From: rfischer{at}sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

stumper   wrote:
>satyr wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:22:46 -0400, stumper 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> satyr wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:48:16 -0400, stumper

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> satyr wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:58:00 -0400, stumper

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> satyr wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:18:44 -0400,
stumper 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conscious supreme being who
created the universe and is likely
>>>>>>>>>> omnipotent and omniscient.
>>>>>>>>> Gee, you are such a traditionalist.
>>>>>>>>> Still good enough.
>>>>>>>>> Don't forget that we don't have to be
a physicalist here.
>>>>>>>> I would call myself a materialist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'being'?
>>>>>>>> Entity, unit, item.  The term is general. 
The importance lies in the
>>>>>>>> modifiers (conscious, supreme) and the
further description.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is God directly or indirectly
observable by humans?
>>>>>>>> No, because he does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should God be observable to exist?
>>>>>> No, but he must exist to be observable.
>>>>> Does the universe exist?
>>>> Yes, we can observe it.
>>>>
>>>>> What if God is the universe and some?
>>>> I do not believe the universe has consciousness and
therefore does not
>>>> meet my definition of God, although maybe it fits yours.
>>>>
>>>> If they are the same, then I submit that using the word
"God" is
>>>> superfluous and confusing.  The fact is that most religions make a
>>>> distinction between God and his alleged creation.
>>>>
>>>>> Do we still have to prove that God exists?
>>>> Not if you are going to define God down to some inanimate object we
>>>> know to exist.  I know God exists, I flushed Him down the
toilet this
>>>> morning.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to prove the God of my definition exists, then
you have to
>>>> show him to me or prove that the universe has consciousness.  Good
>>>> luck.
>>>
>>> "Conscious supreme being who created the universe
>>> and is likely omnipotent and omniscient"?
>>>
>>> Conscious of everything all at once always?
>>> Do you think that is possible?
>>
>> Conscious of everything all at once always = omniscient, a preferred
>> but optional feature of my definition.  Is omniscience possible?  For
>> God?  Sure, why not.  He is the Supreme Being.  But for my definition
>> he only has to be conscious, a characteristic possessed by mere humans
>> and presumably even dogs and cats.
>>
>>> What if God is everything there ever was,
>>> is, will be, and some more?
>>> It does exist by definition, doesn't it?
>>
>> No.  By (your) definition, "some more" than
"everything there ever
>> was, is, will be" must inherently include some territory that does not
>> exist and never will.  By your definition, God cannot exist.  And it
>> still would lack the unitary consciousness which is required by my
>> definition.
>>
>> Is your argument that God is a metaphor?  As a metaphor I would have
>> no problem saying that God (or Santa Claus) exists.  But this is
>> semantic prestidigitation.  I am acknowledging the existence of
>> metaphors, not God (or Santa Claus.)  You are insisting that Santa
>> Claus be defined as "the universe" and then demanding
that I deny the
>> existence of Santa Claus.  My definition of Santa Claus (red suit,
>> white beard, comes down the chimney Christmas Eve to leave presents)
>> is much more universally accepted and easily refuted.  Your definition
>> is obscure and meaningless and therefore impossible to refute.
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>It is my position that
>God is not something we can understand so easily.

And yet here you are, insisting that you are qualified to describe the nature of God.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer{at}sonic.net

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag