• tim wood
    692
    Actually, this entire discussion is moot. There is no God.Mitchell

    Gratuitous and meaningless, given you haven't troubled to define what you're denying. Of course no one else offers a substantive definition of god, either.
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    God's being (if) in us, constitutes us as part of itself.Cavacava

    So there is no me? Just part of god.

    Therefore everyone is god.

    The vigor of love (you have avoided that word assiduously in our brief conversation yet I think it is key) of his being, enables unification with him in us.Cavacava

    I have not avoided mentioning anything, it is irrelevant to the discussion of someone being god as described in the OP. Meta says that he is god, not a part of god.

    Oh I almost forgot god is usually defined as:
    Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

    So unless you want to change the definition then there is no way anyone who is not a god by this definition can be a god.
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    Other than that in your opinion the God doesn't exist, how can you know Sir2u isn't omnipotent and omniscient?BlueBanana

    I wish!
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    There is no God.Mitchell

    Spoil sport, can't you be nice and play the game. X-)
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    Is there not a difference between

    Paul is God's tool

    And

    Paul's agency is God's tool

    ?
    BlueBanana

    I have no idea, why don't you explain it.
  • bahman
    530

    Omnipotent means that you can perform act of creation and probably have the ability to destroy it. You have full control on things. For that you need to be omniscient too. You need to know what you are doing always. An omniscient does not do mistake too.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    God has no parts, I toss that whole conception out.
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    God has no parts,Cavacava

    But if, as you said, god is everything then you would have to be part of god.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    If there is a God, he does not correspond to any of our logical schemata. The closest I can think of is that God is the Being of beings. In loving us, he loves his creation, only we are aware of his love, which we can reciprocate and in doing so become one with God.

    I am agnostic, but I am drawn to pantheism and I am trying its path, but not pantheism that assumes a personal deity.
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    God is the Being of beings. In loving us, he loves his creation, only we are aware of his love, which we can reciprocate and in doing so become one with God.Cavacava

    But one will never BE god.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    If the world itself is divine, then divine is all there is.
  • Sir2u
    1.1k
    If the world itself is divine, then divine is all there is.Cavacava

    Sorry, but that does not explain how someone can be god.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.