above logic???

[AnneSally]

liberal Christian.

That term always seemed like an oxymoron to me....

 

[AnneSally]

Do demons have faith in God? Certainly not. They disbelieve his promise that he will destroy them for their rebellion.

Who said?

 

[AnneSally]

There are some rather cautious in risking their faith by testing it. My own view is that steel sharpens steel.

Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Proverbs 27:17

 

[Grega]

[quote="Grega]Do demons have faith in God? Certainly not. They disbelieve his promise that he will destroy them for their rebellion.

Who said?[/quote]
You quote that as something "Grega" said. It was infact said by Arunma

 

[ephraimanesti]

That term always seemed like an oxymoron to me....

It tis indeed!--sort of along the same lines as a "prayerful atheist."

ephraim

 

[AnneSally]

It tis indeed!--sort of along the same lines as a "prayerful atheist."

ephraim

Lol, yeah...

 

[AnneSally]

You quote that as something "Grega" said. It was infact said by Arunma

Oh, apologies Grega, then my question goes out to Arunma. (I didn't know who said it, the post was formatted a bit confusingly and I didn't know who was stating and who was answering, sorry)

 

[heymikey80]

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.
There is no subtlety to this problem; Omniscience is the statement: has complete and inerrant knowledge of ALL things...If your god has the potential to do Y then he does not know he will do X before the action of doing or not doing Y is made...contradicting omniscience

You're not explaining the nature of the contradiction that you see.

God's omniscience is a knowledge of all things. It's an actuality. God's omnipotence is a pervasive power over all things. It's inherently a potential.

"Can" isn't "does". It's not inherently contradictory to know what someone will do, and yet to recognize someone can do otherwise. For instance I know you will reply. Yet I recognize you can avoid reply. You have the potency to reply, whether you do or not. My knowledge doesn't change that (even if it's faulty ).

 

[Grega]

You're not explaining the nature of the contradiction that you see.

God's omniscience is a knowledge of all things. It's an actuality. God's omnipotence is a pervasive power over all things. It's inherently a potential.

"Can" isn't "does". It's not inherently contradictory to know what someone will do, and yet to recognize someone can do otherwise. For instance I know you will reply. Yet I recognize you can avoid reply. You have the potency to reply, whether you do or not. My knowledge doesn't change that (even if it's faulty ).

Perhaps the problem is you are thinking about this in our terms. Ie: you imagine yourself knowing you're going to do X, but having the potential to do Y
Thing is you don't know you are going to do X. At best you can be pretty darned sure of it but this is not the same as infallibly knowing. You have the potential to do Y precisely because you don't actually know what you are going to do until it is time to do it.
you could perhaps suggest I have grounds to assert "I 'know' I am going see something (anything!) in the future"; but what if at that very precise moment I think of that assertion I instantly collapse and die?...Then my assertion that I knew I would see something in the future was false. I was only 'very sure'

Your god is defined such that it infallibly knows it will do X and this is an incredibly strong statement. It is impossible that your god knows it will do X and has the potential to do Y for if it did have such potential then it didn't know it would do X in the first place. It was instead 'very sure'.

 

[Chesterton]

Your god is defined such that it infallibly knows it will do X and this is an incredibly strong statement.

Yes, but you're the one defining Him that way here. I mean I don't think you'll find the words omniscient or omnipotent in the Bible. What you find are poetical statements such as He "knows the beginning from the end" and He is "Almighty". You have some extremely technical, odd ideas you've concocted or gotten from somewhere other than Christian theology.

 

[Grega]

Yes, but you're the one defining Him that way here. I mean I don't think you'll find the words omniscient or omnipotent in the Bible. What you find are poetical statements such as He "knows the beginning from the end" and He is "Almighty". You have some extremely technical, odd ideas you've concocted or gotten from somewhere other than Christian theology.

But I have heard people formulate their god in this way...and it has severe consequences when I make another point and they counter with "ah but God is omniscient so..."

Furthermore the argument of omniscience or even "knows the beginning from the end" can be combined with the statement "we have free will" and a contradiction arises (as I argued at length some time ago)

I say if 'G'od exists then it does not have these properties you and others attach to it.

 

[Chesterton]

Are you familiar with Anselm's ontological argument? It occurred to me that if you hold so strictly to the idea of a logical contradiction making a thing impossible, then you're bound to accept that argument for the existence of God.

To spice it up: remember that the greatest imaginable being would be one who, among other things, could perform or execute logical contradictions.

 

[Grega]

Are you familiar with Anselm's ontological argument? It occurred to me that if you hold so strictly to the idea of a logical contradiction making a thing impossible, then you're bound to accept that argument for the existence of God.

To spice it up: remember that the greatest imaginable being would be one who, among other things, could perform or execute logical contradictions.

Are you familiar with Anselm's ontological argument? It occurred to me that if you hold so strictly to the idea of a logical contradiction making a thing impossible, then you're bound to accept that argument for the existence of God.
Am I hellers like! This argument(?) has been debunked and parodied more than enough that it should be resigned to the steaming garbage dump of nonsense; and any proponents of it be slapped around the head with a mouldy turnip.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument (mickey mouse colouring added by me)
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The argument is circular in that it relies on the premise (1) that something of which nothing greater may be conceived, "God", can actually exist or even be conceived of in the first place. Heres one for you: suppose such a "God" can be conceived...hmm, I think 2 of these "Gods" would be greater than 1!...oops!
drivel!

To spice it up: remember that the greatest imaginable being would be one who, among other things, could perform or execute logical contradictions.
(1) Premise: God is not bound by logic
(2) Conclusion: God is bound by logic (since God is not bound by logic (1) this is a valid conclusion) But this contradicts (1), and since god is bound by logic then this God cannot be contradictory
Therefore God does not exist
Q.E.D


Also...have you ever heard of the principle of explosion Chesterton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

 

[Chesterton]

Am I hellers like!

Is that British slang or rap slang? Sorry, I'm old.

This argument(?) has been debunked and parodied more than enough that it should be resigned to the steaming garbage dump of nonsense; and any proponents of it be slapped around the head with a mouldy turnip.

Well I wasn't intending to be a proponent of it; but it seemed that with your strict adherence to logic you were. However, I'll put on my (American) football helmet just in case you're armed with a turnip.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument (mickey mouse colouring added by me)
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The argument is circular in that it relies on the premise (1) that something of which nothing greater may be conceived, "God", can actually exist or even be conceived of in the first place. Heres one for you: suppose such a "God" can be conceived...hmm, I think 2 of these "Gods" would be greater than 1!...oops!
drivel!

I overestimated you. I hesitated about posting that because I thought you might come back with something more destructive. You should have spent more time thinking, and less time coloring. Try again - that was weak:

1) God can actually exist (to claim otherwise requires proof);
2) I can conceive of that of which nothing greater can be conceived, and I’m no genius, so…; and
3) two of a thing would lessen the greatness of that same thing if it were singular.

(1) Premise: God is not bound by logic
(2) Conclusion: God is bound by logic (since God is not bound by logic (1) this is a valid conclusion) But this contradicts (1), and since god is bound by logic then this God cannot be contradictory
Therefore God does not exist

No, no, the ontological argument assumes that the human mind is bound by logic, not God. Understand? So either your point went over my head, or else plainly, your conclusion contradicts your premise, in which case there’s no need to proceed past the first four words of your (2).

 

[Grega]

I overestimated you. I hesitated about posting that because I thought you might come back with something more destructive. You should have spent more time thinking, and less time coloring. Try again - that was weak:
Ad homs aside I don't need to debunk it more thoroughly...greater people already have...they thought it was plop and so do I

1) God can actually exist You have to demonstrate this (to claim otherwise requires proof); no it doesn't...I need only reject your claim in lieu of correct justification...bear in mind that in case you equivocate; we talk here about "God" for which nothing greater can be conceived not some other two bit pretender god.
2) I can conceive of that of which nothing greater can be conceived, and I’m no genius, so…; and I don't believe you
3) two of a thing would lessen the greatness of that same thing if it were singular. to have 2 great things is better than to have only 1 great thing

No, no, the ontological argument assumes that the human mind is bound by logic, not God. Understand? So either your point went over my head, or else plainly, your conclusion contradicts your premise, in which case there’s no need to proceed past the first four words of your (2).
It went straight over your head

 

[Kodos]

I'm just passing through and don't want to be sucked into this one ... but how is it a contradiction that we have Free Will and at the same time God knows what will happen?

I always liken that to my knowing how my best friends will react in almost any situation. Even without any input from myself. Now, they made the decisions themselves (for instance, if my Apple fanatic friend had a choice between an iPod and a Zune ... I am telling you the iPod will be bought. Actually, replace Apple fanatic with average human being and the result is usually the same ) and I didn't meddle in it.

Take that sort of knowledge, amplify it to +INF and then you have some idea of how God's knowledge of the future and Free Will can co-exist quite well.

Having worked in simulator technology, and seeing how good simulators are getting ... I can tell you, it's not a leap even with science to create a pretty good human simulator / predictor. And God's a better scientist than we are

Furthermore the argument of omniscience or even "knows the beginning from the end" can be combined with the statement "we have free will" and a contradiction arises (as I argued at length some time ago)

I say if 'G'od exists then it does not have these properties you and others attach to it.

 

[Grega]

I'm just passing through and don't want to be sucked into this one ... but how is it a contradiction that we have Free Will and at the same time God knows what will happen?

I always liken that to my knowing how my best friends will react in almost any situation. Even without any input from myself. Now, they made the decisions themselves (for instance, if my Apple fanatic friend had a choice between an iPod and a Zune ... I am telling you the iPod will be bought. Actually, replace Apple fanatic with average human being and the result is usually the same ) and I didn't meddle in it.

Take that sort of knowledge, amplify it to +INF and then you have some idea of how God's knowledge of the future and Free Will can co-exist quite well.

Having worked in simulator technology, and seeing how good simulators are getting ... I can tell you, it's not a leap even with science to create a pretty good human simulator / predictor. And God's a better scientist than we are

I'm just passing through and don't want to be sucked into this one ... but how is it a contradiction that we have Free Will and at the same time God knows what will happen?

I always liken that to my knowing how my best friends will react in almost any situation. Even without any input from myself. Now, they made the decisions themselves (for instance, if my Apple fanatic friend had a choice between an iPod and a Zune ... I am telling you the iPod will be bought. Actually, replace Apple fanatic with average human being and the result is usually the same ) and I didn't meddle in it.

Take that sort of knowledge, amplify it to +INF and then you have some idea of how God's knowledge of the future and Free Will can co-exist quite well.

Having worked in simulator technology, and seeing how good simulators are getting ... I can tell you, it's not a leap even with science to create a pretty good human simulator / predictor. And God's a better scientist than we are

But you don't infallibly know how your friend will act. You are at most very sure!...and you aren't creator of this particular universe for your friend to exist such that he may act in such ways

(for instance, if my Apple fanatic friend had a choice between an iPod and a Zune ... I am telling you the iPod will be bought.
What if evil terrorists kill that friend first???

 

[Kodos]

I'm telling you that if God is the ultimate simulator, then He will know! I'm not claiming to be God. I'm just saying that God knows you better than you know yourself.

If I knew the terrorist in question, I might be able to figure out that my friend was going to get killed. But I don't (are you reading this Homeland Security? I don't know any terrorists. *ahem*). Anyway.

God knows the terrorist, and He knows my friend. God would figure it out.

Or, perhaps a computer simulator that had all of the attributes / chemical reactions / etc... mapped out of all parties involved.

Why is this hard to grasp?

But you don't infallibly know how your friend will act. You are at most very sure!...and you aren't creator of this particular universe for your friend to exist such that he may act in such ways

(for instance, if my Apple fanatic friend had a choice between an iPod and a Zune ... I am telling you the iPod will be bought.
What if evil terrorists kill that friend first???

 

[Grega]

I'm telling you that if God is the ultimate simulator, then He will know! I'm not claiming to be God. I'm just saying that God knows you better than you know yourself.

If I knew the terrorist in question, I might be able to figure out that my friend was going to get killed. But I don't (are you reading this Homeland Security? I don't know any terrorists. *ahem*). Anyway.

God knows the terrorist, and He knows my friend. God would figure it out.

Or, perhaps a computer simulator that had all of the attributes / chemical reactions / etc... mapped out of all parties involved.

Why is this hard to grasp?

I'm telling you that if God is the ultimate simulator, then He will know! I'm not claiming to be God. I'm just saying that God knows you better than you know yourself.
Yes...God is omniscient, he knows everything. That is not the assertion in question. Your analogy is, and the combination with freewill is also.
To provide an analogy of my own...assume you build a computer. You are more than sufficiently intelligent to understand the workings of this computer and have access to, and exhaustive ability to understand all data related to that will affect the operation of this computer. From your perspective, the whole universe you exist in is a closed system. You then build a program and run it knowing what the outcome will be. Can that computer surprise you? or does it have to do precisely as you knew it would?
Same thing with omnipotence and free will

If I knew the terrorist in question, I might be able to figure out that my friend was going to get killed. But I don't (are you reading this Homeland Security? I don't know any terrorists. *ahem*). Anyway.
I was pointing out you didn't actually know your friend would buy an ipod

God knows the terrorist, and He knows my friend. God would figure it out.

Or, perhaps a computer simulator that had all of the attributes / chemical reactions / etc... mapped out of all parties involved.
So they have no choice

Why is this hard to grasp?
for whom?

 

[Chesterton]

Ad homs aside...

Grega, you know I like you, you know I wasn’t attacking ad hom.

I don't need to debunk it more thoroughly...greater people already have...they thought it was plop and so do I

It’s up to you, but if you were to want me to disbelieve it, you in fact do need to debunk it more thoroughly. I’ve seen the errors in the great debunkers that I’m aware of; maybe you know of something I haven’t encountered, or do you have something original to offer? Go ahead and try if it’s important.

You have to demonstrate this

No, according to the argument, I don’t.

no it doesn't...I need only reject your claim in lieu of correct justification

You need only reject my claim? In that case, then I need only reject your claim. I thought we were proceeding based on logic.

...bear in mind that in case you equivocate; we talk here about "God" for which nothing greater can be conceived not some other two bit pretender god.

By definition, “The” God is greater than any other two-bit pretender god.

I don't believe you

You’re calling me a liar, and pointing out my ad homs? How do you know I can’t conceive of the greatest possible being?

to have 2 great things is better than to have only 1 great thing

Nope, just ask a memorabilia or antiques collector.

It went straight over your head

Okay, care to help me out then?