God is not an Entity?

[lpetrich]

Some "sophisticated" theologians maintain that God is not an additional entity to be added to other entities whose existence one recognizes.

But if God is not an additional entity, then what is God? Another name for something whose existence we already recognize? Like in pantheism.

For instance, Metacrock claims that God is being itself, and the ground of being. The first one seems an awful lot like pantheism, and the second one seems like adding another entity.

 

[bilby]

God is, like all non-existent phenomena, not an entity.

It amuses me when theologians conclude that God is indistinguishable from nothing, but then cannot manage to complete the obvious train of thought and recognise the therefore Gods do not exist.

Of course, one might instead claim that 'God' is a synonym for something real that is generally referred to by another name; But that's also a pointless and futile exercise. If 'God' is a synonym for 'everything', why not just say 'everything' and avoid confusion?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It’s very simple. “God” is anything a cult member wants it to be so that no one outside of the cult can deprogram them.

 

[James Brown]

It amuses me when theologians conclude that God is indistinguishable from nothing, but then cannot manage to complete the obvious train of thought and recognise the therefore Gods do not exist.

The first problem with negative theology is that, if God is described solely in terms of negation,
it is impossible to distinguish him from non-existence—“any Being which had to be characterized
entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no Being at all.” God is not matter;
neither is non-existence. God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence. God is not
visible; neither is non-existence. God does not change; neither does non-existence. God cannot be
described; neither can non-existence. And so on down the list of negative predicates. If the theist
wishes to distinguish his belief in God from the belief in nothing at all, he must give some positive
substance to the concept of God

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

 

[lpetrich]

Metacrock does some proof-texting with the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14. In it God says:

(Masoretic Hebrew): ehyeh asher ehyeh "I am that I am" or "I will be that I will be"
(Septuagint Greek): egô eimi ho ôn "I am the being"

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't understand how an extant God could be a non-entity, non-being, not apart from us (not additional). That IS very 'sophist'.

Is there a useful analogy to explain this ontology?
An unborn baby and their mother? Separate entities?
In "The Mind of God", Paul Davies references Soviet physicist Andrei Linde's idea of a 'Mother' universe giving birth to a 'Baby' universe. Is the baby a created addition? Separate?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's the God of the Gaps.

If you assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause, you define God as not being a thing that began to exist. Slide God in there where ever.

If Occam's Razor cries foul when you add unnecessary entities to your hypotheses, then God is not an entity. Add Him without fear.

Whenever someone has a difficulty crafting a godproof that needs to treat god different than everything used to come up with the proof, reach for the footnote tab and mark Him out of bounds.

 

[Elixir]

If 'God' is a synonym for 'everything', why not just say 'everything' and avoid confusion?

Why waste three syllables on "everything" when you can just say "god"?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some "sophisticated" theologians maintain that God is not an additional entity to be added to other entities whose existence one recognizes.

But if God is not an additional entity, then what is God? Another name for something whose existence we already recognize? Like in pantheism.

For instance, Metacrock claims that God is being itself, and the ground of being. The first one seems an awful lot like pantheism, and the second one seems like adding another entity.

Or as presuppers like to say, "existence exists!" Somehow this demonstrates that a god is something real, when it's just word gibberish.

I'm going with god being a fictitious, imaginary being same as all things supernatural.

 

[Lion IRC]

Existence just exists.
I like it.
You could say that about the universe. It just IS. A past-eternal, perpetual motion, Groundhog Day machine.
No need to explain the imaginary ontological category of non-existence.
Boy, wouldn't THAT kill religion.
...and existential angst.

 

[ideologyhunter]

God's not an entity? Shit. He needs to go to our Supreme Court, which established corporate personhood in 2010. Even Jiffy Lube and Burger King have souls and can invoke religious objections when needed. Are you saying God has less magnitude than Jiffy Lube???

 

[lpetrich]

I recall a certain Gamera over in Talk Rational. He once argued that God existing would make God subject to Being. However, I could never figure out what that was supposed to mean.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is a cloud an entity?

 

[Learner]

What about an entity that "can think" and has awareness. That is something distiguishable from cloud at least, regardless of whether we know the Entity's material make up or not.

 

[Sarpedon]

This seems to be another semantic argument.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's the God of the Gaps.

If you assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause, you define God as not being a thing that began to exist. Slide God in there where ever.

If Occam's Razor cries foul when you add unnecessary entities to your hypotheses, then God is not an entity. Add Him without fear.

Whenever someone has a difficulty crafting a godproof that needs to treat god different than everything used to come up with the proof, reach for the footnote tab and mark Him out of bounds.

^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's the God of the Gaps.

If you assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause, you define God as not being a thing that began to exist. Slide God in there where ever.

If Occam's Razor cries foul when you add unnecessary entities to your hypotheses, then God is not an entity. Add Him without fear.

Whenever someone has a difficulty crafting a godproof that needs to treat god different than everything used to come up with the proof, reach for the footnote tab and mark Him out of bounds.

^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.

All of which means that my god is just however I feel it is. And if I had a god I'd feel the same way because imaginary creatures are exactly that.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's the God of the Gaps.

If you assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause, you define God as not being a thing that began to exist. Slide God in there where ever.

If Occam's Razor cries foul when you add unnecessary entities to your hypotheses, then God is not an entity. Add Him without fear.

Whenever someone has a difficulty crafting a godproof that needs to treat god different than everything used to come up with the proof, reach for the footnote tab and mark Him out of bounds.

^^THIS^^. Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes in order to create an intellectual defense for "god". God as a non-entity or nothing separate from what is known is a way of making god so meaninglessly minimal that there is no argument against it, then slipping one's actual believed God into it's place and pretending like the same defense of it still applies.
It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God. They pretend their God is so vague and illusive, so that one cannot have an intellectual discussion of its probability, because they know any such discussion lead to near zero odds. But of course, no one does or would have motive to believe in such a God. The gods that people believe in are human like immaterial minds with wills and power to impact the natural world. But such Gods are intellectually indefensible, with near zero probability, and violate the basic principles of reasoned thought.

All of which means that my god is just however I feel it is. And if I had a god I'd feel the same way because imaginary creatures are exactly that.

But the point is that even though every theists' God is just their feelings, they lie about this fact and lie about their feelings in order to defend the obvious absurdity and irrationality of their belief from being exposed.

 

[Learner]

I missed being drunk (for a while) and singing in the street / rain, being silly and all the other things that go with it.

That was definitely a good feeling but then .... God!

 

[Lion IRC]

Theology is an intellectually dishonest game of lying about what one actually believes...

What a gutless and lazy way to avoid engaging with the arguments.
Accusing your opponent of not 'really' believing what they plainly say is their position.
...you're a liar. No you're a liar. No YOU are. Yeah, well I said it first. Liar liar pants on fire
Pathetic!

...It's is very similar to theists' common refusal to define God.

Oh FFS!

EXISTENCE & NATURE OF GOD
Defenses of various arguments for God's existence along with reflections on some of His attributes.

Why Does God Exist?
March 05, 2016

Are we there yet? No...only up to chapter 11 of defining God

The Doctrine of God (part 11)
July 15, 2007 Time: 00:46:33
We have been thinking about the attributes of God over the last few months...

Surely this can't go on forever.

Doctrine of God (Part 21)
August 12, 2015

WAIT! There's more? Yep we haven't covered the Trinity yet.

Doctrine of God: Trinity (Part 5)
August 10, 2016

https://www.reasonablefaith.org
Thousands and thousands and thousands of words written about the doctrine of the nature of God. One of the thousands of websites where mainstream Christianity answers the theological question ronburgundy says we refuse to answer - what do you mean by God?