Tuesday, July 10, 2018

God is not JUST a list of attributes but the basis of reality

Image result for metacrock's blog






In the discussion on my argument I in the "debate" with Bowen Eric Sotnak raised an argument in order to preempt a possible answer from me, the possibility that I could argue that the Vacuum flux or whatever physical situation science finds caused the big bang expansion,is God. Of course I don't argue That but in preempting it he asserted that the real Christian concept of God is standardized consisting of "traditional theistic attributes. " One can't help but think of the big man in the sky,





Eric Sotnak said...

It seems to me that for something to be deserving of the name "God" some substantive set of traditional theistic attributes must be predicated of it. Thus far in the presentation of your argument, I think little has been done to fill in the missing details. Presumably those details will center on the sense of the numinous you invoked in the original argument. Am I correct in assuming that such details are planned for future stages of the argument?
my reply:
No I think this is a case where Christian apologetic has done a disservice because it;s lent itself to setting this easy little list of omni's as a quick shorthand to God's description and identity,it's really missing the point about the nature of God and what it means to attack that word to some set of characteristics.That gives me a great theme for Wedneday's blog. I will save the brunt of my comet for then, but I'll says this:first SON is about love, love is personal so the personal dimension is implied in my argument. I think TS would imply the omni's but we really have to re think the omni's.

11 comments:

7th Stooge said...

But if God is real, he's part of reality.

Joe Hinman said...

the basis of reality.

7th Stooge said...

So part of reality is the basis of all of reality? How does that work? It makes more sense to say God is the basis of contingent reality.

Eric Sotnak said...

Does the basis of reality not have any attributes? Once again, your position smacks of Spinozism (nothing wrong with that, in my book). Like Spinoza, if you eschew personal attributes in favor of impersonal ones, you end up in the same position as Spinoza: Retaining the term 'God' but in a way that traditional churches would regard as heretical.

Remember that Spinoza was described as both the 'God intoxicated' philosopher and also as an 'atheist.'

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
Does the basis of reality not have any attributes?

I said he;snot a list of attires not that he doesn't have any. I should have added a "just" imn there. God is not JUST a list of attributes.


Once again, your position smacks of Spinozism (nothing wrong with that, in my book). Like Spinoza, if you eschew personal attributes in favor of impersonal ones, you end up in the same position as Spinoza: Retaining the term 'God' but in a way that traditional churches would regard as heretical.

Remember that Spinoza was described as both the 'God intoxicated' philosopher and also as an 'atheist.'

I think it is a mistake to call him an atheist, There are also those who think he;s a pantheist that's also a mistake too. But Spinoza was a Christian he didn't have a Biblical based overview of God. I have written on the Ground of being in the Bible.

The Bile God and The Depth of Being


Modern science tires to eliminate the personal God and leave just a list of attributes minus some that pertain to the Trinity. so you have disembodied laws of physics,

Joe Hinman said...

7th Stooge said...
So part of reality is the basis of all of reality? How does that work? It makes more sense to say God is the basis of contingent reality.

the idea God being "part" of reality is just a semantic circumvention. you are thinking that by calling him "part" you make him subordinate,but he's the crucial part, the only basic part,

Eric Sotnak said...

7th Stooge said...
"... It makes more sense to say God is the basis of contingent reality."

Not to me it doesn't. But that's because I think all reality is contingent.

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
7th Stooge said...
"... It makes more sense to say God is the basis of contingent reality."

Not to me it doesn't. But that's because I think all reality is contingent.

I don't accept that it is possible to have all contingency and no necessity to pin it on.You leave reality popping up out of a dead end, To me that is unthinkable

7th Stooge said...

Not to me it doesn't. But that's because I think all reality is contingent.

I was talking about the concept of God. If there were a God, etc...For me, the one sine qua non for God is that he is necessary, the reason why there are contingent things.

7th Stooge said...

the idea God being "part" of reality is just a semantic circumvention. you are thinking that by calling him "part" you make him subordinate,but he's the crucial part, the only basic part,

A foundation is part of a house. So in that sense God is part of reality and also foundational to all of the rest of reality.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger 7th Stooge said...
Not to me it doesn't. But that's because I think all reality is contingent.

I was talking about the concept of God. If there were a God, etc...For me, the one sine qua non for God is that he is necessary, the reason why there are contingent things.

I agree

11:04 AM Delete
Blogger 7th Stooge said...
the idea God being "part" of reality is just a semantic circumvention. you are thinking that by calling him "part" you make him subordinate,but he's the crucial part, the only basic part,

A foundation is part of a house. So in that sense God is part of reality and also foundational to all of the rest of reality.

I agree with tahyt too