Is "God" a Cogent Concept?

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
no, no, no sir you don't get to say there is a contradiction yet never say what the contradiction is. you must lay out your argument for why there is contradiction. 90 percent of people who say their is a contradiction in the bible for example, can't actually declare what verse the contradiction is in. they just heard it. Well just hearing it from other people is what is called in debates, "hearsay." It's not proof.
Okay, you want contradictions? God being all powerful entails it can do all things, including the logically impossible, the only way to get around that is goalpost shifting to say God is logical and thus cannot do that, but that wasn't established prior, it's ad hoc.

God being all knowing entails that human free will is not even illusory, it's impossible with the foreknowledge God has plus its sovereignty over events in general.

God being perfectly just and perfectly loving/merciful cannot both be the case, because perfect justice entails no possibility of mercy, which is the suspension of enforcing justice impartially.

God is said to not be an author of confusion, yet it made humans that literally, in the Babel folklore, led to the confusion of languages, which God itself did, so it very much authored confusion, in a similar vein to plenty of other examples one can find, such as speaking metaphorically to Adam and Eve in regards to their deaths and expecting them to think the opposite, rather than conveying it clearly as an all knowing and all powerful being can do

I don't even need to get into the bible, arguably, it's just so easy when you have 66 books written over 100s of years and people have to bend over backwards to make it seem internally consistent when over half of it isn't even from Christian thought, but their leeching from Jewish traditions and "prophecies"
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Okay, you want contradictions? God being all powerful entails it can do all things, including the logically impossible, the only way to get around that is goalpost shifting to say God is logical and thus cannot do that, but that wasn't established prior, it's ad hoc.
God can't do alot of things, being all powerful does not mean He can contradict Himself. For instance He cannot create a square circle, or a round square. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot pick it up. It's not a value of power, it's a value of contradiction, in creating a rock that he can't pick up you are nullifying his power and limiting it. So it self defeats in all occasions. Again it's not about power, and it's not about logic but it's about contradicting premises.

God being all knowing entails that human free will is not even illusory, it's impossible with the foreknowledge God has plus its sovereignty over events in general.
The Bible says in romans that HE "predestined us according to foreknowledge." For example He picks the best players for his game. He knows that they had practiced, that they are naturally gifted to play the sport, and He has seen their track record, and He also sees how they will play in the future, so He picks those team members. Say time is linear, and it's like a parade. Being outside of time, you can see which float will come around the corner before it happens. Simply by nature of being outside of the time line of the parade (above it in the air). God is outside of time all together. So He sees that we will have an aptitude to either accept or reject Him. He chooses those who do choose Him. That is what the verse says in romans, He foreknows us. He knows before hand what we will choose, and He chooses those people who won't change their mind when it gets tough, but those who overcome in faith.

God being perfectly just and perfectly loving/merciful cannot both be the case, because perfect justice entails no possibility of mercy, which is the suspension of enforcing justice impartially.
I see merciful judges all the time. For example if you have no criminal record they will have a lesser time in prison. That does not mean they are a bad Judge, if anything it means that they are wiser for taking into consideration weakness of a situation versus inherent evil in a person. If a human Judge can be more just by exhibiting mercy, then God would be the supreme example of this.
God is said to not be an author of confusion, yet it made humans that literally, in the Babel folklore, led to the confusion of languages, which God itself did, so it very much authored confusion,
The context on the verse that says He is not the "author of confusion" involves speaking in tongues in church, with no interpreter and/or having everyone speak in tongues in an un organized way. That would just be confusing bable. So again that does not mean God cannot allow us to be confused. That is stretching the passage. God has allowed at least a hundred variants of christianity, mormons, jehovah's witnesses, seventh day adventist, Churches of God, you name it. God has also allowed thousands of other religions to exist. So I don't think that that verse means that God does not allow us to be confused. I believe the context was inside a church setting, it should be in order and not confusing regarding speaking in tongues and doing gifts like prophetic words.
in a similar vein to plenty of other examples one can find, such as speaking metaphorically to Adam and Eve in regards to their deaths and expecting them to think the opposite, rather than conveying it clearly as an all knowing and all powerful being can do
See we are a trinity, we are spirit, soul, and body. When adam and eve sinned, the spirit part died, and we only had a soul and a body after that. So part of that trinity died. When we are born again, that spirit side is brought to life again. It is that spirit side that allows us to live eternally, without it, we cannot possibly get heaven. When you are born into this world you become your father and mothers child, when you are born again you become God's child.
I don't even need to get into the bible, arguably, it's just so easy when you have 66 books written over 100s of years and people have to bend over backwards to make it seem internally consistent when over half of it isn't even from Christian thought, but their leeching from Jewish traditions and "prophecies"
yes half of it predated christianity, so again saying it leeched from Jewish tradition is not a bad thing. But yes there are two testaments, and two religions. In the millenium Jews will rule and reign from the royal land grand given them in Jerusalem with the acreage attached to each of the tribes. Christians will rule and reign from the New Jerusalem. Jews that become messianic will also be glorified and become part of the Bride of Christ and become co heirs in Christ. I can't see the possibility of Jews however not accepting Christ, as He will literally be sitting on the throne of David right before them. So again they will all be grafted into the church body. After a 1000 year millenium, where we have a theocracy, with Christ as the head and as Christians as presidents, governors and mayors. Many will come to Christ. Many will not like the fact that abortion is outlawed as well as homosexuality, and most likely athiesm will be outlawed at that time. I can't imagine saying, there is no God but Jesus is an alien, and the christians who are now glorified are also aliens invading the planet. At the end of the millenium no doubt satan will be released and promote a similiar conspiracy theory to collect followers who will stand against Christ in a last stand. Armeggedon. After that the millenium will conclude and Jew and Christian alike will enjoy eternity with Christ in heaven and the marriage of the church to Christ. The father will also be there on the throne and the Spirit. At that point death (sheol) and HEll (Hades) will be tossed into the lake of fire (gehennah). And all the wicked dead will be resurrected and be given immortality at that point, to be able to endure the furnace without being consumed. That will be their fate.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Not sure how the simplicity of a concept necessarily indicates the truth of it when Aquinas seems to be engaging in much equivocation of qualities to get around God's circular nature in reference to itself as being necessary, its essence and form being identical, etc. The reference to scripture as somehow an indication of God in itself is proceeding from the assumptions that Aquinas' initial demonstrations of God through his 5 ways is necessarily going to be accepted, I'd almost think you should start there rather than assuming God is a cogent concept already (which even Aquinas' explanations would assume more than is warranted, proceeding from anthropomorphism and an unmoved mover, among other related notions)

And if God is simple, then one has to wonder why Aquinas has to delve into philosophically dense explanations for something that should be easily explained, unless he uses a far more obscure use of simple in that God is some singular essence (even though the Trinity would contradict that, barring more Aristotelian nuances that only make it cogent post hoc from the historical context where that wasn't necessarily the thought process used. What of Augustine's Platonist Christianity and the justification therein?)
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
God can't do alot of things, being all powerful does not mean He can contradict Himself. For instance He cannot create a square circle, or a round square. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot pick it up. It's not a value of power, it's a value of contradiction, in creating a rock that he can't pick up you are nullifying his power and limiting it. So it self defeats in all occasions. Again it's not about power, and it's not about logic but it's about contradicting premises.

Then why even use the term ominpotence at all if what you really mean is God cannot contradict itself, which is just saying it is absolutely consistent? God's power has limitations based on its nature, it means God is not the absolute ontologically perfect being one would conceive of

The Bible says in romans that HE "predestined us according to foreknowledge." For example He picks the best players for his game. He knows that they had practiced, that they are naturally gifted to play the sport, and He has seen their track record, and He also sees how they will play in the future, so He picks those team members. Say time is linear, and it's like a parade. Being outside of time, you can see which float will come around the corner before it happens. Simply by nature of being outside of the time line of the parade (above it in the air). God is outside of time all together. So He sees that we will have an aptitude to either accept or reject Him. He chooses those who do choose Him. That is what the verse says in romans, He foreknows us. He knows before hand what we will choose, and He chooses those people who won't change their mind when it gets tough, but those who overcome in faith.

Outside of time is incoherent, we only understand things cogently as they proceed in some measure of time, God not existing in ANY time is vastly different than trying to argue God exists in, say, meta-time, which would at least be reasonable

So unconditional election, then? Seems even worse if the situation is such that God literally predestined most people to fail utterly and just show off its own glory. Less a contradiction and more an indication of a morally bankrupt deity

I see merciful judges all the time. For example if you have no criminal record they will have a lesser time in prison. That does not mean they are a bad Judge, if anything it means that they are wiser for taking into consideration weakness of a situation versus inherent evil in a person. If a human Judge can be more just by exhibiting mercy, then God would be the supreme example of this.

Like I pointed out, mercy is the suspension of justice, it is not enforcing it impartially. Human jurisprudence can argue this point and it makes sense, but God is meant to be morally perfect, so God should not, if we're going with the idea of its nature being good, be able to remotely tolerate injustice and thus could not reasonably exercise mercy without contradicting its essence of being just.

Perfect justice is not the same as justice in a human context, you're trying to suggest mercy applies to God in even a rough parallel to human mercy, but the notion that forgiveness is divine seems strongly to contradict the idea that the divine cannot countenance evil and thus cannot forgive it (unless they make loopholes with scapegoating themselves or whatever other soteriological mental gymnastics).

Analogical examples don't work when you're rendering the example of "God" as such that it has to be perfect and thus cannot be applied in terms of human thinking (making it so you don't really have to address it, but just apply circular logic to deflect)
The context on the verse that says He is not the "author of confusion" involves speaking in tongues in church, with no interpreter and/or having everyone speak in tongues in an un organized way. That would just be confusing bable. So again that does not mean God cannot allow us to be confused. That is stretching the passage. God has allowed at least a hundred variants of christianity, mormons, jehovah's witnesses, seventh day adventist, Churches of God, you name it. God has also allowed thousands of other religions to exist. So I don't think that that verse means that God does not allow us to be confused. I believe the context was inside a church setting, it should be in order and not confusing regarding speaking in tongues and doing gifts like prophetic words.

Ah, so God can be an author of confusion otherwise, which seems to suggest God is able to be handwaved away as to consistency in any way because you can just say we don't understand it (ignotum per ignotius)

You're effectively proving my point in claiming your perfect deity intentionally let the world be confusing and then expects people to find one particular truth in all that by "revelations" that are demonstrably unreliable in what they say as being unique in any sense. Ascribing perfection to anything inevitably leads to contradictions in following through

See we are a trinity, we are spirit, soul, and body. When adam and eve sinned, the spirit part died, and we only had a soul and a body after that. So part of that trinity died. When we are born again, that spirit side is brought to life again. It is that spirit side that allows us to live eternally, without it, we cannot possibly get heaven. When you are born into this world you become your father and mothers child, when you are born again you become God's child.

Could swear the spirit is the animating force (breath of God, essentially), not the essence of us that is intertwined to a degree with our body

Assuming heaven is desirable isn't helping your case, you have to demonstrate that separately for the idea of your god helping towards that as being beneficial or compelling. Not sure why I'd want to be the child of an entity you've still failed to demonstrate beyond your particular revelatory scripture's claims and your conviction that they are true.



yes half of it predated christianity, so again saying it leeched from Jewish tradition is not a bad thing. But yes there are two testaments, and two religions. In the millenium Jews will rule and reign from the royal land grand given them in Jerusalem with the acreage attached to each of the tribes. Christians will rule and reign from the New Jerusalem. Jews that become messianic will also be glorified and become part of the Bride of Christ and become co heirs in Christ. I can't see the possibility of Jews however not accepting Christ, as He will literally be sitting on the throne of David right before them. So again they will all be grafted into the church body. After a 1000 year millenium, where we have a theocracy, with Christ as the head and as Christians as presidents, governors and mayors. Many will come to Christ. Many will not like the fact that abortion is outlawed as well as homosexuality, and most likely athiesm will be outlawed at that time. I can't imagine saying, there is no God but Jesus is an alien, and the christians who are now glorified are also aliens invading the planet. At the end of the millenium no doubt satan will be released and promote a similiar conspiracy theory to collect followers who will stand against Christ in a last stand. Armeggedon. After that the millenium will conclude and Jew and Christian alike will enjoy eternity with Christ in heaven and the marriage of the church to Christ. The father will also be there on the throne and the Spirit. At that point death (sheol) and HEll (Hades) will be tossed into the lake of fire (gehennah). And all the wicked dead will be resurrected and be given immortality at that point, to be able to endure the furnace without being consumed. That will be their fate

Wow, so Jews are effectively forced by circumstances to be Christian or suffer, that's awfully convenient for a Christian to say will be the case in their eschatology.

But apparently proper grammar will be optional, not even consistently capitalizing or spelling things right. You can go on this ramble, that doesn't demonstrate a thing, it's your assertions against the assertion that you're parasitizing from Judaism, which you regard as just an initial stage, a means to an end, which is abhorrent in how much it trivializes the religion that you NEED to make sense of anything in your own.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
There being some sort of hierarchy isn't the point. It's that there is continual, everlasting bond of love.

Not sure why your particular deity is meant to be some manifestation of love beyond a very particular and skewed idea that any other love apart from agape is inferior.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then why even use the term ominpotence at all if what you really mean is God cannot contradict itself, which is just saying it is absolutely consistent? God's power has limitations based on its nature, it means God is not the absolute ontologically perfect being one would conceive of



Outside of time is incoherent, we only understand things cogently as they proceed in some measure of time, God not existing in ANY time is vastly different than trying to argue God exists in, say, meta-time, which would at least be reasonable

So unconditional election, then? Seems even worse if the situation is such that God literally predestined most people to fail utterly and just show off its own glory. Less a contradiction and more an indication of a morally bankrupt deity



Like I pointed out, mercy is the suspension of justice, it is not enforcing it impartially. Human jurisprudence can argue this point and it makes sense, but God is meant to be morally perfect, so God should not, if we're going with the idea of its nature being good, be able to remotely tolerate injustice and thus could not reasonably exercise mercy without contradicting its essence of being just.

Perfect justice is not the same as justice in a human context, you're trying to suggest mercy applies to God in even a rough parallel to human mercy, but the notion that forgiveness is divine seems strongly to contradict the idea that the divine cannot countenance evil and thus cannot forgive it (unless they make loopholes with scapegoating themselves or whatever other soteriological mental gymnastics).

Analogical examples don't work when you're rendering the example of "God" as such that it has to be perfect and thus cannot be applied in terms of human thinking (making it so you don't really have to address it, but just apply circular logic to deflect)


Ah, so God can be an author of confusion otherwise, which seems to suggest God is able to be handwaved away as to consistency in any way because you can just say we don't understand it (ignotum per ignotius)

You're effectively proving my point in claiming your perfect deity intentionally let the world be confusing and then expects people to find one particular truth in all that by "revelations" that are demonstrably unreliable in what they say as being unique in any sense. Ascribing perfection to anything inevitably leads to contradictions in following through



Could swear the spirit is the animating force (breath of God, essentially), not the essence of us that is intertwined to a degree with our body

Assuming heaven is desirable isn't helping your case, you have to demonstrate that separately for the idea of your god helping towards that as being beneficial or compelling. Not sure why I'd want to be the child of an entity you've still failed to demonstrate beyond your particular revelatory scripture's claims and your conviction that they are true.





Wow, so Jews are effectively forced by circumstances to be Christian or suffer, that's awfully convenient for a Christian to say will be the case in their eschatology.

But apparently proper grammar will be optional, not even consistently capitalizing or spelling things right. You can go on this ramble, that doesn't demonstrate a thing, it's your assertions against the assertion that you're parasitizing from Judaism, which you regard as just an initial stage, a means to an end, which is abhorrent in how much it trivializes the religion that you NEED to make sense of anything in your own.
so again I feel my last post has sufficiently refuted yours. You provide no more facts into the matter, only subjective opinion. I used the definition of God and the Bible as my sources, you however attest to only your opinion. I apologize if I don't view that as an authoritative enough of a viewpoint. If someone else here disagrees that I have sufficiently refuted each of your points, then can tag me in their post regarding it. But again saying things like.....God being outside of time is incoherent. That is a fancy way of saying, I can't refute that so it doesn't make sense to me. And that is not good enough. The universe is space, time and matter. God does not have matter and thus according to the theory of relativity does not have time either. So He can literally see the end from the beginning. If this still in incoherent to you, perhaps this video will suffice, this is a demonstration of how a three dimensional being is superior to a 2 dimensional being, and how being in a higher dimension means you are not bound by the other two and give you unilateral superiourity over the previous dimensions.

 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
so again I feel my last post has sufficiently refuted yours. You provide no more facts into the matter, only subjective opinion. I used the definition of God and the Bible as my sources, you however attest to only your opinion. I apologize if I don't view that as an authoritative enough of a viewpoint. If someone else here disagrees that I have sufficiently refuted each of your points, then can tag me in their post regarding it. But again saying things like.....God being outside of time is incoherent. That is a fancy way of saying, I can't refute that so it doesn't make sense to me. And that is not good enough. The universe is space, time and matter. God does not have matter and thus according to the theory of relativity does not have time either. So He can literally see the end from the beginning. If this still in incoherent to you, perhaps this video will suffice, this is a demonstration of how a three dimensional being is superior to a 2 dimensional being, and how being in a higher dimension means you are not bound by the other two and give you unilateral superiourity over the previous dimensions.

You mistakenly assume you have the only definition of God or that your bible is somehow more authoritative as a source for God than any other source, which is far more arrogant than anything you remotely attribute to me

My opinion is not solely that when you've failed to counter my points, but merely assert you have without addressing the objections I put forward

Do you recognize that you wouldn't see something being outside of tme as cogent in any other context except with God? If you do, then you'd have to realize you're engaging in special pleading.

If you apply scientific principles to God, you're technically limiting it to those principles when it's beyond them if it's truly a perfect entity. How do you know that "God" doesn't have matter? Merely because you can't find anything supporting that in the Bible? How is that remotely reasonable?

God being able to see everything at once would mean it has to exist in a frame where it can reference time rather than being outside of it entirely. I exist in time, that doesn't mean I cannot recall events from the past. God being able to see the future could just mean it has a great understanding of quantum mechanics, it doesn't mean it deserves worship or is outside of time or space, which would make it essentially nonexistence, since time and space are practically necessary by any reasonable metaphysics in terms of existence as cogent.

I'm not absolutely unlimited in terms of the dimensions I interact with: being 3 dimensional does not throw out the other dimensions as part of those 3 dimensions, it means there's a wider perspective. If you're trying to say your god is 4th dimensional, then you can't reasonably say it exists outside of time and space, because time is generally considered that 4th dimension, so what you're positing is more a pantheistic entity that exists on a higher dimension relative to ours, but is not transcendent
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green

Circular argument in regards to your god already being assumed to exist or only demonstrated after the fact of our understanding of morality requiring some source. A source of morality does not function in a substantive fashion like a source for space and time existing, our capacity to make moral judgments and fail in acting them out is not an indication of a higher standard anymore than the existence of logical absolutes (identity, non contradiction, etc) means there must be a higher mind behind them

The universality of a moral principle is not based in it being a command necessarily, that's one particular meta ethical system that goes to subjectivism and makes the subject a perfect source rather than considering ethics as something we investigate and demonstrate in terms of the standard as something we test in action.

And I don't claim moral standards as being derived from the strawman Lewis tears down, because I understand that morality is necessarily subject based without being utterly relative in the standards we can determine and agree upon, in contrast to turning morality into authoritarian justification where might makes right and God is mighty, so what God says is right in itself (along with just equivocating God and goodness, equally lazy)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You mistakenly assume you have the only definition of God or that your bible is somehow more authoritative as a source for God than any other source, which is far more arrogant than anything you remotely attribute to me
just commonly used definitions.

My opinion is not solely that when you've failed to counter my points, but merely assert you have without addressing the objections I put forward
so now your opinions don't need validation, I quote the Bible and definitions of God. Yet you only use your opinion. Just because your intelligent does not mean you don't need sources.
Do you recognize that you wouldn't see something being outside of tme as cogent in any other context except with God? If you do, then you'd have to realize you're engaging in special pleading.
sir anything that is massless is outside of time. I suggest you do some more research.

If you apply scientific principles to God, you're technically limiting it to those principles when it's beyond them if it's truly a perfect entity.
God can use scientific laws if He so chooses, after all He created them.


How do you know that "God" doesn't have matter? Merely because you can't find anything supporting that in the Bible? How is that remotely reasonable?
It's hard to be omnipresent (everywhere at once if your not massless. Secondly, prophecy of the Bible indicates that God knows the future in advance.

God being able to see everything at once would mean it has to exist in a frame where it can reference time rather than being outside of it entirely. I exist in time, that doesn't mean I cannot recall events from the past.
No actually being outside of time means they don't have to reference time at all. Just like in flat land, how you can hover over a two dimensional flat land, being a three dimensional being.



God being able to see the future could just mean it has a great understanding of quantum mechanics, it doesn't mean it deserves worship or is outside of time or space, which would make it essentially nonexistence, since time and space are practically necessary by any reasonable metaphysics in terms of existence as cogent.
I don't doubt God has a greater understanding of quantum mechanics, After all He created quantums.

I'm not absolutely unlimited in terms of the dimensions I interact with: being 3 dimensional does not throw out the other dimensions as part of those 3 dimensions, it means there's a wider perspective.
yes you do have unlimited capability, simply watch the video again.
If you're trying to say your god is 4th dimensional, then you can't reasonably say it exists outside of time and space, because time is generally considered that 4th dimension, so what you're positing is more a pantheistic entity that exists on a higher dimension relative to ours, but is not transcendent
We exist in a four dimensional universe, three dimensions plus time, God would at least have the ability to go beyond the fourth dimension. Some say there are at least twenty dimensions, and God would have sovereignty over all of them. Because He created them. So time is not needed with God.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Circular argument in regards to your god already being assumed to exist or only demonstrated after the fact of our understanding of morality requiring some source.
You must demonstrate it as circular, just because you mention it as such, does not make it so. And yes morality must have a source, due to laws of cause and affect.
A source of morality does not function in a substantive fashion like a source for space and time existing, our capacity to make moral judgments and fail in acting them out is not an indication of a higher standard anymore than the existence of logical absolutes (identity, non contradiction, etc) means there must be a higher mind behind them
All the above need causality, or original causation. logic, information, morality. It all comes from somewhere, it did not just happen.

The universality of a moral principle is not based in it being a command necessarily, that's one particular meta ethical system that goes to subjectivism and makes the subject a perfect source rather than considering ethics as something we investigate and demonstrate in terms of the standard as something we test in action.
Name one country that does not promote sacrifice, and demote selfish behavior. All cultures universally speaking do so. Why? I can cut in line, and people will yell at me, but I am not a threat to the existence of the whole race, I am just cutting in line. But's it rude. Why is it rude though? Where did that standard come from?

And I don't claim moral standards as being derived from the strawman Lewis tears down, because I understand that morality is necessarily subject based without being utterly relative in the standards we can determine and agree upon, in contrast to turning morality into authoritarian justification where might makes right and God is mighty, so what God says is right in itself (along with just equivocating God and goodness, equally lazy)
I am not sure I understand what your saying, here. Lets get back to why selfishness is wrong, and where we decided that in our history.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Following up on a topic that, in hindsight, could also just expand into 3 topics on their own about apologetics, I thought it'd be helpful to address what is probably one of my major reasons for not really possessing spiritual beliefs, particularly in God, though this criticism can apply to other supernatural concepts, like magic, the afterlife, etc.

Is there a way monotheists, or Christians in particular, can argue that the idea of a single deity is more commonsense than multiple deities, or impersonal forces that permeate the universe and would serve the same function in being the origin of the universe, morality, etc? And how can they reasonably claim their concept of God is an accurate one that all people should believe in and contrast to anything else by claiming demons are deceiving you or the like (which seems awfully convenient to explain away other interpretations, among other tactics)

At best, I recall reading Augustine pointing out some problems that could come up in regards to polytheism in contrast to monotheism, but the problem remains of the "God" concept being arguably circular, irreducible and self referential by nature, which is a particular issue for theology in enumerating God's traits that can be explained in a way that's not subject to more debates (omnipotent has been thrown out, contrasted with maximally powerful, because otherwise God is able to do things that are logically contradictory, and a similar variation with omniscience) or relying on tradition rather than something more self evident.

Natural theology comes up against the same problems, even if we're talking an incorporation of apophatic and cataphatic theology, and that's attempting to invoke a deity that's more compliant with reason

For the simplest manner I can think of to inquire on the problem: in terms of language, why are the solutions to explaining what "God" is sufficient when we wouldn't find them so for things that are also supposed to have great importance (like science or even morality)?

Is God cogent? What kind of question is that? The only way the concept of a god, of any god for that matter, wouldn't be cogent is if none of us was prone to the entropy of mortal life. So, as long as I'm going to die, and I'm pretty darn sure I will, then for me ---- @%* god @%* ---- remains a very cogent concept, even if it isn't a clearly discernible concept and requires a heck of a lot of thinking, contemplating, searching, both inner and outer, to come to grips with what a god, if it exists, could possible be.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Is God cogent? What kind of question is that? The only way the concept of a god, of any god for that matter, wouldn't be cogent is if none of us was prone to the entropy of mortal life. So, as long as I'm going to die, and I'm pretty darn sure I will, then for me ---- @%* god @%* ---- remains a very cogent concept, even if it isn't a clearly discernible concept and requires a heck of a lot of thinking, contemplating, searching, both inner and outer, to come to grips with what a god, if it exists, could possible be.
So God is essentially your way to assuage fears of death, effectively, in your own words? Certainly seems like that, which is, to be frank, painfully simple when evidence strongly suggests the soul is a vacuous concept not based in anything but that fear of death, our brains the source of any notions of self we have
 
  • Winner
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
just commonly used definitions.

That doesn't make the the true definition in any sense beyond mere consensus, which is useless when dealing with an unfalsifiable claim


so now your opinions don't need validation, I quote the Bible and definitions of God. Yet you only use your opinion. Just because your intelligent does not mean you don't need sources.

You quote what you find authoritative, not something that's remotely falsifiable or subject to critical thought in itself that can't be danced around with selective interpretation. If you're expecting a source for everything, you have a bigger problem in terms of discussion that relies too heavily on authority and not basic criticism of thoughts as they are presented even if they aren't working from some particular school of thought, most people aren't nearly that anal

sir anything that is massless is outside of time. I suggest you do some more research.

Vacuums don't have mass, they exist in time, methinks you'd have to demonstrate that otherwise with your sources, because I'm no expert, but I feel like I already undermined that whole point with a simple example

God can use scientific laws if He so chooses, after all He created them.
Again, that's convenient definitions so you don't have to address God's cogency in itself, just be internally consistent with what you already presuppose

It's hard to be omnipresent (everywhere at once if your not massless. Secondly, prophecy of the Bible indicates that God knows the future in advance.

Maybe toss out the bible, I don't take it remotely seriously, you're blowing smoke in regards to any such things, because I don't regard it as authoritative and you've failed to substantiate why it's authoritative in itself

No actually being outside of time means they don't have to reference time at all. Just like in flat land, how you can hover over a two dimensional flat land, being a three dimensional being.

Outside of time means there is no progression at all, you're static essentially, so it becomes nonexistence effectively



I don't doubt God has a greater understanding of quantum mechanics, After all He created quantums.

yes you do have unlimited capability, simply watch the video again.

If I existed in all dimensions, but it's not unlimited, only a greater capacity relative to 1st and 2nd dimensional beings. I don't even have to watch the video to understand the childish analogy
We exist in a four dimensional universe, three dimensions plus time, God would at least have the ability to go beyond the fourth dimension. Some say there are at least twenty dimensions, and God would have sovereignty over all of them. Because He created them. So time is not needed with God

Sovereignty does not entail you aren't subject to something, otherwise you essentially special plead your God into obscurity and contradictions by saying it doesn't require anything, yet it also desires and has human emotions (in a perfect form)[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So God is essentially your way to assuage fears of death, effectively, in your own words? Certainly seems like that, which is, to be frank, painfully simple when evidence strongly suggests the soul is a vacuous concept not based in anything but that fear of death, our brains the source of any notions of self we have

Of course it's simple. You don't think I'm one of the ones who's really claimed otherwise. You didn't think I'm a Fundamentalist did you? I'm not even a Knight of Faith. I'm not even a concerned citizen.

No, I'm just a disturbed philosopher who found Jesus and saw Him as "the most Beautiful Thing" ... I'm also one who is going to tear apart every infectious and insistent diabolical idea he finds around him. And I'm going to use every epistemic, skeptical, analytical and other critical means by which to do so.

I mean this: the Devil shouldn't have done what he did to me way back when. he (little h) shouldn't have picked on ........ "me." That was his mistake, especially since even though I know very well it is only Christ who can take Satan down, I don't care. So, if there are those who'd like Christianity to go away, I'm going to be that hold-out who won't let it go.

How's that for "crazy"? Maybe I'm more or less a "Dark" Knight of Faith ... ? (Hence my constant reference to Ghost Rider ..........................:rolleyes: )
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You must demonstrate it as circular, just because you mention it as such, does not make it so. And yes morality must have a source, due to laws of cause and affect. All the above need causality, or original causation. logic, information, morality. It all comes from somewhere, it did not just happen.

If you already assume God exists as something self evident, you're appealing back to that rather than demonstrating it is the case apart from referencing that a priori rationalization

And morality having a source is not the same as having a standard, a source is spatial, a standard is conceptual

Name one country that does not promote sacrifice, and demote selfish behavior. All cultures universally speaking do so. Why? I can cut in line, and people will yell at me, but I am not a threat to the existence of the whole race, I am just cutting in line. But's it rude. Why is it rude though? Where did that standard come from?

Where assumes a place in space and time rather than something we can demonstrate as a principle we apply to actions in regards to respecting people's autonomy, etc, as essential virtues that are based in a desire for human well being
I am not sure I understand what your saying, here. Lets get back to why selfishness is wrong, and where we decided that in our history

A historical appeal does not demonstrate that your deity is the source of morality in the slightest, because it exists outside of time in the first place. What you're doing is making a leap in logic from a universal aspect of something going to something transcendent that has to be the ultimate source of the concept.

That insinuates that humans thinking up something automatically makes it inferior in itself rather than if it is done on a whim or based on faulty reasoning, whereas a standard of morality based on wellbeing is demonstrable and falsifiable, not an appeal to an authority or command, but consequences and the virtue of considering those consequences as enriching our behavior.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Of course it's simple. I don't think I'm one of the one's whose really claimed otherwise. You didn't think I was a fundamentalist did you? I'm not even a Knight of Faith. I'm not even a concerned citizen.

And the question becomes why the Christian God is somehow more appealing in regards to your fear of death rather than anything else, which makes it utterly subjective, if not outright relative

No, I'm just a disturbed philosopher who found Jesus and saw Him as "the most Beautiful Thing" ... I'm also one who is going to tear apart every infectious and insistent diabolical idea he finds around him. And I'm going to use every epistemic, skeptical, analytical and other critical means by which to do so.

Yeah that ontological pretense is subjective too, because the "most beautiful thing" is no more a rational notion than the "most perfect being" or the like

I mean this: the Devil shouldn't have done what he did to me way back when. he (little h) shouldn't have picked on ........ "me." That was his mistake, especially since even though I know very well it is only Christ who can take Satan down, I don't care.

How's that for crazy.

And why is someone supposed to take your fairy tale notion of a dualistic system where good and evil are personified and fight each other seriously in the first place? It's nice storytelling, but reality doesn't suggest any such thing as to why people behave the way they do in themselves, rather than based on cultural tropes that we absorb
 
  • Winner
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Not sure how the simplicity of a concept necessarily indicates the truth of it when Aquinas seems to be engaging in much equivocation of qualities to get around God's circular nature in reference to itself as being necessary, its essence and form being identical, etc. The reference to scripture as somehow an indication of God in itself is proceeding from the assumptions that Aquinas' initial demonstrations of God through his 5 ways is necessarily going to be accepted, I'd almost think you should start there rather than assuming God is a cogent concept already (which even Aquinas' explanations would assume more than is warranted, proceeding from anthropomorphism and an unmoved mover, among other related notions)

And if God is simple, then one has to wonder why Aquinas has to delve into philosophically dense explanations for something that should be easily explained, unless he uses a far more obscure use of simple in that God is some singular essence (even though the Trinity would contradict that, barring more Aristotelian nuances that only make it cogent post hoc from the historical context where that wasn't necessarily the thought process used. What of Augustine's Platonist Christianity and the justification therein?)

I cannot parse anything you're saying well enough to respond to it, though it seems to amount to "God's nature is circular because I say so" and "Aquinas is engaged in equivocation because I say so." Neither objection is meaningful in any way.

Beyond that, you are equivocating on the meaning of the word "simple." When theologians say that "God is simple," they are referring to the doctrine of divine simplicity (i.e., the idea that God has no parts), not claiming that theism can be easily explained. Clearly it can't be. You were asking how theists might argue for monotheism over polytheism, and one of the major methods involves the doctrine of divine simplicity. Trinitarianism actually affirms divine simplicity, since one of the major claims of Trinitarianism is that the three persons do have one identical essence or nature, not three.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And the question becomes why the Christian God is somehow more appealing in regards to your fear of death rather than anything else, which makes it utterly subjective, if not outright relative

Yeah that ontological pretense is subjective too, because the "most beautiful thing" is no more a rational notion than the "most perfect being" or the like
Yes, you're very correct to say that my view of Christ as "the Most Beautiful Thing" is Subjective in the Kierkegaardian sense of the word, but this isn't to sa that it's correct if instead we're trying to apply and imply the colloquial, non-Kierkegaardian sense of the same term.

As for "beauty" being subjective, you're again correct. However, it should be noted for the sake of passersby who may not be familiar with the philosophical field of Axiology, the study of the notion of Beauty within Axiological parameters and hermeneutics, IS a rational engagement. But of course, you already knew this ...

And why is someone supposed to take your fairy tale notion of a dualistic system where good and evil are personified and fight each other seriously in the first place? It's nice storytelling, but reality doesn't suggest any such thing as to why people behave the way they do in themselves, rather than based on cultural tropes that we absorb
They're not "supposed" to. Again, let me repeat. I'm not here to do what other Christians are already doing, even Modern Christians who are taking hold and use modern notions of Apologetics.

I frankly don't think Christian faith is something that is going to come ONLY or MERELY by rational means. It will take MORE THAN that, but not other than or less than that. That is: Christian Faith is a synergy between a one person's application of their own rational means WITH the Transcendent Work of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. So, if this is the case, and I think the New Testament writers pretty much accord with this, then this means that really no one should expect the mere rational application of one's minds to finding answers about what seems or doesn't seem true about Christianity to be the final linchpin on enabling a person to believe in Christ and come to faith.

So, now that you know my position, you can stop asking me why I would expect others to believe, because I don't ...

What I do hope for (and really expect) existentially, on a human to human basis alone, is for everyone to put their critical thinking caps on and apply the same sauce to their own gander as they do when saucing someone else's goose. You see, I've already done this to my Christianity, which is why I'm an existentialist; and now, understanding what I understand, I'm going to apply the same sauce to the epistemic structures of disbelief. And if I'm the only one who's going to do this, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0