Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I say maybe.
... if for no other reason than when we ask a question and have no information to help us come up with an answer, the default answer is always "maybe": it could be yes or no, but we don't have enough information yet to tell which.
So could God be impossible? The answer is yes... until someone gives a good reason to believe that God is possible.
Does anyone have such a reason?
This argument means that god is an assumption based on a theory of knowledge.Sure. Platonic metaphysics show that a Form of Consciousness is required. An immaterial, eternal, independent, conscious being is worth being called God. So God is not only likely, but required.
No it doesn't. In the deist model everything ever was contained in the original Creation. Randomness is not necessary or even implied. We are an emergent property of nature and reality.Even with a Deist model it still must be shown that we didn't just wind up here through random chance.
I'll let people use whatever definition they want as long as they're consistent. For instance, I'm not going to accept someone who defines "God" as "the universe" to try to use this definition to establish that a miracle-weilding, scripture-writing God exists or is possible.
A Deistic god, by definition, would not bother intervening or making himself known, right?
So whatever worth you derive from that idea would be entirely self-given.
Ditto.It's not the existence of the god that gives worth or meaning to life, it's our choice to see it as such.
Isn't that the proper way of treating Gods?EDIT: We are imbuing this invisible unknown with qualities and attributes that we find appealing - there's no confirmation for any of our suggestions about the nature or character of god, making the assumption that it exists.
It is very much all in the eye of the beholder, indeed.See what I'm saying? The existence of a Deistic god, if we are honest with ourselves, could just as easily be confirmation of a diabolical plot to ensure that everything dies...
Sure. Platonic metaphysics show that a Form of Consciousness is required. An immaterial, eternal, independent, conscious being is worth being called God. So God is not only likely, but required.
In that case, no, God is not impossible. But he is also far too arbitrarily defined to be of much relevance.I'll let people use whatever definition they want as long as they're consistent. For instance, I'm not going to accept someone who defines "God" as "the universe" to try to use this definition to establish that a miracle-weilding, scripture-writing God exists or is possible.
Does anyone have such a reason?
But can't we say "maybe impossible" until facts come to light one way or the other?Is God impossible?
I would say that unless someone makes falsifiable claims about God, then we can never say impossible.
... and it is...?Yes, I do.
... and it is...?
I would say this. I'm a theist, but I would say the existence of G-d is maybe impossible.But can't we say "maybe impossible" until facts come to light one way or the other?
With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible.
--Jesus
Technically yes, but it just seems like word play that doesn't say or change anything. Doesn't 'maybe impossible' still also imply 'possible'? Can't we say anything unproven about nature "maybe impossible"?But can't we say "maybe impossible" until facts come to light one way or the other?
What type of God are we talking about again?
Like my righteous claim to the throne of Denmark?One that is either possible or impossible?