[iNow]

chilehed, on 3 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Part of the problem is that our ability to define God is limited; it's a lot easier to say what he isn't than it is to say what he is.

Not according to you. You responded to someone else's post... You attempted to render it moot, but stating the following:

chilehed, on 2 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

There's a fallacy of definition in the question.
By definition, God is "that being which is uncreated".

So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Either god is very clearly and consistently defined and that definition renders the question "If god created the universe, then what created god?" entirely moot, or our ability to define god is limited and inconsistent as you've just said here. In the latter instance, that makes your rebuttal without merit and the question of "then what created god" remains valid and unanswered.

[zorro]

notan
God is not finite, therefor God has always been and will always be. From beyond minus infinity to beyond plus infinity. God is beyond infinite and thus is every even beyond the Universes. http://www.leaderu.c...s/eternity.html

[chilehed]

iNow, on 3 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Not according to you. You responded to someone else's post... You attempted to render it moot, but stating the following:

So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Either god is very clearly and consistently defined and that definition renders the question "If god created the universe, then what created god?" entirely moot, or our ability to define god is limited and inconsistent as you've just said here. In the latter instance, that makes your rebuttal without merit and the question of "then what created god" remains valid and unanswered.

You're being obtuse. There's no contradiction between "our ability to define God is limited" and "by definition God is uncreated", and for understanding to be limited does not imply that it's inconsistent.

The fact that you can't know everything about a being, doesn't mean that you can't know anything about it.

If you're really interested in learning, go study. If not, don't.

[Moontanman]

I don't understand why it's necessarily to repeat this "God came from the imagination of Man" There is no proof of the existence of God as anything but imagination... deal with it.... the Flying Spaghetti Monster has spoken.... Cthulhu seconds the motion....

[iNow]

chilehed, on 3 March 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

If you're really interested in learning, go study. If not, don't.

It strikes me as odd that you call me obtuse and then proceed to make such a lazy argument as this. Go study what, precisely? How do you have any clue about what I have and have not studied or learned already? What a lazy and ineffective approach to discussion. "Go study!" Yeah... You're convincing a lot of folks with rational, logical, well-articulated rhetoric like that, my friend. Keep up the good work!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe you were given an extensive set of references to study in post #40.

[iNow]

Cap, on 4 March 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

I believe you were given an extensive set of references to study in post #40.

Why... Yes, of course. However, that's the debate equivalent of telling me to go read the encyclopedia. Perhaps our friend can be kind enough to at the very least cite the specific collection, book, chapter, and preferably page that he finds to to be most relevant support of his argument or rebuttal of mine. Surely, that's not too much to ask?

Or, has the culture of this site changed so drastically that I`m out of line here, too?

[chilehed]

iNow, on 4 March 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Why... Yes, of course. However, that's the debate equivalent of telling me to go read the encyclopedia. Perhaps our friend can be kind enough to at the very least cite the specific collection, book, chapter, and preferably page that he finds to to be most relevant support of his argument or rebuttal of mine. Surely, that's not too much to ask?

Or, has the culture of this site changed so drastically that I`m out of line here, too?

If you had bothered to follow the link you'd have seen that it takes you directly to the relevant sections.

Remember: deep questions have simple, easily digested wrong answers. One who insists on an answer brief enough to be adequately presented in an online forum merely shows that he's not really interested in understanding the topic.

So study or remain ignorant.

[Phi for All]

chilehed, on 3 March 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

You're being obtuse.

chilehed, on 5 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

So study or remain ignorant.

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Always ask yourself if your argument is aimed at a person's ideas or at the person directly. Choose to attack the idea, not the person.

[Moontanman]

zorro, on 3 March 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

notan
God is not finite, therefor God has always been and will always be. From beyond minus infinity to beyond plus infinity. God is beyond infinite and thus is every even beyond the Universes. http://www.leaderu.c...s/eternity.html

Really? You are really going with what William Lane Craig said? The man who does nothing but repeat the same old tired horse feathers over and over as though by repetition his argument will somehow magically become valid? The man who offers no evidence what so ever other than his versions of other peoples totally unsupported claims? Really?

[iNow]

chilehed, on 5 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

If you had bothered to follow the link you'd have seen that it takes you directly to the relevant sections.

I clicked your link from my handheld, but it only took me to the table of contents. I clicked it again from my laptop, and landed here:

Quote

[1] We have shown that there exists a first being, whom we call God. We must, accordingly, now investigate the properties of this being.

[2] Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion. For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. Furthermore, we approach nearer to a knowledge of God according as through our intellect we are able to remove more and more things from Him. For we know each thing more perfectly the more fully we see its differences from other things; for each thing has within itself its own being, distinct from all other things. So, too, in the case of the things whose definitions we know. We locate them in a genus, through which we know in a general way what they are. Then we add differences to each thing, by which it may be distinguished from other things. In this way, a complete knowledge of a substance is built up.

[3] However, in the consideration of the divine substance we cannot take a what as a genus; nor can we derive the distinction of God from things by differences affirmed of God. For this reason, we must derive the distinction of God from other beings by means of negative differences. And just as among affirmative differences one contracts the other, so one negative difference is contracted by another that makes it to differ from many beings. For example, if we say that God is not an accident, we thereby distinguish Him from all accidents. Then, if we add that He is not a body, we shall further distinguish Him from certain substances. And thus, proceeding in order, by such negations God will be distinguished from all that He is not. Finally, there will then be a proper consideration of God’s substance when He will be known as distinct from all things. Yet, this knowledge will not be perfect, since it will not tell us what God is in Himself.

[4] As a principle of procedure in knowing God by way of remotion, therefore, let us adopt the proposition which, from what we have said, is now manifest, namely, that God is absolutely unmoved. The authority of Sacred Scripture also confirms this. For it is written: “I am the Lord and I change not” (Mal. 3:6); ...“with whom there is no change” (James 2:17). Again: “God is not man... that He should be changed (Num. 23:19).

So, you're using an assumption that "god is unmoved" as support of your comment that it's illogical to ask what created god, is that correct? Not that I accept the first premise quoted here, but I'm seeking a way to carry this forward.

From the next chapter:

Quote

[2] Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end.

Again... We seem to have a different version of evidence. This appears to be an empty assertion, not a source of evidence of your claim.

[chilehed]

iNow, on 5 March 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

So, you're using an assumption that "god is unmoved" as support of your comment that it's illogical to ask what created god, is that correct? Not that I accept the first premise quoted here, but I'm seeking a way to carry this forward.

From the next chapter:

Again... We seem to have a different version of evidence. This appears to be an empty assertion, not a source of evidence of your claim.

The link was to Chapter 14, which seemed most immediately relevant along with Chapter 15. Given that the first line is "We have shown that...", perhaps it would be good to go back and see how that was done.

[iNow]

And as for the rest of my comments?