Nilly, your calendar is off. Franny's birthday was yesterday.

Kat "If the Apocalypse Comes, Beep Me" Aug 24, 2003 3:58:47 pm PDT

I'm asking about your conception of love and if it is congruent with the conception that Swinburne etc mean when they say 'all-loving'.

Well, tell me more about Swinburne's definition -- I think I've been consistently clear that my definition doesn't match yours. I don't know his.

As for etc -- Bob Bob has already offered that I'm not alone in thinking creation isn't required, so at least I have some company.

And then you can go back to explaining your point.

Well, tell me more about Swinburne's definition -- I think I've been consistently clear that my definition doesn't match yours. I don't know his.

His relates to an all-loving god, not an all-loving navel-gazer. I'm not sure what needs explaining here.

And then you can go back to explaining your point.

But as yet, I don't have an objection I can seriously engage with. Can you start by explaining where you see a difference between "X loves" and "X gives love"?

Can you start by explaining where you see a difference between "X loves" and "X gives love"?

I guess we're at an impasse. And that I shouldn't have used the word navel, since it's sending you in a direction of assuming self indulgence on the part of my deity.

The difference between loving and giving love is -- well, giving. That's been my whole point. The whole being suffused with warmth and affection for anything that might or might not ever exist? I'm good with. You're not, therefore an all loving god needs either to give to something, or something to give love to.

I don't know, and I guess I won't because you won't explain.

I've got nothing new to add to my point.

In summation: I do not feel you need an object to be loving, and I don't believe that there's anything inherently loving in creating an object. Now, if we're talking about a giving, all-loving, all-powerful god, I see your connection as having traction. But you don't seem to understand I can separate loving from giving, and I have no idea how you expect me to convince you, if you refuse to believe me.

Same point I made at the top.

Thanks, DX.

The grading is responsible for me not being able to read "23" and "24" apart.

I hope I get the date of this LA event correct: Kat, I hope your first non-vacation day is as best as it can be for a non-vacation day!

I don't think this has been linked here, so: National Geographic's WildCam Africa.

Currently featuring monkeys and warthogs. It's neat.

I'm totally shocked this isn't Fox.

How about instead of a universe, just creating somebody to be nice and loving to?

Definitionally, in such a case that somebody would be the universe. But that's again on the question of whether this universe provides evidence of a god, i.e. the second conditional, not the first.

I disagree. God has to be an entity existing outside of the universe otherwise he can't create it. If God is all-powerful and there is at least one entity known to be able to exist outside of the/a universe, then he must be able to create another one.

If God exists outside of time as he must to create the universe, then he can't create some of the universe now and some of it later, time is a property of the universe itself.

He could, if he leaves time until last.

Saying he leaves time until last doesn't mean anything where time doesn't exist.

I'll defer talk of my local sports team to Nutty, who can actually name all of the players (and their batting averages, country of origin, English fluency, arrest records, and emotional quirks) and how each of them would do locked in a squash cage with a cheetah.

Hey. Okay, actually, in most cases that's a fair cop. (On that last account, there's not a player in the majors who isn't bigger and heavier than me -- also most of them are more agile --, so if I can beat a cheetah, they all can.)

I watched that show House last night, you'll all be glad to know. I like Hugh Laurie better when he is talking Beebtalk, although he pulls off American pretty well. Possibly only a narrow set of values of "American" -- don't know whether he can do redneck, e.g. --, but he's pretty good.