God… independentWhat is the best way to describe “fixed, routine gag” by comedians?Antonym of 'calculated, deduced (value)'What do we call letters/images in printouts with less ink?English word for 'make someone feel in debt to you'When someone's behavor is admirable or… in your viewWhen someone does something not timelyA more positive term than “obsessed”A person whom you consider to be your potential companion?What do we call “three people who united on a person to destroy something heshe has”?Is there an antonym for the adjective “edifying”?
What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?
Why does a simple loop result in ASYNC_NETWORK_IO waits?
How does the math work for Perception checks?
How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?
Picking the different solutions to the time independent Schrodinger eqaution
Redundant comparison & "if" before assignment
Review your own paper in Mathematics
How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?
Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?
What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?
Keeping a ball lost forever
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
Strong empirical falsification of quantum mechanics based on vacuum energy density
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?
Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos' actions in Infinity War
Quoting Keynes in a lecture
Hero deduces identity of a killer
How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?
Title 53, why is it reserved?
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
God… independent
What is the best way to describe “fixed, routine gag” by comedians?Antonym of 'calculated, deduced (value)'What do we call letters/images in printouts with less ink?English word for 'make someone feel in debt to you'When someone's behavor is admirable or… in your viewWhen someone does something not timelyA more positive term than “obsessed”A person whom you consider to be your potential companion?What do we call “three people who united on a person to destroy something heshe has”?Is there an antonym for the adjective “edifying”?
If we want to say that A depends on none but all depends on A. A needs no one but everyone needs A. What is the best word that fits best this trait?
- Independent
- Self-reliant
- Self-sufficient
Let me give my own research that the word 'independent' seems to be covering this particular trait a little less than the other two.
word-request
add a comment |
If we want to say that A depends on none but all depends on A. A needs no one but everyone needs A. What is the best word that fits best this trait?
- Independent
- Self-reliant
- Self-sufficient
Let me give my own research that the word 'independent' seems to be covering this particular trait a little less than the other two.
word-request
2
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
1
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01
add a comment |
If we want to say that A depends on none but all depends on A. A needs no one but everyone needs A. What is the best word that fits best this trait?
- Independent
- Self-reliant
- Self-sufficient
Let me give my own research that the word 'independent' seems to be covering this particular trait a little less than the other two.
word-request
If we want to say that A depends on none but all depends on A. A needs no one but everyone needs A. What is the best word that fits best this trait?
- Independent
- Self-reliant
- Self-sufficient
Let me give my own research that the word 'independent' seems to be covering this particular trait a little less than the other two.
word-request
word-request
edited Mar 19 at 10:09
virolino
2,3421427
2,3421427
asked Mar 19 at 9:59
Zeeshan SiddiqiiZeeshan Siddiqii
637417
637417
2
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
1
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01
add a comment |
2
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
1
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01
2
2
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
1
1
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
All (independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient) are suitable to say: "A depends on none" or "A needs no one".
However, I am not aware of a word to mean: "all depends on A" or "everyone needs A".
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
add a comment |
The technical terms in theology are:
First Cause — as given in another answer, although theologically this does not encompass being more than the "Alpha", the thing that caused everything else, rather than the thing upon which other things' existences continue to depend after creation.
necessary — A necessary being is defined as one that has no cause for existence, and simply must exist by its very nature. Again, however, this does not imply that other things are contingent upon it.
non-contingent — the opposite of contingent, i.e. caused by something else. It's not the same as necessary because non-contingency simply means not depending upon something else for existence; it does not incorporate the notion of existing by definition. A non-contingent thing has no dependence; it however does not necessarily exist.
a se — an older theological term from which aseity is derived, the state of self-causation or self-dependence, a necessary being that is (also) contingent upon nothing more than itself.
Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover — an even older term from Aristotle et al. that encompasses both parts of the question, as the concept here encompasses being the source of all motion (i.e. change and cause, the original term encompassing more than what "motion" does today) in the universe.
I'm not going to even attempt to give more exact definitions. There are millennia of writings on these and exactly what they are, from Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle, through Spinoza, to Zappa. ☺
New contributor
add a comment |
The normal way of expressing this is to say that God is the first cause (of everything):
[Merriam-Webster]
: the self-created ultimate source of all being
That encompasses all of the meanings you want.
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
add a comment |
Self-Sufficient would be most appropriate as the word clearly describes that A is not dependent on anyone for anything and he alone is sufficient for himself.
New contributor
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
add a comment |
You would say that God is not "independent" (that would suggest that some other entity is trying to politically control him but he does not have to abide by that), but rather is self-sustaining (and additionally that God sustains everything else), for that sort of intrinsic dependency on another being for one's existence and survival.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201284%2fgod-independent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
All (independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient) are suitable to say: "A depends on none" or "A needs no one".
However, I am not aware of a word to mean: "all depends on A" or "everyone needs A".
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
add a comment |
All (independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient) are suitable to say: "A depends on none" or "A needs no one".
However, I am not aware of a word to mean: "all depends on A" or "everyone needs A".
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
add a comment |
All (independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient) are suitable to say: "A depends on none" or "A needs no one".
However, I am not aware of a word to mean: "all depends on A" or "everyone needs A".
All (independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient) are suitable to say: "A depends on none" or "A needs no one".
However, I am not aware of a word to mean: "all depends on A" or "everyone needs A".
answered Mar 19 at 10:13
virolinovirolino
2,3421427
2,3421427
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
add a comment |
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
I think the reason there isn't a word to mean "all depends on A" or "all need A" is that its use would be so limited. In contrast, independence/self-reliance/self-sufficiency is used frequently, and thus warrants several different names.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:48
add a comment |
The technical terms in theology are:
First Cause — as given in another answer, although theologically this does not encompass being more than the "Alpha", the thing that caused everything else, rather than the thing upon which other things' existences continue to depend after creation.
necessary — A necessary being is defined as one that has no cause for existence, and simply must exist by its very nature. Again, however, this does not imply that other things are contingent upon it.
non-contingent — the opposite of contingent, i.e. caused by something else. It's not the same as necessary because non-contingency simply means not depending upon something else for existence; it does not incorporate the notion of existing by definition. A non-contingent thing has no dependence; it however does not necessarily exist.
a se — an older theological term from which aseity is derived, the state of self-causation or self-dependence, a necessary being that is (also) contingent upon nothing more than itself.
Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover — an even older term from Aristotle et al. that encompasses both parts of the question, as the concept here encompasses being the source of all motion (i.e. change and cause, the original term encompassing more than what "motion" does today) in the universe.
I'm not going to even attempt to give more exact definitions. There are millennia of writings on these and exactly what they are, from Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle, through Spinoza, to Zappa. ☺
New contributor
add a comment |
The technical terms in theology are:
First Cause — as given in another answer, although theologically this does not encompass being more than the "Alpha", the thing that caused everything else, rather than the thing upon which other things' existences continue to depend after creation.
necessary — A necessary being is defined as one that has no cause for existence, and simply must exist by its very nature. Again, however, this does not imply that other things are contingent upon it.
non-contingent — the opposite of contingent, i.e. caused by something else. It's not the same as necessary because non-contingency simply means not depending upon something else for existence; it does not incorporate the notion of existing by definition. A non-contingent thing has no dependence; it however does not necessarily exist.
a se — an older theological term from which aseity is derived, the state of self-causation or self-dependence, a necessary being that is (also) contingent upon nothing more than itself.
Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover — an even older term from Aristotle et al. that encompasses both parts of the question, as the concept here encompasses being the source of all motion (i.e. change and cause, the original term encompassing more than what "motion" does today) in the universe.
I'm not going to even attempt to give more exact definitions. There are millennia of writings on these and exactly what they are, from Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle, through Spinoza, to Zappa. ☺
New contributor
add a comment |
The technical terms in theology are:
First Cause — as given in another answer, although theologically this does not encompass being more than the "Alpha", the thing that caused everything else, rather than the thing upon which other things' existences continue to depend after creation.
necessary — A necessary being is defined as one that has no cause for existence, and simply must exist by its very nature. Again, however, this does not imply that other things are contingent upon it.
non-contingent — the opposite of contingent, i.e. caused by something else. It's not the same as necessary because non-contingency simply means not depending upon something else for existence; it does not incorporate the notion of existing by definition. A non-contingent thing has no dependence; it however does not necessarily exist.
a se — an older theological term from which aseity is derived, the state of self-causation or self-dependence, a necessary being that is (also) contingent upon nothing more than itself.
Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover — an even older term from Aristotle et al. that encompasses both parts of the question, as the concept here encompasses being the source of all motion (i.e. change and cause, the original term encompassing more than what "motion" does today) in the universe.
I'm not going to even attempt to give more exact definitions. There are millennia of writings on these and exactly what they are, from Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle, through Spinoza, to Zappa. ☺
New contributor
The technical terms in theology are:
First Cause — as given in another answer, although theologically this does not encompass being more than the "Alpha", the thing that caused everything else, rather than the thing upon which other things' existences continue to depend after creation.
necessary — A necessary being is defined as one that has no cause for existence, and simply must exist by its very nature. Again, however, this does not imply that other things are contingent upon it.
non-contingent — the opposite of contingent, i.e. caused by something else. It's not the same as necessary because non-contingency simply means not depending upon something else for existence; it does not incorporate the notion of existing by definition. A non-contingent thing has no dependence; it however does not necessarily exist.
a se — an older theological term from which aseity is derived, the state of self-causation or self-dependence, a necessary being that is (also) contingent upon nothing more than itself.
Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover — an even older term from Aristotle et al. that encompasses both parts of the question, as the concept here encompasses being the source of all motion (i.e. change and cause, the original term encompassing more than what "motion" does today) in the universe.
I'm not going to even attempt to give more exact definitions. There are millennia of writings on these and exactly what they are, from Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle, through Spinoza, to Zappa. ☺
New contributor
New contributor
answered Mar 19 at 12:50
JdeBPJdeBP
1533
1533
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
The normal way of expressing this is to say that God is the first cause (of everything):
[Merriam-Webster]
: the self-created ultimate source of all being
That encompasses all of the meanings you want.
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
add a comment |
The normal way of expressing this is to say that God is the first cause (of everything):
[Merriam-Webster]
: the self-created ultimate source of all being
That encompasses all of the meanings you want.
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
add a comment |
The normal way of expressing this is to say that God is the first cause (of everything):
[Merriam-Webster]
: the self-created ultimate source of all being
That encompasses all of the meanings you want.
The normal way of expressing this is to say that God is the first cause (of everything):
[Merriam-Webster]
: the self-created ultimate source of all being
That encompasses all of the meanings you want.
answered Mar 19 at 11:03
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
16.5k22238
16.5k22238
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
add a comment |
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
I have a different opinion :) The definition covers everything, except: after being created, everybody / everything / all still depend(s) on A. Or? Of course, we talk strictly about definitions, not about theology, dogma or anything else.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 12:15
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
@virolino As I've understood it, the implication (in a religious sense) is first cause of everything, past, present, or future. Which means events, but not those things related to free will.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:13
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
What you just said is totally true. But it does not touch the part with "depends" or "needs" from the original question. Example: A created the stones. (covered, OK) All stones (already created) need A (really?). I hope I clarified what I had in mind.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:17
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
@virolino Many people (following debate on this) would argue that reality and everything in it would disappear if God ceased to exist. (Should that be possible.) Therefore, everything really is contingent on God.
– Jason Bassford
Mar 19 at 13:20
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
OK, from this point of view, the definition fits. Thank you.
– virolino
Mar 19 at 13:28
add a comment |
Self-Sufficient would be most appropriate as the word clearly describes that A is not dependent on anyone for anything and he alone is sufficient for himself.
New contributor
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
add a comment |
Self-Sufficient would be most appropriate as the word clearly describes that A is not dependent on anyone for anything and he alone is sufficient for himself.
New contributor
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
add a comment |
Self-Sufficient would be most appropriate as the word clearly describes that A is not dependent on anyone for anything and he alone is sufficient for himself.
New contributor
Self-Sufficient would be most appropriate as the word clearly describes that A is not dependent on anyone for anything and he alone is sufficient for himself.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Mar 19 at 10:19
Bella SwanBella Swan
5077
5077
New contributor
New contributor
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
add a comment |
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
I agree with this. Both of the other two allow for circumstances in which A might need something.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:52
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
Self-sufficient only covers half of what the OP is asking for, which is not only that A isn't dependent, but that everything else is dependent on A.
– Monty Harder
Mar 19 at 18:50
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
@MontyHarder I agree, but neither of the words that are suggested describe that aspect (others being dependent on A)
– Bella Swan
Mar 20 at 4:53
add a comment |
You would say that God is not "independent" (that would suggest that some other entity is trying to politically control him but he does not have to abide by that), but rather is self-sustaining (and additionally that God sustains everything else), for that sort of intrinsic dependency on another being for one's existence and survival.
add a comment |
You would say that God is not "independent" (that would suggest that some other entity is trying to politically control him but he does not have to abide by that), but rather is self-sustaining (and additionally that God sustains everything else), for that sort of intrinsic dependency on another being for one's existence and survival.
add a comment |
You would say that God is not "independent" (that would suggest that some other entity is trying to politically control him but he does not have to abide by that), but rather is self-sustaining (and additionally that God sustains everything else), for that sort of intrinsic dependency on another being for one's existence and survival.
You would say that God is not "independent" (that would suggest that some other entity is trying to politically control him but he does not have to abide by that), but rather is self-sustaining (and additionally that God sustains everything else), for that sort of intrinsic dependency on another being for one's existence and survival.
answered Mar 19 at 17:24
CR DrostCR Drost
1594
1594
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201284%2fgod-independent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
By A you mean God? (judging from the title)
– Andrew Tobilko
Mar 19 at 10:08
@ Andrew Tobilko yes 'God'
– Zeeshan Siddiqii
Mar 19 at 10:35
None of your three options deal with the second clause "all depends on A". If you want to indicate both that A needs nobody and that everyone needs A then you need another word. Nothing comes to mind immediately but there may be something. Note also that independent would indicate there is no relationship between A and everyone else so it could be considered to negate your second clause rather than just not talk about it.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 15:54
How about all three? I have no idea why so many people on this site want to reduce large concepts to a single word. It's not always possible.
– only_pro
Mar 19 at 17:39
1
You could say A is indispensable
– solarc
Mar 19 at 18:01