To act on nothing is to do something?

[Hammster]

That question only applies if you've chosen to define omnipotence such that God can do absolutely anything, even that which is logically impossible. Just keep that in mind. Also, I do not think your analogy maps well onto the situation you're trying to describe.

The person lending the car is God/Jesus. The person borrowing is humanity. The payment is the cross. Who or what is the repair man? Who or what is the car?

Like I said, the point is that forgiveness costs. And why God can’t “just forgive”.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that labelling this as a logical contradiction and declaring victory is exactly what you're doing.

Right. He is basically just asserting that anything which comes into existence requires a material cause. The only reasoning seems to be, "I've never seen creatio ex nihilo and I don't even understand how it would work!"

Of course Christians don't claim to have seen creatio ex nihilo themselves, nor do they claim to have an understanding of how it works. Christians don't claim to be God, after all.

The charge that it is a logical or analytical contradiction doesn't go very far, precisely because the metaphysics of causation are not so well defined to exclude such activity as impossible, particularly when it comes to God. You already pointed this out. It is not controversial that God can do things which do not occur naturally, and it is obvious that not everything which does not occur naturally is logically impossible. Creatio ex nihilo doesn't occur naturally, but God can do it. End of story.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Like I said, the point is that forgiveness costs. And why God can’t “just forgive”.

That's not an answer.

 

[Hammster]

That's not an answer.

Why not? It answered your question directly.

 

[gaara4158]

Like I said, the point is that forgiveness costs. And why God can’t “just forgive”.

But the question is, what does God actually lose by forgiving, that we have to somehow make it up by savagely executing his son? Who is knocking on God’s door asking for the payment of debt that was incurred by original sin? And why can’t God just absorb that cost instead of passing it along to the forgiven? And how is it forgiveness if the forgiven still has to pay?

 

[Hammster]

But the question is, what does God actually lose by forgiving, that we have to somehow make it up by savagely executing his son? Who is knocking on God’s door asking for the payment of debt that was incurred by original sin? And why can’t God just absorb that cost instead of passing it along to the forgiven? And how is it forgiveness if the forgiven still has to pay?

It would make Him unjust. If a murder gets life in prison, why not just let him go? His sentence won’t bring back his victim.

And technically, He did absorb the cost by having His Son atone for the sins of the elect.

 

[Moral Orel]

It would make Him unjust. If a murder gets life in prison, why not just let him go? His sentence won’t bring back his victim.

And technically, He did absorb the cost by having His Son atone for the sins of the elect.

The point of the original question was about a God who can do logically impossible things, though. If God can do the logically impossible, then He can be just and never dispense justice.

 

[Hammster]

The point of the original question was about a God who can do logically impossible things, though. If God can do the logically impossible, then He can be just and never dispense justice.

But that’s not the God of scripture. And this is Christian Apologetics.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that’s not the God of scripture. And this is Christian Apologetics.

You have to take the OP as a whole. He is attempting to prove that if God created ex nihilo, then He can do the logically impossible. If NV proves that, then the question about Jesus becomes appropriate. You started at the end of the OP, after NV assumed that he made his case about creation ex nihilo. You're ignoring the whole point of the thread to answer a question as if NV hasn't posed any problem whatsoever.

 

[gaara4158]

It would make Him unjust. If a murder gets life in prison, why not just let him go? His sentence won’t bring back his victim.

And technically, He did absorb the cost by having His Son atone for the sins of the elect.

It is also unjust to have your innocent son executed for the crimes of another, so that’s not solving anything. Might as well let it go.

 

[Hammster]

You have to take the OP as a whole. He is attempting to prove that if God created ex nihilo, then He can do the logically impossible. If NV proves that, then the question about Jesus becomes appropriate. You started at the end of the OP, after NV assumed that he made his case about creation ex nihilo. You're ignoring the whole point of the thread to answer a question as if NV hasn't posed any problem whatsoever.

Ah. Well, ex nihilo isn’t illogical.

 

[Hammster]

It is also unjust to have your innocent son executed for the crimes of another, so that’s not solving anything. Might as well let it go.

I understand why you’d think so.

 

[Shimokita]

I’m going to, probably, oversimplify this. Let’s say that I need to borrow a car, and you lend me yours. You tell me that it’s your only car, and you need it for work tomorrow and to be careful. I speed off, drive carelessly through the day, and eventually wreck your car.

While you may be upset, you graciously forgive me and I go my way.

Now, who pays for the repair? You do, because you forgave me. You can’t forgive a debt, and at the same time bill someone for that debt. But it still needs a payment. So forgiveness always costs the forgiven something. It’s not free.

I don't think your analogy works. Consider two situations:

1) You refuse to be friends with or have any contact with the person who wrecked your car, for the rest of his life. You make him pay you the money back for the repairs, and you report him to the police for driving carelessly.

2) You say "I forgive you buddy, you are sorry for what you did. We can remain friends and continue to hang out, and I am not going to report you to the police for driving carlessly, so you can avoid the jail time. But I still want you to repair the harm that you did by paying for the damage to my car, because it is not fair that I should have to pay it."

There is forgiveness in (2) but it did not cost the forgiver anything.

Perhaps you can tweak your analogy to prove your point?

 

[Hammster]

I don't think your analogy works. Consider two situations:

1) You refuse to be friends with or have any contact with the person who wrecked your car, for the rest of his life. You make him pay you the money back for the repairs, and you report him to the police for driving carelessly.

2) You say "I forgive you buddy, you are sorry for what you did. We can remain friends and continue to hang out, and I am not going to report you to the police for driving carlessly, so you can avoid the jail time. But I still want you to repair the harm that you did by paying for the damage to my car, because it is not fair that I should have to pay it."

There is forgiveness in (2) but it did not cost the forgiver anything.

Perhaps you can tweak your analogy to prove your point?

Except my analogy didn’t involve criminal activity.

 

[Shimokita]

Right. He is basically just asserting that anything which comes into existence requires a material cause. The only reasoning seems to be, "I've never seen creatio ex nihilo and I don't even understand how it would work!"

Of course Christians don't claim to have seen creatio ex nihilo themselves, nor do they claim to have an understanding of how it works. Christians don't claim to be God, after all.

The charge that it is a logical or analytical contradiction doesn't go very far, precisely because the metaphysics of causation are not so well defined to exclude such activity as impossible, particularly when it comes to God. You already pointed this out. It is not controversial that God can do things which do not occur naturally, and it is obvious that not everything which does not occur naturally is logically impossible. Creatio ex nihilo doesn't occur naturally, but God can do it. End of story.

Basically. I am glad other folks have seen through it as well. The OP is simply claiming as a truth what he needs to prove, and his only "proof" is that he has never seen something before. The rest of his "argument" is simply semantics and word-play to cloud the matter.

 

[Shimokita]

Except my analogy didn’t involve criminal activity.

I think you can take out the criminal activity. There is still forgiveness in remaining friends (as opposed to cutting off all contact with the person).

 

[Hammster]

I think you can take out the criminal activity. There is still forgiveness in remaining friends (as opposed to cutting off all contact with the person).

I never said all contact was cut off.

I think you are deliberately missing the point.

 

[Shimokita]

I never said all contact was cut off.

I think you are deliberately missing the point.

I disagree with the point, obviously.

 

[Hammster]

I disagree with the point, obviously.

Which is fine.

 

[Moral Orel]

To be totally honest, I feel like I'm in over my head here. I don't know the subject matter of causality all that well. But it seems to me that if you're saying I might come up with a logical framework, and that the burden is on me to do so, you haven't really made a case. If you can't explain why it's impossible without any input from me, then your argument falls flat. I tell you what, talk to me like I'm 9. I won't hold any barbs or sarcasm against you as long as you make a sincere attempt at explaining why it's logically contradictory.

Something has to be acted on because there must be a material cause, although that of course has become the point in question for some reason.

Exactly. Maybe I'm just not up to snuff on my four causes, but why does there have to be a material cause? Is this conception of causality the only possible conception? If so, why?

Don't mix up empirical science with logic. This is a logical issue we're working through - at least you've certainly been treating it that way. In logic, it is fatal if something is not well-defined. For a simple example, suppose I define n to be the prime number that is divisible by four. Is n well defined? Can we not declare that n does not exist?

Causality, though, is not an object like n. Causality is a function. But functions also need to be well-defined. For example, suppose f(a÷b)=a for all a and nonzero b. Then f(1/2)=1, but f(2/4)=2, so 1=2. The function is not well-defined. Do you suggest we wait around for future generations to figure it out? Is it an appeal to ignorance to say that the function is not well-defined?

Fingers snapping would be an efficient cause and clay would be a material cause, so no, they're not linked.

Are we done with this analogy though? I really need to see you encode this non-input causality into a logical framework. I do not think you can do it. It's simply not well-defined.

See, you keep saying "not well-defined", and then asking me to define it. Is it impossible to define, or can you simply not think of a way to define it? Because it looks like it simply isn't defined, not that it is poorly defined, or impossible to define. So I'll just say it now, I personally can't think of a way to define it either. What does that mean? I don't know and you don't know, so what conclusion should our ignorance lead us to?