Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

[Reckoner]

EDIT: OK, so as Xris pointed out this is a topic that has sprung out of the "What's your religion?" thread due to its deducted "off topicness." As a result I edited this opening post so it would make more sense to a lot of you.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify how each and everyone of you view God. (Atheists are welcomed to give their thoughts on how they view the forces that are at work in this universe).

The following questions are just a framework to help many of you get on the same mind set. It is not needed to keep all your points to these questions, however, it would be useful if they were answered in your posts. This is not a simple declare your religion or views thread. If it is so I shall direct you over here. Please give thought out responses. An example of such a post is Vexx's below mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

[Vexx]

Simple enough....

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Question for all of you in this thread, because I really want to clarify how each of you view God (Does not really apply suppose if you cannot believe in God).

I don't categorically rule out the possibility (that wouldn't be scientific ) so I'll answer.

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

No, I see no evidence at all for a conscious monotheistic entity.

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

I view the universe as containing many forces, each with different levels of "intent" (e.g. humans have "intent", a swirl of breeze much less so). Calling them "gods" seems to confuse monotheistic believers - you don't worship these entities so much as simply respect or acknowledge them. One could easily call it playful anthropomorphism or animism. That's one reason I resist translating "kami" as "god(s)".

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Taking that statement literally is misleading... I think the only way it can be taken seriously at all is to realize the "image" is that of a self-aware entity capable of choice .... not some particular number of fingers, eyes, body shape.

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

That would be taking the label "God" and applying it to a natural event or process with no conscious intent. I think that is overloading the label a bit and simply confuses some. It more an indicator of needing better vocabulary for discussion purposes. The "Gaia hypothesis" is what I'd use probably instead for that idea (or Deism).

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Not applicable (and not even meaningful I'm thinking if I start dissecting "omnipotence" in an enclosed entity).

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

I'd probably sign up for that if it were the only choice -- most monotheistic religions don't actually seem to think *big* enough when expressing their god.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'd probably sign up for that if it were the only choice -- most monotheistic religions don't actually seem to think *big* enough when expressing their god.

Interesting responses as always Vexx. But no, I'm not limiting you to my questions, they are just a frame work for those who cannot simply tell me how they view God. It's more to get me and the reader on the same page.

[xris]

Posts moved out from the What's your religion? thread.

And yes, the current thread name (Title Intentionally Left Blank) is a pun awaiting for Reckoner (or someone else) to provide me or another Mod something more suitable.

And just in case...

Originally Posted by xris

It would also be a good time to remind posters of some of the general etiquette for posting here at AnimeSuki.

• Do not insult or harass other members for their comments.
  Please remember: Do not take it so seriously that you end up in an argument with another forum member because they express a different viewpoint from yours. Discussion and good spirited banter is always welcome, but harassing people won’t be tolerated.

If you can't follow this simple rule then please don't post.

And please remain on-topic.

[Reckoner]

One thing I would like to add that was not in my original post... The only way I would find this thread interesting is if people from the other thread came here and answered these questions because those were the people I wanted to ask in the first place.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

EDIT: OK, so as Xris pointed out this is a topic that has sprung out of the "What's your religion?" thread due to its deducted "off topicness." As a result I edited this opening post so it would make more sense to a lot of you.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify how each and everyone of you view God. (Atheists are welcomed to give their thoughts on how they view the forces that are at work in this universe).

The following questions are just a framework to help many of you get on the same mind set. It is not needed to keep all your points to these questions, however, it would be useful if they were answered in your posts. This is not a simple declare your religion or views thread. If it is so I shall direct you over here. Please give thought out responses. An example of such a post is Vexx's below mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

1. As a Roman Catholic, I believe in only one true God in a Holy Trinity who is omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful and (generally) benevolent.

2. This could actually depend. As a believer in monotheism I believe in one God of this universe. However, is said God limited to a discrete universe or does He exist and span through multiverses, all of which are connected through him? If one day the Many Worlds Theory and multiple universes are to be proven, I am likely to believe that a single God exists among the mutlitude of possible universes.

3. Yes, however an imperfect one. On the assumption that God himself is good and just, a perfect image would would be the same. However man has shown to deviate a lot from this idea, which leads me to believe that humanity is simply an imperfect creation and an imperfect image. I don't think anyone can really answer when or where humanity became imperfect, if it was at the instant of creation/evolution (not very likely) or somewhere along the line. Genesis symbolically (I don't believe the Book of Genesis to be factual) represented the introduction of sin to mankind, so for me it's possible man fell from grace somewhere after he came from apes (for the record I believe in a fusion of Creation and Evolution, such that God created life, molded it from behind the scenes, and allowed man to evolve from lower primates).

4. Many people interpret the Christian God to be present in all things, such that all things came from Him therefore He is in all things as well. It's probably not so far to suggest he may have been the Big Bang himself, distributing his essence to the universe and molded everything from there. Scientists have been looking for the "god particle" (or the Higgs Boson to you scientists... wait I'm a Biologist too...) considered to be the original substance of the singular mass of the Big Bang. Perhaps God is this particle in reality, possessing his own consciousness and will? As such he is likewise a living being not in the sense of "living" as science puts it. Think... uh... the lifestream in FFVII?

5. The tangibility of God is a rather touchy subject. Some Christians will claim to have seen, touched, heard and/or felt God while others still see him as a omniscient presence that does not physically manifest itself within this reality. As for me, I have no idea.

------------

The existence of God has been a very controversial subject even amongst theologians and religious philosophers (wait aren't they the same thing?). Over the years there have been many schools of thought that have arisen in trying to actually prove the existence of god(s). I'm personally more knowledgable in Christian theology than any others, having studied theology and philosophy in a Jesuit school. There are 3 more prominent and classical smethods of thought regarding the arguments for the existence of the Chrisitian:

1. Ontological Arguments, most notably that of St. Anselms Proslogion, which is based on the notion that God is "that which nothing greater can be thought of". In the basic sense, ontology tries to reason out the existence of God through an almost purely mental exercise using logic and reason sometimes independent of physical experience. God is proven through a logically-sounding argument.

2. Cosmological Arguments, the argument for the "First Cause", such as in Aristotle's Metaphysics. As the argument says, it attempts to reason out the presence of existences, that is how an existence can come into being if it cannot come from nothing. The argument states that only an existence can give birth to existence, however because for this to occur there should have been an infinite chain of existences into the past to give birth to new ones, it is posited that there was one original Existence, a special case who existed since infinity that was not preceded and to give birth to everything that followed.

3. Teleological Arguments, similar to the idea of intelligent design, most notably in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Most people are familiar with the idea of intelligent design, that the universe seems to have been designed with a distinct purpose (hence teleology) that stands out amongst the nearly infinite other possibilities that may or may not likewise have purpose. Here it is argued that there must have been a Prime Mover of sorts to shape the universe into how it is now.

------------

I'm not actually sure if this post belongs here or on the other thread. If it should be somewhere else feel free to move it.

[Quzor]

I suppose I'll give these a shot...

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Myself, no. For me, the idea of everything relating back to a single entity or, for that matter, a single anything, is a bit of a stretch.

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

I like how Vexx put it; many forces. I wouldn't call them "Gods", necessarily.

Do you think man was created in God's image?

If man was indeed created by God, I should certainly hope not. Or, if we were, it would seem to me that we have greatly tainted God's image.

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

My pastor once said to me: "Would it be impossible to believe that God created life as it was at the beginning of time, and we've evolved in to what we are today?" I always found that quote rather interesting, but at the same time disturbing. That is the epitome of having your cake and eating it too. That's essentially a quote that everyone can find a bit of agreement with, in my opinion. I prefer not to think in such comfortable phrases. Is God the big bang? No. Did God cause the big bang? Maybe. In this instance, I prefer to defer to science.

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

My personal God (and I in no way use that term in the religious sense) is not tangible, nor is he omnipotent. He's sort of that thing that's there, when you throw up your hands a say "ah, screw it." Whatever happens after that, yeah...that's him.

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

At the risk of starting a flame war (which I am certainly not trying to do), I'm inclined to believe this line of reasoning insofar as religion is concerned. For myself, if there was some omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being called "God", the creator of Heaven and Earth, I suspect that his power would be so vastly beyond our understanding that, no matter what we thought of him or who he was, we'd be dramatically underestimating him. From my experience, humanity has a difficult time conceptualizing things beyond the scope of itself. In this instance, I think the universe is a good example (as a tangible example). We can take pictures of it, we can see into it for quite a long way, and we can make certain assertions about what is out there and what is not. All that being said, I think we'd be sufficiently impressed by what we discovered if we actually had the technology to explore that vast unknown. For me, God (in a religious sense) is much the same; we can make assertions about his powers but, given the ability to truly examine them at a first-hand level, we would realize just how much we were downplaying his true capabilities.

My personal assertion is that, in a religious sense, until I see some actual tangible proof, there is no God. I'm willing to believe in forces beyond my control or understanding, but I don't place direct merit in their power over me. That is to say, I do not subscribe to the idea that those forces will punish or reward me based on how I live my life. I think we can all agree that there are things in this world that we simply do not understand, and I'm willing to accept that as a basic part of life. I don't feel, however, that I should have to accept those things I don't understand as being the result of influence from some all-powerful father figure who may choose to smite me at any moment.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

As a believer in the Bible, yes I personally do think that is one of God's attributes.

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

I believe there is one true God who has full control over the universe and everything in it. There are other spiritual beings who may have some control over a force of nature. And humans themselves are physical beings who managed to harness some of nature's power. But neither those spiritual beings nor humans are gods and only have control over nature with God's own permission or command. And I don't believe that nature itself is some personification of a conscious will, though it is ultimately under the control of one, God's will.

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Yes, I believe humans are made in God's image, however not in the strict physical or visual sense. God is also both the force behind life and the source of creation. God himself is not some physical energy or force, but I believe the transfer and manipulation of energy can be the mechanism God uses through which the universe and life within it continues to exist the way it is.

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

I'm not sure about what you're asking here. I looked at a dictionary and one of the definitions of corporeal is tangible. So I don't know if that's a valid either-or case. However, I do believe that omnipotence is another one of God's attributes. That also means God can be tangible when he wants to be and intangible otherwise.

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

God is beyond the reach of full human understanding. However, I do believe he has let himself known to mankind mainly through the Bible, and what we can grasp of him is enough to merit our concern and appropriate response.

[Kafriel]

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Yes, although I also believe in God's triple nature (Father-Son-Holy Spirit).

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

No, the aforementioned God created all, so there is only one.

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Man is made in God's image, the big bang leaves inconsistencies about the previous state of the universe and its sudden change.

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

God is incorporeal, an omnipotent spiritual entity that is too great for us to comprehend, hence we cannot see it.

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

God is not just a concept, but fully understanding God is impossible. Following His word, we can try to coexist with the rest of the world in peace and harmony, through His example of love.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

EDIT: OK, so as Xris pointed out this is a topic that has sprung out of the "What's your religion?" thread due to its deducted "off topicness." As a result I edited this opening post so it would make more sense to a lot of you.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify how each and everyone of you view God. (Atheists are welcomed to give their thoughts on how they view the forces that are at work in this universe).

The following questions are just a framework to help many of you get on the same mind set. It is not needed to keep all your points to these questions, however, it would be useful if they were answered in your posts. This is not a simple declare your religion or views thread. If it is so I shall direct you over here. Please give thought out responses. An example of such a post is Vexx's below mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

Until someone can prove that a "God" exists, I wouldn't bother believing. If a single "God" exists, she must be a random, whimsical and indecisive creator. If there are multiple of such entities, then humans must have been some form of celestial chess pieces.

I have a couple of theories regarding this :

Spoiler for THEORY 1:

I think man was created in opposite of "God"'s image as a form of experimenting with alternative character. When she realised that men are physically strong, hard-headed and too decisive, she decided to create something in her image to pacify the men before they destroy all the cute stuff she has created in the Garden of Eden.

It turned out too well until men found out that the best way to solve their problems is to kill the other person who gave them problems. "God" decided to implement a "gentleman code" so that the physically superior men would not harm the women, but rather fight themselves to death. Those men who survive the conflict called war eventually built stronger bonds of friendship and thus are more forgiving and more aloof towards emotions, however women, having less experience with warfare, became more emotionally sensitive and become mysterious as their creator.

"God" believes that being emotionally sensitive to one another will create a more peaceful world, thus she made women the bearers of children. However, she also realise the need for her other creation, so men were also given a role in populating the earth.

As men continue to be as aggressive as they were 100 million years ago, "God" implemented the Plan Of The White Lily, where men will eventually war themselves to death, and women become self-sufficient to mold the world in her image. Devotees to such a change are given the power of MUGIVISION to aid in their quest for a world in her image.

Spoiler for THEORY 2:

"God" is a "she" like the abovementioned theory. One day she felt bored and decided to create a place when hundreds of her reside. She realise that they don't interact with each other, so she destroyed it and created a new version with animals.

However, she realise that it is tedious to create herself one by one, so she created the male and gave her images the ability to carry children (because she trusted her image rather than her male creation). As an incentive, she made intercourse enjoyable so her creation would continue to multiply. As it is boring to watch over such a hard routine of marry and reproduce, she gave them brains so it would make the place she created more lively.

The rest is history, but "God" has always been looking for ways to make "life" more interesting, and is currently taking a form of a schoolgirl in Japan.

I hypothesise that the primary objective of creating humans in her image is a subconscious manifestation of the desire to control something called love. The entity never understood what it was, so basically, we are test subjects in an experiment of eternity.

These are all results of thought experiments, like every single other religion in this world. There is no solid proof, just a belief and dedication to the "entity/ies".

[Thingle]

I do not care at all whether the metaphysical God exists or not. However this metaphysical God is different from the socio-cultural God you people have been worshiping since time immemorial.

This socio-cultural God...I try to keep off my life. Why? Because it's just a product of the human mind. Hence, no potency.

[Solais]

For me, every life-form is a God itself, God of their own World. What exist in those worlds are what they believe it exist, and it will exist. Just like how my cousin believes of ghosts existing as a common sense, and she can see ghosts, while I believe in them, but my common sense blocks them, thus I can't see them. And all of these Gods make up one Existence. Or as an other interpretation, all these Existence make up one God.
Thus, I believe in everything.

Also, Devil's Proof.

[Reckoner]

Ah, yes. So far the responses are much more interesting that the other thread.

This really delves into what people actually think versus the categorization placed on them by ascribing to a certain set of beliefs.

I'll give a little explanation of my views regarding "God."

I kind of view the source of creation as nothing but some sort of force at work. It is neither monotheistic or polytheistic because because there is no conscious God or Gods at work. It doesn't have to be one "force."

I don't see God as something tangible, because if it was, then I would find it in contradiction with nonexistence.

We are actually talking about an existence that somehow overcame the concept of nonexistence. We humans cannot even understand nonexistence, much less the force that overcame it and created existence.

Because of this, I doubt that humans will ever be able to truly figure anything out about this. Even if we were to figure it out 10000000000000000000000000000000 years from now, we may very well be dead due to an explosion of the sun, or something similar.

[Throne Invader]

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Protestant here so yes I do believe God is a single entity and that He is conscious of Himself and what He has created.

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

I personally enjoyed their stories but no, I don't think that there are many gods.

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Yes

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

I don't believe this.

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

Same answer with Kafriel.

[Cipher]

Sounds fun.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Yes. I wouldn't worship a "brainless" being.

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

One. Having many Gods lacks unity. I'm relating this vaguely to society. I believe unity or one-ness creates more Order. In a family, there should only be one father.

Do you think man was created in God's image?

No. I believe we have to form a sort of "respect" and "line" between God and humans---Just as how we believe animals and humans should be treated differently. Creating God's image as a man would lower his status, therefore, discipline lessens and from that, faith lessens, and another from that, the resulting society would lack morality.

I believe that God is benevolent but, similar to a parent, he's the parent(God) and should not be treated/respected as the child (humans). If the smallest sort of government holds this virtue, then I believe the *grandest* should hold it as well.

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

No. This lessens meaning and end of life. There are many who live for today but what's hard to realize is the further "present". What awaits the end of life with the belief of *some kind of life force*? Nothing?

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

As intangible as not being *seen* with mere physical human *eyes* but Omnipotent.

Or do you simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding

I do but I have *faith* in God similar to having *faith* in reality. We can't be concerned with understanding such a being but having *faith* is another matter.

Originally Posted by Vexx

S

No, I see no evidence at all for a conscious monotheistic entity.

I view the universe as containing many forces, each with different levels of "intent" (e.g. humans have "intent", a swirl of breeze much less so). Calling them "gods" seems to confuse monotheistic believers - you don't worship these entities so much as simply respect or acknowledge them. One could easily call it playful anthropomorphism or animism. That's one reason I resist translating "kami" as "god(s)".

You do realize that you have the *same* scientific-lacking position? (It can't be proved nor disproved.)

[james0246]

I was a little bored, so...

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Hard to say (is that an understatement, or is that an understatement). Since you are using the loaded term "God", that does imply some amount of consciousness (as well as omnipotent and omniscience (inherent or total)) and singularity is required.

In the end, if there is a God, then I see no reason why it should be confined to one specific entity. It would make more sense for a God to be everything and nothing, or something equally undefinable.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

No. I see no reason for such a theism to exist. It simply complicates and hinders the discussion.

Then again, something like Dualism can explain "good" and "evil" far better than any current monotheistic interpretation.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Do you think man was created in God's image?

I doubt God has a specific form, so no our shape and form does not directly equal God's. That being said, if God is trully everything and nothing, then, of course, human form is part of God anyway, so yes humans would be shapped in God's image.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than having a singular entity...that is, if it exists at all.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

I can't say I have ever directly touched or interacted with anything tangible or intangible that necessarily indicated the pressence of God. Then again, it's hard to say that I haven't either, especially if God is everything and nothing...

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?

Bingo. If God is God, then God cannot be defined by human words, beliefs, or understanding. It is only when God becomes "god", and "he" sets forth objectives and other nonsensical criteria for existence, that God loses its Godliness. Specifically, God's power is limited by analyzing it in regards to human understanding (good and evil, love and hate, etc are all used to interpret and change God into "god").

If something called God does exist, then it is like nothing we can conceive, so trying to limit it by what we can conceive is ultimately pointless.

That being said, I find myself not old enough to fear death, and not young enough to go out of my way to care about the possible exsistence of God. In a few years time, as my mortality comes to forfront of my mind (and faith becomes a more interesting concept), I will probably turn to these questions again to find some sort of personal answer, but currently, the universe and my exsistence being mysterious makes for a damn good time and a fun ride.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by james0246

.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense than having a singular entity...that is, if it exists at all.

What sense? Sense that follows Universal "laws"?

Bingo. If God is God, then God cannot be defined by human words, beliefs, or understanding. It is only when God becomes "god", and "he" sets forth objectives and other nonsensical criteria for existence, that God loses its Godliness.

How does it lose God's "Godliness"? What is "Godliness"?

Specifically, God's power is limited by analyzing it in regards to human understanding (good and evil, love and hate, etc are all used to interpret and change God into "god").

How is it limited?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Cipher

What sense? Sense that follows Universal "laws"?

No, God would simply be a paradox, and consequently outside human laws and reason. In fact, there is no way God can be God if it was not outside human reason (otherwise, it would just be a really really powerful entity that works within the realms of science).

Again, this is if God even exists.

Originally Posted by Cipher

How does it lose God's "Godliness"? What is "Godliness"?

How is it limited?

Limits on God are easy to create. For instance, "God is Love" is a limit, because it excludes Hate and Lust (and any other non-Love based emotions, etc) and argues for a God that is not truly omnipotent (since hate has become it's antithesis, or at least something that exists outside of God). In other words, we limit the understanding of God (or lack thereof) by deciding on how to view God, which in turn makes the God we view limited (hence my use of "god" rather than God).

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by james0246

No, God would simply be a paradox, and consequently outside human laws and reason. In fact, there is no way God can be God if it was not outside human reason (otherwise, it would just be a really really powerful entity that works within the realms of science).

I can't follow. Nobody(humans) knows the *true* realms of science, doesn't that alone prove God's exemption from paradoxes?

Limits on God are easy to create. For instance, "God is Love" is a limit, because it excludes Hate and Lust (and any other non-Love based emotions, etc) and argues for a God that is not truly omnipotent (since hate has become it's antithesis). In other words, we limit the understanding of God (or lack thereof) by deciding on how to view God, which in turn makes the God we view limited (hence my use of "god" rather than God).

Is this *truly* a limit? I could say he has the power and yet choose not to use it, no?


On another note, What religion(s) identifies God so severely that it acts as limitations?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Cipher

You do realize that you have the *same* scientific-lacking position? (It can't be proved nor disproved.)

Hmmm, I can see and show others a breeze in the wind, or a storm, a bolt of lightning, a gamma ray strike, a dust-devil. Specific concrete instantiations of forces. Since I myself have intent, the simplest deduction is that anything that moves has "intent" (though of varying complexity or sophistication). That's about as deep as it gets... and I don't pretend its scientific or even accurate, its just a colorful poetic metaphor to describe the results of natural forces. I could argue that many humans lack much more "intent" than an eddy in a river current or a tornado. They're certainly about as transient a phenomena as those. They arise, exist for a while, and then cease to be.