is God free?

The only person in this thread who made that argument, Thal, is YOU...and you obviously did it for the expressed purpose of arguing against it.

So you just won a battle with yourself. Now...deal with what we actually did say. See how you do when arguing with someone else.





I know you left out a few words here...but I am not sure what the words are.






No you haven't....and that has been brought to your attention on several occasions.

You essentially are defining "God" as blah, blah, blah....so that you can say you have proved that blah, blah, blah exists.

No big deal.

If you want to assert that you can conceive of a God...and that you can prove (after a fashion) that you can conceive of that God...be our guest. Most of us would tune out, because you are not saying anything worthwhile.

But if you want to assert that you have proved in some way that God exists because of this little mental word game you are playing...you are way, way off base.

But you seem to be so in love with this process, I doubt you will be able to see it until it accidentially becomes clear to you through the passage of time. I just hope the realization does not sink in while you are repairing a roof or defusing a bomb. You are in deep **** if that is what happens.

I'll phrase it another way. God is the complete comprehension of the Human Condition. This might sound like an erroneous application of the name "God", except for the fact that Christianity falls nicely in accord with such a comprehension. I conceive of God in a way that you are not even considering, it seems. It should be blatantly obvious by now that I am not using my arguement to prove a preconceived notion of God, but that God exists only within the philosophy; apparently it's not. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that I argued against myself. My entire point was that God exists only as an idea, so I would have absolutely no reason to use that as an arguement against myself; it IS my argument. I left no words out; you aren't comprehending it.

Do you honestly understand everything that I have written about God in order to be able to criticize what I have said? Again, you have, as yet, NOT ONCE, criticized the philosophical arguement that I use to describe God. I do not see how you can possibly deny that such a God exists if you are unable to criticize the arguement. You seem to have some problem with my use of the word "God" or you are only capable of comprehending the word in one way, which is not the way I'm using it.

Is there anyone else here with a knowledge of philosophy, specifically Hegelian Idealism and Dostoevsky-an theology, that can comment?

Thalion

Although I am not an expert in Hegel's philosophy, I studied some of his works.
Accepting that, when Hegel speaks of the Spirit - Geist - he is talking about God, (and that is controversial as you know) I don't see what is the relation between his conceptions and your statement that "God exists only as an idea".
In Hegel's conception, God is not an idea. God - or the Spirit - is the all reality, in a dialectic process that culminates in the History. Humain beings are expressions of God, like a stone or a cloud. We have not an idea of God, our ideas are manifestations of the Spirit in his "quest" of identity and reconciliation with himself.
But, perhaps I didn't understand your position.

If God is the Everything (capital 'E') then God is free.

Thank you for your tirade...and for the condescention, Thal.

I'll respond to as much as I can...but I may not take things in the same order you presented them.




I have conceived of gods in many, many ways...including the way you are conceiving of (what you term) God.

It is minor league stuff...trite at best. Don't be so proud of yourself.




Here is the entire sentence. Please explain it without adding any words...particularly the words "you did not leave out."

"It is the combination of those things that I can God."

C'mon, Thal, explain how that sentence makes sense...how it does not need any other words.





There is no need to "phrase it another way." In any case, this way is just as bad as the first time.

Here is what you said origianlly:

"The suggestion of a God with the human-like ability to will anything and make uninhibited decisions is a logical absurdity. God does not exist physically. Any disproof of God must disprove him on His spiritual grounds: think Augustinian theology. God could not persay "will" the universe into existence; God exists because the universe exists. "


Here is the way I took exception:

"Interesting guess! To bad you didn't present it as speculation. If you had, it would actually have differed from the guesses theists make about REALITY. Instead...it is simply a different guess. "

Now you are making more guesses about God...and I am saying the same thing. Interesting guesses. Too bad you don't present it as speculation instead of doing what all theists do...presenting it as though it is the REALITY.


You are not really very good at this....and pretending that I am not intelligent enough to understand your pap doesn't make you any better at it.

So...why are you presenting your guesses as though you are revealing some kind of divine truth?





First of all...you are a sloppy writer. A period after "philosophy"...and a new sentence beginning with "apparently" would make some sense....not a lot, but some.

In any case...this is once again a guess. How the hell dol you know that "God exists only with the philosophy?"





Well...either that is because you don't want to understand...or because you simply are not intelligent enough to understand. I pointed out some strawman building on your part. That was the basis for my comment. Read the comment in my last post...I truly don't feel like chewing my words a second time for you.





Yeah...so once again...that is an interesting guess. But it is only a guess...unless you can document it.





Yes, Thal...I have. And on several occasions. But you simply ignore it so that you can pretend that I have not criticized it.


[.quote] I do not see how you can possibly deny that such a God exists if you are unable to criticize the arguement.[/quote]

Another straw man. You are just full of them. I have NEVER denied that your god or anyone else's god does not exist. I am merely questioning why you are pretending that you know your god exists rather than simply acknowledging that you are guessing about gods.




No...I do not have that problem. You apparently have a problem reading English. Deal with it.





Gimme a goddam break. The problem is not with me...but with you. Try to work it out.

Ray, I don't think Hegel would agree with you. He saw the Spirit as a process, a continuous superation of contradictions generating new contradictions. But I must admit I never understood why would the Spirit be forced to suffer all that quest of himself.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I think Hegel believed that Dialectics prevailed over the Spirit.

Thanks - I don't claim to know a whole lot about Hegel myself, but I was under the impression that he believed in Notions (Triad of Logic) being synthesized with matter (Triad of Nature) to create the world as we observe it (Triad of Mind). This is takes place through history, the process of revelation of Absolute Truth through his dialectic. God, then, is the end to which this truth reveals itself. Morality lies in the synthesis of complete freedom and discrimination. Christianty builds itself around this system as well. God the Father represents as Logic or Absolute Truth, God the Son, nature, and the Holy Spirit as History - a type of Hypostatic union. As Dostoevsky depicts, he who is only rational will not be happy. There are higher truths which reveal themselves regarding the Human condition. Obviously, it is the human condition which causes history and the consequent revelation. He who understands history will be most able to be happy. Even if Hegel did not intend to suggest a God, Christianity (symbolically) follows from it.

Thalion, it seems to me that your notion of the Holy Spirit as History is very good, at least regarding "The fenomenology of the Spirit".
That does not change my previous position about the definition of God, because I think that Hegel's philosophy is absurd. But you certainly made your point.

Val...Thal may have made his point...whatever the hell that was supposed to be. But he still has not acknowledged that his guesses about any god...even one that he arbitrarily defines...are simply that...GUESSES.

And he also has not acknowledged that he presents his guesses as though he is revealing some great truth that only a few...including him, of course, can see.

All the rest of this bullshyt has been pure red herring.

blatham-(iavs)

Well it isn't remarkable.Its only a story written before the invention of electricity to make some obtuse point or other.

spendius.

I see your point frank. However the number of posts between now and then is so high it seems rather insignificant to this thread. It is not guesswork because it could not be any other way. The oneness I refer to has been referred to many times before. Is it not logical to assume that everything that exists is one thing subdivided into all that is the universe? As for the rest, I believe it is a matter of perspective.

And yes, I started sweating when my "foolproof reasoning" started leaking, but that is part of the reason I post on this forum

no God isn't free........he costs a lot of money. Big business the God business.