Hi Akshay,
> Before anything about God's existence can be discussed, we first > need to > think clearly as to what we really mean by the word God. > > Do we suppose that God is the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent > controller of the universe? If yes, then obviously God cannot be > known, > because all knowledge is bound by the limits of space, time and > causality. > In making such a supposition, we clearly have to admit of God's > existence, > because a controller of the universe does exist (even if it is the > universe > itself, in which case God becomes a fancy name for a holistic sense > of the > universe). Ethically, such a definition would match, because we > observe that > God acts through the priest as well as the thief, the saint and the > murderer > are the same from God's point of view. > > The existence of God is of relatively low importance. We only have > to define > God and then find out if such an entity exists. God is usually > defined along > the lines of ultimate power/strength and knowledge. Even if atheists > nominally say they do not believe in God, can they abandon concepts > like control, law and power? Steve: I can't tell what your argument is. Can you summarize your thesis? > A favourite argument is that if God created the > universe, then who it is that created God (because we have assumed > that the > universe needed a creation to be in existence). This is a response to the argument that believers make that since the universe exists, it must have a creator. But if this God has no creator and exists, why can't the universe exist without a creator? It is not proposing a "meta-God" as you say. Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
