God's limitations

no raf, my arguement is this, and try to keep up.to say that NO God exists because any God would be limited is a fallious arguement. here is why. the limits do not need to be exterior to god, but contained in him. thus, he is actually more perfect if he follows his own rules than if he breaks them. think of an example. a circle is round. it has not cornors. a circle is not squared. a squared circle cannot exist, this would make it imperfect. a circle is perfect is it round, it is imperfect the less round it is.

what pisses me off is that the concept of god is not one that can be picked up in a neitschze book of quotes – god is dead, therefore he doesn’t exist, everything else, blah blah blah…this bullshit is mindless banter that does not require ANY sound philosophizing but simply spewing rederict.

Nihlistic wrote:

here’s the thing, if you would say that there is no point in worshiping an imperfect god if the god has limits, then you have already established a god. how do you know there are not other ways, other forms, other types of god out there? you have not invalidated their existence. all of the rationalists would have agreed that the an imperfect god cannot exist, but they would have differed in their definition of imperfect and god. by providing definitions of these things, they have created an arguement. you created a bunch of bullshit by not defining your terms, supporting your assumptions or arguing anything, really.
[/quote]

Tell me again? What is your definition of god?

Stab in the dark here since your thought process is almost as unstable as your sentence structure, but you’re saying that God exists as a product, subset of, or as rationality. As a result, God can concieve of something greater than himself… a being that is capable of both rational and irrational actions.

This being the case, would it not be reasonable to use the Ontological Proof of God to state that if God can think of something more powerful than himself, but not be able to create this thing, that God is not ALL powerful, but SEMI powerful?

It would mean that god would have limits.

Furthermore, you speak of the causal proofs in Med 3, however, you forget the fact that god MUST exist outside of our known reason to create our known reason. Nothing can create itself, that is, unless it exists in a form of existence where something could be its own formal cause. Otherwise, it would defy our own reason. This, Trix, would destroy your premise that god exists within reason.

Take the fact that a rational god would have rational limits (that of the regress of causality) and that he cannot exist within our shared reality without being a false god, then you face two problems.

1)Reason is a lie (an undesireable side effect much like solipsism).

2)Reason is real but god is not reasonable. This is undesireable as god would not be subject to our rules and therefore would not even be attainable from the human mind. This makes all talk of god COMPLETELY worthless, as man could never understand him.

The solution to both of these problems (without using Descartes’ circle), is that god doesn’t exist.

I don’t follow Neitzsche’s school of thought, but the wonderful thing about him is that he used the four main proofs of god (teleological, transcendental, cosmological, and ontological) against each other to disprove them all. Case in point, Descartes doesn’t sufficiently handle the infinite regress of causality without having to deny god.

[/quote]

Nicely done, you said nothing about anything, and you showed all the insites of Warrior Monk doing it. I didn’t define terms because I was playing off your definitions(or lack there of).
I really don’t care what the rationalists have done, as my ideas are independent of there’s and they are really irrelevant in this discussion.

You’re right, I haven’t really argued anything, I’ve just been questioning, you, and making observations.

Why would you worship a god that is bound by other things, and is imperfect? Doesn’t that negate the whole concept of god? Or are you perfectly happy being a sheep of a sheep?

nihlistic wrote:

i wrote in an earlier post:

Nihlistic’s version of god from earlier posts:

you’ve defined god, but you haven’t backed it up. i was arguing that there were other definitions of god that you haven’t refuted. that’s all; you can’t seem to overcome your own prejudices, and that’s a shame.

raf wrote:

i don’t have a definition, and i was not saying attempting to argue a descartes’ version of god. i was simply saying that the concept of god cannot be refuted by saying that god is imperfect by having to follow certain laws.

this cannot be refuted because thinkers who believe in god have adopted different definitions of imperfection, obedience and god. these definitions would have to be refuted to disprove their philosophies.

If you want to be a picky little bastage about this, fine.

Here’s an illustration of how “God” is a Catch-22.

[size=150]PROOF THAT GOD IS EITHER HUMANE OR DOES NOT EXIST[/size]
DEFINITIONS

Imperfect, that which is not perfect.

Perfect, that which follows all reason of definition. The ideal.

Sin, that which goes against the natural order of the universe. Contradiction.

Obedience, following rules for the sake of the rule.

God, that of which none greater can be concieved.

Consciousness (simple), able to concieve of anything.

Humane (modified), being who is conscious of greater than or equal to human consciousness.

SUBPROOF 1
-God, by virtue of godliness, can do anything within reason, otherwise all talk of god would be unreasonable.

-It can be reasonably defined that all unreasonable actions are steps that are impossible in a reasonable world. (Without getting into miracles, as they are human interpretations of impossible, but are often times still possible) For instance, a circular square is unreasonable by ideal definition.

-If god is that of which none greater can be concieved (see: the Kantian, Cartesian, Nietzschian, Platonic, Socratic model of god), then he could not bend the rules of rationality without contradicting himself.

-If god goes against the natural order of reality, he’s commiting sin.

-If god commits sin, then he is not ideal, as he’s a walking contradiction.

-God cannot exist without disobeying the laws of rationality, god by definition, cannot disobey reality.

SUBPROOF 2
Following from Proof 1**
-If god is obedient, and obedience is good, then the definition of god is wrong.

-If the definition of god is wrong, then the Ontological proof is wrong.

-If the Ontological proof of god is wrong, then all talk of Descartes is crap.

SUBPROOF 3
Following from Proof 1**
-If god is obedient, and obedience is bad, then god commits a sin.

-If god can commit sin, then we can concieve something better than “god”, a true God that commits no sin.

-Since this god can be interchanged with this new god in all proofs and subproofs, the new god would have to have a varied conclusion to remain god. Otherwise, one finds another new god and the process repeats.

-The conclusion is the same, infinite regress, a perfectly humane god is illogical.

SUBPROOF 4
Following from Proof 1**
-If obedience is not a matter of morality, then god is commiting a sin.

-If god can commit sin, then we can concieve something better than “god”, a true God that commits no sin.

-Since this god can be interchanged with this new god in all proofs and subproofs, the new god would have to have a varied conclusion to remain god. Otherwise, one finds another new god and the process repeats.

-The conclusion is the same, infinite regress, a perfectly humane god is illogical.

SUBPROOF 5
+++++++Following from Proof 2++++++

-As stated, the Cartesian Definition of God is “that of which none greater can be concieved” cannot be correct if God is to exist.

-Other definitions of god cannot be conscious and perfect, as the first definition of god is the perfect conscious perfection.

-God cannot be conscious and perfect.

-God cannot be perfect and unconscious and continue to affect reality.

-God, by all other definitions, has a present effect on reality.

-God can be imperfect and conscious.

-Either God is imperfect and conscious, and therefore, humane, or god cannot possibly exist.

-All religions worship a humane being.
####################

Conclusions?

God, by Cartesian definition, cannot exist.

God is mortal so long as it is rational to say that reality can cease to be.

Trix, why do you worship him?

EDITS: Edited for clarity until I feel satisfied.

Trix

First of all, one quote was a question directed towards you, and does nothing to define god
And the second quote was playing off other definitions of god, in which he is all powerful…Said analogy showed the flaw in that, so it was a flaw in there definition of god…

As such I have done nothing to establish a definition of god, except for make observations using others definitions, and ask you questions about the very ability to define god.

But you’re right, I didn’t back up the first thing you quoted because it was a question of sorts, and the second quote had logical basis, that you convienently cut out when you quoted me…

Trix, you are very confused, or an idiot…Either way your motely application of the quoting feature is a little unsavory…

Anway, your statement about prejudice makes no sense, and If i defined god, then what is my definition?
Did you think you’d trick me into thinking I defined god?
[/quote]

Trix

Oh my Imperfect god, you you are a genious
[/quote]
[/code]

you know, i think i do like dickwads, seeing as i’ve been arguing the same damn points for 3 pages now, with a two of the biggest ones i’ve met. oh wait, i was also arguing with nihilistic, who obviously doens’t have a dick. sorry.

raf, i’ll respond later to your post

I’m a dickwad now?

Ouch? chuckles

Well, I’m sooooo glad that you find my post worthy of your review.

You’re the only dickwad here, Trix.

Hehehe, even when you try to decieve me, by manipulating my own quotes, you still can’t even make a valid point…

Although my dickless status, is a bit of a contradiction from your earlier observations about me being a dickwad…I guess the question that arises, is how can a wad of dicks be dickless? Wouldn’t that mean I don’t exist?
So in effect, aren’t you losing an argument to a dickless wad of dicks that may or may not exist?

What happened to god? Definatley has the limitation of not keeping all his subjects happy eh?

Nah, you can just blame Eve for eating that f-in apple. It caused PMS, and, millenia later, this post.

I alluded to this on another thread, but I will present my attitude towards this here. In terms of omnipotence, I think within my own frame of bias that we define it as the complete and fullness of potential. This can be contradictory and sometime illogical, but pervades within our own means of justification.
Now can some entity hold what we envision to be complete and full potential to the points of what our imagination can envision? This is indeed the mystery. However, whether you do or do not believe that such an entity can do so this doesn’t override that we still can envision such a completeness of potential. Call it whatever you like, it rides in the consciousness of all of us (as far as my bias can comprehend).
Now I am not claiming that there is or isn’t already a complete form of this potential or even that we can ever establish a complete form of this potential, but it is certainly something that is worthy of entertaining and frustrating our humanity.
Now can “God” (complete potential) build a rock that is too large to lift? If we feel that potential is complete in “God,” then we are faced with two contrasting potentials in which both cannot be complete. Does this prove or disprove anything regarding complete potential? I think it does both because it displays that complete potential can be problematic and is yet still a functional hypothesis although it may at times be either rational or irrational depending on your bias. This leads me to believe that what we deem to be complete potential or “God” is unattainable for us although it is the focus of our desire. We desire complete potential ourselves and we ourselves can possibly never create a rock too heavy for ourselves to lift. However, envisioning the power to create rocks or be able to lift the heaviest rocks ourselves may be a potential which we ourselves desire and personify or define. Calling it “God,” “Human Ambition,” “Destiny,” … is just a series of words, but the potential is glorious and a spark for our imagination.

What is a dickwad? I’ve always wondered that.

In North America these days, you can insult any male by simply using the word “dick” and then attatching some tag on the end of it. This has produced such poetic variations as,

“dickhead”, “dickbag”, “dickbrain”, “dicknut”, “dickpicker”, “dickvein”, “dickpiece”, “dickskin”, “dickweed”, “dickface”

Or if a woman happens to piss you off, there’s
“dickwarmer”, “dickpig”, “dicktease”, “dickrider”

Or if a gay guy hits on you and your straight, and he won’t go away you can call him a
“dicksuck”, a “dickass”, a “dickshit”, or a “dicksmoker”

As for being a dickWAD, you don’t actually have to have a dick per se. You just need to have originated inside someone’s dick…

Hope that clears things up. Always good to define your terms WHEN YOU’RE DOING PHILOSOPHY

Perfect is an absolute.
You can’t have “degrees” of perfection.

I don’t know if i heard this here or not but maybe god being god and all could take out the concept or problem of gravity thus lifting the unliftable but while at the same time keeping it unliftable…remember only god can do this.[/code]

The greatest commandment is:
“Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the eternal is One”

Here’s the thing, God can be defined on one way only. That is that he is One. There are not two Gods, but only one. So God can be defined, and therefore worshipped, but only in quantity.

“You shall have no God before Me”-Genesis
“There are no gods but God”-Koran
etc.,etc.

non sequitur

What are you arguing? It’s pretty much a given that there cannot be more than one god… Socrates proved that a millenia before Muhammed was even knee high to an ant.

Sorry Raf,

I wrote that post yesterday after my third cup of coffee in a row. Reading it today, I can’t figure out why I posted it or what I mean by it.

Oh well, you win some, you lose some.