|
Author
|
Topic: Is God Omnipresent?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:16 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:26 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:26 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:35 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 23 by Phat, posted 03-12-2006 12:41 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:35 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:50 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 12:50 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 1:41 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: what does OmniPresent mean
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 2:01 PM | | Chiroptera has 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 48 of 86 (294688)
03-12-2006 9:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
03-12-2006 9:00 PM
|
|
Re: Imperfect Gods
Makes no sense to you, perhaps. However the God of the bible appears to be imperfect. I wasn't talking about the God of the Bible. I was speaking philosophically. The ideal--by definition--is God. Therefore, such terms as "evil god" make no sense. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 08:04 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 9:00 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: The argument
This is simply an assertian on your part for which you have never given any reason to accept. Those 2 choices are the only possible choices.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 9:03 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2