God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Bradskii]

First Cause is Omnipotent.

Why must that be so?

Let's say that God says 'Let there be the simplest element and a few physical laws. Let's see what happens'. He doesn't have to create anything after that. All He has made is lots of hydrogen and then He can call it a day. Hardly omnipotent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why must that be so?

Let's say that God says 'Let there be the simplest element and a few physical laws. Let's see what happens'. He doesn't have to create anything after that. All He has made is lots of hydrogen and then He can call it a day. Hardly omnipotent.

He is not governed by causes or principles from outside himself. THEREFORE --everything came from him, including reality itself. Omnipotent.

Long answer: Your scenario invokes principles concerning reality, propositional logic, chain of causation, specificity vs homogeneity, supposed randomness vs intent, deism, logic and math, and other principles ad infinitum, not to mention a lousy notion of the logical corollaries to first cause, who did not begin things within an existing framework.

Short answer: Your scenario even invokes chance, which has no ability to do anything but make humans think they've got something.

Note: Perhaps primary to the notion of First Cause is the notion of timelessness, implying that creating is no different to him than sustaining the existence of his creation. There is no, 'let's call it a day'. It would all cease to exist.

 

[Bradskii]

Note: Perhaps primary to the notion of First Cause is the notion of timelessness, implying that creating is no different to him than sustaining the existence of his creation. There is no, 'let's call it a day'. It would all cease to exist.

Then it really has me beat why anyone would want a 'proof' of God in the first place. You're defining Him as the the creator of existence itself. That's it. Once you have claimed that then you can call it a day.

 

[DamianWarS]

So, in stead of (or in addition to) having his holy scriptures written by people in Hebrew, God should have written them himself in English.

that would miss the point. the context surrounding the text is the Hebrews and this has a specific purpose to it as does the NT launching into Greek (moving away from ethnocentrism). assuming the culture/language used here is arbitrary would be incorrect and it has as much meaning as the words do.

Most people at the time were illiterate. Hence, even 2 millennia ago the form of communication God used was unsuitable.

indeed, Hebrews were an oral culture and what we see written down is merely a written record but words typically are spoken before they are read and in an illiterate vacuum things that are important are committed to memory and frequently reiterated in gatherings big or small. The text itself is a written account of events that took place but the event took place first and is retold through words spoken or written. how else do you thinking anything was suitably communicated 2 millennia ago?

 

[Bradskii]

that would miss the point. the context surrounding the text is the Hebrews and this has a specific purpose to it as does the NT launching into Greek (moving away from ethnocentrism). assuming the culture/language used here is arbitrary would be incorrect and it has as much meaning as the words do.



indeed, Hebrews were an oral culture and what we see written down is merely a written record but words typically are spoken before they are read and in an illiterate vacuum things that are important are committed to memory and frequently reiterated in gatherings big or small. The text itself is a written account of events that took place but the event took place first and is retold through words spoken or written. how else do you thinking anything was suitably communicated 2 millennia ago?

And you think that guarantees an accurate account?

A: Dave said that Jesus had risen from the dead.
B: Well, someone would need to see Him.
A: Maybe Dave knows someone who did.

B: My mate knows someone that reckons a friend of his saw Jesus alive.
P: Wow.

C: Did you know that Jesus was seen alive?
D: What? Seriously?
C: Yeah, a good mate of mine told me. And he's really trustworthy.

D: I have it on good authority that Jesus was seen by at least one person.
E: Good grief. That's amazing.

E: Did you know Jesus has been seen alive?
F: Seriously?
E: Yeah, by a few people apparently.

F: You'll never guess. Jesus has been seen alive by quite a few people.
G: No way!
F: I swear it's true. A good friend told me.

G: You won't believe this, but so many people have seen Jesus alive.
H: What? Yes. Must be dozens. I've heard this from at least two sources.

H: And this friend of mine was saying that dozens and dozens of people have seen Him.
J: I heard at least a hundred.
H: Oh, at least. More than that I'll bet. Maybe 2 or 3 hundred.

J: Hey Paul. Did you here about the hundreds of people who have seen Jesus.

Paul: Dear Corinthians, Jesus was seen by more than 500 of his followers...

 

[Amoranemix]

This indicates a lack of logic and an admission that you don't have good reasons for this belief.

Really? It is simply the only definition I am willing to entertain for God. I have no use for and no reason to defend a lesser definition.

Maybe the Bible does not use your definition consistently.

Identifying which fallacy an opponent made is a matter of interpretation.
You had not supported your claims. They were mere bald assertions that seemed false as they treated everyone as the same (hastily generalizing). Your new premise attempts to support those claims from post 257. However, it is insufficient. The hasty generalization is a prerequisite for those claims. Otherwise you committed a non-sequitur fallacy.

All claims are assertions, in the end. Those that can boast back up --the back up claims are assertions, and so on. That is what you are doing.
You assert I am asserting. You try to back it up, and I can do like you do, claim those too are mere assertions. Big deal.
The fact is that existence exists. You have no explanation.[28] You have no defense for your position. You refuse to consider explanations --they are assertions.[29]

You seem to be suggesting that claims always require to be supported. Obviously they do not.
Some claims require, in order to make a point, to be supported. You made such claim in post 257 and were unable to support it.
[28] Whether I have an explanation for the existence of existence if off topic.
[29] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?

You imply that God's commandments are great. What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
I too can think of many failures God commits.

Usually Christians pretend they can present evidence for their claims.

[26] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[27] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

[no response]

[26] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[27] What a surprise.

Ok, but you are smuggling in a god to your argument by calling the first cause omnipotent. It becomes circular then. What you are saying is The First Cause must be omnipotent, god must be omnipotent so the First Cause is my definition of God. See the problem?

No. I see no problem. God is Omnipotent. First Cause is Omnipotent.[30] One and the same. I need not go through a thought process that shows the two separately being Omnipotent so that one may deduce they are one and the same. Omnipotence and First Cause are necessarily one and the same. YOU make it circular, by saying I have to prove First Cause and God are one and the same. You are the one supposing God to be just one of millions of 'gods' but somehow (according to me) special. To me it is just simple definition.

[30] Yahweh does not appear omnipotent, but he could be faking weakness.
First Cause is a deceptive name for something omnipotent as it suggest that it was the cause of the universe, while that may not be the case. Furthermore there could be more than one omnipotent being, depending on how one defines omnipotence.

So, in stead of (or in addition to) having his holy scriptures written by people in Hebrew, God should have written them himself in English.

that would miss the point. the context surrounding the text is the Hebrews and this has a specific purpose to it as does the NT launching into Greek (moving away from ethnocentrism). assuming the culture/language used here is arbitrary would be incorrect and it has as much meaning as the words do.

You are assuming that God only intended to address the Hebrews and out of negligence or malice ignored the fact that others would read it too. At least we can abandon the myth that the Bible is an up-to-date book.

Most people at the time were illiterate. Hence, even 2 millennia ago the form of communication God used was unsuitable.

indeed, Hebrews were an oral culture and what we see written down is merely a written record but words typically are spoken before they are read and in an illiterate vacuum things that are important are committed to memory and frequently reiterated in gatherings big or small. The text itself is a written account of events that took place but the event took place first and is retold through words spoken or written. how else do you thinking anything was suitably communicated 2 millennia ago?

What are suitable means for the circumstances depends on the means available. God used the means available to humans, just like all the other non-existent gods. That behaviour is inconsistent with the image of a perfect being Christians are trying to spread. What was wrong with God I don't know, but something was wrong with him. Maybe he was wicked, maybe he was ignorant, maybe he was weak, or most likely, maybe he didn't exist.


In conclusion, we 'know' God is good because good has been defined that way. God is by definition the blueprint for good. However, if we are not infatuated with God and thus do not base morality, value or quality on him, then we don't know God is good.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you are wondering what was "wrong" with God in and of the OT from the beginning, etc, He was not always fully omniscient from the very beginning, etc, and was constantly frustrated by his enemy, and not being able to overturn or reverse the effects of the fall, etc...

In the OT anyway... until we get to the New, with Jesus, and enter the next phase or part of the story, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If you are wondering what was "wrong" with God in and of the OT from the beginning, etc, He was not always fully omniscient from the very beginning, etc, and was constantly frustrated by his enemy, and not being able to overturn or reverse the effects of the fall, etc...

In the OT anyway... until we get to the New, with Jesus, and enter the next phase or part of the story, etc...

God Bless!

So we see Him (God in and of the OT) (God the Spirit) go through "a whole range of varying emotions because of this", etc, emotions that He was only able to have and show due to His not always being fully omniscient from the very beginning, etc, then we get to Jesus, etc, and a whole new part of the story, for both of them, Jesus and God the Spirit, starts there, etc...

And then leads up to where we are at now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe the Bible does not use your definition consistently.

You are pretty obviously going to look for any definition you can to oppose that of your opposition. I find in the Bible no definition for God that opposes my definition. And no, that doesn't mean that I am always right in my understanding of God.

You seem to be suggesting that claims always require to be supported. Obviously they do not.
Some claims require, in order to make a point, to be supported. You made such claim in post 257 and were unable to support it.
[28] Whether I have an explanation for the existence of existence if off topic.
[29] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?

I don't know where you got the idea that I suggest claims always require support. That sounds more like your kind of thinking. I said: <<"All claims are assertions, in the end. Those that can boast back up --the back up claims are assertions, and so on. That is what you are doing. You assert I am asserting. You try to back it up, and I can do like you do, claim those too are mere assertions. Big deal. The fact is that existence exists. You have no explanation.[28] You have no defense for your position. You refuse to consider explanations --they are assertions.[29]">>

Following is post 257. What is the claim you are referring to?

<<"Now THAT is the point.

We as humans love to take a word like 'Jealous' anthropomorphically, then we swing wide the other way: "Why would omnipotence care about insignificant idols, anyway?" So we come up with "God makes no sense."

But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!">>

28. Perhaps if we had a central claim we were disputing, I could tell better what what is and isn't off topic. But that is a sweet defense when you have no answer --"That's off topic."
29. At least opinions, and pretty well guessed at too! Stalling for time, or just out of options?

Usually Christians pretend they can present evidence for their claims.

Strange. Usually the accusation is that Christians eschew any need for evidence.

[26] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[27] What a surprise.

26. Haha! Can you support that statement?
27. The fact I gave no answer might have been because I was running short of time, or didn't deem the question worthy of an answer. Or I might have hit 'post reply' not realizing there was more below, out of sight, that I hadn't answered. I don't recall what this was about.

[30] Yahweh does not appear omnipotent, but he could be faking weakness.
First Cause is a deceptive name for something omnipotent as it suggest that it was the cause of the universe, while that may not be the case. Furthermore there could be more than one omnipotent being, depending on how one defines omnipotence.

I don't see anywhere Yahweh is faking weakness, nor appearing less than omnipotent. The fact First Cause doesn't behave according to your notions means only that your notions are presumptive. First Cause is indeed the cause of the Universe, either directly or through means of secondary causes.

There can be only one omnipotent. What definition would suggest otherwise?

 

[DamianWarS]

You are assuming that God only intended to address the Hebrews and out of negligence or malice ignored the fact that others would read it too. At least we can abandon the myth that the Bible is an up-to-date book.

Ancient Hebrew is a very concrete language isolated to a specific geography and people group and perhaps an argument can be made very ethnocentric if we based a revelation through it and it alone. However, that is for Judaism to answer but Christianity believes God's revlation continued of with Christ and his followers and spread using a common tongue to ends of the western civilization or the known world (at that time). The language was Greek and reflects the opposite values that Hebrews did being widely accepted, abstract, and even forced to adopt language that did not value monotheism. During this time there was a large diaspora of the Jews (70 AD) where the Jewish state comes to an end. This does not force the torch to be passed because it was already passed. This is the framework of Christianity with a strong belief that God intentionally releases his revelations through a specific people group to prepare for an event that releases it to all people groups and first points to the second rather than the first negates the second. The Church has continued this spirit through translations and spreading this message as far and as wide as possible as the Church (or God's people) is the mechanism of spreading the message and the church becomes this living message.

You may say "hogwash" to it all but these are the values of Christianity and Christianity sees the language of the first testament as the early steps of the overall plan for all people and not isolated to Hebrews only. This is important because if we stop at Hebrew then all we see is a dim light in a distant land that has arbitrary rules just like every other dim light across the globe. But in Christianity, these "rules" are not arbitrary and all have deep meaning the points to the salvation of God through Christ. For example seemingly arbitrary dietary rules like don't eat pork and shellfish (and many more) make you scratch your head what spiritual meaning could this possibly have? It's revealed to us that the dietary laws were a metaphor for the release of God to a select group which was then released to all, where once consider unclean all declared clean. So now it's no longer arbitrary but there is purpose and intentionality in these rules and when and why they were set and released; they all have meaning.

What are suitable means for the circumstances depends on the means available. God used the means available to humans, just like all the other non-existent gods. That behaviour is inconsistent with the image of a perfect being Christians are trying to spread. What was wrong with God I don't know, but something was wrong with him. Maybe he was wicked, maybe he was ignorant, maybe he was weak, or most likely, maybe he didn't exist.

In conclusion, we 'know' God is good because good has been defined that way. God is by definition the blueprint for good. However, if we are not infatuated with God and thus do not base morality, value or quality on him, then we don't know God is good.

if we know at the very least the concept of God demands goodness and perfection then it seems more beneficial to discuss God on these terms but if God is wicked... he is not God, if God is ignorant... he is not God if God is weak... he is not God, etc... So I get you're greater point is probably "there is no God" I would lead with that rather than say God is limited which is a contradiction. If there is no static base for morality and we based morality on ideas of humanism then morality itself is relative and the actions we do today will be labeled as hate crimes tomorrow. humanism is about equality of rights and quality of life for all and if that's our goal then morality is continually shaped until that goal is met. If there is nothing beyond this life then, of course, this moral ideals of humanism is the highest you can achieve but if there is something beyond this life then humanism is a drop in an ocean and a distracting focus. so it is consistent for someone who has a goal that is beyond this life to regard the quality of life as perhaps important for the here and now but not the most important in terms of a larger picture. I agree this can have a negative product of a general apathy toward suffering provided your life is good but that too misses the point.

 

[Neogaia777]

We have God in the Old and New testaments, God in the OT, and Jesus Christ in the NT, to show us The Father God, etc, cause it is the one thing that One cannot/could not do without Them, etc...

How their two philosophies and feelings are reconciled will show us the Father God, etc...

We cannot and could not know all the feelings/stances/takes/personality of the Father God without Them, etc...

Could not ever "relate" to the Father God ever without Them, etc...

It is only through and by Them, that we can ever come to know Him, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

if we know at the very least the concept of God demands goodness and perfection then it seems more beneficial to discuss God on these terms but if God is wicked... he is not God, if God is ignorant... he is not God if God is weak... he is not God, etc...

Wicked as it relates to whose concept of wickedness? Yours?

 

[DamianWarS]

Wicked as it relates to whose concept of wickedness? Yours?

the idea of God is the idea of embodied absolute goodness where goodness is defined by God and anything for God is good and anything against God is evil. this is theists define good and evil and I get you probably reject this and subscribe to moral humanism but you can't reject that if there is a God this is the way to define good/evil. So like all nuanced and minutus arguments, it all boils down to "is there a God?" because if there isn't moral humanism is the highest goal but if there is a God everything needs to be reevaluated. Since however, God is unprovable this isn't an argument anyone here is going to win and believe in God remains of faith, not of evidence. The evidence as many theists would claim is about personal experience and a sort of "you need to try it to understand it" sentiment. and of course, if you tried it and don't come to the same conclusions then the answer is you didn't try hard enough or you need to "let go" your need for evidence. these are the planetoids that may have their role but perhaps do not satisfy all. all I can offer is only another platitude that only God knows how to answer these things for you and to seek him but I'm not so sure how well it will be received.

 

[Bradskii]

the idea of God is the idea of embodied absolute goodness where goodness is defined by God and anything for God is good and anything against God is evil.

So if God is wicked there is no God. And how do we define wickedness? It's that which God isn't!

Brilliant...

 

[DamianWarS]

So if God is wicked there is no God. And how do we define wickedness? It's that which God isn't!

Brilliant...

That's manipulating my words in a facitious manner. I get you don't respect my conclusions but at least you can respect my words. Wickedness cannot be God, God is only good, you came to this conclusion yourself at least in concept. If we call God wicked than either we misunderstand what is wicked or we misunderstand what is God or it's a strawman. My guess yours is the latter.

 

[Bradskii]

That's manipulating my words in a facitious manner. I get you don't respect my conclusions but at least you can respect my words. Wickedness cannot be God, God is only good, you came to this conclusion yourself at least in concept. If we call God wicked than either we misunderstand what is wicked or we misunderstand what is God or it's a strawman. My guess yours is the latter.

I'm not manipulating your words. You're the one that strings them together. I just unpack them to see what they actually mean. And if you want to find out if God is good and you define God as being goodness itself then you don't have a conclusion. You have a circular argument with the tightest radius I've seen in quite some time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not manipulating your words. You're the one that strings them together. I just unpack them to see what they actually mean. And if you want to find out if God is good and you define God as being goodness itself then you don't have a conclusion. You have a circular argument with the tightest radius I've seen in quite some time.

You speak as though you have some other objective standard for good.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not manipulating your words. You're the one that strings them together. I just unpack them to see what they actually mean. And if you want to find out if God is good and you define God as being goodness itself then you don't have a conclusion. You have a circular argument with the tightest radius I've seen in quite some time.

without an objective standard for goodness then goodness is relative. What is good today may not be good tomorrow. the concept of God would provide that objective standard and it will be silly to argue that. Goodness is a qualitative standard and that standard is measured by something. If there is nothing to measure it then what's the point of trying to define it? using a scale to measure goodness through humanism has a goal where humans are exalted on the highest level. using a scale to measure goodness through God has a goal where God is exalted on the highest level.

 

[Bradskii]

You speak as though you have some other objective standard for good.

Objective means without personal feelings or interpretations.

There is no objective good. It depends on the individual. If I gave you any scenario whatsoever and asked if it was 'good' then what else are you going to do except give me your personal interpretation on it? Alternatively, I guess you could look it up somewhere and see how you are supposed to respond. But one assumes that you'd have a personal opinion on whether to accept that or not.

Herein lies the problem. If there are divine instructions as to what is good and what is not, then you have personally accepted them. Which makes them subjective to your interpretation. You have read the instructions and personally decided 'Yep, I agree with that'.

Failing that, there must be some things which you personally think are bad but which you define as good because that's what you believe you are supposed to do. If that is true, do you have any examples?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Objective means without personal feelings or interpretations.

There is no objective good. It depends on the individual. If I gave you any scenario whatsoever and asked if it was 'good' then what else are you going to do except give me your personal interpretation on it? Alternatively, I guess you could look it up somewhere and see how you are supposed to respond. But one assumes that you'd have a personal opinion on whether to accept that or not.

Herein lies the problem. If there are divine instructions as to what is good and what is not, then you have personally accepted them. Which makes them subjective to your interpretation. You have read the instructions and personally decided 'Yep, I agree with that'.

Failing that, there must be some things which you personally think are bad but which you define as good because that's what you believe you are supposed to do. If that is true, do you have any examples?

In the 'IF God' hypothetical, there most definitely is objective good, and your question to me about something being good or not is moot. My interpretation and opinion is irrelevant.

If there are divine instructions as to what is good and what is not, my accepting them is irrelevant as to whether they are good, and as to whether they are objective.

You say, "there must be some things which you personally think are bad but which you define as good because that's what you believe you are supposed to do. If that is true, do you have any examples?" No, they are irrelevant.

What is funny to me though, is that you ask me to 'tell on myself', to tell you what I think is bad but define as good because I am supposed to? Wow. You want ME to defend YOUR argument or something?