A paradox

[William_0]

Well science can be wrong and works on certain assumptions, such as all things having a physical cause.

If I were to be more careful with my wording I might say that God is a force outside of the realm of science and so the laws of science (which may be wrong anyway) don't apply to Him.

Yeah I understand what you're saying. If I may alter it a bit, if God lies outside of the bounds of physical being (the three dimensions that we can perceive), the conditions of such an outlying realm are so unfathomable, that our human capacity could not even comprehend them. No living human has been in the realm of any higher power. I don't believe, if God exists, that his person is constrained by physical laws. And where, or when, he exists, his actions may defy any principles that we believe to be logical due to the different constraints.

To formalize this argument
1. Humans operate based on their experiences
2. Living human beings are constrained to three dimensions of existence
3. God exists outside of our physical existence
4. It is likely that the realm of God is so radically different from our own, that we cannot comprehend it. (i.e. - Fundamental laws of anything are irrelevant.)
5. We cannot assume that God operates under any form of logic comprehensible to us.

 

[JasperJackson]

There are other things God cannot do too. He can't sin, he can't let unrepentant sinners into heaven. Not because he's physically weak but because it goes against his character. That's the problem with philosophy students... they like to keep things very simple, hence they use words like omnipotent. That ain't in the Bible. They really need to dig deeper to get to know God before they start asking questions about him.

 

[William_0]

There are other things God cannot do too. He can't sin, he can't let unrepentant sinners into heaven. Not because he's physically weak but because it goes against his character. That's the problem with philosophy students... they like to keep things very simple, hence they use words like omnipotent. That ain't in the Bible. They really need to dig deeper to get to know God before they start asking questions about him.

The whole problem with this argument is that academic Philosophy traditionally does not use the Bible as evidence for arguments. It's frowned upon to support an argument with a piece of literature that is not academically considered as fact. You may be able to make a hybrid philosophical-religious argument based on the Bible, but not a strictly philosophical argument.

And I take slight offense to your comment about Philosophy students. I'm a double major in Political Science and Philosophy, and Philosophy is far more complex than you know.

 

[JasperJackson]

And I take slight offense to your comment about Philosophy students. I'm a double major in Political Science and Philosophy, and Philosophy is far more complex than you know.

Fair point. I really only meant they keep it simple with respect to Christianity in that they do not seek to know what Christians truly believe, i.e. they don't look at the Bible (save a few selected verses).

 

[Yarddog]

Hi there
Im currently studying philosophy at college and we have come to the point where we start to look at the idea of God and the origins of the ideas.
One philosopher ponited out a paradox as follows,
If God is all powerful, could He creat a stone so big that he can not lift?
this causes problems which ever answer us Christian would give, if he can, then He is not powerful enough to lift it, if not then He doesnt have enough power to create it.
how would we as Christians over come this?

p.s we will be looking at responces soon

Why would an All knowing God waste his time creating something that would be of no use to anyone?

 

[wayseer]

im unsure of what epistemology is so i guess i havnt come across that yet.the class does seem to be attcking God on many levels, but the idea of God always gets the uper hand in the end. i think its down to people's ignorence and refusel to accept these ideas that fuels the arguments against Him.

Philosopher is not about God. Theology is what you need to study if you wish to study about God.

Epistemology is about how we organize our understanding - if your are studying philosophy you will need to understand how you arrive at your conclusions.

 

[bricklayer]

Your question is more demonstrative of litterary technique than philosophical pursuit.

It does however demonstrate the litterary technique Non-Sense.

Non-sense is that which can be said but not done, by definition.

... nor can God make a round triangle.
You see, we have a capasity for nonsense.

It is not correct to say of God that He can do anything.
He makes no such claim.
It is correct to say of God that He can do anything that can be done.

To claim that God "can do anything" is to claim, among other things, that God can change,
which is non-sense.

 

[William_0]

Your question is more demonstrative of litterary technique than philosophical pursuit.

It does however demonstrate the litterary technique Non-Sense.

Non-sense is that which can be said but not done, by definition.

... nor can God make a round triangle.
You see, we have a capasity for nonsense.

It is not correct to say of God that He can do anything.
He makes no such claim.
It is correct to say of God that He can do anything that can be done.

To claim that God "can do anything" is to claim, among other things, that God can change,
which is non-sense.

I would challenge your claim that God cannot change. If we assume that the Holy Spirit is present in all of the physical world, and said world is constantly changing, the Holy Spirit, i.e., God, is constantly changing.

From a social perspective as well, the conception of God had been, and is changing. God has seen thousands upon thousands of incarnations in societies around the world. In that sense, God has evolved and changed. Even in Christianity, the radical transition from the Jewish God to a Christian God has shown God's different incarnations. Christianity has only been around for two-thousand years, and I don't think that we can discredit pre-existing conceptions of religions that have existed for millennia, strictly in lieu of our own young notions of God.

 

[bricklayer]

Not only does God not change but everything else does.
The God of the bible does not change.
If you believe in a god that can change, we believe in different gods.

 

[JasperJackson]

Don't confuse human perceptions of God with God himself.

The idea that there was a radical transition of God's character once Jesus came is a myth that is only put forward by the biblically illiterate.

 

[William_0]

Don't confuse human perceptions of God with God himself.

The idea that there was a radical transition of God's character once Jesus came is a myth that is only put forward by the biblically illiterate.

So you're suggesting that gods of other religions are either false or separate entities? The Jewish people have a different conception of God than Christians do. Yet both religions share the old testament.

And Patronizing and calling people illiterate is not in the least bit productive.

 

[JasperJackson]

So you're suggesting that gods of other religions are either false or separate entities?

Of course! I'm a Christian.

The Jewish people have a different conception of God than Christians do. Yet both religions share the old testament.

Yes but that doesn't mean God's character has changed. All it means is Jews need to go back to their scriptures, study the prophecies and discover that Jesus was in fact the Messiah they were waiting for.

And Patronizing and calling people illiterate is not in the least bit productive.

Apologies for my tone, but I stand by the content of what I said.

 

[William_0]

Of course! I'm a Christian.


Yes but that doesn't mean God's character has changed. All it means is Jews need to go back to their scriptures, study the prophecies and discover that Jesus was in fact the Messiah they were waiting for.


Apologies for my tone, but I stand by the content of what I said.

I guess this is more of an issue of personal belief. So I'll leave it at that, before this thread derails off-topic.

 

[bricklayer]

At 20yrs old, I'm sure you're familiar with an anthropomorphism,
an assinging to, in this case, God human-like physical characteristics.

You may well be familiar with an anthropopathism,
an assigning to, in this case, God human-like changing feelings, a sequence of moods.

Least known, and most misunderstood is an anthropoisis,
an assigning to, in this case, God human-like changing ideas, a sequence of ideas.

God has no sequence of ideas.
God has no sequence of feelings.
God is holy.
God's holiness is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
God is pure actuality with no potentiality.
God has no potential to not exist, no potential to change.

A sovereign-God cannot not know or come to know.
For such as chance to exist, God would be subject to it, such is not a sovereign-God.

 

[William_0]

At 20yrs old, I'm sure you're familiar with an anthropomorphism,
an assinging to, in this case, God human-like physical characteristics.

You may well be familiar with an anthropopathism,
an assigning to, in this case, God human-like changing feelings, a sequence of moods.

Least known, and most misunderstood is an anthropoisis,
an assigning to, in this case, God human-like changing ideas, a sequence of ideas.

God has no sequence of ideas.
God has no sequence of feelings.
God is holy.
God's holiness is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
God is pure actuality with no potentiality.
God has no potential to not exist, no potential to change.

A sovereign-God cannot not know or come to know.
For such as chance to exist, God would be subject to it, such is not a sovereign-God.

But if God has no sequence of ideas nor feelings, then what is the Bible based on? If the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the Bible, then there must be some kind of logical backing to it. The lack of a sequence of ideas suggests that God has no conception of logic, and therefore is not a sapient being. Likewise, if God does not have feelings, then he is unable to show mercy or compassion, which is in complete opposition of generally held Christian beliefs. And for the rest of your argument, I don't at all follow.

 

[bricklayer]

Good point young man.
God is certainly a God of order.
There is an ontological order to God's ideas, that is that one idea follows logically another
and we see that played out in His creation, over time;
but there is no chronological order of God's coming to know His ideas.
It can, at first, be an awkward intellectual coordination,
having a sequence of ideas about a being who has no sequence of ideas.
But such is shedding an anthropoisis.

A good intellectual posture to help is to remember that God is present.
Not only is God omni-present physically, He is present temporally.
From God's perspective everything is present tense, everything is present.
God does not "look ahead" or "remember".
These are anthropoisis - an assigning to God a sequence of ideas.

 

[William_0]

Good point young man.
God is certainly a God of order.
There is an ontological order to God's ideas, that is that one idea follows logically another
and we see that played out in His creation, over time;
but there is no chronological order of God's coming to know His ideas.
It can, at first, be an awkward intellectual coordination,
having a sequence of ideas about a being who has no sequence of ideas.
But such is shedding an anthropoisis.

A good intellectual posture to help is to remember that God is present.
Not only is God omni-present physically, He is present temporally.
From God's perspective everything is present tense, everything is present.
God does not "look ahead" or "remember".
These are anthropoisis - an assigning to God a sequence of ideas.

I'm sorry but to attempt to understand what you're trying to say, I need to know what "anthropoisis" is. I cannot find any references to this term. Is the spelling off? I assume you're referring to anthropomorphism, and in that case, it would refer to assigning human characteristics to God, which would mean that God acts in a predictable human-like manner.

 

[bricklayer]

Anthopoisis is human-like sequential thoughts,
much like anthropopathism is human-like sequential emotions.

 

[William_0]

Anthopoisis is human-like sequential thoughts,
much like anthropopathism is human-like sequential emotions.

But from what reference did you find "anthropoisis."

 

[bricklayer]

You're going back a few decades.
I don't know that Dr. Giesler was the first,
but I do recall that his treatment of the subject, in the first half of the first volume of his systematic theology, was my favorite.

Not to digress too much, but Dr. Norman Giesler's treatment of the philosophical preconditions for theology changed my life and ultimately lead me to fundamentally disagree with him theologically. Kinda of heart breaking really. His treatment of the first-principles of logic reads like the periodic table of reason. To me, they are the elements of reason, the self-evident, the literally undeniables.