God cannot explain the origin of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bahman said:
Lets consider two religions for sake simplicity, Islam and Christianity. Jesus is considered as grand prophet in Islam but He is considered as God in Christianity. These two religions however considered as Abrahamic religions. So what is your position now?
Click to expand...
The discussion was of the transcendent God so my position is the same as stated. The bulk of the religions as I pointed out see Him as the same in root. It is the secondary attributes that they argue about. So here we were discussing His primary attributes and your suggestion that there were many versions…

There really are not. A super majority of “trusted sources” say God has the same primary attributes. Bickering over name and secondary does not negate the primary. Especially when one factors in linguistic tendancies…

The term in english “egg on” is non sequitor but if you study history linguistically there was an old english term with the exact same meaning “eggion” which just morphed over time into an expression of two words.

Santa Claus is a linguistic alteration of Saint Nicholas in different languages…

So prime God same… secondaries different. If you want to argue secondaries then sources matter much, primaries they line up together.
 
rossum said:
Here you are reifying beauty. Beauty is a property of other things, not a thing in itself.
Click to expand...
Then by the same token you are reifying life, for life is a property, not a thing in itself.
*Have you ever come across the Peano axioms?
Click to expand...
  • 0 is a number.
Click to expand...
  • every number n has a successor S(n).
Click to expand...
That is sufficient to define a countably infinite set.*
Click to expand...
Two issues: that’s an axiom, it depends on whether we accept it. More importantly, my sentence didn’t mention numbers or sets. The statement was:

“Any explanation for the origin of the infinite must involve a process with no infinite (name removed by moderator)uts and at least one infinite output.”

The infinite could be, for instance, the limitlessness of space, or the boundlessness of God’s mercy.

Other than beauty and the infinite, many other substitutions could be made in your OP argument, and you’ve not shown that the form of the argument isn’t paradoxical.
 
Bahman said:
I have another thread on the beginning of creation. You can covert the OP for the case that God doesn’t exist too.** We cannot simply understand the beginning**.
Click to expand...
Does this not admit it could be God? If so than it quite accuratly could prove the OP premise inaccurate 😛
 
You edited the post and the original is stuck trapped in my thread muhahahhah… oh how two things exist at once.
 
rossum said:
If God is not a thing then God is no-thing. I do not think that is what you want to say.

Does God exist? If He does, then He is a member of the set {things that exist}.

That is enough to make god something, and not nothing.

rossum
Click to expand...
But there is an ontological difference. You are pulling God into the finite. This would be similar to trying to class “infinity” within a number line among the integers. There is a difference between being a number, and being the fullness of all numbers.

God is not a being, he is the fullness of being, being itself. God is not an existent thing, he is existence itself, the fullness of existence.
 
LethalMouse said:
The discussion was of the transcendent God so my position is the same as stated. The bulk of the religions as I pointed out see Him as the same in root. It is the secondary attributes that they argue about. So here we were discussing His primary attributes and your suggestion that there were many versions…

There really are not. A super majority of “trusted sources” say God has the same primary attributes. Bickering over name and secondary does not negate the primary. Especially when one factors in linguistic tendancies…

The term in english “egg on” is non sequitor but if you study history linguistically there was an old english term with the exact same meaning “eggion” which just morphed over time into an expression of two words.

Santa Claus is a linguistic alteration of Saint Nicholas in different languages…

So prime God same… secondaries different. If you want to argue secondaries then sources matter much, primaries they line up together.
Click to expand...
I was Muslem and Christian for a period. I can tell you they are different in basic definition of God.
 
Bahman said:
I was Muslem and Christian for a period. I can tell you they are different in basic definition of God.
Click to expand...
Then why do muslims who post on your stuff all agree with our root definitions?

You are missing the entire point of primary vs secondary attributes…the concept of His beginings and such are the same. Satan as Jinn or Angel, Bible vs Quran, Jesus prophet vs God… all secondary factors.
 
LethalMouse said:
Then why do muslims who post on your stuff all agree with our root definitions?

You are missing the entire point of primary vs secondary attributes…the concept of His beginings and such are the same. Satan as Jinn or Angel, Bible vs Quran, Jesus prophet vs God… all secondary factors.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why the claim so. Please also read the post # 171.
 
Bahman said:
The most important difference is that Muslim don’t believe in Trinity. You could Google for more. Here is the one I find for you.
Click to expand...
Belief in the Trinity is creedal. It’s not something that can be deduced through natural theology and is, I believe, what Lethal Mouse means by “secondary factor.”
 
Wesrock said:
Belief in the Trinity is creedal. It’s not something that can be deduced through natural theology and is, I believe, what Lethal Mouse means by “secondary factor.”
Click to expand...
What is natural theology?

How does creedal differ from ordinary belief in God?
 
Wesrock said:
Belief in the Trinity is creedal. It’s not something that can be deduced through natural theology and is, I believe, what Lethal Mouse means by “secondary factor.”
Click to expand...
👍 👍👍

Somehow I missed the link in my original response…

Seeing the definition of God prior to the link’s mention of the trinity, they are all the same attributes that you deny. These are the issues you raise. You haven’t had a thread on Trinity vs Not… they have been the root nature origin of God that “we” theists all agree on… heck even agnostics and “mostly atheists” agree IF God He has these attributes…

Typically the staunch atheists might say He does not, only because they say He is NOT [Anything.]

You are simultaneously [supposedly] searching for God while saying He cannot be in athesit form…

If the attributes of God are truly impossible as you state, and you “know” this then there is your answer, God is the construct of faulty human imagination and atheism is your avenue…

If God “could” have these attributes and you do not “know” it is impossible, then a search for Him would require you at least entertain that the position you have on His attributes “could” be faulty perception…

Oooo didnt miss it, edit 🙂 and here I thought I opppsed
 
The Scholastics like two talk about two “books”. There is the Book of Scripture (the Bible, and I suppose we could include Tradition, those things divinely revealed by God) and the “Book” of Nature. The Book of Nature was the natural world, and natural theology is what we can learn and know about God simply by studying God’s creation apart from any scripture or divinely revealed fact; it’s a belief that man, as a part of this world, is able to understand the design of the natural world through reason. You wouldn’t need to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or anything else to study natural theology. You wouldn’t even need to be religious.

Let me be clear that natural theology isn’t able to exhaust the mystery of God. God is, ultimately, beyond full comprehension. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things we can know simply from reason alone, such as the fact that God is not a contingent being, which means we can rule out anything that would make God contingent as being within the divine nature. There is a lot of agreement between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in the field of natural theology. Oh, I’m sure there are some differences about what the implications are of God being metaphysically simple, goodness itself, the fullness of being, etc . . . between the three faiths, but the classical theism tradition in all three agrees that these points themselves can be said about God regardless, among other things. I’m not as familiar with, say, Hindu theistic tradition, but they do believe in an Ultimate Reality, a kind of “one being” which gives order and being to the world.

Anyway, natural theology is different than (but complementary to) what God has told us about himself in scripture and tradition. The Trinity, the Creed, etc . . .
 
magnet said:
What is natural theology?

How does creedal differ from ordinary belief in God?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve

Cain and Abel

Abraham

Moses

Jesus

[Muhammad]

These are signposts of revelations clarifying the details of truth. The details would be the technicalities but the root of God is still the same to all in His simplest form.
 
LethalMouse said:
The trinity is a secondary factor…
Click to expand...
John 3:35-36
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him”.
 
Bahman said:
John 3:35-36
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him”.
Click to expand...
That is not what is meant by secondary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top