Why God, Why not Gods?

“
Originally Posted by SnakeLord
It's not living, ...It's simply a collection of heat, fuel and oxygen.
”
I'm simply a collection of heat, fuel and oxygen.
Click to expand...
yet if we provide you with heat, fuel and oxygen, you can't even create a fruitfly

:eek:
 
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.
Click to expand...
The point is that anything that plays a role within cause and effect has potency.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about fire, humans or god(s).
Your god is simply... a collection of space, material, and energy?
Click to expand...
No
The sum total of it is merely one of his potencies.
“
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.
Click to expand...
Given that one thing that distinguishes god from anything else is that he is uncaused, its not a reasonable request.

It might pay to note however that there other things aside from god that can display a potency or effect (like fire, humans, and even dog poop, if you wish ....)

Hence one line of discussion has recourse to analogies and the other doesn't.

:shrug:
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.
Click to expand...

please try to think
“
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.
Click to expand...
heh heh
And tell me, do these things also bear an effect?
;)
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.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing the way that you try to lay down the law for a discussion about something beyond matter and then dismiss it as waffle in the next sentence.

Please continue.
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.
Click to expand...
It has something to do with the potencies that are incumbent on a god that occupies the position of being the one thing that all things rest upon
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.
Click to expand...
Kindly explain how several entities can lay claim to an effect which by necessity demands only one source.
“
Its still not clear why you demand potency can only be wielded by something that is created
”
I'm not demanding anything.
Click to expand...
Um .... yes you are

I am discussing issues of potency and you are pouncing upon it with the assertion that it is un/caused or something.

You even do the exact same thing in the paragraph below.



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.
Click to expand...
I can't for the life of me figure what connection you see between potency and the claim that it is caused/uncaused.

:shrug:

“
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.
Click to expand...
so your argument is that only non-living things bear effects?
(geez I guess that puts the final nail in the coffin of the climate change argument, eh?)
“
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".
Click to expand...
Please pay attention.

The question is why deeming something as causeless automatically makes it bereft of potency.

Please save your red herrings for occasions other than direct questions.
You made the claim that a god "must produce space". Kindly establish it. If you cannot do so, what else do you have?
Click to expand...
err ... well there are numerous scriptural references to it.

BTW do you suppose that god is said to be omnipresent because he has good eyesight or is a fast runner?
“
Are the worlds diametrically opposed?
Homogeneously unified?
”
Hmm... "material"...... "immaterial". Figure it out.
Click to expand...
Given that immaterial can mean anything from non-existent to diametrically opposed, that's not saying a great deal ......
“
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?
Click to expand...
feel free to indicate an immaterial thing that has potency
 
swarm said:
Fruitflies aren't created.
Click to expand...
yes they are

ask any fruit grower and they will tell you about the role fruit fly traps play in curbing the phenomena

Here in our hot climate, fruit flies cause a lot of fruit loss from stinging the fruit. It is actually the female that is laying eggs in the fruit after mating with the male. The female lays the eggs just below the skin or surface of the fruit and this is what we see as the sting. Once the eggs hatch, the larvae of the fruit fly, which are small maggots at this stage, feed off the inside of the fruit before turning into adult fruit fly. The end result is spoilt fruit that goes rotten and is wasted.

STOP THE MATING TO STOP THE STINGING!
The trick to stopping the females from stinging the fruit in the first place is to kill the male fruit fly before it mates with the female. You can do this by using Searles® Fruit Fly Traps. Searles® Fruit Fly Trap is a specially designed trap containing a fruit fly wick.
Click to expand...
http://www.searle.com.au/FruitFlypre.html

But with the correct heat, fuel and oxygen I can grow you as many as you need. :shrug:
Click to expand...
what are the correct heat fuel and oxygen required to grow a fruit fly?
:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top