God has always been identified as first cause, that;s all the back to Aristotle.The Pixie wrote:So basically you are re-defining "god" to be so broad that it covers the first cause, whatever the nature of the first cause actually is.
Okay, I can play that game. I agree, there is some first cause. Personally I see no reason to suppose god is conscious or sentient or cares one jot about humanity or indeed bears any relationship to the concept of "god" presented in the Bible.
20 questions
Moderator:Metacrock
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: 20 questions
They used to think the world was flat. A long history of belief does not make a claim true.Metacrock wrote:God has always been identified as first cause, that;s all the back to Aristotle.The Pixie wrote:So basically you are re-defining "god" to be so broad that it covers the first cause, whatever the nature of the first cause actually is.
Okay, I can play that game. I agree, there is some first cause. Personally I see no reason to suppose god is conscious or sentient or cares one jot about humanity or indeed bears any relationship to the concept of "god" presented in the Bible.
Re: 20 questions
The Pixie wrote:They used to think the world was flat. A long history of belief does not make a claim true.Metacrock wrote:God has always been identified as first cause, that;s all the back to Aristotle.The Pixie wrote:So basically you are re-defining "god" to be so broad that it covers the first cause, whatever the nature of the first cause actually is.
Okay, I can play that game. I agree, there is some first cause. Personally I see no reason to suppose god is conscious or sentient or cares one jot about humanity or indeed bears any relationship to the concept of "god" presented in the Bible.
that is a nonsensitive. We are not comparing two sets of factual information but a belief system.you accused me me of altering the belief system as to make it unclear too broad. I argue I'm not not changing it at all it's always been thought of this way you come back with some guys were wrong in the past,that is not at issue.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: 20 questions
So you are claiming that your idea of "god" is the same as Aristotle's?Metacrock wrote:that is a nonsensitive. We are not comparing two sets of factual information but a belief system.you accused me me of altering the belief system as to make it unclear too broad. I argue I'm not not changing it at all it's always been thought of this way you come back with some guys were wrong in the past,that is not at issue.The Pixie wrote:They used to think the world was flat. A long history of belief does not make a claim true.Metacrock wrote:God has always been identified as first cause, that;s all the back to Aristotle.
Re: 20 questions
Could you accept the idea of a non-personal God as first cause?The Pixie wrote:
Okay, I can play that game. I agree, there is some first cause. Personally I see no reason to suppose god is conscious or sentient or cares one jot about humanity or indeed bears any relationship to the concept of "god" presented in the Bible.
They used to think the world was flat. A long history of belief does not make a claim true.
You're right, but it can help tell us what a particular concept is, what's essential to it.