This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

believe the only God anyone can or ever will know or find is a product of mind, but where best found? — tim wood

The eye only finds grey and brown in the woods cathedral. Only the mind can make a tree.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Cool. If god is no less real the Johnson’s stone, then we’ll at least get to see what he looks like, the reality of a stone being common to everybody.

Cooler. The end of organized differential religions. “Praise be to stone” has no more import than “Amen to stone” when all there is to work with is a reality no less so than stone.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So it struck me to challenge any of these to make clear how it might matter if the existence of God were granted. — tim wood

well - faith based for sure - but because of that belief - i have been, with various degrees of limited effectiveness, been trying to live by this first principal for quite some time. Because this provides a meaning for my existence.

God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.

God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.

From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.

For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.

God in fact, in reality, and God in mind as idea, are two very different creatures. Which way are you? If fact, what can you get from that fact? — tim wood

I will try, I have never made any claim whatsoever about the nature of God, in fact I would challenge any one - theist or atheist on what possible basis one could have to make such a claim. God is a very real thing to me, and very much an idea.

but yet again - these are matters of faith, of theology, not philosophy

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

by real, do you mean like a human form sitting in taverna in ios drinking coffee and staring at the fishing boats ?? or real as some being outside our senses, but real none the less ? such as love or truth ? Can you give me some sideboards on what you mean by real?

Yes. One looks with mind. The chapel is ultimately a distraction (sez I) however pleasurable. But the tree speaks life. Is it possible two posters on this site might however briefly be on the same page? — tim wood

I'm sure during times when I was wildness-deprived, I would have agreed. I get my fill pretty regularly these days. Are you speaking out of hunger by chance?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My point in this thread is to challenge those who argue relentlessly that God is at least, say, as real as a stone, to make clear what follows from that existence, it being granted — tim wood

got it - good hunting then.

I find it's attention, the ability to attend, that matters. The tree engages, while chapels become tiresome. May I infer you've aged out of the city to the country? — tim wood

I grew up beside a forest and then lived in a big city, then wandered a lot.

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:

1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.

2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.

3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be.

...
5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe).

Of course existence as a predicate is useless, if there's no subject that the predicate is a predicate of. — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
— Jehu

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine? — Terrapin Station

As an author of fantasy novels who regularly writes about dragons and stuff, I certainly hope one can. I would hate to think I had merely hallucinated all the pages I have written.

BTW, dragons have qualities. Most of them have the quality of being fire-breathing. All of them have the quality of being imaginary.

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied. — Echarmion

"Donald Trump exists."

This statement provides information about Donald Trump, namely that he does not belong to the class of objects (dragons, Bilbo Baggins, Superman, the fountain of youth, etc etc etc) that do not exist.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

By his works shall we know him. Some of my deductions do use the fact that God, if he exists, created the universe, but I'd argue that is derived from the definition of the term God so its fair play.

Because sex cannot be derived from being/existence, then sex cannot be an attribute — tim wood

God exists. Does he have a sex? Does he have a mother/father? No. Deductions from the nature of God's existence.

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine? — Terrapin Station

In order to speak of anything you must first be able to say what that thing is; i.e., what its nature is, and if we are able to say 'what it is' then we cannot deny 'that it is'. We are well within our right to say that one thing partakes of an actual existence, while another partakes of only an imaginary existence, but we cannot deny that the imaginary thing does not partake of any mode of existence at all.

And they are not doing that anyway? — Bitter Crank

Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.

Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.

Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.

If I understand you correctly you mean to show that the properties generally attributed to God are not deducible from just the mere fact of God's existence. If so, you should have used the word "creator" and not "God" because the former, by definition, possesses all the properties/attributes of God. A small error.

I don't think we can derive the necessary attributes of God from nothing more than an existence of a creator. However, it is not impossible so I'll try it here. A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. Without omniscience the being wouldn't have the knowledge to create a universe. An omniscient being would understand morality completely and therefore would be omnibenevolent. So, there you have it. The existence of a creator implies an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The task is to exhibit what if anything can be derived from the existence of a particular being, God. — tim wood

But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. If you grant that God exists then these are part of the package. Why ask a redundant question?

Ergo you must be talking about the cosmological argument - a creator being. Even if such a being should exist we wouldn't be warranted to deduce omnibenevolence. Only then your question makes sense.