Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's fine, but keep in mind they may reappear in quite unusual ways.To be blunt I don't concern myself with your problems with the human constructed 'language' of logic.
Essentially the conclusion would be that one of the premises doesn't conclude what you might think it concludes.However I am very much concerned with what must be true and what must be not true given that a certain premise is true...I am concerned with assertions about the properties of your god that unequivically can be reduced to the following:
P => Q
R => S
S => ¬Q
Actually there's an issue with the definition (e.g., the problem above).Given: R and P are true
An example...let P be the statement 'G'od is omnipotent, then Q is the conclusion it can do all things
R is the statement 'G'od is omniscient, then S is the conclusion it knows all things
Now then, if your god is omniscient it knows all things and so it must know even what actions it itself shall perform (from it's own perspective) such that if your god sees itself do X then for all actions it performs, the resultant outcome will be that it does X..ie; for all Y=/=X 'G'od cannot do Y given it knows it will do X. (otherwise if it knows it will do X, and then instead does Y then it did not know it would do X in the first place)
This can then be expressed as S => ¬Q
That's fine, but keep in mind they may reappear in quite unusual ways.
Essentially the conclusion would be that one of the premises doesn't conclude what you might think it concludes.
Actually there's an issue with the definition (e.g., the problem above).
As you must realize, omnipotence is not the tenet that God does all things He can do. It's simply an assertion that nothing is beyond His power to perform. Telling me he can't do something meaningless or inconceivable is simply going beyond the language limitation, we'd probably agree there.
As you point out, what God actually does, that does not impact on His capability, that is, His power to do any of the other alternatives. That purely impacts from God's will to do one of the alternatives.
To say Britain were capable of bombing France would not conclude that it must ever carry out the bombing of France to actually be considered capable.
There're multiple issues with this argument, Grega.I know what the assertion is and do not make the assumption he does all things he can do, I merely point out that were he to perform some things that omnipotence implies he is capable of doing then your god would contradict itself.
There're multiple issues with this argument, Grega.
The most serious issue is that ability isn't actuality. "He would contradict himself" doesn't mean the ability -- the power -- to do so is somehow drained from him.
Omnipotence is about ability, not actuality. "He could" doesn't mean "he did".
There's no contradiction in saying a gallon of gas will take my car 30 miles in any direction. The only contradiction lies in attempting to use the gas to go 30 miles in every direction.
I do address the problem -- the question is one of capability, not will.You do not address the problem...I am saying that if your god knows it does X, then to do Y would contradict its knowing of itself doing X. Having the ability to do Y here is merely pseudo-ability, this ability cannot be exercised without its prior knowledge being incorrect.
True. Omnipotence does not accede that God may do things His will does not wish to do.Given that you accept that 'G'od always knows it will do X, then Y cannot occur. Your 'G'od does not even have the choice of doing Y; for knowing that he will do X, then that choice has somehow already been made.
Will doesn't enter into the definition of omnipotence.If you were to say 'G'od knows lots of things or can do lots of things, but not all things then no problems arise here.
I do address the problem -- the question is one of capability, not will.
It's a question of potency. It's not a question of action.
To assert that God would never do something wrong would not change His potency to do so, should His will so decide -- it would simply assert that God's will is such that none of what He performs would actually be wrong.
True. Omnipotence does not accede that God may do things His will does not wish to do.
Will doesn't enter into the definition of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is not God's actually doing all things. God self-defines and thus self-limits His actions through His will. But God's power to perform any action is unhindered.
Lol, what you define as logical will be unlogical to another. Humans = clueless.
a) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced the Christian 'G'odMY BROTHER,
Please explain to me the "logic" of denying the reality of that which has been experienced by millions over the course of thousands of years as God and His attributes have been.
MAY GOD BLESS AND KEEP YOU,
ephraim
Hi, Grega
There are some insanely clever Christians who will be able to discuss the maths and philosophy of faith, and that's not something I'll ever be able to do... but as I read your OP, it reminded me of a signature I once saw that really had quite a profound affect on my understanding of faith:
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "What?"
To my mind, Christianity is the logical option. Having gone from militant atheist to Christian, I know that it felt like I was forcing it before, whereas this now feels natural. I understand that's anecdotal and in no way persuasive... I just want to explain why, next to the historicity of Christianity and my own experiences, I believe Christianity is the logical option.
But. I don't think it's something that can be pulled apart and examined under a microscope and discussed as if it were a mathematical equation - it can't be intellectualised to this degree: not because it crumbles under scrutiny, but because Christianity is salvation, and it's love... we don't know enough about love to make this something that can be discussed so objectively.
The quote thingie I gave above expresses my views far more saliently than I ever could. While the logic of Christianity, to my mind, is unimpeachable, (meaning God is, yes, far far above logic), it's almost irrelevant. I completely understand what your brother meant - it meant his faith in the Lord is bigger than his faith in man, and what man tells us about the world.
It's impossible to understand God; to examine Him. He won't be found in huge dusty philosophical tomes that are intellectually impressive; but we can see His shadow and His footprint in the people who are willing to get on their knees to help others, and to love the unwanteds, and to forgive the people who hurt them. Examining them is how we can begin to understand who He is.
Green is totally where it's atAgh (you write in green!)...will...not...change my...colour scheme
Not watched that for an age, actually... will have a looksee after this. Yay!btw...your avatar compelled me to watch the jumping elephant on youtube...utter quality!
Green is totally where it's at
I've snipped most of your post... I hope that's ok. Truth is, I don't have answers for much of what you're saying. But I wanted to ask you a question: for a second, assume that Christ really did rise from the dead. Do you think a God that can defy the very nature of death is really bound by the rest of our "scientific laws"?Not watched that for an age, actually... will have a looksee after this. Yay!
This thread is inspired by a conversation I had with my brother today which started with me asking him what sort of Christian was he. Essentially I was curious as to whether he was a hardline fundamentalist or was he a more liberal Christian. His reply demonstrated, to my chagrin, that he is a fundamentalist and through an hour long discourse we had, where I had to justify my problems with what he was trying to sell me; he basically told me there and then that he will not listen to logic, and that all my arguments fail because he believes his god is above logic.
Is this the case with some of [edit] you folks?...Do you hold that some statements about your god can be simultaneously true and NOT true?...can your god be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time? can he be God and NOT God? does your god transcend logic?
If so, how could one possibly expect a person who does value logic, a person who does not see it merely as a human construct, to find truth in any arguments that champion this particular formulation of a god?
Hi Grega,
Interesting question. I also had the same dilemma once, as a new believer. I've been reading through your thread, and wanted to contribute.
Firstly, God transcends logic, in the sense that He transcends the logic we humans have. However, God Himself is logical, very very logical, to a degree that we can't fathom. Why, you might ask?
For one thing, logic is based on knowledge, on truth. For example, if you say that P=Q (a logical statement), this implies that you know that P is always the same as Q. This is true because you have already studied it, or have some source of data to refer to that has proven this relationship to you. Based on this historical data, you assume that the same relationship will hold true in the future as well.
Now, when something happens, that you have no data for, something that happens for the first time, what do you call that? You cannot use logic to determine that. It does not fit, because logic operates on the assumption that what will happen in the future will follow the pattern that has occurred in the past. There is no data to use to develop the relationship that logic needs to work, because the event in question is happening for the first time.
A good example is that of the sun, rising and setting periodically everyday for centuries. If someone told you that the sun would not rise tomorrow, you would say it was illogical, because logically, the sun always rises fromt he east in the morning.
However, what if you had access to the data of the past and the future? Nothing would then be new to you, and you could use logic on everything, because you had the data to predict and develop your logical relationships.
If you knew that the sun would not rise tomorrow, and you already had the data to prove it, that statement would not be illogical to you, but very logical.
God has access to this data, all data. The Bible calls it omniscience, that God knows everything. This can also be explained logically as well, how god can know everything, be everywhere, and be all powerful.
This is why most Christians will say that God transcends logic. Technically He doesn't transcend logic, only our human version of it.
Well that is true, not only for Christians, but for everyone. What you call logic, someone else would have called truth.Hmm...see, I think that for many Christians there is a mix up between 'common sense' and 'logic' They are not the same
My bad.Firstly P=Q does not imply "P is always the same as Q" it simply implies P = Q, nothing more.
Furthermore, unless it is strictly stated that for P = Q to have been true in the past, that P = Q will be true in the future; it would be wrong to infer that simply because you can find no occurance that P = Q was not true, it will be true in the future. This is more an inference based upon common sense (and common sense can betray us)
no, 'common sense' operates on this assumption...not logic!
so what is the difference between common sense and logic?If we were talking about the fallacies of common sense then I'd agree with you...this has nothing to do with the laws of inference, logic however.
No I wouldn't call it illogical, I'd say it defies my experience and knowledge and ask for justification but I would certainly not say it is illogical.
On the otherhand if you were to say "There exists no sun, and the sun will rise in the East" then this would be illogical
I don't find the premise that your 'G'od is omniscient to be illogical taken in isolation, but it's combination with omnipotence leads to paradox (see earlier posts)...again you seem to have a wholly different notion of 'logic'
What I can infer is that it transcends some human's version of it because those humans have the wrong 'notions' of logic to start with as you yourself have demonstrated.
Well that is true, not only for Christians, but for everyone. What you call logic, someone else would have called truth.
Even your idea of logic is different from everyone else's. that is because it is based on what you know, and therefore cannot be the same as anyone else's.
My bad.I should have written "is always equal to" instead of "is always the same". Takes some effort switching between christianese and logicese.
So, as you know that something that holds true in the past will not hold true in the future, your logic is changed by that knowledge. People who don't know this, will still assume that the same will hold true in the future.
so what is the difference between common sense and logic?
Then I did you the injustice of assuming you didn't think of that possibility. Apologies.
Would having a new dawn, without the sun do as an illogical statement for you?
It becomes a paradox for you because you don't have the knowledge required to understand it. Even we don't. You call it a paradox, we call it a mystery.
It transcends all human versions of logic, everyone's. Even yours. If it didn't, you wouldn't have "paradoxes" to deal with, my friend.
Yes, my brother, what you say is indeed true. As our Lord exhorts us,a) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced the Christian 'G'od
b) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced some of the other different gods, or claim that such experiences of the Christian god were false and have turned agnostic/atheist, or claim to have had no experience of any gods
c) The set of people for which (a) applies as far as can be measured now is not as big as the set of people for which (b) applies
Therefore if numbers were the only argument I could use to choose a particular belief then it would be incorrect to choose the Christian 'G'od.
Yes, my brother, what you say is indeed true. As our Lord exhorts us,
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matthew 7:13-14)
My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.
A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF CHRIST,
ephraim
Yes, my brother, i understand that it is absolutely necessary to your world view that "it doesn't," and to the atheistic ego-centric outlook on reality that "it can't." Kind of reminds me of the old PeeWee Herman shtik where, when somebody tries to tell him something he doesn't want to hear, his puts his hands over his ears and yells at the top of his lungs, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA."My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.
No it doesn't!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?