Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Is God? Here It Is

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:39:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God" (John of Damascus, 173)

Here's the issue. God cannot be just defined at the whims of whomever. Just as we are not debating what "cat" is defined as, we should also not be debating what "God" is defined as. Sure, there's a loose variation amongst different dictionaries, but the same is true with any word. However, specific words have specific definitions and that's that.

You can't just say "cat" means "two-legged, blue-winged, mammal" nor can you say "God" means "flying teapot around Saturn."

And for you Pantheist types:

"Schopenhauer (1951: 40) said that "to call the world ‘God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world'" -- http://plato.stanford.edu...

Sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:41:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And this is why I've basically abandoned the idea completely. :P
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:44:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So we are unable to even acknowledge let alone argue for or against the various branches of theism that do not preach of such an entity. Okay.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:47:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:41:36 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
And this is why I've basically abandoned the idea completely. :P

Then how are you a Christian?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:48:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is with you and getting butthurt over symbols anyway?

It's like, someone can agree with you, but if they don't agree on the same terminology, there is a problem.

You really hate the word god, I can tell. It's almost like you are saying, THIS is the ONE TRUE GOD....um.. That is false! There are no other false gods!
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:49:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:44:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So we are unable to even acknowledge let alone argue for or against the various branches of theism that do not preach of such an entity. Okay.

It's not a specific entity. It merely outlines what qualities a being must possess to be called "God." Yahweh, Vishnu, and Allah could all possibly fit that definition.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 7:55:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:49:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 7:44:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So we are unable to even acknowledge let alone argue for or against the various branches of theism that do not preach of such an entity. Okay.

It's not a specific entity. It merely outlines what qualities a being must possess to be called "God." Yahweh, Vishnu, and Allah could all possibly fit that definition.

Yahweh does not, scripture is pretty clear on this. Though his followers do claim that he fits in with the standard definition. Indeed I've never met a Christian who worships the flawed little God of the bible.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:01:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:47:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2011 7:41:36 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
And this is why I've basically abandoned the idea completely. :P

Then how are you a Christian?

I guess I can't. Which is why I've changed my religion to "other" for the time being.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 8:58:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Definitions are arbitrary. They didn't descend from the heavens as a gift of the almighty cheese. Someone made them the f*** up. Tell a Spanish speaker you're embarrassed, he'll think "wtf, you can't be pregnant, you're a dude."

So yes, you can define a word however you wish. And God does not merely have slight variations, the definitions range from cheese to Alexander the Great to everything to some contradictory as **** stuff (the last grouping granted covers the vast majority of modern usage).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:04:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:49:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 7:44:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So we are unable to even acknowledge let alone argue for or against the various branches of theism that do not preach of such an entity. Okay.

It's not a specific entity. It merely outlines what qualities a being must possess to be called "God." Yahweh, Vishnu, and Allah could all possibly fit that definition.

Ask someone who Dad is.
ASK SOMEONE WHAT LOVE IS.
Ask someone what satisfaction is.
Ask someone who God is.

You want a consensus for even one of those Geo?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:12:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 8:58:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Definitions are arbitrary. They didn't descend from the heavens as a gift of the almighty cheese. Someone made them the f*** up. Tell a Spanish speaker you're embarrassed, he'll think "wtf, you can't be pregnant, you're a dude."

So yes, you can define a word however you wish. And God does not merely have slight variations, the definitions range from cheese to Alexander the Great to everything to some contradictory as **** stuff (the last grouping granted covers the vast majority of modern usage).

Stanford philosophy experts are right. You're wrong.

Anyway, yes, everything you're saying I already know. Of course definitions are made up, but it's pragmatic use of them and the meaning they express that makes them valuable. It's like when Ali G told Noam Chomsky that he would create his own language and make millions, Noam Chomsky said, no, you're an idiot and no one will pay the slightest attention to you because it's a waste of time. Yes, people before us have made up a language (though not entirely arbitrary), but for pragmatic reasons, we ought to stick with it, otherwise we will dilute our language and degenerate it into uselessness.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:23:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:12:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 8:58:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Definitions are arbitrary. They didn't descend from the heavens as a gift of the almighty cheese. Someone made them the f*** up. Tell a Spanish speaker you're embarrassed, he'll think "wtf, you can't be pregnant, you're a dude."

So yes, you can define a word however you wish. And God does not merely have slight variations, the definitions range from cheese to Alexander the Great to everything to some contradictory as **** stuff (the last grouping granted covers the vast majority of modern usage).

Stanford philosophy experts are right. You're wrong.

Argument from authority.


Of course definitions are made up, but it's pragmatic use of them and the meaning they express that makes them valuable.
And "pragmatically", you have to be prepared for a lot of definitions of god. Which contradiction each other, and usually themselves. Why? Because religions disagree.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:27:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, your sources don't really disagree with me, because one talks about a specific line of argument for a specific range of God-definitions and the other talks about only major monotheistic or "monotheistic" traditions excluding the explicitly polytheistic ones which will obviously have different ruels.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only reason for saying God = "blank" is pragmatic... It's in order to more easily discuss "blank"...

In today's world... in this area... "god" usually is associated with particular attributes... and it's easiest and least confusing to use the term "god" to discuss those attributes...

but other than that there's no particular reason.

I really don't think you have any actual disagreements with people Geo...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:48:49 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What is with you and getting butthurt over symbols anyway?

It's like, someone can agree with you, but if they don't agree on the same terminology, there is a problem.

You really hate the word god, I can tell. It's almost like you are saying, THIS is the ONE TRUE GOD....um.. That is false! There are no other false gods!

Well, a consensus on terms actually helps discussion. It diminishes some confusion so you can focus on the real problems or criticisms instead of arguing over what the term means or represents. And it helps others who are reading the posts since they won't have to remember three different definitions of the term "god" or what the term "god" means to one person and what it symbolizes to the opponent.

For example, if "god" meant the universe to you and then "god" meant an omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. being to Geo -- the discussion would go nowhere since a consensus had not yet been made. Clarity is key.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:12:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 8:58:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Definitions are arbitrary. They didn't descend from the heavens as a gift of the almighty cheese. Someone made them the f*** up. Tell a Spanish speaker you're embarrassed, he'll think "wtf, you can't be pregnant, you're a dude."

So yes, you can define a word however you wish. And God does not merely have slight variations, the definitions range from cheese to Alexander the Great to everything to some contradictory as **** stuff (the last grouping granted covers the vast majority of modern usage).

Stanford philosophy experts are right. You're wrong.


If the author of what you posted were here he would be telling you himself that he was wrong. That is simply the generic description of God that is assumed for the sake of argument. If someone wants to get down into specifics it does not cover all conceptions of the theistic God.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:43:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:27:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, your sources don't really disagree with me, because one talks about a specific line of argument for a specific range of God-definitions and the other talks about only major monotheistic or "monotheistic" traditions

Because "God," capital "G" is a reference to ONE deity.

excluding the explicitly polytheistic ones which will obviously have different ruels.

I seriously question whether there are any major religions that are truly polytheistic at all. Here's why:

- The Hindus are monotheistic. They only believe in one God, Brahman, and that all the other dieties are actually devas and are merely manifestations of "the One" (that's the language that Hindu scripture uses).

- The Greek pantheon eventually turned into Henotheism by elevating Zeus to the level of Supreme God who had all the attributes of a Supreme God. The other Greek "gods" essentially were just lesser beings akin to angels and demons.

- The Pagans are not polytheistic either. Pagan's have two different kinds of polytheism, both of which are actually Monistic having only one Supreme God: "Hard polytheism is the notion of the existence of gods and goddesses independent from the human mind and from one another, or as distinct entities but however part of a greater unity, such as The One of Neoplatonism and Panentheism. The mythology of antiquity reflects this kind of understanding of the gods' natures. Soft polytheism considers the plurality of gods as "aspects" of other notions of the divine, including Monism, Pantheism, Panentheism or Deism, Psychologism." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:39:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If the author of what you posted were here he would be telling you himself that he was wrong. That is simply the generic description of God that is assumed for the sake of argument. If someone wants to get down into specifics it does not cover all conceptions of the theistic God.

Let's go back to the "cat" analogy. Do we just assume that "cat" means "four-legged, feline animal" for the sake of argument? Or is that just the definition of "cat"?

Are you not going to accept that definition of "cat" because somebody else might think that "cat" means "two-legged, blue winged mammal"? No. "Cat" already has a clear definition as does "God."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:48:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:39:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If the author of what you posted were here he would be telling you himself that he was wrong. That is simply the generic description of God that is assumed for the sake of argument. If someone wants to get down into specifics it does not cover all conceptions of the theistic God.

Let's go back to the "cat" analogy. Do we just assume that "cat" means "four-legged, feline animal" for the sake of argument? Or is that just the definition of "cat"?

Are you not going to accept that definition of "cat" because somebody else might think that "cat" means "two-legged, blue winged mammal"? No. "Cat" already has a clear definition as does "God."

But God does not have a clear definition, which you would know if you had interest in religion or history.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:59:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:51:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:48:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let's go back to the "cat" analogy. Do we just assume that "cat" means "four-legged, feline animal" for the sake of argument? Or is that just the definition of "cat"?

Are you not going to accept that definition of "cat" because somebody else might think that "cat" means "two-legged, blue winged mammal"? No. "Cat" already has a clear definition as does "God."

But God does not have a clear definition,

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God"

-- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think that is quite clear. Admittedly, I don't think that it's clear in regards to trying to visualize God, however, the definition of the concept is quite clear.

which you would know if you had interest in religion or history.

I have taken several philosophy of religion courses. Not to mention, the Stanford philosophy experts agree with me. Not that that proves anything, but it certainly adds warrant to my claim.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:15:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:59:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:51:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:48:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let's go back to the "cat" analogy. Do we just assume that "cat" means "four-legged, feline animal" for the sake of argument? Or is that just the definition of "cat"?

Are you not going to accept that definition of "cat" because somebody else might think that "cat" means "two-legged, blue winged mammal"? No. "Cat" already has a clear definition as does "God."

But God does not have a clear definition,

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God"

-- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think that is quite clear. Admittedly, I don't think that it's clear in regards to trying to visualize God, however, the definition of the concept is quite clear.

which you would know if you had interest in religion or history.

I have taken several philosophy of religion courses. Not to mention, the Stanford philosophy experts agree with me. Not that that proves anything, but it certainly adds warrant to my claim.

So the Gods that do not fit your definition are what? Immune from critical examination?

Really puts me back to my orginal question doesn't it?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:35:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Geo not all Pagans believe in "The One". Some are duotheistic, believing in one God and one Goddess, as separate entities, with different aspects to each.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:48:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:43:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:27:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, your sources don't really disagree with me, because one talks about a specific line of argument for a specific range of God-definitions and the other talks about only major monotheistic or "monotheistic" traditions

Because "God," capital "G" is a reference to ONE deity.

It also excludes minor monotheistic traditions :P

- The Hindus are monotheistic. They only believe in one God, Brahman, and that all the other dieties are actually devas and are merely manifestations of "the One" (that's the language that Hindu scripture uses).
That's only one interpretation of Hinduism. Not all Hindus subscribe. Mostly just the higher caste ones, who kind of had to make something like that up at one point or be slaughtered by the Mughal emperors. Serious cases of shirk disqualify you from the protection of the law under Sharia.

- The Greek pantheon eventually turned into Henotheism by elevating Zeus to the level of Supreme God who had all the attributes of a Supreme God. The other Greek "gods" essentially were just lesser beings akin to angels and demons.
Eventually, by some worshippers. That doesn't mean it always was by all worshippers.

- The Pagans are not polytheistic either. Pagan's have two different kinds of polytheism, both of which are actually Monistic having only one Supreme God: "Hard polytheism is the notion of the existence of gods and goddesses independent from the human mind and from one another, or as distinct entities but however part of a greater unity, such as The One of Neoplatonism and Panentheism.
Paganism is too diverse for such sweeping statements.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 2:29:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is recognized by modern science that all the higher laws of nature assume the form of quantitative statement. This is perhaps a fuller elaboration or more explicit affirmation of the Pythagorean doctrine. Numbers were regarded as the best representations of the laws of harmony which pervade the cosmos. We know too that in chemistry the doctrine of atoms and the laws of combination are actually and, as it were, arbitrarily defined by numbers. As Mr. W. Archer Butler has expressed it: "The world is, then, through all its departments, a living arithmetic in its development, a realized geometry in its repose."
The key to the Pythagorean dogmas is the general formula of unity in multiplicity, the one evolving the many and pervading the many. This is the ancient doctrine of emanation in few words. Even the apostle Paul accepted it as true. "[Ex auton, kai di auton, kai eis auton ta panta]" -- Out of him and through him and in him all things are. This, as we can see by the following quotation, is purely Hindu and Brahmanical:

"When the dissolution -- Pralaya -- had arrived at its term, the great Being -- Para-Atma or Para-Purusha -- the Lord existing through himself, out of whom and through whom all things were, and are and will be . . . resolved to emanate from his own substance the various creatures" (Manava-Dharma-Sastra, book i., slokas 6 and 7).
The mystic Decad 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 is a way of expressing this idea. The One is God, the Two, matter; the Three, combining Monad and Duad, and partaking of the nature of both, is the phenomenal world; the Tetrad, or form of perfection, expresses the emptiness of all; and the Decad, or sum of all, involves the entire cosmos. The universe is the combination of a thousand elements, and yet the expression of a single spirit -- a chaos to the sense, a cosmos to the reason.

The whole of this combination of the progression of numbers in the idea of creation is Hindu. The Being existing through himself, Swayambhu or Swayambhuva, as he is called by some, is one. He emanates from himself the creative faculty, Brahma or Purusha (the divine male), and the one becomes Two; out of this Duad, union of the purely intellectual principle with the principle of matter, evolves a third, which is Viradj, the phenomenal world. It is out of this invisible and incomprehensible trinity, the Brahmanic Trimurty, that evolves the second triad which represents the three faculties -- the creative, the conservative, and the transforming. These are typified by Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, but are again and ever blended into one. Unity, Brahma, or as the Vedas called him, Tridandi, is the god triply manifested, which gave rise to the symbolical Aum or the abbreviated Trimurty. It is but under this trinity, ever active and tangible to all our senses, that the invisible and unknown Monas can manifest itself to the world of mortals. When he becomes Sarira, or he who puts on a visible form, he typifies all the principles of matter, all the germs of life, he is Purusha, the god of the three visages, or triple power, the essence of the Vedic triad. "Let the Brahmas know the sacred Syllable (Aum), the three words of the Savitri, and read the Vedas daily" (Manu, book iv., sloka 125).
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 2:41:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:39:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God" (John of Damascus, 173)

Here's the issue. God cannot be just defined at the whims of whomever. Just as we are not debating what "cat" is defined as, we should also not be debating what "God" is defined as. Sure, there's a loose variation amongst different dictionaries, but the same is true with any word. However, specific words have specific definitions and that's that.

You can't just say "cat" means "two-legged, blue-winged, mammal" nor can you say "God" means "flying teapot around Saturn."

And for you Pantheist types:

"Schopenhauer (1951: 40) said that "to call the world ‘God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world'" -- http://plato.stanford.edu...

Sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Curious, is this a change in your previous stance?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 2:41:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/28/2011 7:39:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God" (John of Damascus, 173)

Here's the issue. God cannot be just defined at the whims of whomever. Just as we are not debating what "cat" is defined as, we should also not be debating what "God" is defined as. Sure, there's a loose variation amongst different dictionaries, but the same is true with any word. However, specific words have specific definitions and that's that.

You can't just say "cat" means "two-legged, blue-winged, mammal" nor can you say "God" means "flying teapot around Saturn."

And for you Pantheist types:

"Schopenhauer (1951: 40) said that "to call the world ‘God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world'" -- http://plato.stanford.edu...

Sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Curious, is this a change in your previous stance?

I was a Pantheist about a year ago.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 6:57:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:43:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

- The Hindus are monotheistic. They only believe in one God, Brahman, and that all the other dieties are actually devas and are merely manifestations of "the One" (that's the language that Hindu scripture uses).

- The Greek pantheon eventually turned into Henotheism by elevating Zeus to the level of Supreme God who had all the attributes of a Supreme God. The other Greek "gods" essentially were just lesser beings akin to angels and demons.

What you say about the ‘one' god is in fact far too symplisitic.
Just as the Greeks had Jupiter or Zeus, the son of Chronos, the Father, who hurls him down into the depths of Kosmos as the Creator God; so also Brahma, as a Creator is also an emanation from a higher Father, namely, Swayambhuva, As I said in my earlier comment last paragraph and repeat:
The whole of this combination of the progression of numbers in the idea of creation is Hindu. The Being existing through himself, Swayambhu or Swayambhuva, as he is called by some, is ONE. He emanates from himself the creative faculty, Brahma (A-braham) or Purusha (the divine male), and the one becomes Two; out of this Duad, union of the purely intellectual principle with the principle of matter, evolves a third, which is Viradj, the phenomenal world. It is out of this invisible and incomprehensible trinity, the Brahmanic Trimurty, that evolves the second triad which represents the three faculties -- the creative, the conservative, and the transforming. These are typified by Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, but are again and ever blended into one. Unity, Brahma, or as the Vedas called him, Tridandi, is the god triply manifested, which gave rise to the symbolical Aum or the abbreviated Trimurty. It is but under this trinity, ever active and tangible to all our senses, that the invisible and unknown Monas (Manas or Mind) can manifest itself to the world of mortals. When he becomes Sarira, or he who puts on a visible form, he typifies all the principles of matter, all the germs of life, he is Purusha, the god of the three visages, or triple power, the essence of the Vedic triad. "Let the Brahmas know the sacred Syllable (Aum), the three words of the Savitri, and read the Vedas daily" (Manu, book iv., sloka 125).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 2:11:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 6:57:04 PM, Ogan wrote:
What you say about the ‘one' god is in fact far too symplisitic.
Just as the Greeks had Jupiter or Zeus, the son of Chronos, the Father, who hurls him down into the depths of Kosmos as the Creator God; so also Brahma, as a Creator is also an emanation from a higher Father, namely, Swayambhuva,

I thought Brahma was born of Brahman?

"In the Rig Veda, Brahman gives rise to the primordial being Hiranyagarbha that is equated with the creator god Brahma. The trimurti can thus be considered a personification of Brahman as the active principle behind the phenomena of the universe." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

As I said in my earlier comment last paragraph and repeat:
The whole of this combination of the progression of numbers in the idea of creation is Hindu. The Being existing through himself, Swayambhu or Swayambhuva, as he is called by some, is ONE. He emanates from himself the creative faculty, Brahma (A-braham) or Purusha (the divine male), and the one becomes Two; out of this Duad, union of the purely intellectual principle with the principle of matter, evolves a third, which is Viradj, the phenomenal world. It is out of this invisible and incomprehensible trinity, the Brahmanic Trimurty, that evolves the second triad which represents the three faculties -- the creative, the conservative, and the transforming. These are typified by Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, but are again and ever blended into one. Unity, Brahma, or as the Vedas called him, Tridandi, is the god triply manifested, which gave rise to the symbolical Aum or the abbreviated Trimurty. It is but under this trinity, ever active and tangible to all our senses, that the invisible and unknown Monas (Manas or Mind) can manifest itself to the world of mortals. When he becomes Sarira, or he who puts on a visible form, he typifies all the principles of matter, all the germs of life, he is Purusha, the god of the three visages, or triple power, the essence of the Vedic triad. "Let the Brahmas know the sacred Syllable (Aum), the three words of the Savitri, and read the Vedas daily" (Manu, book iv., sloka 125).

I have no idea what the hell you just said there, lol.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:19:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Again... what are we to do with theistic Gods that do not fit your ignorant definition.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:35:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 7:39:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

"God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. "

"John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one God could be distinguished from another would be by coming "short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place," but in that case "he would not be God" (John of Damascus, 173)

Here's the issue. God cannot be just defined at the whims of whomever. Just as we are not debating what "cat" is defined as, we should also not be debating what "God" is defined as. Sure, there's a loose variation amongst different dictionaries, but the same is true with any word. However, specific words have specific definitions and that's that.

You can't just say "cat" means "two-legged, blue-winged, mammal" nor can you say "God" means "flying teapot around Saturn."

And for you Pantheist types:

"Schopenhauer (1951: 40) said that "to call the world ‘God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world'" -- http://plato.stanford.edu...

Sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

You are discussing IDEAS.. We Christians are professing a RELATIONSHIP with a PERSON!

Our words (spoken, written, posted etc) BRIDGE the gap between two consciousnesses (persons) Jesus Christ IS the Word of God: He and He alone has the bridged the gap between God and rebellious man.

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Cross.. the Cross.