View Full Version : One God
The argument made by Christians leads to the concept of a supreme being which created the universe, lives in a "world" beyond our physical reality, and sent his "son" to redeem us from our sins.
Say I accept the concept, but maybe not all the OT details.
How do you get to the notion that there is one God who is eternal and infinite? Why can't "God" (the creator of our universe) be from a race of other supreme beings? Why do these beings have to be "eternal and infinite"? If there is one God, how did he have a son?
The concept of creation and a heaven full of these "Gods" is not inconsistent with the belief that God is but one of a race of supreme beings. The arguments for God used by Christians are not inconsistent with the concept. It actually may seem more logical to some.
Ah, but there's a catch! If God is but one of a race of these beings, then he is no longer "THE" God, and our devotion to him in particular may not seem so necessary. Plus, we as a species may seem less significant if there is a whole race of Gods, rather than us as the only "soulmates" of the divine creator. Also, the concept then starts to sound more like Greek mythology when one travels down this path, and you wouldn't want your belief systems to sound like their silly belief systems.
David Sklansky
09-27-2005, 07:32 AM
The only argument against you is that the bible says otherwise.
MaxPowerPoker
09-27-2005, 07:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The argument made by Christians leads to the concept of a supreme being which created the universe, lives in a "world" beyond our physical reality, and sent his "son" to redeem us from our sins.
Say I accept the concept, but maybe not all the OT details.
How do you get to the notion that there is one God who is eternal and infinite? Why can't "God" (the creator of our universe) be from a race of other supreme beings? Why do these beings have to be "eternal and infinite"? If there is one God, how did he have a son?
The concept of creation and a heaven full of these "Gods" is not inconsistent with the belief that God is but one of a race of supreme beings. The arguments for God used by Christians are not inconsistent with the concept. It actually may seem more logical to some.
Ah, but there's a catch! If God is but one of a race of these beings, then he is no longer "THE" God, and our devotion to him in particular may not seem so necessary. Plus, we as a species may seem less significant if there is a whole race of Gods, rather than us as the only "soulmates" of the divine creator. Also, the concept then starts to sound more like Greek mythology when one travels down this path, and you wouldn't want your belief systems to sound like their silly belief systems.
[/ QUOTE ]
What God says about himself has a profound impact on what we Christians believe about God. If God says there is no other God besides him and he is truthful, then it is settled. God demonstrates himself as truthful repeatedly. It takes a lot of the speculation out of the equation when the God of the universe takes it upon himself to reveal himself to his creation as he has done.
[ QUOTE ]
The only argument against you is that the bible says otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
I concede that.
David Sklansky
09-27-2005, 07:46 AM
"What God says about himself has a profound impact on what we Christians believe about God. If God says there is no other God besides him and he is truthful, then it is settled. God demonstrates himself as truthful repeatedly. It takes a lot of the speculation out of the equation when the God of the universe takes it upon himself to reveal himself to his creation as he has done."
That's a longer way of saying what I said. But surely you are not suggesting that since the Bible says that there is only one god, that in any way proves there is. If the actual creater is one of a race of supreme beings, or if there is no god at all, that means the words of the bible and the God it postulates are false.
MaxPowerPoker
09-27-2005, 07:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If the actual creater is one of a race of supreme beings
[/ QUOTE ]
It this be true then God is a liar.
[ QUOTE ]
, or if there is no god at all, that means the words of the bible and the God it postulates are false.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, if there is no god, then any book that says otherwise is false.
David Sklansky
09-27-2005, 08:40 AM
"If the actual creater is one of a race of supreme beings"
"It this be true then God is a liar."
Only if that creator was the one who authored the bible. Otherwise it is only the bible that is a liar. The real creator may have never contacted us.
Zeatrix
10-01-2005, 02:36 PM
Everything I have seen in my short life tells me there is no "god" at all. The foremost reason for why I feel this is because the writings were made over 2000 years ago in a time when the understanding of the world and universe were small.
lautzutao
10-01-2005, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But surely you are not suggesting that since the Bible says that there is only one god, that in any way proves there is
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in the bible does it say there is only one god?
KeysrSoze
10-01-2005, 09:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The only argument against you is that the bible says otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
Theres some ambiguity to this though, as Elohim is usually considered to be plural, and passages such as in Genesis: And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
MaxPowerPoker
10-01-2005, 10:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But surely you are not suggesting that since the Bible says that there is only one god, that in any way proves there is
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in the bible does it say there is only one god?
[/ QUOTE ]
Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
1Sa 2:2 "There is none holy like the LORD;
there is none besides you;
there is no rock like our God.
Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
"I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
Jim T
10-02-2005, 12:43 AM
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" certainly implies that there are others, does it not? There are many more quotations in the same vein.
And I find it hard to understand how you could be a "jealous" god, if you are unique. Who exactly would you be jealous of?
Also, there is the question of why the earliest books of the Bible seem to have refered to God in the plural - Elohim.
Peter666
10-02-2005, 04:04 AM
The anthropomorphism shown in this thread and the OP's other threads is absolutely ridiculous. Infinite being excludes the possibility of particular infinite beings...duh.
You guys urgently need a course in metaphysics.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 04:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The anthropomorphism shown in this thread and the OP's other threads is absolutely ridiculous. Infinite being excludes the possibility of particular infinite beings...duh.
You guys urgently need a course in metaphysics.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why can't you have more than one infinite being?
chez
Peter666
10-02-2005, 05:00 AM
Because more than one infinite being implies that there is a distinction between the beings. And distinction means that one being has something that the other one does not. Therefore they cannot be infinite.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 05:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Because more than one infinite being implies that there is a distinction between the beings. And distinction means that one being has something that the other one does not. Therefore they cannot be infinite.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would mean you can't have two distinct infinite sets either and thats not true.
Infinite does not mean everything.
chez
"Infinite being" -- I love buzzwords which can't be defined in place of meaningful discussion. Gotta go, I'm infinitely hungry.
Peter666
10-02-2005, 05:25 PM
Mathematical infinity which you are correctly referring to, and philosophical infinity have two different meanings. The first goes on forever, the latter IS forever.
So to make things clear, I will say that God is simplicity itself, without distinction. As such, there cannot be two Gods, it is a contradiction.
Peter666
10-02-2005, 05:26 PM
That is impossible unless you have an infinte gut.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 05:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Mathematical infinity which you are correctly referring to, and philosophical infinity have two different meanings. The first goes on forever, the latter IS forever.
So to make things clear, I will say that God is simplicity itself, without distinction. As such, there cannot be two Gods, it is a contradiction.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by saying philosophical infinity IS forever. I've never come across anything to suggest philosophical use of infinity is restricted enough to prove your case.
It just sounds like you're just talking about one conception of god which happens to coincide with your religous view.
chez
Peter666
10-02-2005, 06:09 PM
"I'm not sure what you mean by saying philosophical infinity IS forever. I've never come across anything to suggest philosophical use of infinity is restricted enough to prove your case."
Hence your need for a metaphysics class. Another term that can be used for God is perfect potency or a being without distinction.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 07:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not sure what you mean by saying philosophical infinity IS forever. I've never come across anything to suggest philosophical use of infinity is restricted enough to prove your case."
Hence your need for a metaphysics class. Another term that can be used for God is perfect potency or a being without distinction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but they never mixed up the concepts of 'infinite' and properties of an indivisible god like you want to.
They are different things.
chez
Peter666
10-02-2005, 09:50 PM
On the contrary, your lack of philosophical studies have prejudiced your concept of infinity to the merely mathematical connotation. There are more definitions than yours, and I stick with the philosphical definition.
Thus the properties of an infinite and indivisible God are the same, as any first year student of metaphysics can tell you.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 10:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, your lack of philosophical studies have prejudiced your concept of infinity to the merely mathematical connotation. There are more definitions than yours, and I stick with the philosphical definition.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its nothing to do with maths. Philosophically infinite means non-finite in some extent. For some reason you wish to restrict that to non-finite in all extents.
[ QUOTE ]
The finiteness of all the things of the physical cosmos is revealed by the traits or properties that it lacks. But the supreme being is unique. There is only one supreme being. God is not the member of any class that excludes other classes; and God is not an individual differing from other individuals, all of which are members of a given class. That is what we mean when we say God is not finite His existence is unlimited.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I think you have in mind. Its a specific use of infinite to mean unlimited in all extents rather than without limit in some extent.
However just because there is a common concept of god which is unlimited in all extents does not mean there are no other conceptions of god.
chez
Peter666
10-02-2005, 10:31 PM
"Philosophically infinite means non-finite in some extent. For some reason you wish to restrict that to non-finite in all extents."
No, that is backwards. Philosophically, non-finite is in all extents. Mathematically non finite or infinity is in some extent. 3.14....forever is forever only to some extent as it is the reduction of something as far as possible without destroying its essence (which is maintained by God).
"just because there is a common concept of god which is unlimited in all extents does not mean there are no other conceptions of god."
Whatever those other conceptions of "god" are, they are obviously inferior. It would be interesting to see an example of what you mean though.
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 10:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No, that is backwards. Philosophically, non-finite is in all extents.
[/ QUOTE ]
You really have some strange ideas. I'll just disagree. If anyone else cares just browse on infinite and metaphysics.
chez
Peter666
10-02-2005, 10:55 PM
Well, you asked for it.
Infinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For the automobile brand, see Infiniti. For the radio company, see Infinity Broadcasting.
Infinite redirects here, For the album by Eminem, see Infinite (album).
Infinity is a term with very distinct, separate meanings which arise in theology, philosophy, mathematics and everyday life. Popular or colloquial usage of the term often does not accord with its more technical meanings. The word infinity comes from Latin : "In-finite", is not ended.
In theology, for example in the work of theologians such as Duns Scotus, the infinite nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity (leading to the question, an unlimited quantity of what?). In philosophy, infinity can be attributed to space and time, as for instance in Kant's first antinomy. In both theology and philosophy, infinity is explored in articles such as the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and Zeno's paradoxes.
In mathematics, infinity is relevant to or the subject matter of articles such as limit (mathematics), aleph number, class (set theory), Dedekind infinite, large cardinal, Russell's paradox, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real number and absolute infinite.
In popular culture, we have Buzz Lightyear's rallying cry, "To infinity — and beyond!", which may also be viewed as the rallying cry of set theorists considering large cardinals.
strange indeed...
chezlaw
10-02-2005, 11:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you asked for it.
Infinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For the automobile brand, see Infiniti. For the radio company, see Infinity Broadcasting.
Infinite redirects here, For the album by Eminem, see Infinite (album).
Infinity is a term with very distinct, separate meanings which arise in theology, philosophy, mathematics and everyday life. Popular or colloquial usage of the term often does not accord with its more technical meanings. The word infinity comes from Latin : "In-finite", is not ended.
In theology, for example in the work of theologians such as Duns Scotus, the infinite nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity (leading to the question, an unlimited quantity of what?). In philosophy, infinity can be attributed to space and time, as for instance in Kant's first antinomy. In both theology and philosophy, infinity is explored in articles such as the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and Zeno's paradoxes.
In mathematics, infinity is relevant to or the subject matter of articles such as limit (mathematics), aleph number, class (set theory), Dedekind infinite, large cardinal, Russell's paradox, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real number and absolute infinite.
In popular culture, we have Buzz Lightyear's rallying cry, "To infinity — and beyond!", which may also be viewed as the rallying cry of set theorists considering large cardinals.
strange indeed...
[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing there to support the idea that in philosophy infinite means in all extents. I'm done with this, as I say anyone who wants to can find an almost infinte number of metaphysical articles using infinite to mean in some extent.
chez
[ QUOTE ]
"Philosophically infinite means non-finite in some extent. For some reason you wish to restrict that to non-finite in all extents."
No, that is backwards. Philosophically, non-finite is in all extents. Mathematically non finite or infinity is in some extent. 3.14....forever is forever only to some extent as it is the reduction of something as far as possible without destroying its essence (which is maintained by God).
"just because there is a common concept of god which is unlimited in all extents does not mean there are no other conceptions of god."
Whatever those other conceptions of "god" are, they are obviously inferior. It would be interesting to see an example of what you mean though.
[/ QUOTE ]
How long did it take for your lobotomy to heal?
Jim T
10-02-2005, 11:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How long did it take for your lobotomy to heal?
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought that was perhaps overly harsh until I read his response to the "Lego Prime" thread.
Stu Pidasso
10-03-2005, 02:22 AM
You can't have two gods who are both supreme. If they are equal then neither one is supreme. If one is more powerful than the other, then you only have one supreme being and one lessor being. If you accept the concept of a supreme being, by definition there can only be one.
If you wish to believe in a race of gods then you believe in superior beings.
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, we as a species may seem less significant if there is a whole race of Gods, rather than us as the only "soulmates" of the divine creator.
[/ QUOTE ]
Christians believe God already has a bunch of "soulmates" called angels. Some of those angels went astray and God created man to replace them. In the Christian hierarchy of things men are the scabs.
Stu
chezlaw
10-03-2005, 03:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"Philosophically infinite means non-finite in some extent. For some reason you wish to restrict that to non-finite in all extents."
No, that is backwards. Philosophically, non-finite is in all extents. Mathematically non finite or infinity is in some extent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trying to return to sanity after this futile (even by our standards) disagreement about the meaning of a word, at least we have cleared up the original point.
There could only be one infinite (in all extents) being
There could be many infinite (in some extents) beings.
and we didn't disagree about anything but the use of the word infinite.
chez
chezlaw
10-03-2005, 03:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only argument against you is that the bible says otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
I concede that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think what the bible says is a killer argument even if the bible is true. There's the matter of interpretation, when god says something like 'there is only one god' it can be sensibly read as 'you have only one god' where 'you' covers the whole of our world/universe
I can't imagine there is anything in the bible that can't be read this way and boldly suggests there is nothing in the bible that has to be taken to mean that there aren't other gods dealing with other worlds.
Less boldly I tentively suggest there's nothing in the bible that says our god can't be replaced by another of these gods.
chez
Peter666
10-03-2005, 10:40 AM
Agreed. As you know, we need to agree on definitions before any argument can commence. Because many people do not do this, many threads on this forum are futile.
[ QUOTE ]
…meaningful discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely, you jest. (I am joking at any rate. And I promise I'll stop calling you Shirley.) /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Peter666
10-03-2005, 12:17 PM
Yeah, you guys are right. Aristotle was like soooo stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you guys are right. Aristotle was like soooo stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Aristotle was an enlightened man for his time, but clearly was not privy to so much of the progress that occurred after him (how would his thinking change if he knew any of the findings in astronomy/cosmology, quantum physics, relativity, etc. -- I think this would spur him to question many of his earlier positions which were based purely on a logical reasoning that no longer fits with the objective data). If you are relying on the thinking of an ancient Greek as "truth", then that explains a lot.
Aristotle:
Likewise, the heavens above (the sky, stars, sun and moon) are distinctly of a different nature from the things of earth [a view held by Plato, and most other philosophers of the time]. Things on the earth are subject to decay--as elements decay (fire, air, water, earth). But things above the earth are perfect (even in their shape) and of a higher order (ether)--divine (like gods).
The planets rank close to the heavens in nature, being perfect in nature and motion. Each planet is governed by a divine mover of its own along its perfect heavenly course.
The heavenlies are moved in their perfect courses by the Will of the Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover or Divine First Cause is, however, not the same as God. The Unmoved Mover is a creation of God (thus a lesser order than pure God) which also seeks God!
The earth is the center of the universe. Here on earth heavier matter has fallen and intermixed to form the common elements of our world. But this mixture includes not only the "things" of our world but also their "doings." The heavens regulate the intermix and thus the events of the earth.
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/aristotle2.htm
Funny how you take the "First Cause" part of that as tuth. Do you also agree with him and believe that everything beyond the erath is made of some non-earthly divine material? Or that everything revolves around the earth? Once more, your position is shown to be based on the "truth" of a man who clearly had little understanding of the universe and made up the parts he didn't understand. Your house of cards continues to tumble.
Peter666
10-03-2005, 12:44 PM
Aristotle's scientific assumptions are seperate from his philosophical conclusions. If you need to prove your point by using modern science to combat the scientific assumptions of 2500 years ago, you are pathetic. Of course your current scientific assumpitions will look stupid as well 2500 years from now.
You should instead challenge Aristotle on his philosphical conclusions. Let's see you do that.
[ QUOTE ]
Aristotle's scientific assumptions are seperate from his philosophical conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh!
So the fact that he pulled all his scientific assumptions out his ass and they are shown to be absurd and wrong (and none founded on any experiment or data, but rather pure imaginative invention which shows his strenuous test for what constitutes truth) has nothing to do with the validity of his philosophical conclusions regarding the nature of the universe. How convenient for you, since those philosophical conclusions resemble your own.
txag007
10-03-2005, 02:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how you take the "First Cause" part of that as tuth. Do you also agree with him and believe that everything beyond the erath is made of some non-earthly divine material? Or that everything revolves around the earth? Once more, your position is shown to be based on the "truth" of a man who clearly had little understanding of the universe and made up the parts he didn't understand. Your house of cards continues to tumble.
[/ QUOTE ]
House of cards, huh? Speaking of "First Cause" and of kidluckee's scientific knowledge, check out this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3512885&page=2&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1) post to which he never replied:
[ QUOTE ]
TXAG007:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Fusion. The energy-producing process which takes place continuously on the sun and the stars. Hydrogen is converted to Helium by means of this process which, by the way, produces enough energy to support life on Earth. If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe. There isn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIDLUCKEE:
That's false. There would not need to be an infinite supply of hydrogen if the universe always existed because matter and energy are interchangeable, and thus hydrogen can be converted into helium, which can then be converted into other elements, which can then be converted back into hydrogen by fission. The cycle of matter and energy does not require infinite matter, just like the weather patterns on earth don't require infinite water vapor to keep the cycle going.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TXAG007:
I'm sorry, but you're explanation is just not true. Do you know what happens when a star dies? Hydrogen is converted to helium and then eventually to heavier and heavier elements (depending on the mass of the star). It's basically hydrogen to helium to carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and iron. The bottom line is that there is no known process that can return heavier elements to hydrogen in the necessary quantities, and any would probably violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Therefore, the amount of time needed for stars to convert all of the hydrogen in the universe into helium is finite, and it will never change back. So either the universe is of finite age or there exists some highly exotic process (for which no direct evidence exists) that produces hydrogen to keep it going.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the universe collapses and expands, there is no need for an infinite supply of hydrogen. Whatever the conditions are in a collapsing mass may be able to produce hydrogen by fission, or at any rate, the conditions allow for the cycle of energy-matter-energy-etc. There is no need for "infinite hydrogen" in a model in which the universe collapses/expands without end.
Peter666
10-03-2005, 04:34 PM
Aristotle can pull his conclusions out of any orifice he pleases, it is your job to prove that his First Cause argument is wrong. Aristotle could believe that green men lived on the moon, but it does not prove the rightness or wrongness of his philosphical conclusion.
So for a second time, prove him wrong on the First Cause principle.
chezlaw
10-03-2005, 04:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Aristotle can pull his conclusions out of any orifice he pleases, it is your job to prove that his First Cause argument is wrong. Aristotle could believe that green men lived on the moon, but it does not prove the rightness or wrongness of his philosphical conclusion.
So for a second time, prove him wrong on the First Cause principle.
[/ QUOTE ]
It maybe here somewhere but I cant find it. Can you provide a clear statement of Aristotles first cause argument and I'll see what I can make of it.
chez
Peter666
10-04-2005, 11:13 AM
Check out the "Base Particle Thread" on this board.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.