Was Darwin Wrong?

[Z]

Proof here is self-evident: 'God' cannot be omnipresent whilst "other things" are reported to have an independent existence of their own.

Therefore, if a God exists, God is a solipsist.

Only IF you define 'God' as 'Omnipresent' and 'Indivisible'.

However, if God consist of constituent parts, then God can be omnipresent while other things can maintain an existence - not independent of, but as components of - God.

Once again, flawed reasoning.

Tell me, LG - can you make any statement at all without messing up the process of logical reasoning?

 

[lifegazer]

Only IF you define 'God' as 'Omnipresent' and 'Indivisible'.

What sort of a bozo would define 'God' as finite (within the existence 'he' has reportedly created)?
If 'God' is a concept that refers to finite entities having limted powers to effect change, then I insist that the concept of 'God' mirrors ALL reported entities, since they are all finite and have the power to effect limited change.

... Hence, the philosophical/rational conceptualisation of 'God' must seek to distinguish between ALL perceived entities and Itself (God). As such, philosophy can only relate to a truly omnipresent God.

 

[Z]

What sort of a bozo would define 'God' as finite (within the existence 'he' has reportedly created)?
If 'God' is a concept that refers to finite entities having limted powers to effect change, then I insist that the concept of 'God' mirrors ALL reported entities, since they are all finite and have the power to effect limited change.

... Hence, the philosophical/rational conceptualisation of 'God' must seek to distinguish between ALL perceived entities and Itself (God). As such, philosophy can only relate to a truly omnipresent God.

Sez you - As it is, plenty of 'bozos' throughout history have defined God as finite. Even within the existence which he supposedly created.

Now - what if God is a finite entity which has unlimited power to effect change? What of your definitions then?

But - in order for you to deal with a philosophy of God, you must first, absolutely, define what a God is. Sadly, you make generalized assertions without first providing your definitions and/or rationalizations.

For my own part, I see God as separate from and including the entire universe. How? Because I see God as an unreal entity - that is, an entity comprised of neither space nor time, but which can encompass and occupy any and all of space/time as it desires. Being an unreal entity, it does not have to conform to any known laws of space-time, and can even exist in various paradoxical and contradictory states.

Of course, any and all philosophy of God is based merely on conjecture - since there is no means to demonstrate God or to prove God's existence, all we can do is ponder.

 

[katlefiya]

Lifegazer,
could you not admit that maybe other people's perceptions of the world are similar to your own, but using different words to describe it?
e.g. people call it existence, and existence includes everything, could that not simply be another term for God?

 

[c4ts]

I understand bunny sludge goes very well with fava beans.

Unlike chianti.