the great atheism debate

[tiltbillings]

[Freser:] At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. He is, as the Muslims say, “closer than the vein in your neck.”

He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. Indeed. For example: Zyklon-B and the will to use it.

That is not an argument.

It is a simple illustration of the comment Freser made and it makes my point about the supposed god's responsibility in terms of its supposed creation. I am glad that you quoted Freser.

[contemplans]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

[Modus.Ponens]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

Do you know about the set of all sets? Better be careful with the infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_of_all_sets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

[Freser:] At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. He is, as the Muslims say, “closer than the vein in your neck.”

He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. Indeed. For example: Zyklon-B and the will to use it.

I hate to have to tell you this, Tilt, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_l ... _and_usage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you have lost the debate.



Kim

Then plug in Mao, or Stalin, Pot Pot, or any of the countless horror stories that humans have suffered and have inflicted upon themselves, and often in the name of their god and the Prince of Peace. Godwin's law is only meaningful if the reference is gratuitous. In this context it is, of course, directly to the point.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

[contemplans]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

The concept of a Creator God is incoherent.
God by definition must be self-sufficient, if he is not self-sufficient how can he be defined as God?
If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything. Anything created will be purposeless with respect to a self-sufficient God.
If the world we see is created by a God, that God therefore cannot be self-sufficient.
If that God is not self-sufficient, then he cannot be God.

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why. The reasoning provided from causality reasons to pure actuality as the logical explanation of being.

[contemplans]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

You are confusing the existence of a thing with its actions. There is a difference between a material thing like a knife, and the immaterial will to kill someone with it. The knife as such is merely a collection of elements, whereas the will is altogether different. One is a thing, and one isn't. Otherwise we'd have to posit something very strange for all the Buddha's statements about will and intention.

[contemplans]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

Do you know about the set of all sets? Better be careful with the infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_of_all_sets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do not.

[Goofaholix]

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why.

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

[contemplans]

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why.

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

[tiltbillings]

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

You are confusing the existence of a thing with its actions.

Not at all.

There is a difference between a material thing like a knife, and the immaterial will to kill someone with it. The knife as such is merely a collection of elements, whereas the will is altogether different. One is a thing, and one isn't. Otherwise we'd have to posit something very strange for all the Buddha's statements about will and intention.

What you are arguing here is that there are some things that are out of the supposed omnipotent. omniscient's god's control, but the will to do something, whatever it might be, is a thing, thus, it is caused by directly god at every instant.

[Goofaholix]

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

What's her purpose?

[contemplans]

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

What's her purpose?

To be.

[perkele]

It's getting too noisy.

Too much passion, too little consideration.
Too much philosophizing, too little substance.

[Goofaholix]

What's her purpose?

To be.

So god doesn't create and his/her only purpose is to be?

Sounds like next thing you'll be telling me if I want to seek him he can be found queueing up at the Social welfare office.