--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> --- In email@example.com, "Ron Hooft"
> <hooft1@> wrote:
> > Juan. You have been talking about a god which IS being, as opposed
> > to one that is A being. This is an interesting concept to me
> > that is, in essence, what I believe. The only thing that qualifies
> > for being called god, is the process of existence; or if you like,
> > existence itself.
> *** First, my apologies for reviving a long dead post, but when I
> saw this post mentioned as 'proof of no god' or whatever, I had to
> have a look. I must say I was/am disappointed :(
Not all that surprising. You only read this one post in the thread.
You don't understand what's going on.
> Anyway, the notion of the Christian/Judaic God as "being", seems a
> bit odd to me.
It sure does.
"Being" is, as you say, a 'process'. Humans, for
> example, are in the process of existence - we are necessarily time
> bound, and perhaps equally necessarily, change with time: that is,
> what we do changes what we are... and time of course, is purely
> *relational* to matter and change. However, for the 'tanscendent'
> God, such a process is not logically possible.
And that's the point. There is no 'transcendent' god such as the one
Christianity believes in. So if you like you can consider the process
of existence itself, all things together as one, to be god; in that it
meets all the major criteria of a god. That is to say, energy/matter
constantly creates. So it is not illogical at all.
To assume a separate and 'transcendent' is just an unwarranted
speculation. That there is anything 'tanscendent' is mere speculation
without any basis in observable fact.
"Process" is rooted
> or grounded in the notion of time - any being bound in this process
> is necessarily limited,
We are not talking about a separate being, nor "a" being at all.
Therefore you are confused from the start. It's not uncommon. We are
talking about being itself vs. a "being"
in that is able to become more (or less),
> over time. The transcendent God (assuming one exists), cannot be
> limited in this way, it is a logical contradiction.******
Don't assume. That's your problem right there.
> > . If you are a christian, then by default you must believe in a
> > that is separate from the universe it supposedly created. This
> > naturally mean that it is not being itself, but a being separate
> > from its creation. Intertwined, of course, but separate. It
> > interferes with and in nature and human events in none-natural
> > Hence the idea of the supernatural.
> *** You would need to define a few words for this bit to truly make
> sense: 'intertwined', 'being itself', 'being separate', 'unnatural'
> (none-natural), 'supernatural'.
What is: IS? I'm sure all these phrases/concepts are more that
familiar to you. What's there for me to define?
> I assume you are saying that a christian believes in a god that is
> independent of, and distinct from, all created things. Sounds like
> christian theology to me.*****
Right. Which is why defining the above phrases isn't required.
Illogical nonsense. I'm not talking about the christian god, but our
friend Juan was, and HE is the one I was responding to. I was giving
his position back to him.
t has all attributes, but none
> > conscious, and none but the biological aspects act with conscious
> > intent. Nature does not punish nor reward; what ever happens is
> > through none-thinking cause and effect.
> *** this is highly convoluted. Firstly, how can nature have all
> attributes of a transcendent deity, when you have clearly
> distinguished between the "being itself" of nature, and the "being
> separate" of God?
One exists, the other is fantasy. What I am saying is that if you must
consider anything to be god, then nature itself fits the bill. There
is nothing but nature. It is self maintaining and ever creative. So it
has all the "important" attributes of the christian god but without
the illogical infantile traits christians claim proudly for their
Then, to say those attributes are unconscious, and
> do not impact the 'natural', as the 'being itself' of nature does
> not interfere with itself... This is a logical contradiction.
I'm talking about conscious interference, not cause and effect
interference. Cause and effect does not "intentionally interfere" in
the lives of humans. It IS the life of humans. Do you get my meaning?
No contradiction here at all.
> The attributes of a transcendent God have a personal *ground* - they
> are conscious.
Right. Or could assume so if one assumes a separate conscious god.
Goes without saying. One can assume anything at all. It doesn't mean
any of what they assume corresponds to reality.
Further, they are not a part of "being" in that they
> do not change the agent, even though they act. This is not logically
> possible for nature,
Nor for anything.
the "being itslef". Also, the conscious part of
> nature, the actual "being" of humanity, *does* act to punish, reward
> etc., therefore, IF, as you say,
I did mention that: "and none but the biological aspects act with
> "Nature does not punish nor reward; what ever happens is
> > through none-thinking cause and effect"
> THEN consciousness is not part of the natural world.
It is a part of the natural world. But it is a byproduct of it, not
If, on the
> other hand, you wish to say it is, you have a logical contradiction
> occurring when at the start of the paragraph you say
> "Being itself does not interfere. It is nature and the process of
> > human events itself."
> There is a contradiction in here, possibly more than one...
> Fortnutely, this means we can ignore the rest of your
Unfortunately you create contradictions due to your lack understanding
of the post, and likely the philosophy behind it as well. Therefore
you can't reason this through. It's not uncommon.
> > My real question to you is: what do you mean by god is "being"? If
> > you do believe that
> ***If you do believe what? What do you mean by "that"?
First you want me to define "is", and now you want me to define
"that." One might start to think you have a problem with the basics of
the language. But I know where your problem is. You should have up
threaded to see the whole conversation. No wonder it looks
contradictory to you.
> contradictory assertions? I do not think anyone would believe that,
> would they ? *****
Again. This is something you missed. I was talking to Juan who made
the claim that your christian god was "being itself". I agreed that
one could make a good metaphor out of "being" being considered god.
BUT NOT THE CHRISTIAN GOD.
I hope this clears things up for you somewhat, Bob.