AudioAtomica
Member
+53|6697

Vilham wrote:

AudioAtomica wrote:

Vilham wrote:


The whole point being a god is that it is the ultimate being, that is what makes it god. Nothing can be better than it. The only way for that to be true to is to be/do everything. If you believe in a god that isnt all knowing and all powerful then you dont think very highly of your so called god.

Its the whole reasoning behind multiple believes, like the fact that God is the universe because the universe is the ultimate being.

Well done on showing two times you cant form a good counter argument rather than just "roflcakes".

Just incase you dont understand the above...

God = ultimate being.
I don't need to argue anything, the English language does it for me.

be·lief      /bɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. 


faith      /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. 
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad. 


You'll find a few keywords around in those definitions such as "opinion" or "faith" or "belief" or "confidence".

God does not have to be all knowing, how do you know God didn't just create everything and sit back with a beer and go to sleep? You don't, you don't know if he needs sleep or not, or what exactly constitutes all powerful. It's all based on opinon, there for there CAN NOT be specification to what God can and cannot do, it just depends in which you believe or have faith.


So again I say.
Roflcakes.
I love the way your trying to debate against something that has been discussed by philosophers and thologians for thousands of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient

You arent even debating god... your debating faith and belief which has nothing to do with the def of god.

God      /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun
1.    the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.    the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.    (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.    (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.    Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.    (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.    (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.    (often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a.    the upper balcony in a theater.
b.    the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object)
9.    (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10.    (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

Note where ever it takes about the being god it says SUPREME BEING. The only case where this isnt true is in polytheism where there are multiple gods thus none of them are supreme.
That's because this whole THREAD is about Faith and Belief. There wouldn't be God if no one bothered to have Faith in him, or a Goddess or any other diety without Faith.

My point being, God(s)/Goddess(') are not All powerful or All knowing unless you believe him/her/them to be. Religion has nothing to do with an individual's Faith in their connection to God. Especially to the point that they don't believe God controls everything that goes on in the world. (<---Me) You keep saying "supreme being" We're supreme beings compared to ants, we aren't all knowledgable or all powerful, why should God have to be this ultimate caretaker that relieves everyone of their moral responsibilities?


"Psht, we didn't start any wars, God let it happen."


Roflcakes.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7079|949

AudioAtomica wrote:

That's because this whole THREAD is about Faith and Belief. There wouldn't be God if no one bothered to have Faith in him, or a Goddess or any other diety without Faith.


Really?

So you believe God only exists in the mind?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-17 15:51:12)

AudioAtomica
Member
+53|6697

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

AudioAtomica wrote:

That's because this whole THREAD is about Faith and Belief. There wouldn't be God if no one bothered to have Faith in him, or a Goddess or any other diety without Faith.


Really?

So you believe God only exists in the mind?
Yes and no.

It's hard for me to explain.

What I meant by that comment was...

If no one bothered to have Faith in God, let alone ponder the concept of any 'Supreme Being' then that concept would not exist in the mind of humanity.

Last edited by AudioAtomica (2007-05-17 15:56:52)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Same thing, more or less, actually more! There is usually a father God or source God, of which the other Gods are emanations from the source.
Lets look at the Greek gods (purely because I'm most familiar with them).

Zeus is the father, basically. Poseidon and Hades are his brothers whom he freed from his father's (Kronos) stomach after killing him. They divided the world between them. They were born of the even more powerful beings, the Titans. They were born from the Earth and the Sky (Gaia and Uranus).

The gods have a leader, but he is not omnipotent. Just the most powerful.

Nor is Uranus considered to be omnipotent (he was killed by his children), he was rarely even considered as an anthropomorphic deity - he was the sky and Gaia the earth.

Your definition of there always being some source, is perfectly accurate. But that's not the same as having an omnipotent creator.
Yeah, but the mythology always gets redefined, re-invented in form, interpreted by the theology surrounding it.

Pantheon (of Gods) = the actual mythological parade of special divine beings.

Pantheism = everything is divine or an emanation of the source, they are one and the same Spinoza, or Einstein's type of abstract God concept.

Panentheism = the same thing as [above], but also that God abstract is transcending the emanations of forms (of the creation and all other beings in creation) as well. In this abstract concept God is the creation and part of God transcends the creation of forms (as source well for the forms we see, experience, etc).

Like Vilham said, chaos is the emanating force, if you trace it back to the source (as an idea). The emanating force/source doesn't have to be personal, a personification of anthropomorphic form to be God. Chaos ultimately as an idea originates with the Sumerian traditions.

It's an evolution of ideas over time. It's cultural transmission and inheritance. It is sometimes the de-evolution of form (in terms of myth). It is the inclusion of philosophical concepts over time. Etc.

It might be J.C. (a different J.C. - Joseph Campbell) who said, more or less that "dreams are the personal myth and myth the depersonalized dream."
I still disagree that a source is the same thing as a supreme and omnipotent deity, as is seen in the Christian religion.

Nor do I consider chaos to be the creating force in Greek, Roman or Mesopotamian (actually I'm not so sure about Mesopotamian, but hey) mythology. It is merely what was before.

The thing is, we seem to have branched away from the concept I was arguing against, which was:

Vilham wrote:

You cant have a not all knowing god. Because by definition he wouldnt be the ultimate being thus he wouldnt be god.

God MUST be all knowing to be the ultimate being.
I disagree with that statement, for reasons I have outlined.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-17 16:29:55)

topal63
. . .
+533|7165

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Lets look at the Greek gods (purely because I'm most familiar with them).

Zeus is the father, basically. Poseidon and Hades are his brothers whom he freed from his father's (Kronos) stomach after killing him. They divided the world between them. They were born of the even more powerful beings, the Titans. They were born from the Earth and the Sky (Gaia and Uranus).

The gods have a leader, but he is not omnipotent. Just the most powerful.

Nor is Uranus considered to be omnipotent (he was killed by his children), he was rarely even considered as an anthropomorphic deity - he was the sky and Gaia the earth.

Your definition of there always being some source, is perfectly accurate. But that's not the same as having an omnipotent creator.
Yeah, but the mythology always gets redefined, re-invented in form, interpreted by the theology surrounding it.

Pantheon (of Gods) = the actual mythological parade of special divine beings.

Pantheism = everything is divine or an emanation of the source, they are one and the same Spinoza, or Einstein's type of abstract God concept.

Panentheism = the same thing as [above], but also that God abstract is transcending the emanations of forms (of the creation and all other beings in creation) as well. In this abstract concept God is the creation and part of God transcends the creation of forms (as source well for the forms we see, experience, etc).

Like Vilham said, chaos is the emanating force, if you trace it back to the source (as an idea). The emanating force/source doesn't have to be personal, a personification of anthropomorphic form to be God. Chaos ultimately as an idea originates with the Sumerian traditions.

It's an evolution of ideas over time. It's cultural transmission and inheritance. It is sometimes the de-evolution of form (in terms of myth). It is the inclusion of philosophical concepts over time. Etc.

It might be J.C. (a different J.C. - Joseph Campbell) who said, more or less that "dreams are the personal myth and myth the depersonalized dream."
I still disagree that a source is the same thing as a supreme and omnipotent deity, as is seen in the Christian religion.

Nor do I consider chaos to be the creating force in Greek, Roman or Mesopotamian (actually I'm not so sure about Mesopotamian, but hey) mythology. It is merely what was before.
Totally right, it is not the same - not by definition (not by mythological/theological tradition).

The Christian ultimate-being to believe in is the Trinity Godhead. It has to have that form or else.
The Christian Trinity God-head does not equal the Spinoza-esque ultimate type Creator = Creation = Supreme Being (that is too abstract; not founded in a mythical/or same theological tradition).

Two ultimate type beings (or so they think-say), but not the same type of ultimate.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-17 16:37:50)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
Protect the innocent.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard