Thread: My Big Realization
View Single Post
Old 10-08-2007, 12:39 AM   #4 (permalink)
Katczinsky
Senator
 
Katczinsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,758
Country:
Points: 15,236, Level: 79
Points: 15,236, Level: 79 Points: 15,236, Level: 79 Points: 15,236, Level: 79
Level up: 78%, 114 Points needed
Level up: 78% Level up: 78% Level up: 78%
Activity: 1%
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
Send a message via AIM to Katczinsky
Katczinsky is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhDear View Post
You say God has need of nothing, but that lack of need is only reckoned in the God that you do not believe in. I believe in God who does need.

He created all things for his pleasure. Pleasure is an incentive. And you see, take it further and God is love. Love is never love without need. In some form or another need is present in love.
I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Pleasure and doing something for this incentive connotates a need, or at least a desire. To want something is to signify to be incomplete. Perfect by definition is complete.

And why must love have need? I would say that, when talking in definitions of essences, singularities, Forms (as Socrates would put it), or the realm of the perfect (God), or whatever you want to call it; essential love would be completeness. I would not object, in the relevance of this discussion, that God would be the essence of love; because such would be a completeness of being fully loved. There is no need to be loved anymore if there is a completeness of love. But our concurrence on this point would lead to the logical absurdity of creation.


Quote:
And so God who IS love, created man to love, to have relationship with.
I'm just wondering if the materials of this creation came from nothing, or are we a part of God? The former signifies an inconsistency in the theory of theism (violation of theist logic 'something can't from from nothing'), and the latter of course would be inconsistent with the theory of a perfect God, as it would connotate that God is imperfect (as his alleged creation, undoubtedly imperfect, would be a part of him or 'it').

Quote:
The same argument contradicts yours as one may say that something was needed to create the Earth, planets, or any type of matter...
I don't see how that is a contradiction, nor do I see how that specific argument (need of first cause) is relevant to AntiThesis' argument.

We're talking about possible needs of God's, not the needs of man and God's alleged creation.
"If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Last edited by Katczinsky; 10-08-2007 at 12:43 AM.