On the first page I pasted my list of attributes that encapsulate the typical notion of a god. No one responded.
Supreme
In charge of something.
Source
Everything we are familiar with, in some way, came from it or its kind.
Powerful
Can do more than humans.
Mysterious
Is mostly invisible to humans, humans can't grasp it completely.
Revealed
Is sometimes made visible to humans (through miracles, divine providence, blessings, curses, etc.), gives "hints" of its qualities.
Spiritual
Made of something different or more than mere physical components, if any physical components at all.
I would say that your checklist meets with my aproval. I'm sure there are possibly things that are not god that also fill these qualifications in the beliefs of some people, but it works for me. Personaly, I'm of the opinion that all gods are the same and that each persons paridigm shapes how they see the world, and thus who they believe their god is.
I would say that your checklist meets with my aproval. I'm sure there are possibly things that are not god that also fill these qualifications in the beliefs of some people, but it works for me. Personaly, I'm of the opinion that all gods are the same and that each persons paridigm shapes how they see the world, and thus who they believe their god is.
This checklist defines space, and the state of space. Although that fits the theory that god is everything absolutely. Gaia theory... no not really... its either Renassiance or Greek theory?
Let's clarify: Are we defining thee God or the Christian God here? (I'm not saying that christians are refering to the wrong god but rather they've givened god traits that don't actually belong to god. They interpret the bible incorrectly producing inaccurate assumptions about god. (In the "imagine of god" line most people think it means god created us to look like him, although it means in his vision of us, what he intended us to look like. I don't think god looks black and white at the same time? One thing-Christians do have one thing right: God is an Omni (all powerful).
Let's clarify: You can't called her, you can't called god him either. Why? Cause god does not have a ***** or a ******.
Here's a buster though: If god was all powerful could god make a rock god could not lift?
They interpret the bible incorrectly producing inaccurate assumptions about god. (In the "imagine of god" line most people think it means god created us to look like him, although it means in his vision of us, what he intended us to look like. I don't think god looks black and white at the same time? One thing-Christians do have one thing right: God is an Omni (all powerful).
In orthodox circles, "in his image" is interpreted as "with a rational soul." It's not in regard to what he "looks like."
Quote from blueconcept »
Let's clarify: You can't called her, you can't called god him either. Why? Cause god does not have a ***** or a ******.
Transgender people would like a word with you.
Quote from blueconcept »
Here's a buster though: If god was all powerful could god make a rock god could not lift?
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
Unless, of course, you accept the potential that God is not bound by logical constraints.
And actually, I could give an argument based entirely on Biblical references that would indicate the answer is "yes" if you like.
BTW, I think no one responded to your definition of God because it's not a definition, it's a list of attributes. Or maybe just because (lik I've said three or so times now) there's really no useful definition of God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
In orthodox circles, "in his image" is interpreted as "with a rational soul." It's not in regard to what he "looks like."
Transgender people would like a word with you.
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
You seem to underestimate the word all powerful, meaning infinitely powerful.
I seriously hope you realize how you just utterly defeated yourself with that last sentence.
How on earth did I just defeat myself with the last sentence? I was just telling those open-minded people out there to check out something different than what people normally hand to them...
We would, and so would nature. Gender has little to do with body. Are you saying a man whose ***** has been amputated is no longer a "he", or a woman who's had a historectomy is no longer a "she"?
As for God's gender - I find it illogical to presume that God has a specific gender quality (i.e. masculinity) without having the same "amount" of other relevant gender qualities (femininity). Unless, of course, you want to use the anthropomorphic deity model of God, and I think I've made it clear that I do not.
Quote from extremestan »
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
Stan is correct, it's not a matter of power. "Making a rock so big he can't lift it" is a nonsense challenge. It's not something that happens, it's just an abstract constructed out of words - such an "event" doesn't actually have an existence. It doesn't even have a conceptual image. It's like the whole circle-square thing we were talking about.
So when someone says, "No, God can't do that," jumping on it with, "Look! God can't do everything!" doesn't actually add anything to our concepts of God, or of "omnipotence".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
That question is more usefully phrased as such:
Can God put limits on his own power?
I don't see anything logically contradictory about that, and yet, if he did, he would no longer be omnipotent.
This causes a problem in particular for free will proponents who are theists.
I don't see anything logically contradictory about that, and yet, if he did, he would no longer be omnipotent.
This causes a problem in particular for free will proponents who are theists.
If God has any quality that is mutually exclusive to another quality, then he is defficient in something. For instance, God is benevolent and provident, making him the ultimate manifestation of love. Thus, God can't be malevolent. He's defficient at malevolence. And some people feel that this contradicts an absolute definition of omnipotence.
That's why it's much better to say God is "maximally powerful" than to say he is "omnipotent." Only maximal power is suggested in the Bible. Omnipotence potentially means more than the Bible suggests.
I think it is best we come to an agreement as to what "powerful" means. For instance, "omnipotent" literally means, if I am not mistaken, "perfectly powerful" (as opposed to merely "the most powerful"). That is, having complete power in every respect in which one might have power.
Such a definition, however, doesn't exactly tell us which respects those might be, or how it is possible to be powerful in a given respect.
Let us examine the classic question - is God so powerful that He can create an object that even He Himself is unable to move it?
There are a few basic factors to consider. There are different kinds of power (different ways in which one might be powerful), and I will propose two types of power relevant to this question. The first is creative power - the power to create something, whatever it may be. The second is the power to act upon a something, to be able to enact one's will meaningfully on it with respect to the specific something's innate properties. For the sake of discussion I shall call it transitive power.
The deconstruction attempts to show that in order to be perfectly powerful in one respect, God must be imperfectly powerful in another respect. Theoretically, if God has perfect creative power, then He can create any object or scenario, any reality, which He deigns to create (anything which He might imagine). And if God has perfect transitive power, then He should be able to act upon any thing however He wishes - move any weight, cure any disease, direct any force, so on and so on. If He has perfect creative power, then it is no problem to manifest the scenario "create a object which even you cannot move." However, if He does so, He demonstrates that His transitive power is imperfect. And if He is able to move that object, then He demonstrates that He lacks perfect creative power, because He was unable create a scenario which fulfilled the proposed restriction.
I question whether or not the original restriction is even pertinent - in other words, is creating a scenario which is incoherent (in this example, if we are to assume God has both perfect creative and perfect transitive power, the scenario would be incoherent) a demonstration of any type of power?
I believe the restriction to be non-realistic - basically, it's possible to construct the scenario linguistically, but it is also possible to linguistically construct a "circle-square" even though an object which might be aptly described by such a term could not exist. The scenario "a perfectly creatively powerful being which is also a perfectly transitively powerful being creates an object against his transitive power is proved imperfect" can be phrased as such, and can exist as an abstract, but in reality there is not necessarily any such scenario.
The question can amount to "can God perform nonsense tricks, that which is not even theoretically possible?" This, to me, has similarity to the deconstruction "can God sin?" I question whether performing either of those acts (performing nonsense, or sinning) really amount to evidence of power. The problem derived from the deconstructions - "God can't do anything because there are things which a perfect being couldn't do, because the actions themselves would evidence imperfection" - is basically only a theoretical problem.
This is akin to my earlier discourse about "states and forms." Something can exist theoretically while still not having literal potential existence (circle-squares). Also, that which has potential existence isn't necessarily an object in its own right, it could merely be a quality, a "form" (such as being a pop tart).
I think this is sort of what Stan is getting at. If you define "omnipotent" as "maximally powerful," having maximum power of each possible kind, then the deconstructions are irrelevant. If you define "omnipotent" as "able to perform any nonsense trick which I am able to propose," then perhaps that definition is itself nonsense (that is, it exists only in the abstract).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
What I always say about God: never put Him in a box. Never say anything that can remotely limit His power, or make him predictable, or cruel. If one does, one does not speak the complete truth about God. Just my 2 cents.
God to me is not a sentient being. The god I believe in is simply the uncaused cause. I either believe in that or the falacy of cause and effect, depends when you ask me
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This space has been intentionally left blank as to require fewer page turns.
What I always say about God: never put Him in a box. Never say anything that can remotely limit His power, or make him predictable, or cruel. If one does, one does not speak the complete truth about God. Just my 2 cents.
So you can't limit His power, except for His power to be cruel? OK....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
They are:
1) A deific being (if our race were engineered by aliens who were superior to us in power and understanding, we might consider them deities).
2) A pantheistic being (which is All, and may not necessarily even be a being).
3) A monistic being (which is the One).
4) A meta-deific being, or a meta-entity.
Note that I did take the liberty of assuming that God would be a being, though a definition of a God may not necessarily include that assumption.
Some of the other posters have decided that God doesn't follow logical patterns and can't even be conceived of, but I don't necessarily think it has to stop there, as that's certainly not universally agreed upon.
A few notes about logic - though it is not a fallacy to conceive that God (or a God) may be illogical (not bound by logic, or in other words, having not logical patterns), I think it is a fallacy to insist that if God is inexplicable, He must therefor be illogical. It's quite possible for a force or entity to apparently defy certain logical truths with which we are familiar, without necessarily being chaotic (having no logical patterns). There are actually many things which are inexplicable logically but are not only conceivable, but predictable. For instance, certain concepts such as "good" evade logical explanation and even definition, but are still practical concepts to use in daily life and even have observable natures. It is easier to examine such things using intuition than logic.
Logic is not unlike language, and like language, it is very similar to a sense. It is a means we use to "connect to" reality, to experiences or facts we perceive (the result is called "information"), and relate them to others, ourselves, or other events. There are things that are simply imperceptible to some senses - just because something isn't visible, or can't be heard, doesn't mean it does not exist or can't be related to in some way.
There are few things which must be addressed before we can do so, however:
1) What is logic, and how is it used? We can define this generally (denote it) but we also need to relate it to the discussion (connote it). Does something being logical mean it can be explained or examined using strictly rationalistic means? Or does it merely mean "coherent"? What is the practical difference between something which is illogical and something which is alogical?
2) There is an assumption that reason is the only active function of the mind aside from imagination and emotion, both of which are seen as irrational functions (and thus assumed to be even less helpful than reason in explaining anything). In the West there is a certain prejudice against things seen as "irrational." Here, we are frequently trained to perfect analytical thinking skills with little regard to synthetical thinking, or other means of interpreting information. I think we need to look at the part intuition, whether eidetic or ideal, plays in our thinking and perceptual processes.
3) What is logic capable of "understanding," as it were? I argue that it's clear that not everything is logically explicable - for instance, something can be both paradoxical and true, which means that while it "works," it defies logical convention. That doesn't mean it's "not bound by logic" in the sense that it has no consistent patterns (norms), just that purely rationalistic means aren't sufficient to examine it.
Quote from extremestan »
On the first page I pasted my list of attributes that encapsulate the typical notion of a god. No one responded.
Sorry, Stan. I missed that.
Quote from extremestan »
Supreme
In charge of something.
Source
Everything we are familiar with, in some way, came from it or its kind.
Powerful
Can do more than humans.
Mysterious
Is mostly invisible to humans, humans can't grasp it completely.
Revealed
Is sometimes made visible to humans (through miracles, divine providence, blessings, curses, etc.), gives "hints" of its qualities.
Spiritual
Made of something different or more than mere physical components, if any physical components at all.
A question or two -
Is being revealed a necessary quality for being God?
Is it possible, using these qualities as strictures, to have more than one God? What are some of the repercussions if there are?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I would say that your checklist meets with my aproval. I'm sure there are possibly things that are not god that also fill these qualifications in the beliefs of some people, but it works for me. Personaly, I'm of the opinion that all gods are the same and that each persons paridigm shapes how they see the world, and thus who they believe their god is.
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø My Blog ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø
EXTENDO SIG!!!
This checklist defines space, and the state of space. Although that fits the theory that god is everything absolutely. Gaia theory... no not really... its either Renassiance or Greek theory?
Let's clarify: Are we defining thee God or the Christian God here? (I'm not saying that christians are refering to the wrong god but rather they've givened god traits that don't actually belong to god. They interpret the bible incorrectly producing inaccurate assumptions about god. (In the "imagine of god" line most people think it means god created us to look like him, although it means in his vision of us, what he intended us to look like. I don't think god looks black and white at the same time? One thing-Christians do have one thing right: God is an Omni (all powerful).
Let's clarify: You can't called her, you can't called god him either. Why? Cause god does not have a ***** or a ******.
Here's a buster though: If god was all powerful could god make a rock god could not lift?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
In orthodox circles, "in his image" is interpreted as "with a rational soul." It's not in regard to what he "looks like."
Transgender people would like a word with you.
We've been throught his on these boards several times. The answer is no, he could not. Defying logic is not a matter of power, and performing "both X and !X simultaneously" is logically impossible.
Unless, of course, you accept the potential that God is not bound by logical constraints.
And actually, I could give an argument based entirely on Biblical references that would indicate the answer is "yes" if you like.
BTW, I think no one responded to your definition of God because it's not a definition, it's a list of attributes. Or maybe just because (lik I've said three or so times now) there's really no useful definition of God.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
You seem to underestimate the word all powerful, meaning infinitely powerful.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
You seem to overestimate the word "powerful." Defying logic is not a matter of power/strength.
Think about a line. A horizontal line at Y = 4 is infinite. But it will never touch the point (5, 5), even though it's infinite.
How on earth did I just defeat myself with the last sentence? I was just telling those open-minded people out there to check out something different than what people normally hand to them...
We would, and so would nature. Gender has little to do with body. Are you saying a man whose ***** has been amputated is no longer a "he", or a woman who's had a historectomy is no longer a "she"?
As for God's gender - I find it illogical to presume that God has a specific gender quality (i.e. masculinity) without having the same "amount" of other relevant gender qualities (femininity). Unless, of course, you want to use the anthropomorphic deity model of God, and I think I've made it clear that I do not.
Stan is correct, it's not a matter of power. "Making a rock so big he can't lift it" is a nonsense challenge. It's not something that happens, it's just an abstract constructed out of words - such an "event" doesn't actually have an existence. It doesn't even have a conceptual image. It's like the whole circle-square thing we were talking about.
So when someone says, "No, God can't do that," jumping on it with, "Look! God can't do everything!" doesn't actually add anything to our concepts of God, or of "omnipotence".
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
That question is more usefully phrased as such:
Can God put limits on his own power?
I don't see anything logically contradictory about that, and yet, if he did, he would no longer be omnipotent.
This causes a problem in particular for free will proponents who are theists.
If God has any quality that is mutually exclusive to another quality, then he is defficient in something. For instance, God is benevolent and provident, making him the ultimate manifestation of love. Thus, God can't be malevolent. He's defficient at malevolence. And some people feel that this contradicts an absolute definition of omnipotence.
That's why it's much better to say God is "maximally powerful" than to say he is "omnipotent." Only maximal power is suggested in the Bible. Omnipotence potentially means more than the Bible suggests.
Such a definition, however, doesn't exactly tell us which respects those might be, or how it is possible to be powerful in a given respect.
Let us examine the classic question - is God so powerful that He can create an object that even He Himself is unable to move it?
There are a few basic factors to consider. There are different kinds of power (different ways in which one might be powerful), and I will propose two types of power relevant to this question. The first is creative power - the power to create something, whatever it may be. The second is the power to act upon a something, to be able to enact one's will meaningfully on it with respect to the specific something's innate properties. For the sake of discussion I shall call it transitive power.
The deconstruction attempts to show that in order to be perfectly powerful in one respect, God must be imperfectly powerful in another respect. Theoretically, if God has perfect creative power, then He can create any object or scenario, any reality, which He deigns to create (anything which He might imagine). And if God has perfect transitive power, then He should be able to act upon any thing however He wishes - move any weight, cure any disease, direct any force, so on and so on. If He has perfect creative power, then it is no problem to manifest the scenario "create a object which even you cannot move." However, if He does so, He demonstrates that His transitive power is imperfect. And if He is able to move that object, then He demonstrates that He lacks perfect creative power, because He was unable create a scenario which fulfilled the proposed restriction.
I question whether or not the original restriction is even pertinent - in other words, is creating a scenario which is incoherent (in this example, if we are to assume God has both perfect creative and perfect transitive power, the scenario would be incoherent) a demonstration of any type of power?
I believe the restriction to be non-realistic - basically, it's possible to construct the scenario linguistically, but it is also possible to linguistically construct a "circle-square" even though an object which might be aptly described by such a term could not exist. The scenario "a perfectly creatively powerful being which is also a perfectly transitively powerful being creates an object against his transitive power is proved imperfect" can be phrased as such, and can exist as an abstract, but in reality there is not necessarily any such scenario.
The question can amount to "can God perform nonsense tricks, that which is not even theoretically possible?" This, to me, has similarity to the deconstruction "can God sin?" I question whether performing either of those acts (performing nonsense, or sinning) really amount to evidence of power. The problem derived from the deconstructions - "God can't do anything because there are things which a perfect being couldn't do, because the actions themselves would evidence imperfection" - is basically only a theoretical problem.
This is akin to my earlier discourse about "states and forms." Something can exist theoretically while still not having literal potential existence (circle-squares). Also, that which has potential existence isn't necessarily an object in its own right, it could merely be a quality, a "form" (such as being a pop tart).
I think this is sort of what Stan is getting at. If you define "omnipotent" as "maximally powerful," having maximum power of each possible kind, then the deconstructions are irrelevant. If you define "omnipotent" as "able to perform any nonsense trick which I am able to propose," then perhaps that definition is itself nonsense (that is, it exists only in the abstract).
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
So you can't limit His power, except for His power to be cruel? OK....
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
No, that means that you cannot make God into a wrathful God, unless you know God, but He is unknowable, so go figure...
I agree, however a better word would be incomprensible.
Please someone answer this: What is A god to begin with?
What if our species was the result of Alien experimentation? Would aliens then be our god(s)?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
That is the very question posed in this thread. I attempted to answer it by providing four possible definitions for a god here - http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1246834&postcount=112
They are:
1) A deific being (if our race were engineered by aliens who were superior to us in power and understanding, we might consider them deities).
2) A pantheistic being (which is All, and may not necessarily even be a being).
3) A monistic being (which is the One).
4) A meta-deific being, or a meta-entity.
Note that I did take the liberty of assuming that God would be a being, though a definition of a God may not necessarily include that assumption.
Some of the other posters have decided that God doesn't follow logical patterns and can't even be conceived of, but I don't necessarily think it has to stop there, as that's certainly not universally agreed upon.
A few notes about logic - though it is not a fallacy to conceive that God (or a God) may be illogical (not bound by logic, or in other words, having not logical patterns), I think it is a fallacy to insist that if God is inexplicable, He must therefor be illogical. It's quite possible for a force or entity to apparently defy certain logical truths with which we are familiar, without necessarily being chaotic (having no logical patterns). There are actually many things which are inexplicable logically but are not only conceivable, but predictable. For instance, certain concepts such as "good" evade logical explanation and even definition, but are still practical concepts to use in daily life and even have observable natures. It is easier to examine such things using intuition than logic.
Logic is not unlike language, and like language, it is very similar to a sense. It is a means we use to "connect to" reality, to experiences or facts we perceive (the result is called "information"), and relate them to others, ourselves, or other events. There are things that are simply imperceptible to some senses - just because something isn't visible, or can't be heard, doesn't mean it does not exist or can't be related to in some way.
There are few things which must be addressed before we can do so, however:
1) What is logic, and how is it used? We can define this generally (denote it) but we also need to relate it to the discussion (connote it). Does something being logical mean it can be explained or examined using strictly rationalistic means? Or does it merely mean "coherent"? What is the practical difference between something which is illogical and something which is alogical?
2) There is an assumption that reason is the only active function of the mind aside from imagination and emotion, both of which are seen as irrational functions (and thus assumed to be even less helpful than reason in explaining anything). In the West there is a certain prejudice against things seen as "irrational." Here, we are frequently trained to perfect analytical thinking skills with little regard to synthetical thinking, or other means of interpreting information. I think we need to look at the part intuition, whether eidetic or ideal, plays in our thinking and perceptual processes.
3) What is logic capable of "understanding," as it were? I argue that it's clear that not everything is logically explicable - for instance, something can be both paradoxical and true, which means that while it "works," it defies logical convention. That doesn't mean it's "not bound by logic" in the sense that it has no consistent patterns (norms), just that purely rationalistic means aren't sufficient to examine it.
Sorry, Stan. I missed that.
A question or two -
Is being revealed a necessary quality for being God?
Is it possible, using these qualities as strictures, to have more than one God? What are some of the repercussions if there are?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20