VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, November 14, 11:26:55amLogin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678[9]10 ]
Subject: Wade's response.


Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 05/24/02 4:21pm
In reply to: Ben 's message, "Wade (and anyone else), please define "God"" on 04/26/02 7:34pm

Sorry for not being around for a while. I've been busy with a lot of tests and finals in this 18 credit semester (on top of a job, volunteer work, and several extracurricular activities) for several weeks. And afterwards I decided to take a break of sorts. Well, I'm back.

>Wade,
>
>Maybe you have already done this elsewhere, and if so,
>I apologize. But I would like to hear your definition
>of "God." I know it at least _includes_ the idea that
>he necessarily exists (i.e., exists in all possible
>universes), so I've at least been paying that much
>attention.

Not as much as you seem to think. I actually didn’t clam that I believe it includes the idea of necessary existence, I was just putting forth the ontological argument as an answer that some propose for the question of “why” God existing. The confusion is quite understandable though, since it’s very easy to assume that one holds the position one argues for, and I'm at least partly to blame for not pointing out my actual views on that matter. (I probably would have done the same in your position.)


>But I just wondered how you define the
>word. I have a definition of my own, but I'd like to
>hear yours first.

Okay. Here’s a list of properties I attribute to God. I copied most this from Philosophy for Dummies when it got into philosophy of religion.

  • Omnipotence: God can do anything (to the greatest possible extent)
  • Omniscience: God knows everything (to the greatest possible extent)
  • Omnipresence: God is present, in some sense, everywhere.
  • Incorporeality: God is not composed of corporeal substance.
  • Omnibenevolence: God is perfectly good.
  • Aseity: God is not dependent for existence on anything else.
  • Eternity: God is not bound by time. There are two interpretations of this property. One is that he has existed for an infinite amount of time, the other being that God is atemporally timeless.
  • Ineffability: God’s nature cannot fully be put into words.
  • Perfection: God is without flaws and defects. This is a summary property, generalizing pretty much all others. God is perfectly powerful, perfectly wise and knowledgeable, perfectly good, and so forth.


The idea of necessary existence comes from defining God as the greatest possible being, a beinÿ

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Wade's response (revised edition).Wade A. Tisthammer05/24/02 4:22pm


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.