the secondary creation versus the primary one.

 

[swarm]

well yeah .... the authority of philosophy

Didn't you know? Philosophy has no inherant authority.

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.

No at all. They can coexist without any problem what so ever. Just like angels never over crowd a pin when they hold a dance.

IOW if you have even one omnipotent and omnipresent personality, the very definitions of these words exclude the possibility of another one

Well so you are unimaginative. What does that have to do with it?

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

No we don't and so?

 

[lightgigantic]

Didn't you know? Philosophy has no inherant authority.

If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category

For instance the word "omnipresent" holds certain significance in philosophical discourse
:shrug:

No at all. They can coexist without any problem what so ever. Just like angels never over crowd a pin when they hold a dance.

I think you need to take time out to examine the philosophical significance behind the words "omnipresent" and "omnipotent"

Well so you are unimaginative. What does that have to do with it?

I guess I could imagine that you have provided a sound philosophical explanation for the problem

No we don't and so?

... and so the nature of being caused (or even contingent upon something else) means one cannot lay claim to being omnipotent.

IOW the statement "omnipotent god who is caused by a different god" is an oxymoron.

 

[swarm]

If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category

Negotiate it as a category? Could we get more obtuse?:bugeye:

Philosophy neither has nor needs inherant authority.

For instance the word "omnipresent" holds certain significance in philosophical discourse

All words can hold "certain significance" in philosophical discourse. There is nothing special about "omnipresent" as a word or a concept, nor is it fixed in its meaning.

I think you need to take time out to examine the philosophical significance behind the words "omnipresent" and "omnipotent"

Ok, done. Now you explain why I should limit gods' capacities to your faulty understanding of "omnipresent" and "omnipotent?"

Let's face it. You've no use for actual gods. You just want to play pretend where you get to dictate what is or isn't gods.

you have provided a sound philosophical explanation for the problem

What problem?

... and so the nature of being caused (or even contingent upon something else) means one cannot lay claim to being omnipotent.

There is no necessary relationship there.

It just means one wasn't always omnipotent.:shrug:

IOW the statement "omnipotent god who is caused by a different god" is an oxymoron.

Poor god can't reproduce? How boring.

Again, your lack of imagination is not a limit on god.

 

[WarAgainstError]

Polytheism is illogical.

 

[scifes]

it's also impossible, not to mention stupid and inane, add to it impractical and a waste of time.

 

[spidergoat]

Polytheism is illogical.

No more illogical than theism.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

We always talk about a Single God who is hypothesized to be the creator of everything except himself.
But, won't it be possible that it could be more than 1 God?
2,3,4,5,.........infinity Gods out there?

True. However, monotheism is more useful for creating the following exchange:

Theist: Who created the universe?
Skeptic: I don't suppose anyone did.
Theist: So you are claiming that the universe does not exist. How can you prove this?

Of course, the theist is lying here, for the skeptic has only claimed that he or she does not suppose that anyone created the universe. I have a theory that what makes a person a theist is being born completely without any moral conscience. In any case, being determined that there is only "one supreme being" is simply easier for a person who is truly determined to be a shithead.

 

[lightgigantic]

Swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category
”
Negotiate it as a category? Could we get more obtuse?

Philosophy neither has nor needs inherant authority.

If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category

IOW if there are no set of behaviors or qualities to determine a "thing" (or category), you have no means to discuss it (or negotiate it).

“
For instance the word "omnipresent" holds certain significance in philosophical discourse
”
All words can hold "certain significance" in philosophical discourse. There is nothing special about "omnipresent" as a word or a concept, nor is it fixed in its meaning.

If you want to talk about omnipresent meaning something other than fully present in all spaces at all times, you probably need a different word
:shrug:

“
I think you need to take time out to examine the philosophical significance behind the words "omnipresent" and "omnipotent"
”
Ok, done. Now you explain why I should limit gods' capacities to your faulty understanding of "omnipresent" and "omnipotent?"

I guess something straight off the bat is that if something is already occupying all spaces at all times it precludes the possibility of a similarly equipped second party coming along too.

Similarly if something is given to be the reservoir of all potencies, it begs the question how one can talk of it owing its cause to something other (since any cause derives from potency)

Let's face it. You've no use for actual gods. You just want to play pretend where you get to dictate what is or isn't gods.

Its more the case that I have a passionate distaste for persons who make religious assertions divorced from philosophy

“
... and so the nature of being caused (or even contingent upon something else) means one cannot lay claim to being omnipotent.
”
There is no necessary relationship there.

It just means one wasn't always omnipotent.

then that must make them constitutionally subservient to the potency of time and therefore not omnipotent

“
IOW the statement "omnipotent god who is caused by a different god" is an oxymoron.
”
Poor god can't reproduce? How boring.

I guess its fascinating to contemplate square circles and married bachelors. Unfortunately philosophy has yet to come to that benchmark.

Again, your lack of imagination is not a limit on god.

And your predominance of imagination is a poor substitute for philosophy
:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

Then I guess you have a critically disabled definition of god(s) since effects require potency.

Seemingly it is you that has the disabled definition in that you think that 'space' is something that travels around with god - something he is incapable of being separate from, (like a fire can't help but produce smoke, [it's inept in that regard]). With respect young man, your definition is foolish.

Once again, regardless whether one accepts god or fire as caused or causeless, there is still the requirement for potency

Uh uh... effects are results of causes. You have a cause and you then have an effect, (heat/oxygen and fuel causes fire which in turn causes smoke). What you're trying to do - for some bizarre reason - is claim that your god is like fire, (in that it's.. not created but that it has no choice but to produce effects that are dependant upon it and that it can't help but produce). This is idiotic theology.

would you argue that a theoretically causeless fire wouldn't have smoke or heat?

Is that 'fire' god or is it just a fire that can't help but cause things like smoke - even if it didn't want to?

God is attributed as having the unique quality of being causeless and now you want an analogy to illustrate this

No, kindly wait until you're awake to respond. You are attempting to suggest that god, (like fire), can't help but create or produce certain outcomes. I say you're full of crap or, if you're not full of crap, that you've just reduced omnipotence to meaninglessness. It cannot help but create or produce 'space', (as fire produces smoke) and therefore.. well, your god is little more than a space mushroom.

Well what the hell do you think a person is describing when they say their daughter is a beautiful as the sun? Her creation ?

Forgive me, I don't understand the language of irrelevant bo**ocks. What is the relevance of your statement? Kindly scroll back to the post it followed on from and explain to me its relevance. Many thanks.

More sufficient than your uninformed hearsay on the role god is assumed to play in the phenomenal world

Kindly establish that as being the case. Whenever you're ready.

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

You can't make the statement of caused and causeless fire, (because you've never met a causeless fire). Furthermore, I'm uncertain exactly why you're using argument from composition, (everything I see within the universe must apply beyond it). Here's your argument:

1. I am made from atoms
2. Atoms are invisible to the human eye
3. I am invisible to the human eye.

You cannot use something observable within the universe and think that it applies beyond it. In the case of gods, trying to compare them to a created entity, (fire), and saying that they therefore must produce space, (smoke), is utter idiocy that one wouldn't expect from a 13 year old theology student.

What I want from you right now is an explanation as to why a god or gods must produce smoke. Whenever you're ready.

Given that your clues that surround the workings of this universe are few and far between, its not clear what body of knowledge you are calling upon to determine the nature of a spiritual universe

My apologies, this is how debates work. In the meantime, I will certainly give you the opportunity right now to clarify what "body of knowledge", (and I don't take the word knowledge loosely as some of you fools seemingly do), you are calling upon to determine that a god or gods must produce material things such as smoke or 'space' and how material things, (such as smoke or space), are applicable to the "spiritual".

So what do you suppose an omnipresent personality is occupying before they create space?

I'm sorry, why this materialistic view? Why would they be "occupying" anything? What exactly do you suggest, block of flats?

Or even better, in the absence of space, how do you propose that several omnipresent personalities come together to begin creating it?

Again; They're immaterial. Saying "space" or absence thereof is utterly meaningless. 'Space' applies to a very material creation. No lg, gods do not live by the milky way.

/applause

:shrug: You claim that smoke causes fire, I tell you it doesn't, you applaud? What are you, an imbecile?

 

[Hapsburg]

hence you have a god(s) that is a product of the universe and not a producer of it

Not really. I have gods that are products of other gods. I guess if you back enough, they're products of the universe, i.e. The All or Supreme Good. But, again, that doesn't stop them from beings gods. So, I don't get where you're getting the idea that, just because they're created by a higher god, that they're not gods themselves. That they are not omnipotent, or creations of another god, is not an argument against polytheism.

the part where you don't reconcile the philosophical requirements of the secondary creation versus the primary one.

I must have missed what you were talking about. What do you mean by "primary" and "secondary" creation?

 

[swarm]

If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category

Well except for your being completely wrong about it.

IOW if there are no set of behaviors or qualities to determine a "thing" (or category), you have no means to discuss it (or negotiate it).

There are no sets of inherent behaviors or qualities determined by the "authority" of philosophy. Instead we make observations and then arbitrarily organize them in ways we find pleasing for what we care to say.

If you want to talk about omnipresent meaning something other than fully present in all spaces at all times, you probably need a different word

Why? That is hardly the only nonsense definition which can be reasonably attached to the concept. For example, "present" isn't necessary, it could just be "has access to." Also there is no necessary need for "at all times."

So we get something which has access to any possible space at any particular time.

Of course its still BS, but fitting.

BTW, Western gods don't care about being omnipresent so much.

I guess something straight off the bat is that if something is already occupying all spaces at all times it precludes the possibility of a similarly equipped second party coming along too.

Which means there is no god since I'm already occupying this space, based on your definition, or, it means that there could be an infinite number of gods occupying this space since if me and god can fit here there is room for every one!

Similarly if something is given to be the reservoir of all potencies

Oh very weak. "Reservoirs" are easily emptied. I would make them potency itself. Use a bit of imagination. As to how they coexist, they are orthogonal to each other, out of phase as it were.

it begs the question how one can talk of it owing its cause to something other (since any cause derives from potency)

That's so easy you really should work it out yourself.

Its more the case that I have a passionate distaste for persons who make religious assertions divorced from philosophy

Don't hate yourself like that! You probably can't help it.

then that must make them constitutionally subservient to the potency of time and therefore not omnipotent

nope try again.

I guess its fascinating to contemplate square circles and married bachelors. Unfortunately philosophy has yet to come to that benchmark.

Any circle you hang in is bound to be a square circle and back when I was married, I was a married bachelor. A god that can't reproduce is not much of a god.:shrug:

And your predominance of imagination is a poor substitute for philosophy

Out of ideas already?

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If that was the case, it wouldn't be possible to negotiate it as a category
”
Well except for your being completely wrong about it.

Ironically, even the statement "you are wrong about philosophy" requires that a person be held to some authority about what the word as a category entails

:shrug:

“
IOW if there are no set of behaviors or qualities to determine a "thing" (or category), you have no means to discuss it (or negotiate it).
”
There are no sets of inherent behaviors or qualities determined by the "authority" of philosophy. Instead we make observations and then arbitrarily organize them in ways we find pleasing for what we care to say.

Do you notice how you are defining the qualities here or do you need me to place them in italics?

“
If you want to talk about omnipresent meaning something other than fully present in all spaces at all times, you probably need a different word
”
Why? That is hardly the only nonsense definition which can be reasonably attached to the concept. For example, "present" isn't necessary, it could just be "has access to." Also there is no necessary need for "at all times."

actually this idea is more pertinent to a discussion of omnipotent. IOW the ability to be present in all spaces at any given moment requires all potencies.

Arguably there is a connection between omnipotency and omnipresence (you wouldn't expect one without the other), but for the purposes of simplicity, we're trying to focus on the role of omnipresence at the moment (and particularly the relationship space has with such an entity)

So we get something which has access to any possible space at any particular time.

Of course its still BS, but fitting.

BTW, Western gods don't care about being omnipresent so much.

Probably explains the quandary of philosophical difficulties that surround it.

“
I guess something straight off the bat is that if something is already occupying all spaces at all times it precludes the possibility of a similarly equipped second party coming along too.
”
Which means there is no god since I'm already occupying this space,

or alternatively, god permeates the foundations of your existence

based on your definition, or, it means that there could be an infinite number of gods occupying this space since if me and god can fit here there is room for every one!

Except of course for the mild detail that you're not the one laying recourse to omnipresence ......

“
Similarly if something is given to be the reservoir of all potencies
”
Oh very weak. "Reservoirs" are easily emptied.

only if you have an alternative reservoir to empty them into.
For instance a reservoir of water is emptied into a reservoir of space.

If something is the abode of all reservoirs, it doesn't leave many alternatives ....

I would make them potency itself.

Interestingly enough, that's quite an accurate definition of god. IOW being the cause of all causes is to be "potency itself". This distinguishes it from any other object that lays claim to being caused.

Use a bit of imagination. As to how they coexist, they are orthogonal to each other, out of phase as it were.

Even to place things orthogonally requires a few liberties of space

“
it begs the question how one can talk of it owing its cause to something other (since any cause derives from potency)
”
That's so easy you really should work it out yourself.

well do tell

“
Its more the case that I have a passionate distaste for persons who make religious assertions divorced from philosophy
”
Don't hate yourself like that! You probably can't help it.

Actually our relationship with god acts as a prototype for all our other relationships (including out relationship with our very selves)

I guess the standard alternatives to the dysfunctionalism that arises from that in our current state are alcohol plus delusions of sexual grandeur that are never likely to occur (For instance, the song lyrics "I'm gonna love you all night long" means 25 minutes, max, in a majority of cases)

“
then that must make them constitutionally subservient to the potency of time and therefore not omnipotent
”
nope try again.

Balls back in your court

“
I guess its fascinating to contemplate square circles and married bachelors. Unfortunately philosophy has yet to come to that benchmark.
”
Any circle you hang in is bound to be a square circle and back when I was married, I was a married bachelor. A god that can't reproduce is not much of a god.

err .... as I mentioned, philosophy is yet to come to that benchmark ....

“
And your predominance of imagination is a poor substitute for philosophy
”
Out of ideas already?

hehe

Its philosophy that renders ideas doable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hapsburg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hence you have a god(s) that is a product of the universe and not a producer of it
”
Not really. I have gods that are products of other gods. I guess if you back enough, they're products of the universe, i.e. The All or Supreme Good. But, again, that doesn't stop them from beings gods. So, I don't get where you're getting the idea that, just because they're created by a higher god, that they're not gods themselves. That they are not omnipotent, or creations of another god, is not an argument against polytheism.

its an argument that relegates the roles of all polytheistic entities outside of arena of summum bonum.

Sure one can call them gods, but they are gods that stand outside of omni-status (so some make the distinction by calling them demigods)

“
the part where you don't reconcile the philosophical requirements of the secondary creation versus the primary one.
”
I must have missed what you were talking about. What do you mean by "primary" and "secondary" creation?

Primary creation pertains to the brass tacks of what we might coin "reality" - eg time, space, the ultimate foundation of matter itself (for instance, "quarks" move in that general direction) and consciousness

Secondary creation concerns itself with a manipulation of the primary creation (planets, the forms life exhibits itself in, etc etc)

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Then I guess you have a critically disabled definition of god(s) since effects require potency.
”
Seemingly it is you that has the disabled definition in that you think that 'space' is something that travels around with god - something he is incapable of being separate from, (like a fire can't help but produce smoke, [it's inept in that regard]). With respect young man, your definition is foolish.

I guess its the nature of fire that it can't help but produce smoke and heat.
Such is the requirement of anything that bears potency and has any position in a chain of cause and effect.
:shrug:

“
Once again, regardless whether one accepts god or fire as caused or causeless, there is still the requirement for potency
”
Uh uh... effects are results of causes.

Yet for some reason you insist on a definition of god without potency.
What sort of effects would you expect from a fire with no heat or smoke?

You have a cause and you then have an effect, (heat/oxygen and fuel causes fire which in turn causes smoke). What you're trying to do - for some bizarre reason - is claim that your god is like fire, (in that it's.. not created but that it has no choice but to produce effects that are dependant upon it and that it can't help but produce). This is idiotic theology.

A grander sojourn into idiocy involves advocating a cause that doesn't have potency.

If you don't believe me, just try and warm your hands in front of a television screening a campfire.

“
would you argue that a theoretically causeless fire wouldn't have smoke or heat?
”
Is that 'fire' god or is it just a fire that can't help but cause things like smoke - even if it didn't want to?

It doesn't really matter what you want to call it.
I'm just trying to understand why advocating something (anything) as causeless strips it of potency.

“
God is attributed as having the unique quality of being causeless and now you want an analogy to illustrate this
”
No, kindly wait until you're awake to respond. You are attempting to suggest that god, (like fire), can't help but create or produce certain outcomes. I say you're full of crap or, if you're not full of crap, that you've just reduced omnipotence to meaninglessness. It cannot help but create or produce 'space', (as fire produces smoke) and therefore.. well, your god is little more than a space mushroom.

If you prefer riding with a definition of omnipotency that doesn't have recourse to any potency, it sounds like you who are slipping into psychotropic babble.

“
Well what the hell do you think a person is describing when they say their daughter is a beautiful as the sun? Her creation ?
”
Forgive me, I don't understand the language of irrelevant bo**ocks. What is the relevance of your statement? Kindly scroll back to the post it followed on from and explain to me its relevance. Many thanks.

err ... the bit where I am discussing an issue of contingency and you somehow interpret this to be an issue of cause.

Drop your finger anywhere in the past several posts and you should be able to find a reference.

“
More sufficient than your uninformed hearsay on the role god is assumed to play in the phenomenal world
”
Kindly establish that as being the case. Whenever you're ready.

errr ... scroll back to the bit in italics that you edited out

“
Much like regardless of whether fire is causeless or caused, it still remains ridiculous to describe it as being bereft of smoke, heat etc
”
You can't make the statement of caused and causeless fire, (because you've never met a causeless fire). Furthermore, I'm uncertain exactly why you're using argument from composition, (everything I see within the universe must apply beyond it). Here's your argument:

Actually we are discussing an issue of logic here.

1. I am made from atoms
2. Atoms are invisible to the human eye
3. I am invisible to the human eye.

While this discussion certainly does seem to suggest that you are reading material from some other third party, if you look for the number of times words like "contingency", "causeless/ness" and "potency" turn up in my posts (as opposed to "atoms", "invisible" and "human eye") it tends to offer a more accurate indication of the direction of my argument.


Your syllogism is :

P1. If god has the quality of causelessness
P2. and if causeless things don't have potency

C. God does not have potency.

You cannot use something observable within the universe and think that it applies beyond it.

More to the point, you cannot declare that something observable within the universe shares no parallel to what is beyond it (particularly if it is attributed that this universe is caused by it ....... although now would be remarkable moment if you suddenly wanted to advocate that an investigation of effects bears no results in determining the cause ..... which would practically annihilate 99% of science over the past 500 years)

In the case of gods, trying to compare them to a created entity, (fire), and saying that they therefore must produce space, (smoke), is utter idiocy that one wouldn't expect from a 13 year old theology student.

Its still not clear why you demand potency can only be wielded by something that is created (so classifying something as causeless automatically makes it bereft of potency).

Mind you, a thirteen year old physics student can probably supply you with a few hints on the role potency plays in contingency ....

What I want from you right now is an explanation as to why a god or gods must produce smoke. Whenever you're ready.

err ... actually I was suggesting that fire must produce smoke, much like god must produce all of the primary potencies (such as space, time, etc)

The general principle being applied is that in order to bear an effect (regardless of whether the said object is classified as causeless or caused), potency must be present.

Now what I want from you right now is an explanation as to why deeming something as causeless automatically makes it bereft of potency.

“
Given that your clues that surround the workings of this universe are few and far between, its not clear what body of knowledge you are calling upon to determine the nature of a spiritual universe
”
My apologies, this is how debates work. In the meantime, I will certainly give you the opportunity right now to clarify what "body of knowledge", (and I don't take the word knowledge loosely as some of you fools seemingly do), you are calling upon to determine that a god or gods must produce material things such as smoke or 'space' and how material things, (such as smoke or space), are applicable to the "spiritual".

My point is that you are placing the "spiritual world" in an ontological category when you hold statements to the effect that anything in the material world can not be held as an analogy to anything in the spiritual world.

So spill the beans big guy.
What's the relationship?
Are the worlds diametrically opposed?
Homogeneously unified?

Its your take on it, so you'll have to tell me.

“
So what do you suppose an omnipresent personality is occupying before they create space?
”
I'm sorry, why this materialistic view? Why would they be "occupying" anything? What exactly do you suggest, block of flats?

If you've never considered the relationship between space and an omnipresent entity, now might be a good time to ruminate on the subject ....

(Once again though, its seems we are back tot he issue of your mysterious supposition on the relationship between the spiritual and material worlds .... IOW its not clear what is exactly your line of thought when you start on "because we have space in the material world, in the spiritual world there is (X,Y, Z) so therefore LG's assertion about it is no better than a wheelbarrow full of guinea pig snot")

“
Or even better, in the absence of space, how do you propose that several omnipresent personalities come together to begin creating it?
”
Again; They're immaterial. Saying "space" or absence thereof is utterly meaningless. 'Space' applies to a very material creation.

Then if they're immaterial they have no potency and have no scope for the creation of your beloved dog poop, what to speak of the phenomenal world (Do I get my Richard Dawkins coffee mug now)

No lg, gods do not live by the milky way.

fancy that eh?
Localizing an omnipresent personality poses unique challenges, don't you think?
What to speak of when yous start speaking of two or more of them ....

“
/applause
”
You claim that smoke causes fire, I tell you it doesn't, you applaud? What are you, an imbecile?

:bravo:

 

[SnakeLord]

I guess its the nature of fire that it can't help but produce smoke and heat.

Sure, fire can't make choices. It's not living, it's not remotely intelligent and most of all it's not omnipotent. It's simply a collection of heat, fuel and oxygen.

Your god is simply... a collection of space, material, and energy?

I'm just trying to understand why advocating something (anything) as causeless strips it of potency.

Ok, so let's kindly stop using caused entities as analogies. Use something uncaused and compare it to other uncaused things. Do not think that trying to compare uncaused entities with caused, material, non-living, non-intelligent, non-omnipotent, collections of other caused, material, non-living, non-intelligent, non-omnipotent things is in any way the kind of comparison anyone with a brain larger than a brussel sprout would make. Yes - a brussel sprout can't help but create a "taste", only an imbecile would think it comparable to uncreated gods.

More to the point, you cannot declare that something observable within the universe shares no parallel to what is beyond it

What are you talking about? If you knew anything of physics and science in general you'd already know that there are things that come into existence without a cause. Beyond t=0 however, there's really nothing you can say - but feel free to waffle on about fires if you amusingly think it's serving as an argument to anything.

But let's stick to the point: god or more than one god. Kindly establish that one god can be uncaused anymore than three gods or ten. Kindly establish that one god could be any more powerful than three or ten, (note that action does not denote power). Kindly then establish that joint-creation of our universe isn't possible or plausible.

Its still not clear why you demand potency can only be wielded by something that is created

I'm not demanding anything. Having said that I do have one demand: Show me anything that is uncaused. Once you have done so, you then have the right to make claims to what it does or does not have.

actually I was suggesting that fire must produce smoke, much like god must produce all of the primary potencies (such as space, time, etc)

Fire must produce smoke because it is a non-living combination of other non-living things that produce that outcome, (much like your taste buds produce the taste of your food without being intelligent, living or anything else like that). Now kindly establish that this applies to gods.

Now what I want from you right now is an explanation as to why deeming something as causeless automatically makes it bereft of potency

This is where you fall down - because paying attention really isn't your strong point. The issue here is that you claim that "space", "material" etc are potencies of a god. I contest that issue and request that you establish that a god "must produce space".

You made the claim that a god "must produce space". Kindly establish it. If you cannot do so, what else do you have?

Are the worlds diametrically opposed?
Homogeneously unified?

Hmm... "material"...... "immaterial". Figure it out.

Then if they're immaterial they have no potency and have no scope for the creation of your beloved dog poop

Why, being immaterial, do they have no potency or scope? What is it you know about the immaterial?

 

[swarm]

It's not living, ...It's simply a collection of heat, fuel and oxygen.

I'm simply a collection of heat, fuel and oxygen.

 

[swarm]

Ironically, even the statement "you are wrong about philosophy" requires that a person be held to some authority about what the word as a category entails

Wow, you are a real "authority" addict aren't you? Of course you are equivocating the meaning of "authority" now. But you are shameless so its no big surprise.

Authority as in 1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. is something philosophy doesn't have.

But above which is just 5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc. which is something philosophy can be.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

Pretty lame, but par for the course.:shrug:

Do you notice how you are defining the qualities here or do you need me to place them in italics?

Hmm...do I care? I guess not.

actually this idea is more pertinent to a discussion of omnipotent. IOW the ability to be present in all spaces at any given moment requires all potencies.

Which is why vacuum is sooo powerful.

Arguably there is a connection between omnipotency and omnipresence

Well except for any necessary connection.

or alternatively, god permeates the foundations of your existence

Exactly the same way unicorns and all other non existent phenomena do.

Except of course for the mild detail that you're not the one laying recourse to omnipresence ......

Hah! You've no defense against that.

Way to make a weak reservoir analogy weaker.

Interestingly enough, that's quite an accurate definition of god. IOW being the cause of all causes is to be "potency itself". This distinguishes it from any other object that lays claim to being caused.

Ah, of course potency is just a relationship between things. It has no meaning in and of itself, like god I guess.

Even to place things orthogonally requires a few liberties of space

Duh! Only if you do it in space. Imagination! Don't leave home without it.

well do tell

Sorry padawan, do your home work.

Actually our relationship with god acts as a prototype for all our other relationships (including out relationship with our very selves)

No relationship at all???

I guess the standard alternatives to the dysfunctionalism that arises from that in our current state are alcohol plus delusions of sexual grandeur that are never likely to occur (For instance, the song lyrics "I'm gonna love you all night long" means 25 minutes, max, in a majority of cases)

Look there are people who can help you.

Balls back in your court

nope, try again.

Its philosophy that renders ideas doable.

You just make a lot of philosophers laugh.

 

[lightgigantic]

Swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Ironically, even the statement "you are wrong about philosophy" requires that a person be held to some authority about what the word as a category entails
”
Wow, you are a real "authority" addict aren't you?

You too apparently, whenever anyone transgresses your "rules"

Of course you are equivocating the meaning of "authority" now. But you are shameless so its no big surprise.

Phew that was a relief.

For a moment there I thought you were trying to hold me accountable to something.

Authority as in 1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. is something philosophy doesn't have.

But above which is just 5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc. which is something philosophy can be.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

Pretty lame, but par for the course.

Your authority on the topic is truly admirable.

Now I guess we can go back to the question of philosophical authority and whether the statement "several omni gods" faces the same dilemmas by "square circles" or "married bachelor".

“
Do you notice how you are defining the qualities here or do you need me to place them in italics?
”
Hmm...do I care? I guess not.

If you're unswayed by sojourns into reflexive criticism, it doesn't say much about your philosophical integrity .......

“
actually this idea is more pertinent to a discussion of omnipotent. IOW the ability to be present in all spaces at any given moment requires all potencies.
”
Which is why vacuum is sooo powerful.

and also capable of being spatially referenced

“
Arguably there is a connection between omnipotency and omnipresence
”
Well except for any necessary connection.

needless to say, that's debatable .....

“
or alternatively, god permeates the foundations of your existence
”
Exactly the same way unicorns and all other non existent phenomena do.

I guess I missed the clincher in your argument where you established that god was non-existent.

“
Except of course for the mild detail that you're not the one laying recourse to omnipresence ......
”
Hah! You've no defense against that.

I guess not .....

Way to make a weak reservoir analogy weaker.

get back to me when you make the grade for omnipresent

“
Interestingly enough, that's quite an accurate definition of god. IOW being the cause of all causes is to be "potency itself". This distinguishes it from any other object that lays claim to being caused.
”
Ah, of course potency is just a relationship between things. It has no meaning in and of itself, like god I guess.

yet for some funny reason, we never find potency existing in isolation of things (or even things existing in isolation from potency)

“
Even to place things orthogonally requires a few liberties of space
”
Duh! Only if you do it in space. Imagination! Don't leave home without it.

I guess if you have recourse to unicorns in the midst of philosophical discussion you are certainly well endowed in that regard

“
well do tell
”
Sorry padawan, do your home work.

Since it was your argument I was kind of hoping you could connect the dots

“
Actually our relationship with god acts as a prototype for all our other relationships (including out relationship with our very selves)
”
No relationship at all???

kind of difficult if your very self is permeated by it ....

“
I guess the standard alternatives to the dysfunctionalism that arises from that in our current state are alcohol plus delusions of sexual grandeur that are never likely to occur (For instance, the song lyrics "I'm gonna love you all night long" means 25 minutes, max, in a majority of cases)
”
Look there are people who can help you.

and there's no one who can help you (at least initially) except yourself

“
Balls back in your court
”
nope, try again.

“

Its philosophy that renders ideas doable.
”
You just make a lot of philosophers laugh.

Actually many a fine joke is crafted around the notion of a philosophy that is undoable

/insert "I'm gonna love you all night long" music