Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What traits does a stereotypical God require?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?

Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.

At 4/7/2014 3:54:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
My idea of God is a deistic one, meaning I simply believe he created the Universe, then had no further input.

But what traits would that require? That would mean that God must exist outside of space and time, correct? Well, cause and effect can only happen in time, so a being outside of time could not cause an effect. Would God be omnipotent because he was able to create a universe? Well then we run into the omnipotence paradox.

At 4/7/2014 3:56:50 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Timelessness

Can you elaborate on what you mean by timeless?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:43:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.
This is just a version of the heavy rock analogy, but one that makes even less sense. A puzzle a omniscient being cannot solve could not possibly exist.

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.
I have never bought this argument and I never will, I do not believe god is a physical being in the way we would understand that, therefore he is not bound by concepts such as weight.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?
God is everything.

Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.
definition of immortal, cannot die.

At 4/7/2014 3:54:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
My idea of God is a deistic one, meaning I simply believe he created the Universe, then had no further input.

But what traits would that require? That would mean that God must exist outside of space and time, correct? Well, cause and effect can only happen in time, so a being outside of time could not cause an effect. Would God be omnipotent because he was able to create a universe? Well then we run into the omnipotence paradox.

At 4/7/2014 3:56:50 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Timelessness

Can you elaborate on what you mean by timeless?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:41:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.

The only requirement is that said god acts like a dick. :)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:44:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:54:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
My idea of God is a deistic one, meaning I simply believe he created the Universe, then had no further input.

Question how do you know said god is male? If this god created the universe and then had no further input there is absolutely no way to determine sex.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:02:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 3:44:10 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:54:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
My idea of God is a deistic one, meaning I simply believe he created the Universe, then had no further input.

Question how do you know said god is male? If this god created the universe and then had no further input there is absolutely no way to determine sex.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:10:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:43:12 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.
This is just a version of the heavy rock analogy, but one that makes even less sense. A puzzle a omniscient being cannot solve could not possibly exist.

Why do you say that?

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.
I have never bought this argument and I never will, I do not believe god is a physical being in the way we would understand that, therefore he is not bound by concepts such as weight.

Which means he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?
God is everything.

If God is everything and the net energy of the universe is 0 that means that God is nothing.

Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.
definition of immortal, cannot die.

You said God is not physical, that means that God is not alive. Immortal, in the context you are using, does not exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:07:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:02:08 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 3:44:10 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:54:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
My idea of God is a deistic one, meaning I simply believe he created the Universe, then had no further input.

Question how do you know said god is male? If this god created the universe and then had no further input there is absolutely no way to determine sex.

I don't know, but where I live you refer to any person who you don't know anything about as "he". I know it's probably terribly sexist of me to do so, but on the plus side I've probably offended a few feminists there too.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:46:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Surely omnipresence and omniscience rules out the god described in the GoE?

Woops bible god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:23:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:13:36 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless

Explain this point

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:56:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:23:07 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:13:36 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless

Explain this point

timeless meaning outside the quality of time, outside the limits of mortality and scape. it can be understood from the kalam cosmological argument:

- An actual infinite cannot exist.
-An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
-Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

So if every regress of events has a beginning, the first cause must to be created by infinite factor, this is the only way to "stop" these regress... and its Immaterial.

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

Immaterial because all materials are from creation, so if the first factor is part of creation,it would (or actually our universe) subject to:
time/appearing end/mortality
space - that factor must to be different from creation, without shape or size, it short uncreated (going back to timeless...)

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Omniscient and Omnipotent paradoxs are really interesting to ponder upon... but my answer will be that God does "godly things" and not going out of his way.. for example if God is infinite, he wont kill himself, because when he kills himself, he violating his premise. so he can do anything, but he does "godly things"... and playing around.
you said that you dont want to relate this to owns religion, but by that i can give you example for understanding... like :
in the quran it says -
"verily, God never fails to fulfil His promise."
&
""Allah (God) does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear""

So he can burden a soul that is cant bear but he wont do it cause he never fails to fulfil his promise...


Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?

its simply because more than one God will create chaos in anything... who will take the final decisions? how two different orders will work simultaneously and opposite plans? etc... we living in arranged universe,and fixed with laws,rules that we can grasp or not... its extraordinary set to the smallest elements like atoms, and to the biggest stuff like Cosmic Web and the largest galaxies... anythings relate to each other by something could be a tiny thing or huge stuff, and all together working at same time.... in short more than one God will creat choas in the universe, the more Gods you have, the bigger choase will be.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:58:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 11:56:02 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:23:07 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 10:13:36 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless

Explain this point

timeless meaning outside the quality of time, outside the limits of mortality and scape. it can be understood from the kalam cosmological argument:

- An actual infinite cannot exist.
-An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
-Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

So if every regress of events has a beginning, the first cause must to be created by infinite factor, this is the only way to "stop" these regress... and its Immaterial.

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

Immaterial because all materials are from creation, so if the first factor is part of creation,it would (or actually our universe) subject to:
time/appearing end/mortality
space - that factor must to be different from creation, without shape or size, it short uncreated (going back to timeless...)

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Omniscient and Omnipotent paradoxs are really interesting to ponder upon... but my answer will be that God does "godly things" and not going out of his way.. for example if God is infinite, he wont kill himself, because when he kills himself, he violating his premise. so he can do anything, but he does "godly things"... and playing around.
you said that you dont want to relate this to owns religion, but by that i can give you example for understanding... like :
in the quran it says -
"verily, God never fails to fulfil His promise."
&
""Allah (God) does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear""

So he can burden a soul that is cant bear but he wont do it cause he never fails to fulfil his promise...


Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?

its simply because more than one God will create chaos in anything... who will take the final decisions? how two different orders will work simultaneously and opposite plans? etc... we living in arranged universe,and fixed with laws,rules that we can grasp or not... its extraordinary set to the smallest elements like atoms, and to the biggest stuff like Cosmic Web and the largest galaxies... anythings relate to each other by something could be a tiny thing or huge stuff, and all together working at same time.... in short more than one God will creat choas in the universe, the more Gods you have, the bigger choase will be.

...and not***** playing around.
Never fart near dog
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 12:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 11:56:02 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless meaning outside the quality of time, outside the limits of mortality and scape.

But if something is not in time then it cannot be a cause to an effect. Cause and effect only happen within time. If God is outside of time then God is not the creator of anything and has done nothing.

it can be understood from the kalam cosmological argument:

- An actual infinite cannot exist.

Says who? Pi has an infinite non-repeating decimal. Infinite exists.

-An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

Who says that the universe needs to have an infinite temporal regress? Quantum fluctuations explain the universe's origins quite well.

-Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Which is a flawed conclusion because the points leading to it are flawed.

So if every regress of events has a beginning, the first cause must to be created by infinite factor, this is the only way to "stop" these regress... and its Immaterial.

Or there was no first cause. Quantum fluctuations have no cause, they just are (like what many people say God is), and a Quantum Fluctuation can explain the origin of the universe.

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

Immaterial because all materials are from creation, so if the first factor is part of creation,it would (or actually our universe) subject to:
time/appearing end/mortality
space - that factor must to be different from creation, without shape or size, it short uncreated (going back to timeless...)

But what do you put as immaterial? Can God be energy? Pure energy exists and is not comprised of matter. What do you consider material?

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Omniscient and Omnipotent paradoxs are really interesting to ponder upon... but my answer will be that God does "godly things" and not going out of his way.. for example if God is infinite, he wont kill himself, because when he kills himself, he violating his premise. so he can do anything, but he does "godly things"... and playing around.
you said that you dont want to relate this to owns religion, but by that i can give you example for understanding... like :
in the quran it says -
"verily, God never fails to fulfil His promise."
&
""Allah (God) does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear""

So he can burden a soul that is cant bear but he wont do it cause he never fails to fulfil his promise...

This still does not get rid of the paradoxes. Even if God chooses not to do any of those things does not negate the ability to do or not do them. The paradoxes would still exist, meaning that God cannot be omnipotent omniscient.



Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?

its simply because more than one God will create chaos in anything... who will take the final decisions? how two different orders will work simultaneously and opposite plans? etc...

Each God could be responsible for certain things (like in Greek, Roman,Egyptian, Norse, etc. Mythologies).

we living in arranged universe,and fixed with laws,rules that we can grasp or not... its extraordinary set to the smallest elements like atoms, and to the biggest stuff like Cosmic Web and the largest galaxies... anythings relate to each other by something could be a tiny thing or huge stuff, and all together working at same time.... in short more than one God will creat choas in the universe, the more Gods you have, the bigger choase will be.

Can you show why it would cause Chaos? You are under the assumption that all Gods would have the same abilities, but what if they did not? You need to show how it must cause chaos to have more than one God.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:10:23 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:43:12 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.
This is just a version of the heavy rock analogy, but one that makes even less sense. A puzzle a omniscient being cannot solve could not possibly exist.

Why do you say that?
Because being omniscient means that you know everything, or to put it another way everything that exists. Therefore there is no reason why it should know of a puzzle that does not exist. Ditto to the unprofitable rock, such a rock by definition cannot exist.

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.
I have never bought this argument and I never will, I do not believe god is a physical being in the way we would understand that, therefore he is not bound by concepts such as weight.

Which means he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?
God is everything.

If God is everything and the net energy of the universe is 0 that means that God is nothing.

Unproven theories. God is everything both positive and negative.
Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.
definition of immortal, cannot die.

You said God is not physical, that means that God is not alive. Immortal, in the context you are using, does not exist.
Who says you have to be physical to be alive?
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 9:46:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Surely omnipresence and omniscience rules out the god described in the GoE?

Woops bible god.
In what?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 3:37:03 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:10:23 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:43:12 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.
This is just a version of the heavy rock analogy, but one that makes even less sense. A puzzle a omniscient being cannot solve could not possibly exist.

Why do you say that?
Because being omniscient means that you know everything, or to put it another way everything that exists. Therefore there is no reason why it should know of a puzzle that does not exist. Ditto to the unprofitable rock, such a rock by definition cannot exist.

That means that he is not omnipotent because he cannot create it. Also, based on what I have learned (so I might be mistaken), omniscient also means that you can think up anything. If you can think up anything but cannot think up a puzzle that you cannot solve that means you are not omniscient.

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.
I have never bought this argument and I never will, I do not believe god is a physical being in the way we would understand that, therefore he is not bound by concepts such as weight.

Which means he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?
God is everything.

If God is everything and the net energy of the universe is 0 that means that God is nothing.

Unproven theories. God is everything both positive and negative.
Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.
definition of immortal, cannot die.

You said God is not physical, that means that God is not alive. Immortal, in the context you are using, does not exist.
Who says you have to be physical to be alive?

Biology
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 12:23:58 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:56:02 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless meaning outside the quality of time, outside the limits of mortality and scape.

But if something is not in time then it cannot be a cause to an effect.

Why not? God is Omnipotent, he can make new rules or orders like time space or new thing we cant understand or able to intervine in anything inside our universe or outside. God has no limits to time,power or anything you can imagine, this makes him to be God without flaws in anyway approach. he is transcend above of the laws of the universe. to create a table you dont need to be the table you just making it..

Cause and effect only happen within time.

These definition is confined to material world, but God is as i said transcend above of this definition. uncaused factor cant be from our universe... so that factor we naming him "God", or you can name what ever you like..


it can be understood from the kalam cosmological argument:

- An actual infinite cannot exist.

Says who? Pi has an infinite non-repeating decimal. Infinite exists.

Pi is mathematical. in math there is infinity but here we talking about actual infinite not mathematics.


-An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

Who says that the universe needs to have an infinite temporal regress? Quantum fluctuations explain the universe's origins quite well.

i really dont know much about the Quantum stuff but from philosophy perspective, everything begins by cause and after that effect, Quantum may explain the origins but it has a beginning no? infinity exist in mathematics or laws but not in reality... im the wrong guy to comment on Quantum thing but thanks for that new stuff to learn about and to search...

-Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Which is a flawed conclusion because the points leading to it are flawed.

Its not flawed... we are talking about material world.


So if every regress of events has a beginning, the first cause must to be created by infinite factor, this is the only way to "stop" these regress... and its Immaterial.

Or there was no first cause. Quantum fluctuations have no cause, they just are (like what many people say God is), and a Quantum Fluctuation can explain the origin of the universe.

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

Immaterial because all materials are from creation, so if the first factor is part of creation,it would (or actually our universe) subject to:
time/appearing end/mortality
space - that factor must to be different from creation, without shape or size, it short uncreated (going back to timeless...)

But what do you put as immaterial? Can God be energy? Pure energy exists and is not comprised of matter. What do you consider material?

Material has a beginning, time, space and size. its confusing me calingl God by the name "energy", its kinda of... from my understanding any law,power or any engery from our understanding is Gods will...

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Omniscient and Omnipotent paradoxs are really interesting to ponder upon... but my answer will be that God does "godly things" and not going out of his way.. for example if God is infinite, he wont kill himself, because when he kills himself, he violating his premise. so he can do anything, but he does "godly things"... and playing around.
you said that you dont want to relate this to owns religion, but by that i can give you example for understanding... like :
in the quran it says -
"verily, God never fails to fulfil His promise."
&
""Allah (God) does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear""

So he can burden a soul that is cant bear but he wont do it cause he never fails to fulfil his promise...

This still does not get rid of the paradoxes. Even if God chooses not to do any of those things does not negate the ability to do or not do them. The paradoxes would still exist, meaning that God cannot be omnipotent omniscient.

Your right, in Gods power everything exist, paradoxs and infinity, its also exist in mathematics, but limitations of paradoxs and stuff is only exist in our material world, in Gods and in mathematics you can bring many paradoxs, so we cant explain fully Gods definition by our limited knowledge.




Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?

its simply because more than one God will create chaos in anything... who will take the final decisions? how two different orders will work simultaneously and opposite plans? etc...

Each God could be responsible for certain things (like in Greek, Roman,Egyptian, Norse, etc. Mythologies).

we living in arranged universe,and fixed with laws,rules that we can grasp or not... its extraordinary set to the smallest elements like atoms, and to the biggest stuff like Cosmic Web and the largest galaxies... anythings relate to each other by something could be a tiny thing or huge stuff, and all together working at same time.... in short more than one God will creat choas in the universe, the more Gods you have, the bigger choase will be.

Can you show why it would cause Chaos? You are under the assumption that all Gods would have the same abilities, but what if they did not? You need to show how it must cause chaos to have more than one God.

first my assumption that all Gods would have the same abilities cuz the premise of definition of God is omnipotent or all knowing... so they would have some similar abilities. But if our premise is multiple Gods like the Roman,Egyptian...first its ceases to be a God, or god with "limitations".
anyway this will create a problem, becuase everything you can imagine, from laws to energies, the biggest to the smallest thing cooperating perfectly simultaneously somehow, with no flaws.
lets give an example of the finger, now analyze and ponder upon it, how many Atoms are there? every Atom has some electrons, protons. bacteria, organisms ANYTHING... all working through fixed with ordered laws, how many laws up there? almost limitless laws if we examine everything in every subject chemistry,physics,energies..... your can imagine... and its only our discoveries... from atoms to galaxies, its like limitless elements working perfectly...

so if each God has its own ability, each one would do what ever he wants, and its wil ruin the prefect cooperation order of everything, cause in the end everything related to each other somehow... from this we can understand the more smaller amount of "rules" we have, the more reasonable it becomes...

i hope you understanding my slight english man ^^
Never fart near dog
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:29:03 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 12:23:58 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:56:02 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
timeless meaning outside the quality of time, outside the limits of mortality and scape.

But if something is not in time then it cannot be a cause to an effect.

Why not? God is Omnipotent, he can make new rules or orders like time space or new thing we cant understand or able to intervine in anything inside our universe or outside. God has no limits to time,power or anything you can imagine, this makes him to be God without flaws in anyway approach. he is transcend above of the laws of the universe. to create a table you dont need to be the table you just making it..

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

Cause and effect only happen within time.

These definition is confined to material world, but God is as i said transcend above of this definition. uncaused factor cant be from our universe... so that factor we naming him "God", or you can name what ever you like..



it can be understood from the kalam cosmological argument:

- An actual infinite cannot exist.

Says who? Pi has an infinite non-repeating decimal. Infinite exists.

Pi is mathematical. in math there is infinity but here we talking about actual infinite not mathematics.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?


-An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

Who says that the universe needs to have an infinite temporal regress? Quantum fluctuations explain the universe's origins quite well.

i really dont know much about the Quantum stuff but from philosophy perspective, everything begins by cause and after that effect, Quantum may explain the origins but it has a beginning no? infinity exist in mathematics or laws but not in reality... im the wrong guy to comment on Quantum thing but thanks for that new stuff to learn about and to search...

-Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Which is a flawed conclusion because the points leading to it are flawed.

Its not flawed... we are talking about material world.

And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.


So if every regress of events has a beginning, the first cause must to be created by infinite factor, this is the only way to "stop" these regress... and its Immaterial.

Or there was no first cause. Quantum fluctuations have no cause, they just are (like what many people say God is), and a Quantum Fluctuation can explain the origin of the universe.

uncreated/Immaterial

Explain this point.

Immaterial because all materials are from creation, so if the first factor is part of creation,it would (or actually our universe) subject to:
time/appearing end/mortality
space - that factor must to be different from creation, without shape or size, it short uncreated (going back to timeless...)

But what do you put as immaterial? Can God be energy? Pure energy exists and is not comprised of matter. What do you consider material?

Material has a beginning, time, space and size. its confusing me calingl God by the name "energy", its kinda of... from my understanding any law,power or any engery from our understanding is Gods will...

I do not 100% understand where you are going with this.

all knowing

The omniscient paradox i listed above. This cannot be.

all power

Omnipotent paradox.

one

Omniscient and Omnipotent paradoxs are really interesting to ponder upon... but my answer will be that God does "godly things" and not going out of his way.. for example if God is infinite, he wont kill himself, because when he kills himself, he violating his premise. so he can do anything, but he does "godly things"... and playing around.
you said that you dont want to relate this to owns religion, but by that i can give you example for understanding... like :
in the quran it says -
"verily, God never fails to fulfil His promise."
&
""Allah (God) does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear""

So he can burden a soul that is cant bear but he wont do it cause he never fails to fulfil his promise...

This still does not get rid of the paradoxes. Even if God chooses not to do any of those things does not negate the ability to do or not do them. The paradoxes would still exist, meaning that God cannot be omnipotent omniscient.

Your right, in Gods power everything exist, paradoxs and infinity, its also exist in mathematics, but limitations of paradoxs and stuff is only exist in our material world, in Gods and in mathematics you can bring many paradoxs, so we cant explain fully Gods definition by our limited knowledge.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.




Are you saying only one God? Why is that a requirement?

its simply because more than one God will create chaos in anything... who will take the final decisions? how two different orders will work simultaneously and opposite plans? etc...

Each God could be responsible for certain things (like in Greek, Roman,Egyptian, Norse, etc. Mythologies).

we living in arranged universe,and fixed with laws,rules that we can grasp or not... its extraordinary set to the smallest elements like atoms, and to the biggest stuff like Cosmic Web and the largest galaxies... anythings relate to each other by something could be a tiny thing or huge stuff, and all together working at same time.... in short more than one God will creat choas in the universe, the more Gods you have, the bigger choase will be.

Can you show why it would cause Chaos? You are under the assumption that all Gods would have the same abilities, but what if they did not? You need to show how it must cause chaos to have more than one God.

first my assumption that all Gods would have the same abilities cuz the premise of definition of God is omnipotent or all knowing... so they would have some similar abilities. But if our premise is multiple Gods like the Roman,Egyptian...first its ceases to be a God, or god with "limitations".
anyway this will create a problem, becuase everything you can imagine, from laws to energies, the biggest to the smallest thing cooperating perfectly simultaneously somehow, with no flaws.
lets give an example of the finger, now analyze and ponder upon it, how many Atoms are there? every Atom has some electrons, protons. bacteria, organisms ANYTHING... all working through fixed with ordered laws, how many laws up there? almost limitless laws if we examine everything in every subject chemistry,physics,energies..... your can imagine... and its only our discoveries... from atoms to galaxies, its like limitless elements working perfectly...

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

so if each God has its own ability, each one would do what ever he wants, and its wil ruin the prefect cooperation order of everything, cause in the end everything related to each other somehow... from this we can understand the more smaller amount of "rules" we have, the more reasonable it becomes...

i hope you understanding my slight english man ^^
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...
Never fart near dog
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:57:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 1:26:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are many different ideas on what God is, so what are the shared traits that theists think that a God must have?

Some say that God is omnipotent, is that a requirement?
Some say that God is omniscient, is that a requirement?

What traits does a God have to have to be God?

This is not about specific Gods, so do not bring up your religion or your personal God. I am curious of what traits people think that a stereotypical God requires.

insecurity
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

Sphere is to a circle like cube is to a square. And it is still infinity in the real world.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

If you cannot provide a rational statement for a God existing then why believe in one at all? Why believe in a specific one?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...

Science is the best way of understanding the universe that we have. I also recommend you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing". It explains the scientific way a universe can start without a God. The Kalam argument is filled with assumptions and fallacies. It is a failed deductive approach.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 5:11:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

Sphere is to a circle like cube is to a square. And it is still infinity in the real world.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

If you cannot provide a rational statement for a God existing then why believe in one at all? Why believe in a specific one?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...

Science is the best way of understanding the universe that we have. I also recommend you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing". It explains the scientific way a universe can start without a God. The Kalam argument is filled with assumptions and fallacies. It is a failed deductive approach.

if you mentioned Lawrence Krauss, watch his debate with hamza tzortzis a good debate...
https://www.youtube.com...

as a muslim my position as hamza explains it...
Never fart near dog
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:29:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:06:36 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:11:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

Sphere is to a circle like cube is to a square. And it is still infinity in the real world.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

If you cannot provide a rational statement for a God existing then why believe in one at all? Why believe in a specific one?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...

Science is the best way of understanding the universe that we have. I also recommend you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing". It explains the scientific way a universe can start without a God. The Kalam argument is filled with assumptions and fallacies. It is a failed deductive approach.

if you mentioned Lawrence Krauss, watch his debate with hamza tzortzis a good debate...
https://www.youtube.com...

as a muslim my position as hamza explains it...

Actually watched this a couple hours ago. Hamza used logical fallacy after logical fallacy. He failed the debate miserably.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:29:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:06:36 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:11:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

Sphere is to a circle like cube is to a square. And it is still infinity in the real world.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

If you cannot provide a rational statement for a God existing then why believe in one at all? Why believe in a specific one?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...

Science is the best way of understanding the universe that we have. I also recommend you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing". It explains the scientific way a universe can start without a God. The Kalam argument is filled with assumptions and fallacies. It is a failed deductive approach.

if you mentioned Lawrence Krauss, watch his debate with hamza tzortzis a good debate...
https://www.youtube.com...

as a muslim my position as hamza explains it...

Actually watched this a couple hours ago. Hamza used logical fallacy after logical fallacy. He failed the debate miserably.

you serious? Krauss didnt reply to the philosophical arguments of hamza... anyway good luck buddy...
Never fart near dog
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 1:44:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:18:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 3:37:03 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:10:23 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:43:12 AM, srehtiw wrote:
At 4/7/2014 4:25:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 3:43:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality. If it doesn't have those four is it really a God?

Omniscience cannot exist. That means that God knows everything that can and is, correct? And everything means all things, correct? Does that mean that God knows a puzzle that he cannot solve? If the definitions I have presented are correct then omniscience is a paradox, so God cannot be omniscient.
This is just a version of the heavy rock analogy, but one that makes even less sense. A puzzle a omniscient being cannot solve could not possibly exist.

Why do you say that?
Because being omniscient means that you know everything, or to put it another way everything that exists. Therefore there is no reason why it should know of a puzzle that does not exist. Ditto to the unprofitable rock, such a rock by definition cannot exist.

That means that he is not omnipotent because he cannot create it. Also, based on what I have learned (so I might be mistaken), omniscient also means that you can think up anything. If you can think up anything but cannot think up a puzzle that you cannot solve that means you are not omniscient.
Omniscient means you know everything not that you can think of anything.

Omnipotence cannot exist. That means that God can do anything, correct? Does that mean God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Omnipotence is a paradox, so God cannot be omnipotent.
I have never bought this argument and I never will, I do not believe god is a physical being in the way we would understand that, therefore he is not bound by concepts such as weight.

Which means he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipresent then why has there been no evidence of God existing? He should be everywhere at once, so there should be some evidence, shouldn't there be?
God is everything.

If God is everything and the net energy of the universe is 0 that means that God is nothing.

Unproven theories. God is everything both positive and negative.
Immortal might be possible, depending on what definition of immortal you are using.
definition of immortal, cannot die.

You said God is not physical, that means that God is not alive. Immortal, in the context you are using, does not exist.
Who says you have to be physical to be alive?

Biology

No biology has just never yet encountered a non physical entity.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:18:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:38:40 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:29:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:06:36 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 5:11:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:54:50 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:38:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

God cannot be omnipotent because of the omnipotent paradox.

But those same math problems can translate to the real world, say a sphere (or a ball) perhaps?
And math that includes infinity can exist within the material world, a disk or a ball.

it can translate but it has a limits...
and what do you mean by sphere?

Sphere is to a circle like cube is to a square. And it is still infinity in the real world.

That is special pleading, a logical fallacy. God cannot have paradoxes.

God "have" paradoxes when you violate the first premises, and secondly you cant understand God completely, if you cant expalin the paradoxes in math, how can you explain God that he is above all things?

If you cannot provide a rational statement for a God existing then why believe in one at all? Why believe in a specific one?

Actually, natural laws are our explanation of what is happening. They might not be correct. It is an observation of what happens. They are not laws that require law makers.

For that science not always 100% telling you the truth, and the kalam argument is a deductive approach...

Science is the best way of understanding the universe that we have. I also recommend you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing". It explains the scientific way a universe can start without a God. The Kalam argument is filled with assumptions and fallacies. It is a failed deductive approach.

if you mentioned Lawrence Krauss, watch his debate with hamza tzortzis a good debate...
https://www.youtube.com...

as a muslim my position as hamza explains it...

Actually watched this a couple hours ago. Hamza used logical fallacy after logical fallacy. He failed the debate miserably.

you serious? Krauss didnt reply to the philosophical arguments of hamza... anyway good luck buddy...

Because philosophy =/= science, which means philosophy =/= reality. Krauss only addressed the points that actually mattered. Hamza used too many logical fallacies and had too many errors in his points.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO