One can even argue that it's not enough to understand fire as something flammable, without definitive shape, with a bright color and heat; u must understand it in terms of atomic structure. Yet, who is really right? I say, the one who understands its not about playing with the words and labels, but it's about grasping the said thing in terms which make sense to that specific person. We all have different integration's of the almighty, yet no one, who is a believer, can deny that He is not almighty and whole.
OK. Makes sense. How do you know those are 2 properties of "God?" Did you just make it up or did you test it somehow? What if someone does not believe God is omnipresent or omnipotent? Suppose someone thinks God is really powerful, but not all powerful. What do you say to that person? because we can test that. Because we can test that. and that's something that can't be tested. You really are just making up your own definition like everybody else, but you're trying to make it seem like you're not.
Okay, so it's empirical proof that u desire...? Can u test, and verify, empirically, that other people have subjective and mental thought's... or can u just test the fact that neurons are active in one's brain? U see other peoples eye's, yet can u see their line of vision? For there is a difference between being seen and seeing...
of course you would agree that you are right! Just like everyone else would say that they are right. Take a Fundamentalist Christian as an example. They would never admit in a million years that the Catholics are right.
That really has nothing to do with what I said though. You said that "2 properties of God are omnipresence and omnipotence." But, there are people out there who have their own idea of God and he doesn't have those 2 characteristics. So, you basically made it up. Nothing wrong with that. But, you really do act like YOU personally have the exact right interpretation and characteristics of God.
And that's my whole point... like in the fire example. U may interpret something as "right" with the usage of language and words, yet, no matter how many words or what type of language we use in order to describe God, or that fire, it is still ONE thing, one reality, without the multiple and different interpretations manifested to describe it.
That would still technically be your own idea of God though. it sounds like you're saying, "My idea of God is not simply an idea like everyone else. It's the truth." Is that correct?
Ur arguing "God" the label, and not "God" the idea... I can call, and label, a giraffe a banana, so does that make it a banana? I can label and call fire water, but does that make the water fire? I can also label and call anything "God" -- like this material object... but, what ur not understanding is, that things, like the giraffe, banana, fire, or God, are more than just the labels attached to them; the reality is not in the word, but the thing-itself (only due to linguistic restrictions would I ever refer to God as a thing). Fire is not fire if its not hot and burning, it is an inextricable property of fire to be hot... just as it is a inextricable property of God to be omnipresent and omnipotent.
I suppose it would be a property of fire. But, isn't this because we can feel the fire and how hot it is? So, how do we determine that God has the 2 properties that you mentioned like we do with fire? if I claim, "Zhoul is an almighty beast," you would probably ask me how I know that Zhoul is an almighty beast. You would wonder if I made it up. How would anyone verify that Zhoul is in fact an almighty beast?
Come on man, you cant just give up on him. You see so much hate and evil in this world because of sinners like us. Look at the beauty of everything around you, its impossible with out something higher, its too complex.
These are two conflicting definitions... a beast refers to an animal, which in turn refers to, and implies, mortality; so a "beast" cannot be almighty, precisely because it is intrinsically incomplete and limited, and not almighty! As I said before, if I define God as a Being who is unified, whole, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then I cannot point to anything in this material, mortal, and transient realm, for I would have a huge contraction on my hands. The two properties of God, which cannot be denied (for they're inextricable properties), are properties that no being but God can posses...
Yo, bro, it's good talking with u, but I gtg to work... I'll be back later to respond to ur important retort's.
but that's all you did. You are trying to define God into existence. You have not actually shown that God has those properties. You just defined God to have those properties.
That's generally how atheists view things. A lot of the bad things in the world are because of man doing things. We don't "blame God" or "give up on God" because we don't think there is such a thing to blame or give up on. if an atheist was blaming God, they would technically be a theist. There is some beauty around us, but not everything is beautiful. I don't see "God" as necessary to explain a beautiful river for example.
I remember about 2 months ago when we were having a debate, you called me an "artard" a few times, yet you preach about love and being humble. I guess loving others is easier said than done. It's very easy to spout it off but to act it is very different. I have no problem with you having your own beliefs about God. But, you act like you personally know that your definition is the absolute correct one. Like I asked earlier, if someone believes that "God" is not all-powerful, but only really powerful, how would we determine which view is correct? It can't be just based on your own personal definition, can it? Because, then what about the other person's personal definition? Blaise Pascal (a Christian, and the guy who came up with Pascal's wager) said that "The God of the philosophers is not the God of the Bible and the God of the Bible is not the God of the philosophers." He was basically saying that the "God" philosophers try to prove and believe in is completely different from the God of the Bible. And just out of curiosity, what do you think happens when we die? Do you believe in an afterlife? Reincarnation? or is death the end?
Me calling u an artard was not a malicious attack (dont take it so personal)... yet, how many times in that same thread did u speak to me with an atheists' disdain? How many times, in that very same thread, where u manifestly condescending when trying to refute my stance? U were arguing just to argue... Someone call u all the nice words u've ever heard, but that doesnt mean he or she actually respects and likes u...! And someone call u an artard.... and yet still respect u. I called u an artard as something which was reactionary to ur arrogant demeanor... I could of called u things which are far worse and malicious than "artard", but I didnt, because Im not here to spread bad vibes, rather I'm here to discuss philosophical topics, rationally, and who ever isn't, I deem them an "artard".-And not that u'll be one forever, but that ur just being one right now, or whenever I called u it. And by artard I simply mean someone who is intentionally circumventing reason and rationality, so that we wont discuss and build, but so that we can just lunge arrogant and childish remarks back and forth. P.S. In this thread u have not been an artard, and neither have I...
Well, I was speaking about your ideas. I never personally said that you were an artard. I was talking about the way you define God and make all these assumptions. That's different from calling someone a name. I try not to personally call a person a name. For example, if someone believes in astrology, I wouldn't call them an artard. I may think the idea is silly, but if someone wants to believe astrology, then whatever. No skin off my back. You are free to believe whatever you want about God. I don't think you are an artard for it. I just think that what you are doing is no different from what others are doing. You are just making up your own definition, but you claim you are not. You claimed to know that God is omnipresent and omnipotent and ignore everyone else's definition about God.
Because if Zhoul is all-powerful, then he can certainly make himself into a beast. If you say he can't, then you are saying Zhoul is not omnipotent. What prevents something omnipotent from being a beast? If Zhoul wants to make the other beasts less than omnipotent, then he can. Are you familiar with the Gods of other religions? They had all different kinds of characteristics that you probably don't agree with. But again, these are all just mind fantasies. (I am going out for the day as well. Maybe we can continue discussion later tonight. It's 2 pm here.)