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”?

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?

Dragon forelimb placement

How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?

Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?

How to find program name(s) of an installed package?

Is this a crack on the carbon frame?

Today is the Center

In Japanese, what’s the difference between “Tonari ni” (となりに) and “Tsugi” (つぎ)? When would you use one over the other?

Why dont electromagnetic waves interact with each other?

Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?

LaTeX closing $ signs makes cursor jump

Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

Modeling an IPv4 Address

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?

Python: next in for loop

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?



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”?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















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?



  1. Independent

  2. Self-reliant

  3. 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.










share|improve this question



















  • 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















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?



  1. Independent

  2. Self-reliant

  3. 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.










share|improve this question



















  • 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








2


1






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?



  1. Independent

  2. Self-reliant

  3. 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.










share|improve this question
















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?



  1. Independent

  2. Self-reliant

  3. 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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 19 at 10:09









virolino

3,4031733




3,4031733










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












  • 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










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















5














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".






share|improve this answer























  • 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


















5














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. ☺






share|improve this answer






























    4














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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


















    3














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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


















    1














    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.






    share|improve this answer























      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      5














      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".






      share|improve this answer























      • 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















      5














      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".






      share|improve this answer























      • 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













      5












      5








      5







      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".






      share|improve this answer













      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".







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 19 at 10:13









      virolinovirolino

      3,4031733




      3,4031733












      • 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





      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













      5














      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. ☺






      share|improve this answer



























        5














        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. ☺






        share|improve this answer

























          5












          5








          5







          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. ☺






          share|improve this answer













          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. ☺







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 19 at 12:50









          JdeBPJdeBP

          1524




          1524





















              4














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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















              4














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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













              4












              4








              4







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Mar 19 at 11:03









              Jason BassfordJason Bassford

              17k22238




              17k22238












              • 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












              • @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











              3














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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















              3














              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.






              share|improve this answer























              • 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













              3












              3








              3







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Mar 19 at 10:19









              Bella SwanBella Swan

              1,27212




              1,27212












              • 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











              • 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











              1














              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.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                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.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  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.






                  share|improve this answer













                  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.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 19 at 17:24









                  CR DrostCR Drost

                  1794




                  1794



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области