I’m sorry, but that’s your opinion. I think there’s some cultures on the planet that attribute to dragons a lot of the same features you claim are God’s, and they probably also claim dragons are out of space and time.
In either case, they are UNPROVEN assertions. I fail to see what your grounds are to distinguish between God and dragons in this issue.
That horse is alive and well. Every day it feeds on some new evidence for the correct hypothesis about the subconscious.
Somewhere, somewhen there must have been a conscious or subconscious choice to believe something that you did not believe before. There cannot be a choice without repudiating something that you used to believe and now you discarded for the sake of this new belief. If this process happened in the conscious, then you would have a successful experiment to show that you managed to believe something that you did not believe before. Of course until you study and understand neuroscience, you will never understand this.
Where is your evidence for your “rational soul”? Bring it on… we can hardly wait.
If dragons exist, then they are physical creatures of the physical universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that we can take empirical measurements that substantiate their existence.
God is neither a physical being, nor a creature of the universe. (Therefore, it is not reasonable to make the same presumptions about ‘proving’ His existence as it might be for a physical being that was created within this universe.)
Pretty significant grounds for a distinction, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, if God is defined as the essence of everything, or as you state, the foundation of all reality, then the common attributes given to God by humans are incorrect and impossible. God is most times defined by humans as omni-benevolent. However, “good” and “bad” in this context can only be humanly perceived attributes of existence. Therefore, if God is everything, he must be both all-good, and all-bad, relative to human’s perception of these qualities. Any limits placed (which saying he is not bad is) would then change his definition to not being “the essence of everything” and then essentially opens the door for the dragon, or fliying spaghetti monster, or what have, to swoop in and claim to be the “almost everything but not quite everything (because he has been limited)” being that many are defining as God.
As I have stated before, if God is defined this way, one cannot pretend to place attributes on him, because he is all attributes. He is obviously not a “he” either but I will just continue to use that pronoun for simplicity.
But God is not defined as “the essence of everything.” God is the foundation of all reality in that He is the origin of it. He is not a being in the universe but the source of the universe. He is more real than anything else that exists, insofar as His reality is necessary and ours is not. Consider how the dog in front of you is more real than a dog you imagine in your mind, and even that doesn’t capture the point. God is said to be Subsistent Being, pure actuality, that His essence is existence itself. Things are good insofar as they are actual, and suffer evils insofar as their is privation from what they should be. Evil is not a thing in itself, as darkness is not a good thing in itself. If good is light, then evils are privations in where the light shines. God is the supreme good not because “He’s a perfectly upstanding moral guy,” but because He is pure light without shadow or blemish, because He is actus purus. As a triangle is said to be good insofar as it actualizes triangularity, and bad insofar as it does not actualize triangularity (an absence of being), God as pure actuality is the perfectly good. Insofar as the effect must be in a cause, and goodness is that which is actual, only actuality has being, and so must be in the cause. Badness is the privation of being, absence. It’s not a positive thing which must be in the cause. As a light source isn’t the source of shadow and darkness, the effect of the light it casts comes from the light being in the source. If light is shone more dimly in some areas, it’s not because darkness is in the light source itself. The only positive thing present in the effect is additional light.
Very few Christian theologians hold that God can do the logically impossible, such as create a square circle (or create a rock soooo heavy even He can’t lift it). What makes Him divine is that He is the cause of all things that have been, are, and could be possible. He is the only being who exists by His own intrinsic necessity. He is the Prime Mover. He is what makes reality intelligible. I’m not really bothered (nor are other Christian theologians) by your accusations of limiting God.
Ah, the usual attempt to wiggle out. The attempt never fails, but the result never succeeds either.
That soul is supposed to be part of you. You are a physical being with some immaterial aspects. Just like the “mind”, which is the immaterial activity of the brain can be discovered by its interaction with the physical reality. The only “things” which cannot be detected physically are the ones which have no interface to the physical. Some examples are anything outside the light cone, the ones which are inside the Schwarzshield radius, and anything in the past.
So my hypothesis about the subconscious (also NOT a material object!) is very well established via the interface with the physical reality. You hypothesis about the “soul” cannot be established. As they say: “asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence”. That pretty much sums up everything about you.
It needs a separate topic, and I’m not sure I’d want to delve into it right now with other threads going on, but the immateriality operations of the mind can be established logically based on our experience. That it can’t be quantifiably measured doesn’t mean we can’t deduce that it must be so, unless we wish to deny the mind altogether along denying such things as thinking, reason, logic, self, consciousness, etc…
Interesting. When an atheist asks for logic the answer given is that logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural, the metaphysical.
But when it comes to the Christian’s definition of God, all of the sudden logic comes right back into play. So in reality, it’s not logic at all that is the question, it’s more like WHOSE logic will be dismissed and whose will not. That is what exposes the human construct “ness” about it.
Have I done that? God’s existence, omnipotence, supreme goodness, omniscience, Intellect can all be presented through logical, rational arguments. There have been numerous works throughout the millennia devoted to such things. That’s a very unkind generalization and is certainly not the position of the Church on the matter.
To those who do not hold the same theological (or non theological) position as the OP.
WHY ARE YOU EVEN BOTHERING WITH THIS THREAD? If the OP is a committed atheist as claimed, there is no possibility of any constructive dialogue. It is like discussing the possibility of square circles or a flat earth with true believes of those positions.
Don’t you have better things to do with your time.