Is God constrained by logic?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Argy Lacedom		#41	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3967 05/19/09 18:47:42 Camper	Hi Bob, When I scientist issues a paper does every other scientist immediately accept it as gospel? No, as you say, it is tested. Especially if it's conclusion is at odds with accepted knowledge. The theologian might look at the work of a Hindu scholar and see that he is on to something regarding the relationship of humans to the divine and vice-versa, but that does not mean they accept the persons beliefs in the divinity. Then they are avoiding the elephant in the room. Why worry about the minutiae of personal relationships or counting angels on pin heads when there is overwhelming disagreement about the nature of god, for example? If there was such a discrepancy in science there would be a scandal - or at least feverish research until one or both positions was discarded. Look at the work on the nature of light or on black body radiation, for example. Resolution of those conflicts resulted in mind blowing benefits to mankind. Besides, theologians don't usually go around trying to falsify another religion's beliefs as a physicist in one discipline of science would not in the normal course of his career try to stick his nose into a completely different department. You're wrong there. The interconnectedness of physics is all pervasive. If a scientist discovered something that affected other disciplines it would be examined within those disciplines ruthlessly. Darwin, Newton and Einstein's work has changed the whole world of science, not just their particular fields. There is a big difference in the two disciplines in that while, as you claim, science strives to falsify a theory the theologian is not trying to prove anything, but to better understand. Yes, that's exactly what I've said. Theologians do not attempt to falsify anything - they attempt to justify existing dogma. Their attempt to "understand" is, at its simplest, an attempt to shoe horn evidence to fit preconceived notions. That's one of the major differences between science and theology. And it is why, after thousands of years, theologians in different religions have not converged on common ideas. Quite the contrary - the number of religions has diversified. Let me put it another way. God is infinite, he is everywhere. If there were two gods they would no longer be infinite and the more gods there are the less infinite each one becomes. What is infinity divided by one thousand? - It's still infinity! Slicing up infinity does not make it finite. So, no matter how many gods there are they could all claim to have infinite powers. Hum, Mount Olympus comes to mind. And the Trinity! [By the way, were you meaning to respond to my last post in this thread, or just let it be?] If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#42	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4733 05/20/09 08:54:50 Camper	Hi Gary, > No, as you say, it is tested. Especially if it's conclusion is at odds with accepted knowledge. So it is with theology. > Then they are avoiding the elephant in the room. That would be true if their purpose in life was to prove the other guy wrong, but that is not case. If my purpose was to convince you of the existence of God our discussion would be of a very different tone. But I accept that you are an Atheist (or Agnostic) and I proceed from there. So, the serious Christian theologian talks with Indian and East Asian scholars with neither attempting to convince the other of the errors of their ways. It is a scholarly exchange of ideas. Religion has evolved, at least at the academic level, to a live and let live attitude. > The interconnectedness of physics is all pervasive. If a scientist discovered something that affected other disciplines it would be examined within those disciplines ruthlessly. My point is that the researcher in quantum mechanics doesn't decide one day to spend some time on quantum chemistry just for the hell of it. If something comes up in the other discipline that reflects on his work of course he jumps on it, but only in relation to his own field. If a scientist jumped from one discipline to another willy-nilly he would never achieve anything. > Theologians do not attempt to falsify anything - they attempt to justify existing dogma. Their attempt to "understand" is, at its simplest, an attempt to shoe horn evidence to fit preconceived notions. Your notion of how Catholic theology works is skewed by your world view of religion in general. Theologians are highly intelligent individuals who have come to accept certain truths, accepted knowledge if you like. Having reached that conclusion their goal is to better understand that truth and how it fits into our modern society. True, fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians do a lot of shoehorning, the creationists being prime examples. If a Catholic theologians comes across an anomaly he or she pursues it, discusses it with their peers and they pursue it until it is resolved. > That's one of the major differences between science and theology. And it is why, after thousands of years, theologians in different religions have not converged on common ideas. Quite the contrary - the number of religions has diversified. Of course they are different. Religion deals with an intangible. I understand why you, as an engineer, want uniformity, it is in your nature. > What is infinity divided by one thousand? - It's still infinity! Slicing up infinity does not make it finite. So, no matter how many gods there are they could all claim to have infinite powers. My point is that God is infinite in every way. So, he has no boundaries, he is everywhere. If there were 1,000 gods who were infinite, then they would be one in that they could not get away from one another. If they have boundaries, then they are not infinite. > And the Trinity! Ouch! > [By the way, were you meaning to respond to my last post in this thread, or just let it be?] Time ran out and I felt we had run it into the ground. I would be glad to pick it up again if you wish. Peace, Last Edited By: Burke 05/20/09 08:57:53. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Hasah		#43	[url]	[-]
Posts: 464 05/20/09 17:19:34 Initiate	Hello Argy, You said "And the Trinity! " even the world sees an imperfect triune nature in humans, mind, body, and soul (or they may refer to it as spirit). Why can't God have the perfect triune nature?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#44	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3968 05/20/09 20:25:50 Camper	Hi Bob, That would be true if their purpose in life was to prove the other guy wrong, but that is not case. I thought their purpose was to find the truth. It cannot be simultaneously true that Jesus is God and not-God. That is one big elephant! Christianity is alone in suggesting that Jesus is God, so in pursuit of truth one would think that this would be a prime target. But I accept that you are an Atheist (or Agnostic) and I proceed from there. So, the serious Christian theologian talks with Indian and East Asian scholars with neither attempting to convince the other of the errors of their ways. It is a scholarly exchange of ideas. Religion has evolved, at least at the academic level, to a live and let live attitude. That is what I mean about the difference between science and religion. When ideas conflict it means that, logically, at most only one can be correct. The reason religious ideas cannot be resolved is because they cannot be falsified - at best they become a matter of taste, at worst irrational. One can't on the one hand argue from logic for the existence of religious truths and then deny logic when it is used to show they are irrational. If a Catholic theologians comes across an anomaly he or she pursues it, discusses it with their peers and they pursue it until it is resolved. I disagree with that. The problem of evil is a case in point. It has not been resolved - it has simply been labelled a mystery. If theologians were honest they would openly say that belief in the three omni-properties of god in the face of suffering has no rational basis. They would acknowledge that they cannot logically apply simultaneously. Of course they are different. Religion deals with an intangible. I understand why you, as an engineer, want uniformity, it is in your nature. Perhaps it is an arrogance that makes me want things to be rational. Even if I do not see proof, I need the belief system to be coherent and rational. Jesus is purported to have assuaged Thomas' doubts with cold hard evidence. If he exists why does he deny similar tangible proof to the rest of us? My point is that God is infinite in every way. So, he has no boundaries, he is everywhere. If there were 1,000 gods who were infinite, then they would be one in that they could not get away from one another. I don't see the problem. What does separation have anything to do with it? Gases can share the same space and maintain their identity (oxygen and nitrogen in air, for example). The wave nature of electrons means they share space around the nucleus of atoms. Schroedinger showed that all matter is spread out into space and overlaps. In a very real sense a small proportion of your matter is sharing the same space as mine. If they have boundaries, then they are not infinite. Not true. Imagine a pie chart with infinite radius that is divided into radial segments. Each segment bounds two other segments but extends infinitely from the centre. It is infinite in extent and has infinite area despite being bounded on two sides. Infinity has little to do with boundaries. > [By the way, were you meaning to respond to my last post in this thread, or just let it be?] Time ran out and I felt we had run it into the ground. I would be glad to pick it up again if you wish. I sort of thought the idea that god is a moral agent subject to the same moral obligations as we are was a new element to the discussion. I would like to pursue that a bit more, but it's your call. Maybe a new thread? If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#45	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3969 05/20/09 20:27:42 Camper	Hasah wrote: Hello Argy, You said "And the Trinity! " even the world sees an imperfect triune nature in humans, mind, body, and soul (or they may refer to it as spirit). Why can't God have the perfect triune nature? Good point, except that the Trinity is supposedly composed of three persons, not three different things like mind, body and soul. If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#46	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4736 05/21/09 09:41:11 Camper	Hi Gary, > I thought their purpose was to find the truth. It is, but within monotheism. Outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam most religions are based on mysticism, the individual's quest is internal where he attempts to unite with the Absolute One. The paths of these religions are totally different. If memory serves the great eastern religions, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. do not worship God or a god, but they are more of a spiritual philosophy. If they mention a god at all it is in a very general sense. > It cannot be simultaneously true that Jesus is God and not-God. That is one big elephant! Christianity is alone in suggesting that Jesus is God, so in pursuit of truth one would think that this would be a prime target. In Islam Jesus is viewed as a prophet, in recent years some Jewish scholars have mused that Jesus may have been a prophet, but this is not about uniting the the three Abrahamic religions and the fact that all do not agree on the nature of Jesus does not negate the validity of Christian claims. Of course you are perfectly free to reject them. > The reason religious ideas cannot be resolved is because they cannot be falsified - at best they become a matter of taste, at worst irrational. In one sense they can be falsified when viewed in the light of the texts. It may not be a scientific test, but it is a test nonetheless. An Atheist scholar could study Christianity and come to a conclusion as to the truth within Christianity while denying the existence of God. In other words, if the Christians are right about the existence of God and the bible, then this or that would be true. > One can't on the one hand argue from logic for the existence of religious truths and then deny logic when it is used to show they are irrational. The problem with your position is the assumption that religious belief on any level is irrational. Most Hindus' beliefs is not irrational given the context of that belief. Of course, some might be irrational if taken to a radical level such as the extremists of Islam. > I disagree with that. The problem of evil is a case in point. It has not been resolved - it has simply been labelled a mystery. As has the origins of the universe not been resolved. Scientists strive to solve the "mystery" of the universe and theologians strive to solve the "mystery" of evil. > Perhaps it is an arrogance that makes me want things to be rational. There is nothing inherently irrational about religious belief. > Jesus is purported to have assuaged Thomas' doubts with cold hard evidence. If he exists why does he deny similar tangible proof to the rest of us? We have the evidence, John's gospel. If we demanded to see the evidence in every case in our lives we would believe very little indeed. > I don't see the problem. What does separation have anything to do with it? Gases can share the same space and maintain their identity (oxygen and nitrogen in air, for example). Huge difference. Gases are not infinite and can come together and separate again. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Hasah		#47	[url]	[-]
Posts: 465 05/21/09 10:03:08 Initiate	Argy Lacedom wrote: Good point, except that the Trinity is supposedly composed of three persons, not three different things like mind, body and soul. I'm not totally up to myself these days and hope I don't trivalize things to much... even dipping into world psychology... they picked up it as well aka id, ego, & super ego... but I'm not a Freud fan by any means. My body or flesh would love to indulge in things but my mind tells me that's not healthy or wise so don't do it. My spirit wants to focus only on where I'm going and learning things I obviously missed the first time around. Especially in the midst of things I've seen this past month, it's heartbreaking. I still want to raise a fuss. I have a long way to grow. I refer to people as the imperfect triune nature where as God is perfect.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
NMOCM		#48	[url]	[-]
Posts: 125 05/21/09 15:47:43 Neophyte	I don't think that God is "constrained" by logic. I think that logic is a reflection of God insofar as we are reflections of Him and we are logical. I also believe that God does behave in a certain manner simply because He does. He isn't required to do anything, and anything is possible to Him, but like any of us, He chooses to behave certain ways... a broader realm of His actions, however, are left purely to His choice. I don't really buy the whole premise that the Trinity is counter-logical, though. I think we have definitional problems, though, that might make it seem such. We define words like "person" in the sense of human beings, but these definitions might not be applicable to God who is a different type of being. As a physical being, I am one distinct organism, and this existence precludes my being another organism. Since my spirit is also a soul (with "soul" defined as the life force of a body), it's necessary that if I am myself, I cannot simultaneously be any other human person, and there are limits to the extent to which we can conceive of two humans being fully united. With God, however, we're dealing with a spiritual being. The Trinity could exist in a manner entirely consistent with the logical process but inconsistent with certain of the starting premises of our reasoning process since there's no reason to believe that the rules derived from physical realities can be superimposed on spiritual reality.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#49	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3973 05/22/09 14:57:55 Camper	Hi Bob, > I thought their purpose was to find the truth. It is, but within monotheism. You are begging the question that monotheism is truth. A real quest for truth would be open to examining this basic assumption - there is no a priori reason it should be exempt from examination. Outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam most religions are based on mysticism, the individual's quest is internal where he attempts to unite with the Absolute One. Why do you think this is wrong? Surely examining differences in religious belief and expression are important in the search for truth. The paths of these religions are totally different. If memory serves the great eastern religions, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. do not worship God or a god, but they are more of a spiritual philosophy. If they mention a god at all it is in a very general sense. You seem to be describing differences between other religions and yours, but not explaining why they are wrong. They are not wrong simply because they are different. You need to go further! > It cannot be simultaneously true that Jesus is God and not-God. That is one big elephant! Christianity is alone in suggesting that Jesus is God, so in pursuit of truth one would think that this would be a prime target. In Islam Jesus is viewed as a prophet, in recent years some Jewish scholars have mused that Jesus may have been a prophet, but this is not about uniting the the three Abrahamic religions and the fact that all do not agree on the nature of Jesus does not negate the validity of Christian claims. Of course you are perfectly free to reject them. The fact that Jesus is seen as a prophet, rather than God, is exactly what I'm talking about. Either he is god or he is not. The fact that he is viewed differently by different religions is irreconcilable. At least one religion must be wrong - that is the elephant in the room. > The reason religious ideas cannot be resolved is because they cannot be falsified - at best they become a matter of taste, at worst irrational. In one sense they can be falsified when viewed in the light of the texts. It may not be a scientific test, but it is a test nonetheless. An Atheist scholar could study Christianity and come to a conclusion as to the truth within Christianity while denying the existence of God. In other words, if the Christians are right about the existence of God and the bible, then this or that would be true. Are you suggesting that the foundations of your belief system should not be tested? I think you forget that it is possible to do so in many cases. For example, the existence of suffering is hard evidence that the Christian version of god cannot exist. The problem with your position is the assumption that religious belief on any level is irrational. I have never said that, and I have been very careful not to. I have clearly maintained that, while belief in the existence of a god or not is a matter of choice, the test of rationality can be applied to the various claims made by different religions about their gods. Many of these claims are irrational. And the irrationality goes to the core of belief in many instances. > I disagree with that. The problem of evil is a case in point. It has not been resolved - it has simply been labelled a mystery. As has the origins of the universe not been resolved. Scientists strive to solve the "mystery" of the universe and theologians strive to solve the "mystery" of evil. The difference is that the details of the origin of the universe are examined within the context of rationality - irrational ideas are thrown out. The problem of evil exists only if the irrational is not thrown out. It disappears if the irrational position that god has the three omni-properties is abandoned. In other words, the problem of evil exists only because theologians hang on to an irrational idea. What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#50	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3974 05/22/09 15:03:03 Camper	Hi Hasah My body or flesh would love to indulge in things but my mind tells me that's not healthy or wise so don't do it. My spirit wants to focus only on where I'm going and learning things I obviously missed the first time around. Your body is not a person in and of itself. It doesn't have a separate mind that tells your brain things. Likewise for your spirit (whatever that is). Confusion in your thought processes does not mean that you are three persons in one! What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#51	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3975 05/22/09 15:12:09 Camper	NMOCM: I don't think that God is "constrained" by logic. I think that logic is a reflection of God insofar as we are reflections of Him and we are Are you suggesting that logic arises from God, yet it leads us to wrong conclusions about his nature when we apply it? I don't really buy the whole premise that the Trinity is counter-logical, though. I think we have definitional problems, though, that might make it seem such. We define words like "person" in the sense of human beings, but these definitions might not be applicable to God who is a different type of being. The problem with the trinity is that it says that three separate things are one and the same thing. It doesn't matter how you define those things, the logical contradiction still exists. What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#52	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4741 05/23/09 09:48:54 Camper	Hi Gary, > You are begging the question that monotheism is truth. A real quest for truth would be open to examining this basic assumption - there is no a priori reason it should be exempt from examination. I couldn't agree more. I personally did just that. When I had my "religious" experience I did not jump on the band wagon immediately. I took time and read everything I could lay my hands on. I already had a pretty good handle on world religions due to my interest in history, so most of those took little time to discard. As I have said before the existence of a creator without a beginning was logical to me and I came to the conclusion monotheism was the only logical way to frame that creator. That left me with Christianity, Judaism and Islam. On reading the Koran and its history, while Muslims worship the one true God, they missed the mark. Judaism struck me as being stuck in the first century B.C., which made no sense. That left Christianity and its claims. This took a long time, much study and prayer. Reviewing the history of religions the transition from primitive religions to polytheism made sense. The evolution of monotheism in the person of the Jews followed naturally as did the the coming of God among men in the person of Jesus Christ. So, with due diligence I came to the conclusion that first, monotheism was true and second that Christianity was true and I have never been more sure of anything in my life. > Why do you think this is wrong? Surely examining differences in religious belief and expression are important in the search for truth. Of course it is, but mysticism is very individual in nature. One meets the divinity in losing themselves to their inner being. On the surface that may not sound like a problem, but in mysticism only the mystic achieves the ultimate experience, the rest of society must be happy with living vicariously through the mystic, in other worlds they accept a second-hand religion. So, while there are things to be learned from the mystics we reject the notion that not all can achieve the ultimate religious experience. > They are not wrong simply because they are different. You need to go further! I did not say they were completely wrong, but they are wrong in the sense that they do not worship the one true God. As I said, they are more philosophies than religions. > The fact that Jesus is seen as a prophet, rather than God, is exactly what I'm talking about. Either he is God or he is not. He is God. > The fact that he is viewed differently by different religions is irreconcilable. Name one thing in this world that is agreed upon by 100% of the people. People can be looking at the same thing and not agree on what they see. Muslims accept the virgin birth and everything about Jesus until we reach the definition of his nature. Mohamed's objection is noted in the Koran in the words, "how could Allah have a son?" He got it wrong. > At least one religion must be wrong - that is the elephant in the room. The point is that there is truth in all those religions, just not all the truth. > For example, the existence of suffering is hard evidence that the Christian version of God cannot exist. Nonsense, we have ridden this horse many times before and his name is automaton. With all due respect, he notion that if God exists all must be perfect is silly. > The difference is that the details of the origin of the universe are examined within the context of rationality - irrational ideas are thrown out. The problem of evil exists only if the irrational is not thrown out. It disappears if the irrational position that god has the three omni-properties is abandoned. In other words, the problem of evil exists only because theologians hang on to an irrational idea. A clarification please, are you suggesting that evil does not exist? Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#53	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3979 05/23/09 21:51:04 Camper	Hi Bob, Reviewing the history of religions the transition from primitive religions to polytheism made sense. The evolution of monotheism in the person of the Jews followed naturally as did the the coming of God among men in the person of Jesus Christ. There is a clear evolutionary pattern emerging here many -> one -> none ! On the surface that may not sound like a problem, but in mysticism only the mystic achieves the ultimate experience, the rest of society must be happy with living vicariously through the mystic, in other worlds they accept a second-hand religion. So, while there are things to be learned from the mystics we reject the notion that not all can achieve the ultimate religious experience. With respect, I do not see much difference between mysticism and revelation. They are both second hand experiences for most people. None of us saw Adam and Eve, nor Jesus and his miracles, nor Moses. We rely on others to tell us what happened and what to believe. I did not say they were completely wrong, but they are wrong in the sense that they do not worship the one true God. You beg the question - until the existence of one true god has been established they are not wrong. > The fact that Jesus is seen as a prophet, rather than God, is exactly what I'm talking about. Either he is God or he is not. He is God. Then Jew, Muslims and all other religions are wrong. Categorically and irreconcilably wrong. Name one thing in this world that is agreed upon by 100% of the people. I'll do better than one; gravity, food, water, light, pain, pleasure, televisions, disease, death, ... Mohamed's objection is noted in the Koran in the words, "how could Allah have a son?" He got it wrong. You need to go further. Merely asserting a thing does not make it true. Unless you can demonstrate that they are wrong (falsify!) you have to accept the possibility they are right. The existence of so many religions, none of which can be disproven, is the glaring weakness of the competing claims by numerous religions that they know the "one true" god. A>In other words, the problem of evil exists only because theologians hang on to an irrational idea. A clarification please, are you suggesting that evil does not exist? No I am not. Suffering and evil exist. We know that from personal experience and no one is arguing that they do not. The "Problem of Evil" exists only for theologians who hold onto the belief that, in the face of the existence of suffering, god is omniscient, omni-benevolent AND omnipotent. If one of God's three omni-properties is dropped the irrationality disappears. In other words, the Problem of Evil disappears if the properties of God are modified. The irrationality disappears in a puff if one accepts that god is not as Christians traditionally claim. It is therefore rational to conclude that the Christian idea of God is wrong - it needs to be modified if it is to stand up to rational scrutiny. Which of these properties would we drop. If we believe the scriptures he does things like telling the Israelites to smash the heads of (Midianite??) babies against rocks, he kills the innocent along with the guilty, he created evil and he allows people to suffer. That seems like a pretty powerful argument against him being omni-benevolent. What about omniscience? He didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding and he got prophesies wrong (Jonah, for example). That seems to be reasonable evidence against him being all knowing. Omnipotence? God was not powerful enough to defeat iron chariotts, so I'm thinking that he is probably not all powerful either. So while the claim might be made that scripture tells us God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing, it is also full of significant contrary evidence. It would be easy for theologians to drop one or more of their claims about God without offending scripture. What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#54	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4742 05/23/09 22:40:45 Camper	Hi Gary, > With respect, I do not see much difference between mysticism and revelation. They are both second hand experiences for most people. None of us saw Adam and Eve, nor Jesus and his miracles, nor Moses. We rely on others to tell us what happened and what to believe. Anything that goes beyond our year of birth is second hand. Did Hitler really kill 6,000,000 Jews? Maybe the holocaust deniers are right or are they? You did not see the camps first hand. Maybe the whole thing was staged, maybe there were only 600 killed. Others may have told us what happened, but they only told us what they believed and while the core of their beliefs have come down to us, we have gained a better understanding over the last 2,000 years. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, are stuck in the 1st century A.D. They will not throw a light switch on the sabbath because it is considered to be work. > until the existence of one true God has been established they are not wrong. It has been established. > Then Jew, Muslims and all other religions are wrong. Categorically and irreconcilably wrong. In that one aspect, yes, but they do contain truths about God from which we can all learn. > I'll do better than one; gravity, food, water, light, pain, pleasure, televisions, disease, death, ... Hm, gravity - I am sure there are people who would argue over the nature of gravity. Food - I know people who argue over what is food and what isn't. Light - People argue over how much light is enough light. Pain - one man's pain might be another man's pleasure extreme athletes being a prime example. Televisions - Boy, do people ever argue over television, what is good, what is bad. Disease - actually there are people who deny the existence of cancer and other diseases. Death - that we die, yes, but when are we actually dead, big debate. > The existence of so many religions, none of which can be disproven, is the glaring weakness of the competing claims by numerous religions that they know the "one true" God. Jews, Muslims and Christian all know the one true God. Indian spirituality is just beginning to explore the idea of monotheism. The Asian religions are basically philosophies and they don't really worship a god as such. I believe we can quickly dispense with the sun worshipers and the primitives that worship the volcano. Remember, the Abrahamic religions are the only ones that believe in a universal God. The others are all local. > The "Problem of Evil" exists only for theologians who hold onto the belief that, in the face of the existence of suffering, god is omniscient, omni-benevolent AND omnipotent. If one of God's three omni-properties is dropped the irrationality disappears. No, either we have free will or we do not. Either we can make choices for ourselves or we cannot. That someone here on earth restrains us from evoking our free will is not God's doing, but someone else exercising their free will either for our own good, a parent making rules, or to do us harm, the rapist for example. Again it comes down to the fact that we are either free agents in the universe or automatons. Given these facts, the rest of your post does not stand up. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
tonydev		#55	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1445 05/24/09 01:51:47 Camper	If I may return to the question of the Trinity. The concept was not developed until the time of Augustine. The notion is only possible within the analytic mind of Greek philosophy. The Gospels. if one accepts them, do not delineate three entities as such. There is nothing that suggests that the "spirit" of God is in any way distinct from God. It is no different than saying my "spirit" is the source of something that I wish to accomplish. As to Jesus, there is really nothing that says that Jesus is God as such. There are passages that can be interpreted in that way. But there is nothing specific. Jumping to free will: what do we really know? How much is our nature? How much is our nurture? This is a school boy text book question. I'm a dog person and I always wonder - can one adopt a Pit Bull? Will it bite? Is it in it's nature or is it something that it is trained to do. No, we are not dogs - but I use this as a metaphor. Then - God as creator. Perhaps. But there is nothing that tells us that such must be so.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#56	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4744 05/24/09 09:43:56 Camper	Hi Tony, > The concept was not developed until the time of Augustine. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed belie that statement. They are Trinitarian confessions. > The Gospels. if one accepts them, do not delineate three entities as such. Matthew 28:19 . . . .baptize them in the name of the Father and of th Son and of the Holy Spirit. John's gospel speaks of an advocate, John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. You must concede that this is a basis for the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that it took 300 years (not 400) to define does not negate the belief of the early Church. > There is nothing that suggests that the "spirit" of God is in any way distinct from God. The Holy Spirit is not distinct from God, he is God. > Jumping to free will: what do we really know? With all due respect, you are complicating a very simple principle. While society may attempt to constraint our exercise of free will we still can choose between competing alternatives. Do I falsify my income tax return to get a bigger refund, or do I send in a correct return? Do I keep the wallet I found on the sidewalk, or do I try to find the owner and return it to them with everything still in it? If we have no free will, then we would respond to both of these scenarios in a pre-programmed manner. Peace,
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
tonydev		#57	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1446 05/24/09 16:21:36 Camper	The Nicene Creed is only a few years prior to Augustine. It's earliest version is very non-descript about the Holy Spirit. The later version ends with the "filioque" controversy. It would thus seem that even those laying out doctrine really were not sure of this concept. Augustine, a few years later, begins work on De Trinitate and labors on it for some fifteen years only to conclude that there is no conclusion, only concept. As to Matthew 28:19 - that's the closest you get to the mention of a Trinity. BUT- and here you may consult the notes of the Jerusalem Bible - this is probably a later addition. The Holy Spirit is not distinct from God, he is God. " alt="image"> Precisely, so within that frame of belief, why bother with a distinction by creating the "third person?" Free will, - yes. we make decisions. But what is the groundwork for making them? Would a person in Calcutta slums respond the same way to a found item as a person in a Toronto suburb? How does one wait for service in a butcher shop in London, as opposed to a butcher shop in Cairo? How does a student in the hood respond to a moral question as opposed to a student in a private school? These are typical and somewhat trite examples, but they suggest the problem.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#58	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3981 05/24/09 19:39:00 Camper	Hi Bob, > The existence of so many religions, none of which can be disproven, is the glaring weakness of the competing claims by numerous religions that they know the "one true" God. Jews, Muslims and Christian all know the one true God. Indian spirituality is just beginning to explore the idea of monotheism. The Asian religions are basically philosophies and they don't really worship a god as such. I believe we can quickly dispense with the sun worshipers and the primitives that worship the volcano. I don't think we can dispense with any of them. Sure, the fashion has changed, but none of them have been disproved. A volcano god is just as hard to disprove as a Christian one. Or perhaps you think differently. Perhaps you believe that volcano gods have been disproved. Would you be willing to accept the conclusion that your god does not exist if it fails the same tests we apply to the volcano gods? > The "Problem of Evil" exists only for theologians who hold onto the belief that, in the face of the existence of suffering, god is omniscient, omni-benevolent AND omnipotent. If one of God's three omni-properties is dropped the irrationality disappears. No, either we have free will or we do not. Either we can make choices for ourselves or we cannot. That someone here on earth restrains us from evoking our free will is not God's doing, but someone else exercising their free will either for our own good, a parent making rules, or to do us harm, the rapist for example. Again it comes down to the fact that we are either free agents in the universe or automatons. Given these facts, the rest of your post does not stand up. Restriction on the ability to exercise free will does not make us automatons. Free will always works within constraints. We cannot choose to defy gravity or to be in two places at once. I stop my daughter going out when I'm not sure about the company or environment she will be in. We have store detectives preventing people from exercising their free will to steel. We physically restrain people in many ways to prevent them exercising their free will. We put them in handcuffs and incarcerate them. We have queue barriers to make people line up in an orderly manner, we enforce laws to make people drive on one side of the road, we have traffic lights. All these things restrict free will, but they do not turn people into automatons. God could also very easily intervene in any circumstance (being omnipotent) to prevent suffering or evil by thwarting the consequences of free will in a similar way. He could cause the rapist to trip and allow the little girl to escape. He could cause a power failure at a Nazi rally, or a blocked gas pipe in a concentration camp or a misfire when a murderer pulls the trigger. None of these things stop people from attempting to exercise their free will, but they do eliminate the subsequent suffering. What's more, they would be instructional - people would begin to understand that trying to cause suffering was fruitless - surely a desirable state of affairs? The other point you fail to address is the suffering caused by natural disasters. Death in childbirth, tsunamis, AIDS, disease, earthquakes, etc., are not caused by the exercising of human free will. An omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent god would not stand idly by allowing these things to happen. It is irrational to think such a being exists. So, even if your free will argument had credence, it does not solve the "PoE". What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction. Last Edited By: Argy Lacedom 05/24/09 19:49:06. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Burke		#59	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4747 05/25/09 08:46:24 Camper	Hi Gary, > A volcano god is just as hard to disprove as a Christian one. Really? I would have thought that science, with its explanation of how volcanic activity occurs would have proven that no god lived in the volcano demanding human sacrifice in exchange for being quiet. > Would you be willing to accept the conclusion that your god does not exist if it fails the same tests we apply to the volcano gods? In theory, if science ever reached zero and came up with a fool proof answer for the beginnings of the universe without a creator, it would cause one to pause. In the case of the volcano god, science reached zero. > Free will always works within constraints. We cannot choose to defy gravity or to be in two places at once. With all due respect, you are like the spectator who likes to throw extra tennis balls on the court during a match. The only thing it does is diminish your credibility in the discussion. Your daughter coiuld choose to defy you and sneak out. The store detective does not thwart the thief's free will, he is simply one of the factors helps him choose what to do next. Your other examples are also flawed. I can choose not to queue up, I can choose to drive on the wrong side of the road, after all you drive on the wrong side of the road all the time , I can choose to run red lights and speed. Of course if I am caught I pay the price. Those things you mentioned are not impediments to free will, but things that we must factor in when we are making decisions. > God could also very easily intervene in any circumstance (being omnipotent) to prevent suffering or evil by thwarting the consequences of free will in a similar way. But that would be thwarting the purpose of giving us free will in the first place. It would be like you telling your grown children that you want them to make their own choices and then thwarting them at every turn. You might advise them that it is a dumb thing to do, but if you prevent them from doing it they will not learn the lesson. > The other point you fail to address is the suffering caused by natural disasters. Death in childbirth, tsunamis, AIDS, disease, earthquakes, etc., are not caused by the exercising of human free will. Hey, we all die sometime. We appear to be back to the perfect world scenario. > So, even if your free will argument had credence, it does not solve the "PoE". ??? You lost me. What has the Power over Ethernet got to do with it. Peace, Last Edited By: Burke 05/25/09 08:50:46. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#60	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3983 05/25/09 18:57:48 Camper	Hi Bob, > A volcano god is just as hard to disprove as a Christian one. Really? I would have thought that science, with its explanation of how volcanic activity occurs would have proven that no god lived in the volcano demanding human sacrifice in exchange for being quiet. To its believers the volcano has a precipitous personality - unpredictable moods and a readiness to wake from years of slumber for the merest trifle. When believers say that the volcano god gets mad at one thing or another nothing you can say will prove to them that they are wrong. Trifles are the stuff that angers this sort of god!! You have a hard time convincing them because basically their claims are not falsifiable. If you point out to them that its all to do with plate tectonics the true believer will say "Of course it is. The volcano god drives the continents and makes his mood known that way." Very similar to believers in your god who say he designed the laws of physics! No? > Would you be willing to accept the conclusion that your god does not exist if it fails the same tests we apply to the volcano gods? In theory, if science ever reached zero and came up with a fool proof answer for the beginnings of the universe without a creator, it would cause one to pause. In the case of the volcano god, science reached zero. I have previously given you science references that demonstrate that our universe needn't be caused. By the way, what is your definition of "zero"? It seems to me that it is a moving target, capable of being redefined if you think science is getting uncomfortably close! > Free will always works within constraints. We cannot choose to defy gravity or to be in two places at once. With all due respect, you are like the spectator who likes to throw extra tennis balls on the court during a match. Perhaps we have different ideas of what free will means. What does it mean to you?? An unconstrained ability to choose anything and a guarantee that it will come to pass. An unconstrained ability to choose anything without a guarantee of it coming to pass. A constrained ability to choose anything and a guarantee that it will come to pass (ie within the constraints of physical laws). A constrained ability to choose anything without a guarantee that it will come to pass (ie within the constraints of physical laws). Do you believe there are any constraints on us exercising our free will in our current existence? If so, what are they? > God could also very easily intervene in any circumstance (being omnipotent) to prevent suffering or evil by thwarting the consequences of free will in a similar way. But that would be thwarting the purpose of giving us free will in the first place. I think you also need to clarify what the rules for free will are. For example... Is it possible for a person to prevent another person from exercising their free will? If so, is this a violation of god's will? Are moral agents permitted to limit the free will of others if it will prevent suffering (eg am I allowed to physically restrain a rapist)? When two people have conflicting wills whose should prevail; the one that wants to cause suffering or the one that wants to avoid it (the victim or the abuser)? It would be like you telling your grown children that you want them to make their own choices and then thwarting them at every turn. You might advise them that it is a dumb thing to do, but if you prevent them from doing it they will not learn the lesson. So, if my son decided to take an axe to his girlfriend I would be wrong to interfere? > The other point you fail to address is the suffering caused by natural disasters. Death in childbirth, tsunamis, AIDS, disease, earthquakes, etc., are not caused by the exercising of human free will. Hey, we all die sometime. We appear to be back to the perfect world scenario. Well, that's exactly what happens in heaven, right? What sort of perverse being would allow us to suffer, knowing that perfect happiness was a blink of an eye away? But to get back on track, I'm not talking about death exclusively. A person who is cripled and suffers cronic agony from a falling rock suffers. His suffering is not a result of others exercising their free will. Why does your god allow him to suffer? > So, even if your free will argument had credence, it does not solve the "PoE". ??? You lost me. What has the Power over Ethernet got to do with it. You forgot the smiley face! PoE = problem of evil. What I was saying is that there is much suffering in the world that is not caused by free will. The free will argument in defence of suffering does not apply in these instances and therefore does not solve the "Poblem of Evil". What the question boils down to is this... Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no need of god for moral instruction.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Is God constrained by logic?

Quick Reply