On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Alien]

Alien (your #17)

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.

Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?

OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.

------------------------------------

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God

The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.

Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.

A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.

We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.

A force is a physical thing and, as such, part of the universe so it can't be the cause of the universe. Perhaps you mean "force" in some other way to the usual meaning?

My post is quite clear. A 'Force' that has all the properties you give for God in the philosophical arguments but being impersonal.

But your force cannot be a physical thing and the cause of the universe as forces are part of the universe, surely. You would be saying it created itself.

[Alien]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

[cyberman]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.

Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?

In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!

So how would such a force come to create the universe?

Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.

OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.

I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.

Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?

[Alien]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

[Andy]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

Well that was straight out of left field without even an iota of relevance to my post.

[Jack Knave]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

[Andy]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.

[Jack Knave]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!

Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?

[cyberman]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!

Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?

Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?

[Jack Knave]

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.

Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

Why not personal? What do you actually mean by 'personal'?

And why only this universe? So you know for a fact that there are no other universes?

[cyberman]

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

erm, no. they occur because of forces at work (such as electrovalent bonding) amongst the various particles. If was "because they just do", it would not be possible to predict and analyse reactions, and so chemistry wouldn't be a science. Now, admittedly, when we get right down to forces, such a gravity, our knowledge of how and why those forces work is not complete - but not knowing what is going on doesn't mean "it just happens" - it means we still have a lot to learn.

[Jack Knave]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

[Jack Knave]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.

Please note my post was to Alien, so it is all theoretical about how the universe and everything came about.

[Andy]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.

Please note my post was to Alien, so it is all theoretical about how the universe and everything came about.

I know. I was referring to the questions Alan posed to me.

[Jack Knave]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!

Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?

Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?

If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.

[cyberman]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!

Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?

Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?

If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.

Nonsense. If you said "If Winnie the Pooh is a bear, then it follows that he must speak 8 languages" I would point out that your logic was flawed. I don't need to tell you how many languages he speaks as an "alternative explanation". Your logic was flawed. It is not impossible for a story to refer to sons of god and for the writers to believe that the sons were not gods, and for another story to refer to the son of god, and for some people to believe that that character is god. I have no explanation at all - I have no idea what the writers of that story thought "sons of god" meant.

[Alien]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

[Alien]

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.

Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

Blast!  Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?

"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"

[Alien]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Yes, done that. And?

[Jack Knave]

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

erm, no. they occur because of forces at work (such as electrovalent bonding) amongst the various particles. If was "because they just do", it would not be possible to predict and analyse reactions, and so chemistry wouldn't be a science. Now, admittedly, when we get right down to forces, such a gravity, our knowledge of how and why those forces work is not complete - but not knowing what is going on doesn't mean "it just happens" - it means we still have a lot to learn.

Your last bit was more of what I was getting at. We will never know the answer to the question Why? Why this way and not some other way...  Why the laws of physics as we know them...

Answer: It just is.

[Jack Knave]

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.

I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!

Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?

Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?

If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.

Nonsense. If you said "If Winnie the Pooh is a bear, then it follows that he must speak 8 languages" I would point out that your logic was flawed. I don't need to tell you how many languages he speaks as an "alternative explanation". Your logic was flawed. It is not impossible for a story to refer to sons of god and for the writers to believe that the sons were not gods, and for another story to refer to the son of god, and for some people to believe that that character is god. I have no explanation at all - I have no idea what the writers of that story thought "sons of god" meant.

If you don't know then why are you chirping in? Especially a few posts back when you initially replied to a post of mine?

[Jack Knave]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

Because it is impersonal. In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.

[Jack Knave]

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.

Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

Blast!  Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?

"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"

O-levels take 2 years, Alien. We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.

Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.

[Jack Knave]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Yes, done that. And?

You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.