|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is God Omnipresent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: That is certainly a possibility, isn't it? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That is certainly a possibility, isn't it? I don't think it's logically possible for God to be evil. The phrase "evil God" just means "no God." If God is all-everything, He has to be all good as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But if God is all-everything, it stands to reason that God must be all-evil.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But if God is all-everything, it stands to reason that God must be all-evil. That's like saying, "if God is all-everything, it stands to reason that God is mortal." By all-everything, I simply meant all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing: the usual idea. "Evil" is a lack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Omnipresent is one of the attributes of God aside from being "Omnipotent" and "Omniscient." According to what religion?
Because we believe that God is the creator of everything He must have the attribute of always being there in all places at the same time. That statement is false. Why does he have to be there to create it? If he is omnipotent he could create it from anywhere, or nowhere, simultaneously, from the past...etc. If he HAD to have that attribute to create everything, then he isn't omnipotent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Okay, if you make up your own words with your own meanings, then every argument can be made logically valid. However, the premises may no longer correspond to anything in reality (or anything in other peoples' conceptions of reality). By all-everything I mean that God is a cheese Danish. See how easy this is? -
quote: Unless evil is the positive quality, and good is the lack of evil. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Okay, if you make up your own words with your own meanings, then every argument can be made logically valid. Oh, what nonsense. My argument did not depend on some term for its validity. I was using "all-everything" as shorthand for the traditional concept of God. God cannot be evil. Evil is a negative quality. You might as well say God is stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
to imply otherwise suggests pantheistic theology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Well, the traditional concept of God has problems with coherence and consistency -- that is why the followers of the traditional concept of God has to bring in the notion of "ineffability". But once we allow that God cannot be understood by mere mortals, then anything is possible and rational debate becomes short-circuited. -
quote: A staight forward and literal reading of the Christian Bible would dispel this notion as well. -
quote: By "positive quality" I didn't mean that evil is necessarily a desirable thing. I merely meant to say that evil might be the thing that exists in and of itself, and that good is the absence of evil. If you have some arguments otherwise I invite you to one of the other threads where we are trying to figure out what this whole "good/bad" thing really is. -
quote: That, too, is a possibility. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
A staight forward and literal reading of the Christian Bible would dispel this notion as well. Who cares about the Bible? I'm talking about a philosophical definition of God. Omnipresence would have to be included. Otherwise God has boundaries. But just because God is "present," that doesn't mean he is the thing he's present at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Who cares about your philosophical definition of God? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Who cares about your philosophical definition of God? One ought to care because it's pertinent to the thread. I would argue that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good and omnipresent God is the only one logically possible, if we are assuming this God to be the Creator. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 12:45 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 12:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You would? Under what circumstances could you be induced to argue this? So far you have been mainly making assertians about the nature of God and objecting when the rest of us don't simply accept these assertians.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Under what circumstances could you be induced to argue this? The circumstances under which I would make such an argument would have to be favorable. This God the Creator could not have arisen out of nature, since He created nature. He would also have to be perfect. If imperfect, He would have arisen out of nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
He would also have to be perfect. If imperfect, He would have arisen out of nature. So, things that do not arise from nature are perfect?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024