Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
I wasn't trying to say that you think God is stupid -- I'm sure you would agree that, if God existed, he would be fairly intelligent. (Actually, I'm not sure, but whatever.) All I meant to say is that the word 'simple' means several different things, and just because 'simplicity' is ascribed to God doesn't entail that descriptions of God are therefore simple. The doctrine of divine simplicity is fairly technical.
|
That's contradictory. You are labeling something complicated 'simple'. You can't have it both ways. You are saying, in so many words, that 'The simplicity of god is complicated." The heat of god is cold, the up of god is down.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
There can't be multiple gods -- that's a direct consequence of the ontological argument. (If it was possible for there to be multiple gods, it would be possible for me to conceive of one of them being more powerful than the others. But God is the being than which none greater is possible. Ergo, ...) I'm saying that, despite their differences, all Christian denominations worship the same God. I'm willing to say that, in some sense, Judaism and Islam also worship the same God. But at some point, the properties ascribed to the supreme being become different enough that you don't want to say you're talking about the same being.
|
That's why I used Shiva, who I'm sure very few claim is the same deity as the Judeo-Christian god. So you're either going to tell me that Shiva is real, or that Shiva isn't perfect. The problem is, that you'll be falling into my devious trap. Anything you can say to suggest that Shiva isn't perfect, I can claim to be subjective and then you'd be agreeing that the 'perfection' of a deity is subjective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Two examples of this. Take the quest for the historical Arthur. Most people admit that the historical Arthur isn't going to share [a lot] of properties with the mythical Arthur. But certainly the historical being has to share a certain amount of properties with the mythical being, otherwise it doesn't make sense to speak of them as both being the same Arthur. Or, take the example of someone who posts here named Asaris. You guys probably have differing ideas of what my properties are -- you also probably agree to some extent about what my properties are. But if someone said that Asaris was a tennis coach at Holland Christian H.S. in the mid-70s, while they wouldn't be wrong, they'd be talking about a different Asaris. (Yes, someone with my name was a tennis coach in the mid-70s). But just because two of you disagree about what properties I have doesn't mean you're talking about two different Asaris's.
|
So Shiva isn't the same as the Judeo-Christian god? Or they are the same? I'm afraid you've lost me in your postulated scenario.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
No, bad inference. I strongly suspect you going back in time and killing your grandfather is possible. I'm almost positive the Lord of the Rings is. Not a good counter-argument.
|
You suspect that going back in time and killing my grandfather is possible? Looking past the obvious difficulties of time travel, are you sure that time stream theory is correct? The only way around the grandfather paradox is time stream, and time stream has no proof. If time stream isn't right, then I've just imagined, in my mind, a true paradox. A paradox negates the second postulation.