Defining what is God.

BTW: the guy who said that thing you said in the OP was Archbishop of Canterbury - Saint Anselm - who lived around 1034 to 1100 or so.
I only know this 'cos they use some of his quotes in "Medieval 2: Total War".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I suggest you go and rethink your conception of the "time factor".

Anything you can conceive of, something better can be conceived. And something better than that.

And please tell me, logically, how something can be the "cause of all causes" - not just "well - there has to be something if you go far back enough."
Please tell me, explain to me, how you conceive / conceptualise this - WITHOUT having something there initially to cause it.
If God causes - what caused him to cause it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any universe capable of creating a god is capable of creating itself without one. Its far more likely that the existence of the universe is what's eternal and, therefore, a god becomes unnecessary. Although, I can see why the credulous and those heavily indoctrinated in theological superstitions would find it necessary to continue belief in something "greater than themselves."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus:

There is a problem with a conception of "greater than eternity". Eternity is by definition infinite. There cannot be a greater conception than that.

 

I can conceive of a god that does not operate out of limited conditions that we are familiar with in our insignificant state

I can conceive of a god that is fully capable of performing an d manifesting what is currently far far far far far far beyond current standards of empiric notions of universal functionism

 

Proving that you have an active imagination. I can conceive of a tele-tubbie (tinky-winkie) that is "fully capable of performing and manifesting..." far⁷ beyond your standards. Does this mean the universe is now ruled and created by tele-tubbies? It does if your postmodernist reasoning is to be accepted as valid.

 

Me too, but you didn't answer my question.

 

God is defined as an "object of worship"
It can be anything.
Man has thousands.......whatever you choose to worship becomes your god to you.
It could be your T.V. stars.....your Escalade, your spouse, money.....
Western culture offers you so many.
Every time you turn on "Entertainment tonight" they vie for your attention.
Pick me...pick me.....

That which you chose to serve, by which you are overcome....the same becomes your master.
There are many gods.
Death has a thousand faces.

There is only one true Lord of Heaven and Earth.
There is only one that is life.

 

LIGHTGIGANTIC -

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION

Saying the words does not mean it is conceivable.

Can you conceptualise a square circle?
You can say the words - but can you do it?

So please - ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

 

How can something come from nothing without a Creator?

 

How can a creator come from nothing without something? Open your mind for a second... (seriously, just a minute or two)

Why do you assume that causality is a natural force in the universe? Just because you USUALLY observe that things on a macro level have a cause? That is not any clue regarding the real nature of the universe. It is perfectly ok to not know.

Looking around, I would never guess that time runs slower at sealevel than it does on a mountaintop. I would never suppose that two entangled virtual particles could pop out of the nothingness of a perfect vacuum and disappear again. I wouldn't think that light waves bend in space, or that there was even a speed of light. I would think it instantaneous. I would think that the sun went around the Earth, that no more than 3 dimensions could ever exist, and that the stars were something very different from the Sun.


1. Please prove to me that all things must be caused by something else.

After you do this,

2. Please prove to me that you know of something that needs no cause.

If you can't see how both of these proofs are impossible within the same system, and that every major religion uses them as basic tenets, then there is no need to go any further. You are faith-bound and deluded and should give up on trying to sound smart or scientific and just embrace your fantasyland. Seriously, at least some people have the good idea to pretend that faith is a noble thing. What truly saddens are the people that know, deep down, that faith is illogical, but can't give reason a try either.

 

Since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you are deluded.

 

Oh, but I have. Did you miss the thread?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60302

Now, it is up to you to prove that I have not disproved god. I did a whole lot more than just say "god doesn't exist". I logically disproved the god that you worship. You can either attempt to argue my disproof (which will require some work), or you can ignore it (which admits defeat), or you can simply say "God exists because I say so (which admits insanity). I have a sneaking suspicion that you will choose one of the latter two. If you were the sort of person capable of choosing the first choice, you would already be an atheist.


Edit: Another example of your lost cause is the way that you ignored my simple two questions and just persisted in your lunacy. This is a forum for discussing ideas, not simply stating them and hoping that it will be enough.

 

then you would have to establish what is the particular quality of a tele tubby that makes them superior - as regards my original comment, I was pointing out that a god that falls within the folds of insignificance is hardly a worshipable entity - and given that tele tubbies are quite insignificant, owing their existence to the imagination of children's entertainment executives, I could hazard that a god that is not a tele tubby is superior to a god that is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

regardless whether the original expressions of the manifested world are conscious or not, a god that is the source of all animate and inanimate manifestations stands as superior to it. (BTW If you want to speculate about whether the origins of the unibverse where conscious or not, this is not the thread for it

Infinity, unlike square circles, can be represented in mathmatics

 

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

This comment does NOT do that.

The question (lest you have forgotten):
"Please tell me, explain to me, how you conceive / conceptualise this - WITHOUT having something there initially to cause it.
If God causes - what caused him to cause it? "

The fact that you can conceptualise inifinity due to some squiggle in mathematics is irrelevant.

 

If the universe was an 'accident' or occurred naturally with no planning involved then there is no god.

lol! Why not? You named this thread 'Defining God' - It's more than relevant.

 

What makes your imagination superior to that of the entertainment executives? They do get paid for that.

 

I hate to point it out, but you are trying to engage a theist in a rational discussion. Can't you see the ultimate futility of it?

Hey LG, my challenge for the debate is still on. I bet you don't dare to take it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And my statement still stands - if I say that I like hot food yet I am unable to define the qualities of hot food then I don't make for much of a discussion about hot food - similarly if I cannot discuss the qualities of god I don't make for much of a discussion about the forms of god

with or without imagination, it still remains for you to give the superior qualities of a tele tubby

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

take a squiz at the OP

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

how do you conceive of infinity

 

Infinity is not the issue.
It is a mere red herring you thought answered the question but did no such thing.

Now answer the actual question... not the red-herring.