God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
So if I'm reading the definition right, it seems like you're saying,
"This thing you call a rock? I call it 'God,' and I claim it has a personality. That I interact with. And it tells me things."
God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
Use the effing quote function and show where I have said...
This thing which you atheists call an inanimate object, well I call it an animate object. This thing which you say isn't sentient, well say that it is sentient. This rock, unlike all the other rocks, has a personality"
There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God. The contention of atheists isn't that biblical theists are confusing rocks and God. Atheists and theists alike have the same definition of inanimate objects called rocks. Rocks exist.
The contention is about the existence of God. Does exist. Does not exist. Pretty basic epistemology.
But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God.
...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
Okay,Use the effing quote function and show where I have said...
This thing which you atheists call an inanimate object, well I call it an animate object. This thing which you say isn't sentient, well say that it is sentient. This rock, unlike all the other rocks, has a personality"
God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
Which god, now?There's no dispute about the long-standing, widely accepted, theological definition of God.
Yabbut, you just said your rock contains a god that you can get messages from.The contention of atheists isn't that biblical theists are confusing rocks and God. Atheists and theists alike have the same definition of inanimate objects called rocks. Rocks exist.
But in order to determine if a thing exists, don't we have to first determine, "which thing, now?"The contention is about the existence of God. Does exist. Does not exist. Pretty basic epistemology.
But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
...
But when atheists struggle to mentally process a counter-apologetic atheology of their own, (as an alternative to the internally consistent biblical/theological nature of God,) atheists go into their lame, fall-back sub routine - what do you mean by God...I can't debunk God because I don't know what you mean by God...I'm so confused...are you saying God is a rock?"
...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
...and we're back to atheists not being able to define what it is they don't believe exists.
...But I usually aim my criticism at the omni-everything creator God of standard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam etc.
It isn't. You appear to be projecting.Why is this ontological concept of "entity" causing you guys so much grief?
Yes. Well done, have a gold star.The etymology of the word means "to be". (Many languages disambiguate the verb "to be" so as to distiguish between the being of living entities and the being of inanimate objects.)
Indeed. And god isn't, so it can't.In order for God to do anything (omniscience, omnipotence, immanence,) God has TO BE an entity.
I get it that you don't think He exists - is not a real entity. But are you really so philosophically challenged by such a basic notion as "entity" even for a hypothetical entity?
Why is this ontological concept of "entity" causing you guys so much grief?
The etymology of the word means "to be". (Many languages disambiguate the verb "to be" so as to distiguish between the being of living entities and the being of inanimate objects.)
In order for God to do anything (omniscience, omnipotence, immanence,) God has TO BE an entity.
I get it that you don't think He exists - is not a real entity. But are you really so philosophically challenged by such a basic notion as "entity" even for a hypothetical entity?
God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
I thought the whole Christian thing was that God was outside the material world? And then reaches in now and again. Which I guess is immanence. Is that what you mean?
God's entity is entailed in His immanence.
I thought the whole Christian thing was that God was outside the material world? And then reaches in now and again. Which I guess is immanence. Is that what you mean?
Immanence is much deeper than that; it sees material existence itself as an emanation or manifestation of the will of God; the universe and God are not separate entities, but neither is this pantheism; the material universe and god are like, say, the sun and the light of the sun. Matter cannot exist without the other as its source, but we also have matter alone with which to perceive the otherwise inacessible (to us) workings of God. The whole of creation is, in this sense, a manifestation of God just like the Scriptures; these are all signposts meant to point the mind in the direction of the Source which has always been accessible to us, given that we are made of the same stuff as everything else. As the prologue of John's Gospel puts it, "In the beginning was the Logos (ie, the principle ordering force of the material universe, see Philo of Alexandria) and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. It was with God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In it was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."
There is no "whole Christian thing" when it comes to metaphysics, any more than there is a "whole Muslim thing" or a "whole Western secular philosophy thing" or a "whole particle phycisist thing". Any intellectual tradition is going to bear diverse fruits and the occasional argument; this is how we learn.