[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

If God is in everything, and nothing can exist if he were not in it then there is no distinction between what God is "in" and what God "is".

--Dave

I have often maintained that the theist/calvinist concept of God is God's omnipotence at the expense of man's impotence and God's perfection at the expense of man's depravity. Omnipresence gives rise to the same problem. The logically consistent outcome of theism is if God is to be truly God then he must be everything because if something else exists then it would detract from God's 'being omni-thing'. Which is of course as you say self-defeating. (And even if you argue that some things can still exist but are contingent on God's existence then in that sense he is those things too.)

I have also argued that in terms of logic alone, it makes no sense to speak of a dualist universe in which God, the creator is subject to different logical rules to that of his creation. In other words it makes no sense to say that can be everywhere in the material universe because he is spirit because the only way you can allow him to do that is you make his spirit existence subject to different rules to material things. Meaning is always in a context or in a relationship but being subject to different rules rules out such a relationship. God might as well be on the Moon as everywhere but not in everything.

It makes much more sense to simply say that the universe as a logical whole consists of both God and the world. These are subject to the same rules of interaction and can therefore be thought of meaningfully together.

[quip]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

If God is in everything, and nothing can exist if he were not in it then there is no distinction between what God is "in" and what God "is".

--Dave

Perhaps the distinction is God itself.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I have often maintained that the theist/calvinist concept of God is God's omnipotence at the expense of man's impotence and God's perfection at the expense of man's depravity. Omnipresence gives rise to the same problem. The logically consistent outcome of theism is if God is to be truly God then he must be everything because if something else exists then it would detract from God's 'being omni-thing'. Which is of course as you say self-defeating. (And even if you argue that some things can still exist but are contingent on God's existence then in that sense he is those things too.)

I have also argued that in terms of logic alone, it makes no sense to speak of a dualist universe in which God, the creator is subject to different logical rules to that of his creation. In other words it makes no sense to say that can be everywhere in the material universe because he is spirit because the only way you can allow him to do that is you make his spirit existence subject to different rules to material things. Meaning is always in a context or in a relationship but being subject to different rules rules out such a relationship. God might as well be on the Moon as everywhere but not in everything.

It makes much more sense to simply say that the universe as a logical whole consists of both God and the world. These are subject to the same rules of interaction and can therefore be thought of meaningfully together.

Well said. Have you seen my posts where I argue that God and the world he created are both in space and time?

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by quip

Perhaps the distinction is God itself.

As a pantheist you should not be arguing for a "distinction" between what and what is not God. But, maybe you're not really a pantheist.

--Dave

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Well said. Have you seen my posts where I argue that God and the world he created are both in space and time?

--Dave

Probably and I seem to recall that I agree with you about 80%. But I also seem to recall that for some reason we didn't manage to communicate very well... I guess that we could do worse than try again to share views.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Probably and I seem to recall that I agree with you about 80%. But I also seem to recall that for some reason we didn't manage to communicate very well... I guess that we could do worse than try again to share views.

Absolutely.

We help each other to better explain an understand our literal Biblical view of God.

--Dave

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

The argument here concludes with a God who is absolutely transcendent and not in the world.

I think that this is right. But this has to be qualified: God can't be "in" the world in the sense that God can't be a part of it. That would destroy his unity. But He also can't be "outside" of the world either; this too would destroy His unity. He neither is inside nor outside.

If God is in everything, timelessly and eternally--always has been and always will be, then God is the unifier of all things and everything becomes as eternal as God himself is.

False. This doesn't follow. This doesn't take into account 1. the Divine Will and 2. the alterity of the world to God.

[PureX]

"God: the creator and sustainer of all that exists", and "God: a word we use to refer to that which does not exist", are basically the same phenomena from our perspective. There can be no objective proof. So we are free to choose either, or neither, as we wish. This is more important than it may at first appear, because it lands the whole debate squarely on faith.

"God" as we conceive of it, is indistinguishable from no god except by the faith of the perceiver. And no philo-sophistry can change that unless it can change the concept of "God". This is why atheists have to argue with the more anthropomorphic and religious representations of "God", rather than the more general 'perfect ultimate' that the term more universally refers to.

I can come up with arguments for the existence of "God" apart from the mind of man, and arguments contending that "God" is nothing but an imagined ideal that exists only in the minds of man. But none of these assertions can be transferred to someone else by force of logic or reason without their willingness to extend some degree of faith to my logic and reasoning. "God", no matter how we perceive it, is a choice we make based on faith.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Traditio

I think that this is right. But this has to be qualified: God can't be "in" the world in the sense that God can't be a part of it. That would destroy his unity. But He also can't be "outside" of the world either; this too would destroy His unity. He neither is inside nor outside.

False. This doesn't follow. This doesn't take into account 1. the Divine Will and 2. the alterity of the world to God.

Well then where is God?

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by PureX

"God: the creator and sustainer of all that exists", and "God: a word we use to refer to that which does not exist", are basically the same phenomena from our perspective. There can be no objective proof. So we are free to choose either, or neither, as we wish. This is more important than it may at first appear, because it lands the whole debate squarely on faith.

"God" as we conceive of it, is indistinguishable from no god except by the faith of the perceiver. And no philo-sophistry can change that unless it can change the concept of "God". This is why atheists have to argue with the more anthropomorphic and religious representations of "God", rather than the more general 'perfect ultimate' that the term more universally refers to.

I can come up with arguments for the existence of "God" apart from the mind of man, and arguments contending that "God" is nothing but an imagined ideal that exists only in the minds of man. But none of these assertions can be transferred to someone else by force of logic or reason without their willingness to extend some degree of faith to my logic and reasoning. "God", no matter how we perceive it, is a choice we make based on faith.

So, your argument is that we can have no argument.

That's self-defeating.

--Dave

[PureX]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

So, your argument is that we can have no argument.

That's self-defeating.

--Dave

My comment was that the God/no God argument is pointless because all possible assertions will be based on entirely subjective criteria. The experience of their being a God, and the experience of there not being a God, are the exact same experience. Only our perception of the experience is different, depending upon which pre-supposition we apply to it. So all we have to argue about is our entirely subjective pre-suppositions. And what's the point of that?

It's not self-defeating, it's just pointless.

[mighty_duck]

The OP is one of the worst arguments ever.

Because I can conceive of it, it must exist.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Traditio

I think that this is right. But this has to be qualified: God can't be "in" the world in the sense that God can't be a part of it. That would destroy his unity. But He also can't be "outside" of the world either; this too would destroy His unity. He neither is inside nor outside.

This is the same as the time-eternity world view. God is defined as eternal, the logical problem is resolved by defining him out of existence. He doesn't exist in time or place.

[quip]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

As a pantheist you should not be arguing for a "distinction" between what and what is not God. But, maybe you're not really a pantheist.

--Dave

I'm not a pantheist.

[quip]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Well then where is God?

--Dave

He's an emergent property of every existent.("god" means different things to different peeps.)