Best "Argument" For God?

[ToHoldNothing]

I can understand that arguments for God's existence are in principle either 1) only a first step towards belief in Christianity from an insider's perspective or more than likely, 2) preaching to the choir in a sense of apologetics and not necessarily evangelism towards unbelievers.

But since this is a decent place to collaborate and discuss this sort of thing, what do you think is the best argument for God's existence, even if only to compel one to defend Christianity or at least believe in a mitigated "God"? If you can't decide one, narrow it down to three. Explain in a few sentences why you think the argument is compelling. I will wait until at least 5 people have put forth arguments before replying, so as to give you ample time. Anything from more well known arguments to less known are accepted. Just try to formulate it clearly and succinctly, please.

As a philosophical exercise, purely voluntary and optional, of course, consider at least one critique of your argument/s and see if it has any validity. If you think you are up to the completion of the exercise, see if you can defend against the critique of your argument/s in order to practice some form of philosophical dialectics and apologetics by association.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As per a recent infraction, I will stay within the parameters of posting within my own topics. I'll just have to think up more, won't I, to have more discussions about my childhood faith?

 

[Key]

The problem is , this question has been asked a few times already , I think with the same header.

However, a better question as opposed to what is the best argument for God, as the reality is there is no "Best" only what people feel works for them, would be "what is the best motive to believe in God"

So, the best Motive that I can think of, would be Jesus. Even Jefferson, who did not believe Jesus was God conceded that he was the best moral teacher of all time. Given that, I can't see a problem if the world of humans put aside our petty bickering and self serving ways and followed his teachings.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't think I denied that there were catches to my topic.

I suppose you're right, since there is an experiential and subjective existential aspect to coming to belief in God. Not everyone believes in God for game theory reasons, some people just have a particular relationship style or personality, for example.

Jesus' ethics are, to be fair, not necessarily unique in all aspects. There is a potentially unique ontology, but the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself and having compassion for those less fortunate is not something that comes out of Christianity.

Of course, the respondent objection is that those aren't like Christianity and thus are mistaken. I don't see how you can argue that just because something is different from Christianity that it is automatically dismissable even if it works by your own system of different people coming to similar truths in different ways.

 

[Key]

Jesus' ethics are, to be fair, not necessarily unique in all aspects. There is a potentially unique ontology, but the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself and having compassion for those less fortunate is not something that comes out of Christianity.

I never said he was unique, I said he was the best moral teacher to have existed.

and as for the Treat your neighbor as yourself, while this seems like a simple enough ideal, I don't seem to recall anything that exists about it that predates Christianity, perhaps you can help out on that.

I am well aware of many things that post-date Jesus, and not to say he was the first to say it, but, still it was one of his many solid and sound points, points we have not been able to improve upon.

That's a lot to ask from a layman of any era. I suppose Moses comes close, but he was a goat herder.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I never said he was unique, I said he was the best moral teacher to have existed.

Best is always a bit flexible, but I can agree. I have Thomas Jefferson's Life of Jesus of Nazareth, I just need to read it this winter, since it's relatively short and concise.

and as for the Treat your neighbor as yourself, while this seems like a simple enough ideal, I don't seem to recall anything that exists about it that predates Christianity, perhaps you can help out on that.

Both Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama predate Jesus on this.


"One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself"
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 563 - c. 483 B.C.)

"Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.""
Analects 15.23


Even appears in Hinduism, so honestly, this is not what you're going to call unique on Jesus' part.

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you."
Mahabharata 5,1517

I am well aware of many things that post-date Jesus, and not to say he was the first to say it, but, still it was one of his many solid and sound points, points we have not been able to improve upon.

You mean pre date, and there's little historical doubt there are plenty of ideas that pre date Jesus. And his formulation was focused solely on love, as opposed to a more general covering of all actions, not that I don't see the value in love, but it is a nuanced emotion in different circumstances.

That's a lot to ask from a layman of any era. I suppose Moses comes close, but he was a goat herder.

He was a precusor of Jesus in some sense, one might say. But then he's in the same spiritual family so to speak. Confucius, Siddhartha and Hindu sages are in the Dharmic family, if you will.

 

[Key]

Even appears in Hinduism, so honestly, this is not what you're going to call unique on Jesus' part.

Again, never said unique.

You mean pre date, and there's little historical doubt there are plenty of ideas that pre date Jesus. And his formulation was focused solely on love, as opposed to a more general covering of all actions, not that I don't see the value in love, but it is a nuanced emotion in different circumstances.

The motive would be based on the why you are doing something.

While, yes, the principal of most societies for them to survive is do not do to anyone what you do not want done to you. This is based on the idea that, most people in those times had only their own hands to carry out justice, so if you did them a perceived wrong, they would return the favor, in kind. This can lead to escalation, in the OT, they put a stop on things, to the point of concisely an Eye for an Eye, so that things could not devolve into a leg for a finger, yet, also allow for viable justice to be dispensed.

However, Jesus, wanted people to treat each other justly out of respect and love, not fear of retribution.

But thanks for the heads up, I think it was the wording that was throwing me.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The difficulty is then from your point of view seems to be how I can conclude that I must be compassionate to people, even if the basic logic of the golden rule seems to imply a lex talionis/eye for an eye type of ethics and justice. Am I right?

 

[Key]

The difficulty is then from your point of view seems to be how I can conclude that I must be compassionate to people, even if the basic logic of the golden rule seems to imply a lex talionis/eye for an eye type of ethics and justice. Am I right?

Think of it in the other direction.

As opposed to an Eye for an Eye which places the boundaries of if you take my eye, I'll take yours. So if you do not wish to loose your eye, you do not take someone else. Which like many of the others you listed, this was their "golden rule" and it is a viable rule to be fair.

Jesus however, one could add just put a twist on it, and preached that we give what we what to receive, in the sense if I give you food when you are hungry, and you will give me food when I am hungry.

So it a bit of reverse mentality, as opposed to "Do not do to anyone that you don't want them to do to you" which just prevents people from doing bad things to each other, Jesus said "Do to others what you want done to you" which was placed with the pretense to inspire active positive interaction between people as opposed to simply preventing negative.

I always liked the Jesus taught things, and if you look at the intention, you will see that he's message is an enduring one.

Just something to think about.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Think of it in the other direction.

As opposed to an Eye for an Eye which places the boundaries of if you take my eye, I'll take yours. So if you do not wish to loose your eye, you do not take someone else. Which like many of the others you listed, this was their "golden rule" and it is a viable rule to be fair.

Jesus however, one could add just put a twist on it, and preached that we give what we what to receive, in the sense if I give you food when you are hungry, and you will give me food when I am hungry.

So it a bit of reverse mentality, as opposed to "Do not do to anyone that you don't want them to do to you" which just prevents people from doing bad things to each other, Jesus said "Do to others what you want done to you" which was placed with the pretense to inspire active positive interaction between people as opposed to simply preventing negative.

I always liked the Jesus taught things, and if you look at the intention, you will see that he's message is an enduring one.

Just something to think about.

God Bless

Many seem to posit both versions of the Rule of Consideration of Others As Oneself. Confucius focuses on the negative liberty of not doing to others what you would not have them do unto you, but Siddhartha affirms Jesus' notion: treat others as yourself. The difficulty here remains with the first step, learning to accept yourself as you are, which, to be frank, seems more difficulty with Chrisitanity in the sense of needing God to help you change yourself as opposed to changing from within, but perhaps this is just me again.

Buddhism and Jainism are quite nonviolent religions, so your theory doesn't seem to hold water in that regard. Not even for Hinduism, to be fair. It's not as if they were doing it purely out of fear, as opposed to what makes basic sense, but that's debatable on some level, since we have to discern layers of motives almost. Intuitive and premeditated motives for instance.

 

[Key]

Many seem to posit both versions of the Rule of Consideration of Others As Oneself. Confucius focuses on the negative liberty of not doing to others what you would not have them do unto you, but Siddhartha affirms Jesus' notion: treat others as yourself. The difficulty here remains with the first step, learning to accept yourself as you are, which, to be frank, seems more difficulty with Chrisitanity in the sense of needing God to help you change yourself as opposed to changing from within, but perhaps this is just me again.

You can not seek to change, unless you know what you should change into. Just like you can not reach a destination unless you know where it is your trying to go.

And you can not do something you do not want to do. To serve something greater then yourself lets you overcome the trap and confines of being self serving.

It's not more difficult for a Christian, as they have God to help them change. Needing what you have, or having what you need, makes things happen as they should, don't you think?

Buddhism and Jainism are quite nonviolent religions, so your theory doesn't seem to hold water in that regard. Not even for Hinduism, to be fair. It's not as if they were doing it purely out of fear, as opposed to what makes basic sense, but that's debatable on some level, since we have to discern layers of motives almost. Intuitive and premeditated motives for instance.

These "teachers" were not just teaching to people following their religion, but to anyone willing to listen to wisdom. Just as Jesus did not teach to only Jews, but to the world and anyone with an ear, let them hear.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You can not seek to change, unless you know what you should change into. Just like you can not reach a destination unless you know where it is your trying to go.

And you can not do something you do not want to do. To serve something greater then yourself lets you overcome the trap and confines of being self serving.

It's not more difficult for a Christian, as they have God to help them change. Needing what you have, or having what you need, makes things happen as they should, don't you think?

There is a difference between admitting there are outside forces and effects that condition your willingness to change and saying that there is an outside will that is transcendent of time and space that says it. Again, maybe this is just me, but with Buddhism, anything that affects you is immanent, not transcendent, as far as I understand.

On the last sentence, there is agreement between us. It's a matter of contentment without resignation to circumstances outside yourself all the time. There's a need for discernment; sometimes you must act, sometimes you must not act.

These "teachers" were not just teaching to people following their religion, but to anyone willing to listen to wisdom. Just as Jesus did not teach to only Jews, but to the world and anyone with an ear, let them hear.

I don't think I said otherwise, but I meant there's very little language using the notion of war to communicate their message, unlike Jesus or Moses for instance, and of course Mohammed is quite controversial

 

[Key]

There is a difference between admitting there are outside forces and effects that condition your willingness to change and saying that there is an outside will that is transcendent of time and space that says it.

Calling God an outside entity, is a bit incorrect, as God is both outside of us in the transcendence ideal of "Sitting on the throne of heaven" and has built us in the sense God is all that is, all that is, is God.

I suppose the hardest part of this is to confine God, as you really can't put a box around something that has virtually no limit to it's power. So is can be both the King of heaven and the maker of dirt, we in our limited scope cling to the rules of our physical universe that say a single object can not occupy different spaces at the same time, however, God equally so, transcends this rule and thus can break it. Which is why many people have issues with the trinity.

Again, maybe this is just me, but with Buddhism, anything that affects you is immanent, not transcendent, as far as I understand.

That would be a purely personal view of things as a byproduct of your worldview and religious direction.

I don't think I said otherwise, but I meant there's very little language using the notion of war to communicate their message, unlike Jesus or Moses for instance, and of course Mohammed is quite controversial

You totally lost me on the War thing.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Calling God an outside entity, is a bit incorrect, as God is both outside of us in the transcendence ideal of "Sitting on the throne of heaven" and has built us in the sense God is all that is, all that is, is God.

If you say this, you seem to come dangerously close to what many would call a pantheistic or monistic theism heresy/blasphemy of sorts. If you say God is essentially everything, you take away God's uniqueness, since we would be equal to God in basic metaphysics. Unless you can properly make some kind of distinction, you seem to make a dangerous conflation of humans as individuals, but then saying God is essentially identical to humans as individuals. At best you could argue that we are dependent on God in the Christian theological sense, but not that we are metaphysically identical in any real sense, but only a reflection, which I believe is somewhat what the Hebrew for image means

I suppose the hardest part of this is to confine God, as you really can't put a box around something that has virtually no limit to it's power. So is can be both the King of heaven and the maker of dirt, we in our limited scope cling to the rules of our physical universe that say a single object can not occupy different spaces at the same time, however, God equally so, transcends this rule and thus can break it. Which is why many people have issues with the trinity.

You say virtually no limit, which seems to imply it actually has limits. The problem is therefore how you qualify why the limits are necessary and not accidental to the entity. The common argument is that God cannot make square circles or circular triangles or a duck gator or an cold blooded mammal or other such things that involve a direct contradiction of the nature of the things. In short, God is limited by its own nature, which by humans terms is basically limitless, because we can't perceive it. But there would still be a limit in a necessary sense, not in a contingent sense of something obstructing God from outside. The obstruction is from inside, by basic necessity.

That would be a purely personal view of things as a byproduct of your worldview and religious direction.

I wouldn't say purely personal in the sense of egotism. But there is certainly primacy on human relationships and the personal effects these have on me and others. My interactions with you, for instance,but also interactions with my family and friends IRL or through the internet as well.

I don't see how my worldview is absolutely what determines my belief on
this notion of immanence overriding transcendence, since it would objectively be so. Transcendence takes an excessive leap of faith in something that cannot even be relatively communed with, whereas immanence is able to be directly experienced as an equal, since it is right here before us; the difficulty is our perspective.

You totally lost me on the War thing.

The obvious examples are Jesus speaking of bringing a sword and using language of war pretty explicitly, albeit we also have counter examples, particularly where he noted, those who live by the sword die by the sword. As far as I'm aware, Siddhartha rarely, if ever, uses such explicit imagery of war to communicate his point, though I wouldn't put it past him, since he, not unlike Jesus, teaches by context of the individual, using what is called in Sanskrit or Pali, upaya, translated commonly as skillful means. Not everyone learns teh same way, so you must use different resposnes for the same question. Sometimes you don't even respond, as Siddhartha did with particular questions, either 10 or 14 he considered irrelevant and not requiring an answer.

Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in time

• Is the world eternal?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".
Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in space

• Is the world finite?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".

Questions referring to personal experience

• Is the self identical with the body?
• or is it different from the body?

Questions referring to life after death

• Does the Tathagata exist after death?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

 

[Key]

If you say this, you seem to come dangerously close to what many would call a pantheistic or monistic theism heresy/blasphemy of sorts. If you say God is essentially everything, you take away God's uniqueness, since we would be equal to God in basic metaphysics.

No at all, Paul touches on this, as he says clearly that all can see God though his creation and thus none can claim ignorance. The fingerprint of an artist is left in the cay they worked on, blah, blah, blah, basic idea is that God is in all things, all things lead to God.

Unless you can properly make some kind of distinction, you seem to make a dangerous conflation of humans as individuals, but then saying God is essentially identical to humans as individuals.

We are a part of God in the sense we are part of what is His, under his ownership and created by him, we are not part of him as in we are like him.

You have to understand that God is not confined or forced to sit on a throne, or be a pillar of light in desert, or what have you, God has no limitations.

At best you could argue that we are dependent on God in the Christian theological sense, but not that we are metaphysically identical in any real sense, but only a reflection, which I believe is somewhat what the Hebrew for image means

Actually the bible is quite clear that we are made in his image and likeness. But we do not possess his power or grace. So we are like God in many ways, but still separate because we are beneath him, in many ways our mortal coil, or confines of flesh are in part to blame for this, which is why when we die, we can grow closer to God, (or further way), but in neither case do we become equal to God.

You say virtually no limit, which seems to imply it actually has limits. The problem is therefore how you qualify why the limits are necessary and not accidental to the entity.

I do not like the trap of saying things like All Powerful, that generates a Box God syndrome, or put in other terms, dummies down the nature of God to catchphrases that people do not fully respect or appreciate, like saying Omnipotent, or other such trash talk.

God is vast and to say his abilities are near limitless give an touch of the idea of what we are looking at. The truth is, that God my have limits, if nothing else, we know that God has at the very least placed limits upon himself, and for all we know, God may have established an entire rule book by which he governs our existence, but such things are not known to us.

In this regard, we do not know what the limits of Gods power are so it would be foolish to say something so passe as All Powerful, or Omnipotent.

The common argument is that God cannot make square circles or circular triangles or a duck gator or an cold blooded mammal or other such things that involve a direct contradiction of the nature of the things. In short, God is limited by its own nature, which by humans terms is basically limitless, because we can't perceive it. But there would still be a limit in a necessary sense, not in a contingent sense of something obstructing God from outside. The obstruction is from inside, by basic necessity.

To be blunt, I believe that God could make "2+2 = Banana's" if he wanted to, but he has made the laws that Govern our world, and from what we have seen of God, he has proven his willingness to play by his own rules and within the confines of what he has built.

We will never know why, or what motives he has behind why he does things in the way he does, but again, that is because while we are made in his Image and Likeness, a part of him by right of being his creation, we are still a clay pot to a potter.

I wouldn't say purely personal in the sense of egotism. But there is certainly primacy on human relationships and the personal effects these have on me and others. My interactions with you, for instance,but also interactions with my family and friends IRL or through the internet as well.

I am not God.

But the Bible explains it a bit like this, In a simple manner, if we accept God into us, he is no longer an external entity but becomes a part of our life, God touches us, enters us thought the spirit, to "Light" our soul, we call this the Holy Spirit. At the same time if we reject God, he leaves us vacant, dark, and hallow, as we have requested.

I am sure it is confusing on the outside looking in.

I don't see how my worldview is absolutely what determines my belief on this notion of immanence overriding transcendence, since it would objectively be so. Transcendence takes an excessive leap of faith in something that cannot even be relatively communed with, whereas immanence is able to be directly experienced as an equal, since it is right here before us; the difficulty is our perspective.

Your worldview might not be the only factor, but lets not try to downplay it either.

The obvious examples are Jesus speaking of bringing a sword and using language of war pretty explicitly, albeit we also have counter examples, particularly where he noted, those who live by the sword die by the sword. As far as I'm aware, Siddhartha rarely, if ever, uses such explicit imagery of war to communicate his point, though I wouldn't put it past him, since he, not unlike Jesus, teaches by context of the individual, using what is called in Sanskrit or Pali, upaya, translated commonly as skillful means. Not everyone learns teh same way, so you must use different resposnes for the same question. Sometimes you don't even respond, as Siddhartha did with particular questions, either 10 or 14 he considered irrelevant and not requiring an answer.

again, the need for analogy to explain what people can not comprehend.

Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in time

• Is the world eternal?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".
Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in space

• Is the world finite?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

Pali texts omit "both" and "neither".

Questions referring to personal experience

• Is the self identical with the body?
• or is it different from the body?

Questions referring to life after death

• Does the Tathagata exist after death?
• or not?
• or both?
• or neither?

Can I be largely apathetic about all this? However, this reminsed me of a time when I was working on a septic line, and someone asked me if I believe in pre or post apocalyptic rapture. I leaned the shovel against the dirt, looked him in the eye, and said "Wuttta you want from me? I'm some guy digging a ditch"

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No at all, Paul touches on this, as he says clearly that all can see God though his creation and thus none can claim ignorance. The fingerprint of an artist is left in the cay they worked on, blah, blah, blah, basic idea is that God is in all things, all things lead to God.

Saying all things are ontologically conditioned and dependent on God as Creator is a pretty distinct position than just saying all things are God, God is in all things, which, like I said, can be very easily misconstrued as blasphemy or heresy without qualification afterwards

We are a part of God in the sense we are part of what is His, under his ownership and created by him, we are not part of him as in we are like him.

Then we are only like God in that we reflect God, which is probably one of the most sufficient explanations in some rational argumentation.

You have to understand that God is not confined or forced to sit on a throne, or be a pillar of light in desert, or what have you, God has no limitations

Then my question would stand as I noted before, are you saying it can do whatever it imagines, whatever is possible or whatever it wants period? Whatever is possible makes the most sense, it doesn't limit God except in the sense that the ultimately impossible would seem to counter the notion that God doesn't lie.

Actually the bible is quite clear that we are made in his image and likeness. But we do not possess his power or grace. So we are like God in many ways, but still separate because we are beneath him, in many ways our mortal coil, or confines of flesh are in part to blame for this, which is why when we die, we can grow closer to God, (or further way), but in neither case do we become equal to God.

Like I said above, we could be said to be a reflection, on a mirror, or like God's shadow as I think the hebrew word for image also implies.

I do not like the trap of saying things like All Powerful, that generates a Box God syndrome, or put in other terms, dummies down the nature of God to catchphrases that people do not fully respect or appreciate, like saying Omnipotent, or other such trash talk.

And yet you still use human language to describe God regardless, so you're already in a catch-22 situation, unless you take a more via negativa approach and only describe God by negation.

God is vast and to say his abilities are near limitless give an touch of the idea of what we are looking at. The truth is, that God my have limits, if nothing else, we know that God has at the very least placed limits upon himself, and for all we know, God may have established an entire rule book by which he governs our existence, but such things are not known to us.

When you say near limitless, that necessarily implies you believe there is some limit, even if technically we can't understand it. This seems to contradict the notion of God as the ultimate and absolute, which would have no limits at all. But you say near limitless, so we seem to have a contradiction. I'm reminded of an idea I had that God imposes a requirement upon itself of non interventionism, in a Deistic sense, because it knows its powers would be too great if it intervened in a world that is so below it.

In this regard, we do not know what the limits of Gods power are so it would be foolish to say something so passe as All Powerful, or Omnipotent.

One could believe God is all powerful or omnipotent by virtue of faith by revelation, but of course, I don't think anyone could argue that God is all powerful in a purely philosophical context. At best, you can talk about God's function or role in the universe or transcending it, but you can't talk about specific properties or capacities of God. Which, remarkably, actually could be said to turn the entire discussion of God in beginning philosophy classes upside down. What an idea we've stumbled upon!

To be blunt, I believe that God could make "2+2 = Banana's" if he wanted to, but he has made the laws that Govern our world, and from what we have seen of God, he has proven his willingness to play by his own rules and within the confines of what he has built.

In short, God doesn't lie and isn't the author of confusion, you mean? God necessarily is consistent, philosophically speaking, if we could speak in any sense about God's properties.

We will never know why, or what motives he has behind why he does things in the way he does, but again, that is because while we are made in his Image and Likeness, a part of him by right of being his creation, we are still a clay pot to a potter.

Again, this is where the notion of revelation and faith comes in, and I accept that as an explanation, as long as you argue purely by hermeneutics and not by a logical argumentation.

I am not God.

That much is clear. Neither am I. And that's fine.

But the Bible explains it a bit like this, In a simple manner, if we accept God into us, he is no longer an external entity but becomes a part of our life, God touches us, enters us thought the spirit, to "Light" our soul, we call this the Holy Spirit. At the same time if we reject God, he leaves us vacant, dark, and hallow, as we have requested.

I thought we already technically had God's breath in us, if we're to interpret our existence and animation through God breathing life into us. So in that sense, your metaphor and image makes sense. But still, it's vicarious internal existence, not likened to a parasite or symbiote for that matter.

I am sure it is confusing on the outside looking in.

The same could be said by me to you, but honestly, that kind of pretentious speech doesn't help connect and make genuine dialogue, it just further separates and alienates us from each other, which doesn't help.

Your worldview might not be the only factor, but lets not try to downplay it either.

I didn't try to downplay it, but my worldview hasn't always been this way. At best it's only been this way for a year or so since I read "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. While I'm not convinced of the more Theravadan notions of Buddhist teaching, there are common threads in Buddhism that he brought to my attention as a native and studied Buddhist writer from India.

again, the need for analogy to explain what people can not comprehend.

Analogy has its limits and when speaking of God, it tends to boil down to a feeling of insufficiency and then healing that wound of inferiority by saying we have a connection to God, but that's only a piece of the theory.

Can I be largely apathetic about all this? However, this reminsed me of a time when I was working on a septic line, and someone asked me if I believe in pre or post apocalyptic rapture. I leaned the shovel against the dirt, looked him in the eye, and said "Wuttta you want from me? I'm some guy digging a ditch"

Then we might be in agreement. I put on my profile I was a cosmological noncognitivist. Basically that means that I believe speaking about thebeginning of the world is incoherent, because it means speaking about a point we can't think about, before time and space existed. Similarly, I could say I'm an eschatological noncognitivist. I don't concern myself with the eschaton because it clearly hasn't happened. And even if it did, I wouldn't really be around to see it, if it was truly the end of space and time, for similar reasons to the problem of talking about the beginning of space and time.

 

[Key]

Much was said. And all of it seemed good.

One point however, God breathed life into Adam, and then Adam passed down this gift of life to all his seed. ergo, God initiated Life. And while in the sense of inheritance, yes, we do have God breath of Life, that does not entitle us to his wisdom, or his light.

To receive that, we must submit ourselves to God, and allow him to guide us. A man can not have two masters, either they chart their own course or they let God chart their course.

As for the limitations of God, here is something fun to ponder. Lets say, for the sake of argument on any part, God is real for the following thought test.

God created from nothing our entire everything, as such, what we perceive to be reality is the product of what God imagined up and put to form.

Knowing this, How do we establish what would make sense for God to be able to do, and not to do, even if God had limitations?

Just something to think about.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not everyone believes God created everything from nothing. There are those that argue God created everything from a part of itself, but that the universe is not therefore equal in all ways to God. Even if it might be ontologically created from God's substance in some sense, the argument is that since it is still dependent on God to mold and shape it, it is therefore less than God and therefore not equal to God in any sense that would indicate pantheism or the like.

Honestly, the whole discussion hinges on human imagination. We can imagine so many things, the difficulty would remain as to where our imagination is suggesting the logically impossible, which many theologians say God cannot by its nature do, as I noted before and where it is suggesting what is indeed still logically possible

 

[Key]

One could believe God is all powerful or omnipotent by virtue of faith by revelation, but of course, I don't think anyone could argue that God is all powerful in a purely philosophical context. At best, you can talk about God's function or role in the universe or transcending it, but you can't talk about specific properties or capacities of God. Which, remarkably, actually could be said to turn the entire discussion of God in beginning philosophy classes upside down. What an idea we've stumbled upon!

Well Said

God Bless

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Much was said. And all of it seemed good.

One point however, God breathed life into Adam, and then Adam passed down this gift of life to all his seed. ergo, God initiated Life. And while in the sense of inheritance, yes, we do have God breath of Life, that does not entitle us to his wisdom, or his light.

To receive that, we must submit ourselves to God, and allow him to guide us. A man can not have two masters, either they chart their own course or they let God chart their course.

As for the limitations of God, here is something fun to ponder. Lets say, for the sake of argument on any part, God is real for the following thought test.

God created from nothing our entire everything, as such, what we perceive to be reality is the product of what God imagined up and put to form.

Knowing this, How do we establish what would make sense for God to be able to do, and not to do, even if God had limitations?

Just something to think about.

God Bless

Also a thought test. If there was no god, how would things be any different?