Another issue with the OP is that the God of monotheism is not *a* God, one God amongst many. Believing in the Gods, as polytheistic religions do, is quite a different thing to faith in God, at least according to monotheism. They would insist that the Biblical God is not simply an instance of a type.
It should also be mentioned that 'existence' is the wrong word for God. 'What exists', as far as we can know, are phenomena, 'that which appears'. In classical philosophy and theology, the first principle/umoved mover/first cause is not 'something that exists' - to say that 'it exists' is to relegate it to the domain of appearances, a being among other beings or thing among things. That gets into the domain of apophatic theology which is probably too specialised for this forum, but ought to be noted. — Wayfarer
I deleted my last post to Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. — L'éléphant
My heart tells me God exists, P(G) = 100%
My mind tells me God doesn't exist P(G) = 0%
P(G) = The probability that God exists. — Agent Smith
Thanks. But don't give me too much credit. I'm in the process of changing my approach to responding to posts I disagree with. :halo:Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place. — Bird-Up
As an antitheist, I'm only agnostic about (nontheistic) pandeism & acosmism[E]veryone is an agnostic. — Bird-Up
because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché). — 180 Proof
I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I guess sentient is implicit...? — jorndoe
(barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking) — jorndoe
How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation? — Down The Rabbit Hole
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation) — jorndoe
You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it. — Down The Rabbit Hole
because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché). — 180 Proof
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.