real life wrote:Setanta wrote:real life wrote:Setanta wrote:Do you apply your limited view of entropy to your imaginary friend?
Entropy applies to matter/energy.
God, by definition, is not composed of matter/energy.
As Xingu has noted by asking for a definition, you are playing word games. Unless and until we have your definition of "god," we cannot know if that is true.
Any standard Christian definition of God is based on a Being that is not (and cannot be) made of the same matter/energy which He created.
So you say--but that is nothing more than an
ex cathedra statement--a statement from authority, and a statement for which we do not know you to possess the authority. That works in two ways--we do not know that you possess any authority to speak to what a "standard Christian definition of God" is; additionally, whether or not you can demonstrate your alleged "standard Christian definition," we do not know that you or any other Christian possesses the authority to make such a statement. You fall afoul of the verdict which Scottish courts hand down when something has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt--Not Proven.
How could God be composed of what He created? I am sure that you know the Christian view of God is one that views God as 'supernatural'.
I know you may respond that different Christians believe many diverse things.
But I am not aware of ANY Christian group or individual which believes God can be part of what He created, are you?[/quote]
You just continue to spout statements from authority. Do you allege that no being can create something composed of the same material of which they are themselves comprised? Every woman who gives birth proves the idiocy of such a contention. Therefore, one is justified in questioning any statement from authority that your deity cannot be comprised of matter and energy when you offer no proofs.
Quote:Setanta wrote:You still have the problem of Occam's Razor--if your imaginary friend can be eternal, why cannot the cosmos itself be eternal, therefore cutting out the middleman?
Entropy.
Matter/energy is subject to it.
'Supernatural' beings are not.
Occam's razor is not relevant in this discussion because you're comparing apples and oranges.
Occam's Razor does not concern itself with family resemblance. It does not matter if the subject is all apples, all oranges or apples and oranges--the Razor,
entia non sunt multiplicanda--applies specifically in the circumstance to which i alluded, and which you are attempting to dodge.
You have established no authority for the claim that your imaginary friend is supernatural, nor that your imaginary friend is not subject to entropy. You've simply stated as much, and proofs be damned.
If your imaginary friend is eternal, then why cannot the cosmos be eternal? If that were the case, Occam's Razor applies because it calls for causes in logical investigation not to be multiplied. Applying the Razor, an eternal cosmos is preferable to a cosmos created by an eternal deity. That is one reason why the Razor quickly became an embarrassment to the Church authorities upon whom it gradually dawned that it dooms almost all ontological arguments.
I suspect that you fail entirely to understand why people have been throwing the Razor in your face--that you don't understand the implications of the Razor.
