Total Posts:169|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Someone define God...

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
J
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?


Thanks,
J

Some theists believe that he sustains the universe in being, whether the universe was created, or is eternal. So, I would say "creator" of the universe may be too strict a definition. The universe is definitely contingent upon God if he exists though.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:32:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?


Thanks,
J

Some theists believe that he sustains the universe in being, whether the universe was created, or is eternal. So, I would say "creator" of the universe may be too strict a definition. The universe is definitely contingent upon God if he exists though.

It depends on the person. Interesting how God is contingent on the person. I think that, for monotheism: "The quad-omni (potent, scient, present, benevolent) being who created the Universe" is a general definition. I suppose that, in effect, whenever you try to disprove the goalposts; they've moved.

A God who didn't create the Universe. Seems...odd, but not logically impossible.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?


Thanks,
J

Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 11:30:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?

You HAVE to be a troll. You're hilarious! A+
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?


Thanks,
J

God is infinite, so he can cater for an infinite amount of definitions. Indeed He is.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:37:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

We can always debate this.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

I agree. I ditched Quentin's Smith's cosmological argument for Atheism because it assumes a model that predicts a singularity (an impossible state at t=0), and it is widely accepted by cosmologists that this new quantum theory of gravity will make the singularity obsolete.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:48:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that if you don't want an infinite regress, Alexander Vilenkin's tunnelling model explains the beginning of the universe the best without having to assume any space-time prior. No God needed if it can be explained naturally...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 3:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 11:30:35 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?

You HAVE to be a troll. You're hilarious! A+

The Truth is funny to unbelievers but only until their flesh dies in this world.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:41:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:37:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

We can always debate this.

It still would make it any more true.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:44:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:46:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

I agree. I ditched Quentin's Smith's cosmological argument for Atheism because it assumes a model that predicts a singularity (an impossible state at t=0), and it is widely accepted by cosmologists that this new quantum theory of gravity will make the singularity obsolete.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 5:39:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:41:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:37:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

We can always debate this.

It still would make it any more true.

I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't close enough to English for me to understand your point.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 9:07:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
someone define God .. okay that's simple

Hebrews 01:01 .. God .. after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways
01:02 .. in these last days has spoken to us in his Son .. whom he appointed heir of all things .. through whom also he made the world
01:03 .. and he is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature .. and upholds all things by the word of his power ..
.........when he had made purification of sins .. he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high . . . . http://dadmansabode.com...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 3:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 5:39:59 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/12/2013 12:41:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:37:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/10/2013 1:31:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/10/2013 2:48:17 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:47:08 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'd be interested to here you try to prove that "God" didn't create the universe. Even the most esteemed atheists don't claim to be able to prove that (as far as I know).

Rational and Sargon have both put up strong cases against it. It denies relativity and is logically incoherent.

Even if that were true, I don't see how that is supposed to be problematic. It's almost certain that GF is almost entirely false anyways (or at least it needs to be substantially revised to a point to which we don't know what the resulting theory will look like).

http://spot.colorado.edu...

We can always debate this.

It still would make it any more true.

I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't close enough to English for me to understand your point.

Sorry for the typo,

I meant that debating a topic and further even winning a debate on a topic, does not make the topic in question any more true.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 4:08:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:15:44 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
I identify as a positive, strong atheist. That means I am a seven on Richard Dawkins' scale. i.e. I do not simply disbelieve; I believe that I can disprove God by showing him impossible.

However, this all depends on how we define "God". What's God?

The most common definition for debates I've seen is something similar to:

"An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being."

Some people - such as myself - also add omnipresent.

But, in that sense, I could call myself a positive, weak atheist. I simply disbelieve.

If you define God as the Creator of the Universe, I'm strong. If the three omnis are all you define God as, then I'm weak.

Another problem with the definition of what something is compared to what something has done.

So, is God a tri-omni (or quad-omni) being? Full stop.
Or is god the tri-omni being who happened to create the Universe?

You see, I can disprove God creating the Universe, but not God himself, in that sense. But does God have to have created the Universe to still be considered "God"? What are your thoughts?


Thanks,
J

I would say if someone defines God as omnibenevolent and omnipotent then that is reason enough to realize that god is a myth. All loving with the power to destroy millions with earthquakes/hurricanes/disease/etc each year. Then again it could just be me who does not understand the word omnibenevolent.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 4:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 3:48:59 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:30:35 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?

You HAVE to be a troll. You're hilarious! A+

The Truth is funny to unbelievers but only until their flesh dies in this world.

Proof for a soul? Let me know where it is, this I need to see.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:10:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
the soul = the mind / the will / the emotions

the diff between a carrot and a dog = they both have a body but only the dog has a soul
the diff beteewn a dog and a man = they both have a body / they both have a soul but only the man has a human spirit

the spirt = the ability to contemplate ones creator

Understanding the Wisdom of God .. recorded Jun 22 1975 http://www.gty.org...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 3:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 4:09:37 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/10/2013 3:48:59 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:30:35 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?

You HAVE to be a troll. You're hilarious! A+

The Truth is funny to unbelievers but only until their flesh dies in this world.

Proof for a soul? Let me know where it is, this I need to see.

I'm the only saint to get the knowledge to know that we're only God's thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy. Scientists are getting closer to knowing who we are but do you think they're willing to admit that we're information spoken into existence by a Creator?

Are they willing to believe that everything in this world we see, smell, taste and touch is only processed energy through each "being's" processor called a brain?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 3:29:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2013 4:09:37 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/10/2013 3:48:59 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:30:35 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Since we're God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy, we'll never see who God is.

Can the thoughts you have in your mind see you?

You HAVE to be a troll. You're hilarious! A+

The Truth is funny to unbelievers but only until their flesh dies in this world.

Proof for a soul? Let me know where it is, this I need to see.

I'm the only saint to get the knowledge to know that we're only God's thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy. Scientists are getting closer to knowing who we are but do you think they're willing to admit that we're information spoken into existence by a Creator?

Are they willing to believe that everything in this world we see, smell, taste and touch is only processed energy through each "being's" processor called a brain?

So is it a wave or is it a particle? I have a feeling there is an appeal to quantum mechanics in here somewhere.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:10:13 AM, dadman wrote:
the soul = the mind / the will / the emotions

the diff between a carrot and a dog = they both have a body but only the dog has a soul
the diff beteewn a dog and a man = they both have a body / they both have a soul but only the man has a human spirit

the spirt = the ability to contemplate ones creator

Understanding the Wisdom of God .. recorded Jun 22 1975 http://www.gty.org...

So you have proof for a spirit then. Send me the link to the science I would love to see it.I did a quick search in google scholar but it came up with zero results.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you have proof for a spirit then. Send me the link to the science .

sorry .. but science has no ability to detect or measure the Spirit

http://dadmansabode.com...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:30:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 5:09:33 PM, dadman wrote:
So you have proof for a spirit then. Send me the link to the science .

sorry .. but science has no ability to detect or measure the Spirit

http://dadmansabode.com...

So let me guess the spirit is immaterial and intangible. Just like god. But this spirit exist in a material world and this god interferes in a material world, so they also have a material aspect which science can detect.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:35:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions" .

well .. the clearest picture you'll get of God is to consider his son Jesus

for he is the radiance of his (God's) glory and the exact representation of his nature

..... Hebrews 1 http://dadmansabode.com...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn