But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. — TheMadFool
And did you not see where all-good, all-powerful, is inconsistent? — tim wood
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. All good
I'm going to rely on the cosmological argument which you accept of course since this thread begins with acceptance of God's existence. — TheMadFool
None. This isn't about what I'll buy; it's about what you can demonstrate is a consequence of existence. You want him to be all powerful? Fine, but that God is your idea. Besides, just what is all powerful? And don't start any mind/language games here.
Look, if I want to define a horse as a four-legged animal, you in turn might mock and ridicule me for whatever reason. But I can exhibit a horse, and we can jointly investigate phenomena in some way and at some level appropriate to a discussion concerning what a horse is. In short, on horses and wide variety of other things, we have recourse to unimpeachable authorities - or we moderate our claims to comport with those authorities. But the trouble with our topic is no such authority or authorities exist. Which in itself is suggestive.... — tim wood
You are aware that the ideas of an omnipotent God and a perfect or a perfectly good God are inconsistent with each other, yes? — tim wood
But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. — TheMadFool
It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes — Terrapin Station
Isn't that only if one accepts particular definitions?
5m — Terrapin Station
I don't think it's necessarily a monotheistic god, necessarily an omnipotent god, etc — Terrapin Station
But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. Just the existence of an x is not enough to pronounce x as God. Also, it seems to me that you're being unfair because God's other attributes aren't derived from His existence alone, although I've tried to prove it with the cosmological argument, which you don't accept. — TheMadFool
But then it was incorrect to make the OP about God. It should've been about a creator being. The OP quibbles between creator and God. — TheMadFool
Yes, and the God in this discussion is the monotheistic God isn't it? — TheMadFool
The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood
Good. Existence isn't enough. Think about that. Whatever you say or think about God is either derived from His existence, or something else - the something else, whatever it might be, being not God. You refer to other attributes, but since you do not, cannot, get them from a God even one whose existence is granted, then where do you get them (not a rhetorical question)? — tim wood
Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are granting existence, but are arguing with ↪TheMadFool when he tries to do so, — Rank Amateur
If i substitute "tim wood' for god in the o/p if i can't assign Tim Wood any characteristics not sure what is left to derive about you, based on your existence, other than you exist. — Rank Amateur
You want to say that the just existence is not enough for any concept of God. — TheMadFool
You grant them that they can say their God exists, but they can't have their definition of Him — Rank Amateur
If you're not seeing the problem, then you're like someone from the home out on a hayride to appreciate the colors - that is, on a fool's ride. But it's really easy to get off the hay wagon and stop being a fool. All you have to do is think, and not even too much of that! — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.