If God is the Universe - are you still an Athiest?

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by skywalker

No, because by hypothesis God transcends the universe. Therefore he is not subject to its laws.

Wait - how does he "transcend" the universe? As I stated before, the universe is the set of all that exists. Therefore, if god is not an element in that set, he does not exist.

I use a different set of definitions, because in your set "Existence" and "The Universe" appear to have the same meaning.

I think of 'The Universe' as a bubble of spacetime containing physical things.
I think of 'Existence' as also containg Concepts, processes and interactions between the stuff in the universe
It is possible to have something outside existence, but it would be unable to affect us.

I am unsure whether Consciousness (or God) is a part of existence.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Ha I actually passed all my first year philosophy essays. Did reasonably well to. So there goes that one. Though you did say usually. Anyway I don't argue from the dictionary. In philosophy lectures we were given the typical christian definition of a omniprescent, omnipotent (sp? for both of those) and a third property which I cannot recall. Thats the definition I usually use.

skywalker, from the very same dictionary sophistically is a derivative from sophist which means: A person who uses clever but fallacious arguements. I think that would be the meaning that he means.

It's OK to use your opponent's own definition. It's not OK to argue against them from a dictionary definition that they may not agree with.

If someone asked me to say what "knowledge" was, and I copied it from a dictionary, I would be laughed out of class.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

I use a different set of definitions, because in your set "Existence" and "The Universe" appear to have the same meaning.

I think of 'The Universe' as a bubble of spacetime containing physical things.
I think of 'Existence' as also containg Concepts, processes and interactions between the stuff in the universe
It is possible to have something outside existence, but it would be unable to affect us.

I am unsure whether Consciousness (or God) is a part of existence.

The eliminativists would have a field day with you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's OK to use your opponent's own definition. It's not OK to argue against them from a dictionary definition that they may not agree with.

If someone asked me to say what "knowledge" was, and I copied it from a dictionary, I would be laughed out of class.

I agree arguing against a person based on a definition that they aren't using is pointless. However, if they are fallaciously mixing two definitions, then it becomes a problem and arguing the definition is important. It is also important if they never do define their terms.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker


I agree arguing against a person based on a definition that they aren't using is pointless. However, if they are fallaciously mixing two definitions, then it becomes a problem and arguing the definition is important. It is also important if they never do define their terms.

But they do. Most of them along the lines of Enigma Nova.

As I said, let's be fair.

[Flip McWho]

As I said, let's be fair.

I agree. It is better to refute somebodies argument using their definition. It's like winning the battle on their terms.

eliminativists

huh? Who/What are they?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho

huh? Who/What are they?

People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

[Flip McWho]

Ahhhhhhh ta. A little bit clearer now than before.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

First, I know I have the concepts - I'm self-aware, and aware of these thoughts and beliefs. Second, why can't they be both, or one and the same - concepts and neurological states? In fact, it would seem to be the necessary conclusion.

[KrazyHorse]

Is there a point to this thread?

If one defines God as "that piece of cake I ate earlier", then I believe in God.

If one defines God as an omniscient, omnipotent consciousness then I don't.

[Flip McWho]

"Is there a point to this thread?"

Does there have to be? I mean were arguing about Gods existence over a definition. Never gonna get anywhere. Well thats what it started off as. Yeah defintiion can be a grey area in arguments like this as it depends entirely on what your definition of something critical to your argument is.

[KrazyHorse]

You ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

correction:

You sheep ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

[Ramo]

That's redundant.

[Flip McWho]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha