JK713 wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
[b]JK713 wrote:[]

You don't understand the meaning of free will. Killing someone isn't taking away their free will (inasmuch as it is taking away their life), but controlling their minds and having them kill themselves would be.

Free will is not part of your life!

Ok.

Regards
DL


What?? [/quote]

Let me re-phrase.

Is free will part of your life?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
Please read it and comment from the POV that your term of universe can and would also be defined as rules.

Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

The reason to me seems clear.
Our first God was a man.
Who but man can give voice to the will/rules of God?

Am I wrong in saying that our first God was a man and that our last God should be a man as well?



-The term Universe can and would be given rules, but even as I would change God to Universe, here also I would wish to use a different word. Rather than rules I would use the word axioms or charateristics. What then would the characteristics of the universe be?
1)Truth
2)Compassion
3)Endurance

To give more qualities to the universe would be to dive back into the personifcations given by humans. We wish to know the characteristics of God, so we make the definition easier by calling it Universe rather than god. As we are truly only working with definitions here, let me describe the definitions of these characteristics I chose for the universe.
1) Truth is reality, justice to a law and degree that a carnal mind would not grasp. Truth encompasses all, has always been and always will be. It is beyond the mind and senses, and all things exist in it, but it does not exist in them.
2)Compassion is not love, for love is a human feeling. Love can be selfishly rooted and passionate. Compassion is mistaken for loving passion, it is not however these human emotions. Compassion is simply the care for all things without the desire or need for anything in return. Compassion manifests in a human as charity.
3)Endurance is the power or fact to exist perfectly despite adverse concitions. It manifests in the human as fortitude or patience. A human may have physical or mental endurance, but these qualities are not cosmic endurance.
-Please ask questions-

-As for the other questions above, first, we started giving the Universe names and forms, becuse our minds do not grasp something allpervading, infinate, ever lasting, and creating without an egotistical will. We think only through our ego, and so have no choice but give the universe anthropomorphic qualities. We do worship ourselves, whatever virtues we have that are close to those above, or can seem close to them, will be idealized and worshiped; our ego does not always believe we had these virtues in us.

-Lastly, I do not understand what you mean by, our first God was a man. How could a man be the Universe. We live in the universe, but we are not it. I can see maybe a man who had the characteristics of the universe(if this is possable)seeming to be god like, but I do not see man as the universe. Do you mean that god is not real and it is just man who ceate this idea?
(forgive mt spelling

Cado wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Please read it and comment from the POV that your term of universe can and would also be defined as rules.

Why did we start giving Him a name when the Bible begins by telling us that He is the word. Word meaning rules.

The reason to me seems clear.
Our first God was a man.
Who but man can give voice to the will/rules of God?

Am I wrong in saying that our first God was a man and that our last God should be a man as well?



-The term Universe can and would be given rules, but even as I would change God to Universe, here also I would wish to use a different word. Rather than rules I would use the word axioms or charateristics. What then would the characteristics of the universe be?
1)Truth
2)Compassion
3)Endurance

To give more qualities to the universe would be to dive back into the personifcations given by humans. We wish to know the characteristics of God, so we make the definition easier by calling it Universe rather than god. As we are truly only working with definitions here, let me describe the definitions of these characteristics I chose for the universe.
1) Truth is reality, justice to a law and degree that a carnal mind would not grasp. Truth encompasses all, has always been and always will be. It is beyond the mind and senses, and all things exist in it, but it does not exist in them.
2)Compassion is not love, for love is a human feeling. Love can be selfishly rooted and passionate. Compassion is mistaken for loving passion, it is not however these human emotions. Compassion is simply the care for all things without the desire or need for anything in return. Compassion manifests in a human as charity.
3)Endurance is the power or fact to exist perfectly despite adverse concitions. It manifests in the human as fortitude or patience. A human may have physical or mental endurance, but these qualities are not cosmic endurance.
-Please ask questions-

-As for the other questions above, first, we started giving the Universe names and forms, becuse our minds do not grasp something allpervading, infinate, ever lasting, and creating without an egotistical will. We think only through our ego, and so have no choice but give the universe anthropomorphic qualities. We do worship ourselves, whatever virtues we have that are close to those above, or can seem close to them, will be idealized and worshiped; our ego does not always believe we had these virtues in us.

-Lastly, I do not understand what you mean by, our first God was a man. How could a man be the Universe. We live in the universe, but we are not it. I can see maybe a man who had the characteristics of the universe(if this is possable)seeming to be god like, but I do not see man as the universe. Do you mean that god is not real and it is just man who ceate this idea?
(forgive mt spelling

Exactly right. Man created God in his image.

The God of an ant is an ant.
The God of a lion is a lion.
The God of men should be a man.
Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.

We defined the terms of the word God.

Who but a man can put words to the will of God. Only man.

Regards
DL

This is so much simpler than you all are making it.

I now present you with a shockingly, simple explanation for why God cannot be omnipotent, which quite possibly may be the most overly obscured logical paradox of all time....

If got creates a sword that cannot be broken, can he brake it?

It is not that god is omnipotent, rather that omnipotence itself creates a logical connundrum that only exists as possibility because it is an imperfect construct of our romantic languages. Omnipotence is only conceptually valid and not logically. Therefore, God, nor anything, can be omnipotent.

And forgive me if i didn't capitalize God or not, I'm not a fan.

TheRelativisor wrote:
This is so much simpler than you all are making it.

I now present you with a shockingly, simple explanation for why God cannot be omnipotent, which quite possibly may be the most overly obscured logical paradox of all time....

If got creates a sword that cannot be broken, can he brake it?

It is not that god is omnipotent, rather that omnipotence itself creates a logical connundrum that only exists as possibility because it is an imperfect construct of our romantic languages. Omnipotence is only conceptually valid and not logically. Therefore, God, nor anything, can be omnipotent.

And forgive me if i didn't capitalize God or not, I'm not a fan.

No problem and I agree.

Regards
DL

TheRelativisor wrote:
This is so much simpler than you all are making it.

I now present you with a shockingly, simple explanation for why God cannot be omnipotent, which quite possibly may be the most overly obscured logical paradox of all time....

If got creates a sword that cannot be broken, can he brake it?

It is not that god is omnipotent, rather that omnipotence itself creates a logical connundrum that only exists as possibility because it is an imperfect construct of our romantic languages. Omnipotence is only conceptually valid and not logically. Therefore, God, nor anything, can be omnipotent.

And forgive me if i didn't capitalize God or not, I'm not a fan.

Topics in Philosophy of Religion are often a more complicated than they appear.
There are a lot of good points to address in this thread, but to comment on this last point, quoted above:
The notion of an omnipotent god precludes (makes impossible) something like a sword that cannot be broken. Such a sword would have to exist in a universe where an omnipotent god did not.
But you may reply that God is limited in his ability to make such a sword in a universe in which he does exist. However, this is a non-issue, because a sword that cannot be broken is not a logical possibility in a universe containing an omnipotent god. It is not even a thing, just a collection of words that do not make sense in that context.
Your intuition is correct in noticing the incompatibility of the two ideas, but what you've said does not disprove the possibility of an omnipotent god.
Just to restate what I mean briefly: an omnipotent god could not create a sword that he himself could not break because it would be a logical impossibility in a universe in which that god existed.
We could also say that God could not tear a piece of fabric and also not tear it in the same action. This says nothing about any lack of ability on the part of God, but points to the incoherence of the suggested action.