|
Author
|
Topic: Is God Omnipresent?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
quote:
If imperfect, He would have arisen out of nature.
This is exactly what I am talking about. An assertian that comes out of nowhere and stated as if it were obvious fact.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 2:46 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 2:57 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
This is exactly what I am talking about. An assertian that comes out of nowhere and stated as if it were obvious fact.
I'm working on this argument. I'm not through yet.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 2:52 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Meanwhile back to the OP
quote:
"The Problem of Evil" one participant claimed that evil is simply the absence of God. But if God is omnipresent He must always be present even if the "evil" thing is around.
A number of solutions to this dilemma: (1) There is no God, and so the dilemma doesn't present itself. (2) God exists but is not omnipresent. (3) God exists and is omnipresent, but evil is not the absense of God but something else entirely (and may even be an abstract concept that is independent of God, her existence, or her presence).
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by R. Cuaresma, posted 03-10-2006 6:07 AM | | R. Cuaresma has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
The argument
God has to be perfect, for if not, there would have to be something anterior to him which is perfect, by which we would know that God is imperfect. But that cannot be. That something anterior would be God. The ideal, if it existed, would have to be God. So God is omnipresent and all good. It all works out.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 2:57 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: The argument
I think that you are going to have to expound on what you mean by "perfect". In particular: (1) Why would non-perfection require something "anterior" (whatever that means) which is perfect? (2) Why would this "perfect anterior" thing, if it existed, have to be God? (3) Why would being "perfect" imply being omnipresent and all good?
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4129 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: The argument
why does god have to be all good anyway? can't he be both? our concept of god being all good is tradition, but you have no basis that he all good only, it is christian dogma that says he is by the way who says he is perfect, a being that can do anything would only be seen as perfect based on the fact that he can kill us no one knows if god is perfect or not, our limited view point presents this as being the case only because we worship god, its based on fear of god not knowlege
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: The argument
(1) Why would non-perfection require something "anterior" (whatever that means) which is perfect? There would be no way to recognize non-perfection without have something perfect to compare it with.
(2) Why would this "perfect anterior" thing, if it existed, have to be God? By definition, nothing could be anterior to God. That thing would instead be God. Moreover, that thing could not be a thing. It would have to be a being. Otherwise, it would be the universe in another form. There are only 2 choices: (1) the universe in some form has always existed; or (2)a being created it. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 07:20 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 6:35 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: The argument
no one knows if god is perfect or not, our limited view point presents this as being the case only because we worship god, its based on fear of god not knowlege I'm telling you what, if God existed, He would have to be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by ReverendDG, posted 03-12-2006 7:04 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by ReverendDG, posted 03-12-2006 8:23 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 41 by jar, posted 03-12-2006 8:26 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4129 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: The argument
why must he be?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 8:19 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: The argument
why must he be? He doesn't have to be. I'm telling you what He has to be if He exists.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by ReverendDG, posted 03-12-2006 8:23 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by ReverendDG, posted 03-13-2006 5:55 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
You getting better Robbie
First you only told us what We MUST believe. Now you've graduated to telling GOD what He would have to be. Too funny. Chutzpah. Real Chutzpah. Cajones the size of Jupiter. ROTFLMAO.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 8:19 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 42 of 86 (294667)
03-12-2006 8:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
03-12-2006 8:26 PM
|
|
Re: You getting better Robbie
First you only told us what We MUST believe Only in a logical sense. Obviously you can believe what you like.
Now you've graduated to telling GOD what He would have to be. I wasn't talking to God. Only the other posters.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by jar, posted 03-12-2006 8:26 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 8:49 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
Chronos
Member (Idle past 6244 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: 10-23-2005
|
Re: The argument
There would be no way to recognize non-perfection without have something perfect to compare it with. Sure you could, as long as the properties of perfection are well defined. I recognize things that are non-spherical all the time without having any true spheres to compare them to.
By definition, nothing could be anterior to God. If you say so.
That thing would instead be God. If the one and only qualification for being God is existing before all else.
Moreover, that thing could not be a thing. It would have to be a being. Otherwise, it would be the universe in another form. Ipse Dixit This message has been edited by Chronos, 03-12-2006 08:50 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 8:16 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: You getting better Robbie
I wasn't talking to God. Only the other posters.
You are coming across as making a bunch of very strong assertions, without providing any basis whatsoever for them. Maybe what you are asserting seems obvious to you. But it isn't obvious to the rest of us.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 8:38 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 45 of 86 (294677)
03-12-2006 8:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by nwr
03-12-2006 8:49 PM
|
|
Re: You getting better Robbie
You are coming across as making a bunch of very strong assertions, without providing any basis whatsoever for them. All I was saying was that the concept of "God" makes no sense as an imperfect being.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 8:49 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:00 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2