• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My question is "Can God be proven wrong?". If we aren't allowed to use facts to disprove things God claims, then we are in the realm of dogmatism which is kind of a dead end for discussion.

You replied before I edited my post. The problem regards what will be the reference - the judge - of what is and is not a fact. You might say "science", but that is an appeal to "reality". Everybody agrees gravity attracts objects to the earth because we can measure objects falling to the earth. But in the case of God, he created the reality you're using as the reference. So, it would be like challenging the company that built your instruments for measuring gravity by buying more measurement instruments from them because you have nowhere else to buy them.

[edit] Again, the best I can give you is: I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
What are you talking about? Since when is someone telling me the score of last night's game a religious revelation? Because you said that was a revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What are you talking about? Since when is someone telling me the score of last night's game a religious revelation? Because you said that was a revelation.

Have you never tried to use a non-religious example to explain a religious issue?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

So basically, you hold the position that:

  1. God knows more than you
  2. If something can be known, then God knows it
And this also means that there are things that God may not know, like when a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.

Is this correct?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
So when you perceive the results of the test, you then test that your perception of the test is valid? et cetera, et cetera.

Yes. And each time you fail to disprove your conclusions, your case gets stronger and stronger. Up until the point where it becomes perverse to continue being sceptical about it.

For example, I don't think you feel like you need to re-test the existance of gravity ad nauseum. You accept it is there and you assume that next time you drop an object with mass, it will fall to the earth and not shoot into space.

That would explain many people's struggle to understand Christianity.

Or any other religion.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So basically, you hold the position that:

  1. God knows more than you
  2. If something can be known, then God knows it
Yes, that would be a good summary of what I said.

And this also means that there are things that God may not know, like when a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.

Is this correct?

The best answer would be, "I don't know." So are you asking me to speculate? If so, I'd be curious to know why you're interested in my speculations?
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And this also means that there are things that God may not know, like when a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.

Is this correct?

Is anything about his creation unknown to God? I doubt it. The universe lies open before him, in its full spatial and temporal extent.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is anything about his creation unknown to God? I doubt it. The universe lies open before him, in its full spatial and temporal extent.

The only conception of God that makes any sense is this conception. In the parlance of Anselm: "That being than which none greater can be conceived".

However it is also one that raises the most logical conundra.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What are you talking about? Since when is someone telling me the score of last night's game a religious revelation? Because you said that was a revelation.

From what I can gather about Resha's position on this he is using "revelation" as a term for anything someone says to him that he was not previously aware of.

As noted earlier this is far from the more precise and technical definitions, but it is the definition Resha appears to be using.

As such it becomes a trivial and nearly meaningless point.

The further point seems to be more around "Do you trust your friend to accurately report the score of last night's game?"

Again, this is epistemologically mostly empty short of a religious discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Have you never tried to use a non-religious example to explain a religious issue?

How is this a religious issue? You repeatedly took me to task for discussing religion (even though you had introduced the topic). Now you seem to want to link it back to religion?

So can you provide the Lutheran articles in which "revelation" is limited to just someone saying something to you you didn't previously know? That would help codify the definition you are using in a technical manner.

I have provided my references and supported my use of the precise technical definition. Please provide your references.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The only conception of God that makes any sense is this conception. In the parlance of Anselm: "That being than which none greater can be conceived".

However it is also one that raises the most logical conundra.

I don't see why. Maybe you have free will in mind, but that is itself a conundrum, quite independently of any theological position you might hold.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

If God's claims are unfalsifiable, then it really comes down to dogmatism. If anything God claims can not be questioned, then there is no reason to discuss it.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't see why. Maybe you have free will in mind, but that is itself a conundrum, quite independently of any theological position you might hold.

Free will is a very tricky area, no doubt. But if free will exists it presents information that God cannot know, which makes very little theological sense. That's why I presented Anselm's Ontological Argument: I can further conceive of a being that knows all things, meaning my conception is the one with necessary existence.

Free will in a non-theological sense is less problematic. If free will exists it poses no problems. If free will doesn't exist it can still feel to limited beings stuck in a world where all "choices" are really predicated on a nearly infinite chain of events in a hypercomplex reality as if they are actually undertaking free will choices. It becomes "de facto". If it is beyond the computational capabilities of a computer the size of the universe to predict what the next action will be it matters little whether my next action is truly my choice or not.

But an all-knowing God also carries with Him issues around "motive". Even if one removes the knowledge of "future" events from God, one cannot remove from God a clear and perfect knowledge of how people will respond to the data they have in front of them. God would know with perfect knowledge that I, for instance, would leverage my scrupulosity to turn away from religion. God knows that he creates brains with specific chemistries that lend them to experiencing the world differently from others.

And as some people struggle with the utter lack of experience of a God AND a concomitant anguish over approaching that same God, if God thus remains silent the "motive" can only be interpretted in one manner.

An omniscient God, even one limited to "present omniscience" would still be holding infinitely more of the cards in the game and as such no judgement rendered against humanity can be morally valid.
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Thanks. Let's parse this shall we? Few if any of these can really be compared to your example of your friend telling you the score of last night's game. BUT #10 gets to the heart of what I posted from my source:

10. Since the knowledge of God transcends reason, the truth of revelation cannot be reached by the human mind left to its own devices. Yet the content of revelation is not irrational.

This shows a certain parallel with the definition which I provided but which you seemed to think unrelated. Oh well.

Now as for the most "loose" method of interpretation:

2. There is a revelation of God in nature (Ro 1:19–20); but there is a difference from other ancient religions in this, that in Scripture nature is only the garment, not the body, of God. The revelation of God in nature is part of gen. revelation, whose evidence is also found in man's capacity, e.g., for soc. institutions, pol. order, artistic creation.


This seems to be somewhat open to interpretation that knowledge can be verified...but then again,not really. It seems to be the equivalent of "Nature reveals God's glory" sort of thing. Kind of circular or at the very least self-referential, not a lot of added information there.

#4 seems pretty clear: no real value in revelation through dreams.

#6: God's name is a revelation? Really? That seems pretty much of a reach. Only meaningful to the faithful. And even then somewhat contentious. Try throwing the name "Jahweh" at some fundamentalists on this forum and see how some of them react. (Hint: some get pretty bent for some reason).

#1 is pretty hard to objectively verify.

 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Free will in a non-theological sense is less problematic. If free will exists it poses no problems.

The reason free will poses a problem, even in the non-theological sense is that either our decisions have a cause, in which case the complete autonomy usually associated with the term "free will" seems to be violated, or else our actions are uncaused, which would seem to imply that they are random. That again would seem not to be compatible with the usual notion of "free will".


So far as Calvinists are concerned, God preordains whatsoever comes to pass, and yet that doesn't violate free will in the compatiblist sense put forward by philosophers such as David Hume.

Hume on Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If God's claims are unfalsifiable, then it really comes down to dogmatism. If anything God claims can not be questioned, then there is no reason to discuss it.

I had meant to reply to this yesterday, and I'm sorry that I didn't. I didn't mean to ignore this statement.

I can understand taking the position you have, but this goes back to how I had intended to answer Obliquinaut's questions before we were diverted by smaller details.

I think discussion can continue in spite of running up against uncertainty principles. It can proceed in one of several ways. First, we can have a discussion that seeks understanding between people. Second, if there is something that is thought to be wrong, contradictory, etc. we can speculate on possible resolutions. I'm fine discussing free will, omni-properties, the source of evil, etc. as long as it is done in a spirit of speculation. Third, we can discuss scientific explorations into those topics that overlap with religious concerns. You and I have done that, and I don't have an issue with learning about the scientific consensus on topics - even if that consensus does not agree with my views.

Christianity never expects a resolution to all disagreements, and Christian theology accounts for that. The hope, rather, is a continued discussion. I could point you to an example of a published theological paper from the LCMS that is an example of this - it ends by listing areas where disagreement remains rather than trying to neatly tie everything up with an answer.
 
Upvote 0

Obliquinaut

Сделайте Америку прекрасной
Jun 30, 2017
2,091
1,635
61
Washington
✟35,334.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Compatibilism aside: I also raised was the idea of "effective free will". Again, it matters little to me whether I have free will or my actions are predicated on a string of events which are impossible for me to calculate.

Further: I can generate a purely random walk. If I were to hold a radioactive element in my left hand and a radioactive element in my right hand (with proper shielding of course!) and if I come to an intersection and the left atom decays I turn left, if the right decays I turn right. If both decay simultaneously I move forward and if neither decays I go backwards. As such I can model a perfectly random process. That means random behavior must be possible. As such I have made the choice to follow the perfectly random process.

But either way it matters not. If I am walking down the street today (without my radioisotopes) and I "choose" to turn left at the corner, but that choice was established by some event that happened a billion years ago whose ultimate result was me turning left, it doesn't matter. The computational power to model that choice and arrive at it before I undertake it is probably beyond the capabilities of a universe-sized computer. And as such I have free will effectively.

So far as Calvinists are concerned, God preordains whatsoever comes to pass, and yet that doesn't violate free will in the compatiblist sense put forward by philosophers such as David Hume.

But that is why I removed the "future" concept from that part of my post and limited it only to "motive" for present and previous actions on the part of an all-knowing God. I don't have to worry about pre-determination in that case when posing logical incompatibilities of an all-knowing God.

It revisits the concept of the Euthyphro Dilemma (does God only do Good or is everything God does by definition Good?) AND the "Problem of Evil"? Why would an all-knowing God who is also presumably all loving permit evil to exist and permit people through no fault of their own to bear eternal punishment for actions they undertook which God would know the reason for and, dare I say, actually set in place.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Few if any of these can really be compared to your example of your friend telling you the score of last night's game.

It works better if you keep the example within the full context of what I said. To that end, you might also want to read the entry on miracles.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.