• Cavacava
    2.4k
    I don't think the Bible thinks of Paul as a piece of equipment, rather I think Paul's agency is God's tool.
    — Cavacava

    You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment.

    A tool is a means to an end.
  • tim wood
    1.4k
    I buy the conclusion - with this adjustment: that we're all God collectively. And we evolve historically. If we don't measure up to someone's idea of what God should be, then that someone had better think through his or her arguments before objecting. In particular that the Christian God makes promises and supposedly always keeps His promises, just usually not yet, or in the form we think, or for whom he made the promise to - what kind of promise is that?

    Or, that God is an idea that evolves historically, that can only be realized through all, or most, of us.
  • BlueBanana
    900
    You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment.Sir2u

    Yes but one isn't one's agency.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    That still could not make some god. Being part of god, god being part of one,

    Only god is god, and to be god you must fit the description, have the characteristics and properties of god. Having the characteristics on loan does not qualify you as god.

    Vat are these "characteristics and properties of god" that you speak of, who's god?

    God's being (if) in us, constitutes us as part of itself. 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.

    ps. isn't this a kind of communion?
    pps. the walrus was Paul
    ppps. Ciao, time for chow.
  • BlueBanana
    900
    Not really what I meant. Other than that in your opinion the God doesn't exist, how can you know Sir2u isn't omnipotent and omniscient?
  • Mitchell
    134
    Actually, this entire discussion is moot. There is no God.
  • BlueBanana
    900
    I'm pretty sure it's a fallacy of some sort to answer to a discussion with the premise that God exists with the claim that he doesn't, the claim that is as unproved as the opposite.
  • Mitchell
    134

    Actually, it's not so much a fallacy as simply denying the premise. But, of course, whether there is any reason to affirm or deny God's existence is a different question, but one I think more interesting than whether some one person IS God. But then, I tike to sometimes throw a turd into the soup.
  • Sir2u
    1.4k
    Yes but one isn't one's agency.BlueBanana

    ?
  • BlueBanana
    900
    Is there not a difference between
    • Paul is God's tool
    And
    • Paul's agency is God's tool
    ?
  • tim wood
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    There is no God.Mitchell

    Spoil sport, can't you be nice and play the game. X-)
  • Sir2u
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    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
    1.4k
    If the world itself is divine, then divine is all there is.Cavacava

    Sorry, but that does not explain how someone can be god.
12Next
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.