1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    22 Feb '12 21:215 edits
    Assuming a definition of a god as "creator of the universe"; if such an entity exists, the most we could suppose about this entity is that in some way it was instrumental in the bringing about of this universe's existence.

    We would not be right to infer it did such a thing alone, or pontificate about the method via which it brings things into existence, or presume that it has the properties of omnipotence or omniscience - indeed to hold that it must be capable of doing anything other than create (at least in part) universes would be a step too far. We could not validly suppose that it cared about any creature or system that resulted from it's creation (or that it cared more about some collection of creatures than it did others - let alone specify the nature of such creatures). We could not rightly assume timelessness, present existence, or the form this entity takes. We would be presumptuous to conclude that it is anymore supernatural a thing than what would be minimally considered supernatural for a thing to create at least one universe. To ascribe to it traits like goodness & perfection would be no less arbitrary a choice than ascribing to it evilness & ineptness instead.


    Indeed, if I were to grant the existence of a god, the only thing I could say with any degree of confidence is that, in some way it was at least partially responsible for making this universe exist. All else would be ungrounded guesswork.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    22 Feb '12 21:39
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Assuming a definition of a god as "creator of the universe"; if such an entity exists, the most we could suppose about this entity is that in some way it was instrumental in the bringing about of this universe's existence.

    We would not be right to infer it did such a thing alone, or pontificate about the method via which it brings things into existen ...[text shortened]... artially responsible for making this universe exist. All else would be ungrounded guesswork.
    Indeed, our universe may have been created in a cosmic version of a high school physics class.
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    23 Feb '12 03:302 edits
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Assuming a definition of a god as "creator of the universe"; if such an entity exists, the most we could suppose about this entity is that in some way it was instrumental in the bringing about of this universe's existence.

    We would not be right to infer it did such a thing alone, or pontificate about the method via which it brings things into existen artially responsible for making this universe exist. All else would be ungrounded guesswork.
    A whole host of polytheists (past and present) would dispute that as a necessary definition for a being called (in whatever language) a “god”.

    However, with that pointed out, the following—

    We would be presumptuous to conclude that it is anymore supernatural a thing than what would be minimally considered supernatural for a thing to create at least one universe.

    —seems critically insightful. Indeed, such a god might not be considered “supernatural” at all, but, as it were, the natura ultima (if I have my Latin right, which is doubtful).
  4. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    23 Feb '12 18:20
    the minimal characteristics of a god is to not exist.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    23 Feb '12 22:442 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    A whole host of polytheists (past and present) would dispute that as a necessary definition for a being called (in whatever language) a “god”.

    However, with that pointed out, the following—

    We would be presumptuous to conclude that it is anymore supernatural a thing than what would be minimally considered supernatural for a thing to create at least at all, but, as it were, the natura ultima (if I have my Latin right, which is doubtful).
    True...I take on board your point; however to be able to discuss what one can say or not say about some god or other, one has to know and be able to communicate to others what they mean by the term "god". Pandering to the monotheistic majority here (with respect to those who are theists) I made my choice of definition and ran with it. Moreover, in the majority of these cases a basic eligibility requirement for an entity we might wish to refer to as a god is the assumption that it created (at least) this universe.
  6. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    23 Feb '12 22:53
    I think the idea of a God that is some sort of a person sitting on a throne is what turns people off . The idea of a force or power that has intelligence and is responsible for all there is not a turn off. The angry God that sets up a situation like Heaven or Hel,l and you must believe a certain way or you are in big trouble is a repulsive idea and born of primitive concepts that should be exposed for the crazy concept it is. It turns thinking men and women against the spiritual path all together .
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    23 Feb '12 22:581 edit
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    the minimal characteristics of a god is to not exist.
    Lemme see...negating that statement we have:
    it is not true the minimal characteristics of a god is not to exist

    rephrase this as:

    for all subsets of the set of all characteristics that can apply to gods, there exists at least one such set that is smaller in size than the set of characteristics associated with a god that doesn't exist

    But the number of elements in the set of characteristics associated to a non-existent god is zero and thus its cardinality is zero. So we have the existence of some set with cardinality less than 0 - a contradiction!


    Yes, I agree with you 🙂
Back to Top