Nothing in Particular

[Akiva]

In your opinion, can the idea of God become so generalized that God itself is essentially irrelevant, or so general as to be a meaningless idea? 

For instance, I am thinking in particular of Albert North Whitehead's claim that, "If God is everything in general, God is nothing in particular?" 

[Acumen]

Sort of like Julrich's understanding of Christianity.  If Christianity is vague enough to include everything, then it's ultimately nothing in particular.

[Akiva]

Sort of like Julrich's understanding of Christianity.  If Christianity is vague enough to include everything, then it's ultimately nothing in particular.

But how could a Christian necessitate the confinement of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, being?  Most Christian theologians assert that God is necessarily both of these-- yet in practice, any God that can be called "father" is necessarily confined from being anything that "father" is not.  Most importantly, do you believe in the "omnipresence" of God, and if so, how do you escape Whitehead's paradox?

[jacknky]

All conceptions of gods are strongly held opinions and as such are equally valid (or invalid).

[Acumen]

I hope that's not what Akiva means.

[Thorolf]

I'm not sure what you mean by "confinement."

I think most Christians, and indeed most (not all, of course) non-atheists, would argue that God cannot be confined by anything man can say or do.

[Akiva]

Sorry for the confusion.  What I meant was, if a line of thought calls God "father", then God is restricted from being everything that "father" is not.  If concepts of God can be defined, God cannot be all-powerful since God is limited by definition.  IE, If God is good and not evil, God is not all-powerful since omnipotence would incorporate all power regardless of dichotomies. 

Whitehead (and later Hartshorne) choose to confine God to a set of principles rather than enter Whitehead's "nothing-in-particular" problem.  For what it's worth, they were both Christians.  Anyway, in order to escape God being nothing they concluded that God was not, in fact, all-powerful nor was God "in" everything, since that would open the idea of God up to transcending good and evil-- which means that all of the "best good" along with the "worst evil" would come directly from God. 

However; if you carry out the idea that God transcends the dichotomies of good and evil and that everything has a beginning in God, then have you extended the definition of God so far that a God-concept is irrelevant? 

[jacknky]

"I hope that's not what Akiva means."

Frankly, I couldn't tell what Akiva meant so I threw in a random thought of my own.

[Thorolf]

Sounds mostly like mental gymnastics to me.


BTW, when someone has cancer, did they bring it on themselves? Are they the author of cancer?

[Adrian1197]

Sorry for the confusion.  What I meant was, if a line of thought calls God "father", then God is restricted from being everything that "father" is not.  If concepts of God can be defined, God cannot be all-powerful since God is limited by definition.  IE, If God is good and not evil, God is not all-powerful since omnipotence would incorporate all power regardless of dichotomies. 

Whitehead (and later Hartshorne) choose to confine God to a set of principles rather than enter Whitehead's "nothing-in-particular" problem.  For what it's worth, they were both Christians.  Anyway, in order to escape God being nothing they concluded that God was not, in fact, all-powerful nor was God "in" everything, since that would open the idea of God up to transcending good and evil-- which means that all of the "best good" along with the "worst evil" would come directly from God. 

However; if you carry out the idea that God transcends the dichotomies of good and evil and that everything has a beginning in God, then have you extended the definition of God so far that a God-concept is irrelevant? 

I'm not a Christian, but from my understanding God has the ability to lie, decieve, and create wrong but he chooses not to. Which makes me wonder if God does evil and blames Satan. God did create Satan, didn't he? And... if God is all-knowing, why didn't he see Satan's deception? What's the point of creating a being and hoping it will come unto you if you already know it's going to reject you and turn to sin? Personally, I'm happier believing that my fate is not dictated by an omnipotent diety.

Furthermore, if all was created by God. What or who created God?

[Akiva]

Sounds mostly like mental gymnastics to me. 

Then I wouldn't recommend studying philosophy. 

I'm not a Christian, but from my understanding God has the ability to lie, decieve, and create wrong but he chooses not to. 

Well, at the risk of being totally off-topic, it does seem that if Christianity holds to the fact that some Satanic demi-god creates evil, while God creates good then it has advocated a duo-theistic worldview.  I suspect that this is merely a remnant of Christianity's pagan origins, and that the area of evil, or Satan, is rather foggy in Christian theology. 

Which makes me wonder if God does evil and blames Satan. God did create Satan, didn't he? And... if God is all-knowing, why didn't he see Satan's deception? What's the point of creating a being and hoping it will come unto you if you already know it's going to reject you and turn to sin? 

Again, this is far older than Christianity.  But, as far as I know, Christianity is unique in that the Creator God also created the God that it is diametrically opposed to. 

But back to the topic-- if God created all, regardless of the dichotomy of good and evil, is God too general to matter?

If not, and God only created half of this alleged dichotomy, how can God be omnipotent?

[jacknky]

"At point does a God-concept become irrelevant?"

Yes.

[Akiva]

"At point does a God-concept become irrelevant?"

Yes.

Sorry, had to edit my post after you commented.

[Thorolf]

Sounds mostly like mental gymnastics to me. 

Then I wouldn't recommend studying philosophy. 

Some "philosophers" just like to hear themselves talk.

I'm not a Christian, but from my understanding God has the ability to lie, decieve, and create wrong but he chooses not to. 

Well, at the risk of being totally off-topic, it does seem that if Christianity holds to the fact that some Satanic demi-god creates evil, while God creates good then it has advocated a duo-theistic worldview.  I suspect that this is merely a remnant of Christianity's pagan origins, and that the area of evil, or Satan, is rather foggy in Christian theology. 

Actually, in Christianity, Satan is not a "demi-god" or any sort of god whatsoever. He also doesn't "create" evil... good and evil are concepts, not creations.

Which makes me wonder if God does evil and blames Satan. God did create Satan, didn't he? And... if God is all-knowing, why didn't he see Satan's deception? What's the point of creating a being and hoping it will come unto you if you already know it's going to reject you and turn to sin? 

Again, this is far older than Christianity.  But, as far as I know, Christianity is unique in that the Creator God also created the God that it is diametrically opposed to. 

But back to the topic-- if God created all, regardless of the dichotomy of good and evil, is God too general to matter?

If not, and God only created half of this alleged dichotomy, how can God be omnipotent?

Omnipotent and all-controlling (I'm sure there's an omni- word for that, but I can't think of it offhald) are not the same thing. Pop culture is rife with stories of man's creation gone horribly wrong (see I Robot or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Michael Crichton's Prey or Disney's Meet The Robinsons for some excellent examples) - these things, like cancer in our bodies, are not completely controlled by us just because we happened to create them...

[Akiva]

Some "philosophers" just like to hear themselves talk.

Yes, Albert North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne just wrote because they enjoyed "hearing" themselves "talk." 

Actually, in Christianity, Satan is not a "demi-god" or any sort of god whatsoever. He also doesn't "create" evil... good and evil are concepts, not creations. 

This seems like a clever way to avoid the problems.  But then, what is Satan?

Omnipotent and all-controlling (I'm sure there's an omni- word for that, but I can't think of it offhald) are not the same thing. Pop culture is rife with stories of man's creation gone horribly wrong (see I Robot or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Michael Crichton's Prey or Disney's Meet The Robinsons for some excellent examples) - these things, like cancer in our bodies, are not completely controlled by us just because we happened to create them...

That doesn't follow.  True, the idea of "Creator" does not necessitate control-- but being "all-powerful" assumes, at the very least, that the deity can control anything at will.  In any case, you have not addressed the point and this is off-topic. 

[Thorolf]

Some "philosophers" just like to hear themselves talk.

Yes, Albert North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne just wrote because they enjoyed "hearing" themselves "talk." 

I couldn't care less about Whitehead or Hartshorne. The mental masturbation you described earlier was hardly anything particularly compelling, IMO.

Actually, in Christianity, Satan is not a "demi-god" or any sort of god whatsoever. He also doesn't "create" evil... good and evil are concepts, not creations. 

This seems like a clever way to avoid the problems.  But then, what is Satan?

He WAS an angel... so I guess we can call him a disgruntled former employee. 

Omnipotent and all-controlling (I'm sure there's an omni- word for that, but I can't think of it offhald) are not the same thing. Pop culture is rife with stories of man's creation gone horribly wrong (see I Robot or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Michael Crichton's Prey or Disney's Meet The Robinsons for some excellent examples) - these things, like cancer in our bodies, are not completely controlled by us just because we happened to create them...

That doesn't follow.  True, the idea of "Creator" does not necessitate control-- but being "all-powerful" assumes, at the very least, that the deity can control anything at will.  In any case, you have not addressed the point and this is off-topic. 

Yes... "CAN" being the operative word.

And I think I have addressed the point... quite succinctly, I might add.

Having power and using it are very different concepts. The entire argument, it seems to me, seems to unravel when you consider the willful intent to NOT "play god" - even though He *is* God.

The previously-mentioned mental masturbation fails to account for God's WILL, and His willingness to let man learn of his own accord...

[Akiva]

I couldn't care less about Whitehead or Hartshorne. The mental masturbation you described earlier was hardly anything particularly compelling, IMO. 

Well, you certainly seem to have a hard time addressing anything relevant for a "mental masturbation" that is "hardly...compelling." 

He WAS an angel... so I guess we can call him a disgruntled former employee.   

The concept of Satan was an irrelevant tangent that has nothing to do with the OP.  Not only is this argument irrelevant, it is a very poor theological understanding of the basis of evil.  Had I wished to discuss theological misinterpretations and the pagan roots of Christianity, I would have posted at either of those threads. 

And I think I have addressed the point... quite succinctly, I might add.

Your posts do not even reflect an understanding of "the point", much less an adequate response. 

Having power and using it are very different concepts. The entire argument, it seems to me, seems to unravel when you consider the willful intent to NOT "play god" - even though He *is* God. 

Power itself is the mere potentiality of power, just as knowledge cannot be separated from its application.  To take a different "omni", if God is omniscient God necessarily knows what it is to lust, to kill, to steal, to rape, etc. 

The previously-mentioned mental masturbation fails to account for God's WILL, and His willingness to let man learn of his own accord...

Ah.  While I do find it interesting that you claim to know the will of God, this is simply too off-topic and irrelevant to continue.  Again, had I wished to engage pagan/Christian theology on the matter, I would have posted at the appropriate thread.  Additionally, I find it extremely unfortunate that you would so readily dismiss two of your own religion's greatest thinkers as simply "mentally masturbating."  Great thinkers such as these, however, often suffer scorn at the hands of those who find no particular need for thought themselves.  If you will note this is the "Atheism and Agnosticism Debate" board; Christian notions of the "Will of God" really has no place here, but thanks.

[Thorolf]

Akiva,

I don't know why you feel it important to attack me personally and try to write off everything I say, but if you think I'm not understanding what you are asking, perhaps you should try clarifying your questions.

Well, you certainly seem to have a hard time addressing anything relevant for a "mental masturbation" that is "hardly...compelling." 

See, I think I've been addressing relevant things... so maybe your OP, and subsequent attempt at clarification, was unclear?

The concept of Satan was an irrelevant tangent that has nothing to do with the OP.  Not only is this argument irrelevant, it is a very poor theological understanding of the basis of evil.  Had I wished to discuss theological misinterpretations and the pagan roots of Christianity, I would have posted at either of those threads. 

If it's so irrelevant and you didn't want to discuss it, then why did YOU ask about it?

Your posts do not even reflect an understanding of "the point", much less an adequate response.

Then please clarify your "point." 

Power itself is the mere potentiality of power, just as knowledge cannot be separated from its application.

Yada yada.

To take a different "omni", if God is omniscient God necessarily knows what it is to lust, to kill, to steal, to rape, etc.

Perhaps. Is there a point?

Ah.  While I do find it interesting that you claim to know the will of God, this is simply too off-topic and irrelevant to continue.

Ah, yes... don't respond, just call it irrelevant and wave the back of your hand at it.

 

Again, had I wished to engage pagan/Christian theology on the matter, I would have posted at the appropriate thread.  Additionally, I find it extremely unfortunate that you would so readily dismiss two of your own religion's greatest thinkers as simply "mentally masturbating."  Great thinkers such as these, however, often suffer scorn at the hands of those who find no particular need for thought themselves.  If you will note this is the "Atheism and Agnosticism Debate" board; Christian notions of the "Will of God" really has no place here, but thanks.

Perhaps you only so grossly misrepresented what they said that it seemed like mental masturbation.

Look, Akiva... I realize you don't like me, and I don't really care... but you asked questions about God, and whether the "God-concept is irrelevant."

Please forgive me for talking about God after you ASKED about God.

And what, pray tell, does the characterization of God as "father" have to do with atheism and agnosticism? Do you think that, by squeezing God into a tiny little box that this somehow legitimizes atheism and agnosticism? Do you think that, if we just twist our brains enough that we can pretend that attempts to explain God ultimately make God into "nothing" is some sort of argument related in ANY way to atheism?

Do you think that you are somehow making an argument that God is a human mental construct?

Just what are you saying?

And this time, try leaving the insults at the door.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Play nice!

all