The Logical Premise?

[Obliquinaut]

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.

Discussing "Miracles" hardly makes the point stronger. I don't believe in miracles having never experienced any myself and, indeed, seeing plenty of examples of miracles that were later debunked.

If my friend, whom I trust, tells me that a miracle happened I will likely not believe them. No matter how much I trust them. I will require verification because it would be very important for that to be verified.

It is also non-revelatory to me, the person who only heard about the miracle since I will not believe it.

If I were to see a miracle myself that would be somewhat different. Of course, I would assume that it wasn't a miracle and that indeed I had simply been mistaken in my perception. Why you might ask? Because I know that I am prone to being mistaken, being fully human. When I watch Penn and Teller I do NOT assume they are performing actual magic. I assume I am unable to see what is really happening.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

This is off topic, but if you had a conducting surface, whose shape was as irregular as you care to imagine, and you placed an electric charge on it, there is probably not a computer on Earth which could calculate the charge distribution. And yet nature can do it almost instantaneously. So, there is a sense in which the universe is an unimaginably powerful analogue computer.

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.

Since there is no higher authority to whom God is answerable, there is no sense in which his actions can be immoral, but he is nevertheless entitled to legislate for his creatures.

God as all loving seems to me to be a piece of present day sentimentality, which is hardly compatible with the God who is revealed in the Bible.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Christianity never expects a resolution to all disagreements, and Christian theology accounts for that.

Not historically. Historically the development of Christianity required the anathematization and squashing of countless heterodoxies and heresies. The development of Christianity has been quite the opposite of not expecting resolution to disagreements.

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.

Modern theology has had to accept that differences in theological propositions are often at odds. Which, in my opinion, is a serious problem for "faith". Sure the same thing happens in science and is no less problematic. Is gravity a wave/particle force mediator or a bend in space-time? It matters little in application of a model of gravity, in other words we can still get a rocket to Mars using the model.

But such is not possible for issues related to religion. Because the differences usually devolve down to personal "opinions". Arguably if one were to be a Muslim and fail to accept Jesus as lord and savior they will not get into Heaven should the standard Christian soteriology be the "right" one. But how do we verify which model best explains how to act? We can't.

There is always revelation...and dare I say, miracles! Which means you have to explain why you don't believe a Muslim or Hindu miracle as revelatory of the real nature of God but you do believe in Christian miracles.

This is why religion tends to suffer in terms of epistemology.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Since there is no higher authority to whom God is answerable, there is no sense in which his actions can be immoral, but he is nevertheless entitled to legislate for his creatures.

Yet the Euthyphro dilemma still persists. You have simply chosen the horn of the dilemma in which God is arbitrary and there is no absolute right or wrong, only God's actions.

God as all loving seems to me to be a piece of present day sentimentality, which is hardly compatible with the God who is revealed in the Bible.

Agreed. It is wishful thinking that God would love His creations. But the Bible indeed reveals a being sometimes wholly unworthy of "worship" or love. 1 Sam 15:3.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yet the Euthyphro dilemma still persists. You have simply chosen the horn of the dilemma in which God is arbitrary and there is no absolute right or wrong, only God's actions.

There is no absolute right or wrong for God, but for us his revealed will is the source of absolute right and wrong.

Agreed. It is wishful thinking that God would love His creations. But the Bible indeed reveals a being sometimes wholly unworthy of "worship" or love. 1 Sam 15:3.

That all depends upon what you perceive the motive for worship to be. God's absolute sovereignty should be a source of awe to a much greater extent than an avuncular grandad in the sky would be.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't believe in miracles having never experienced any myself and, indeed, seeing plenty of examples of miracles that were later debunked.

That's not why I pointed you to that entry.

Not historically. Historically the development of Christianity required the anathematization and squashing of countless heterodoxies and heresies. The development of Christianity has been quite the opposite of not expecting resolution to disagreements.

Of course those things happened. That's obvious. But it would be misleading to present that as common practice. Drama always gets more attention than a bunch of monks debating dry topics day after day. The church has a long tradition of amicable debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think discussion can continue in spite of running up against uncertainty principles.

I don't think it is a matter of uncertainty principles, but a matter of pre-existing dogma. For example, if we went out to Kansas and looked at the landscape, both you and I would probably say that its flat plains, and we would say so with extreme certainty. However, if you learned that God said there were mountains where you see plains, you would suddenly change your mind. It would be a matter of beliefs overriding certainty.

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.

I have always enjoyed our conversations, and I don't mean any of my posts to be derogatory towards you or anyone else. If we end up disagreeing then I have no problem with that.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think it is a matter of uncertainty principles, but a matter of pre-existing dogma.

We seem to disagree, but OK.

For example, if we went out to Kansas and looked at the landscape, both you and I would probably say that its flat plains, and we would say so with extreme certainty. However, if you learned that God said there were mountains where you see plains, you would suddenly change your mind. It would be a matter of beliefs overriding certainty.

Probably not. As I said, it's difficult to work with hypotheticals for this, but my reaction would probably be to ask why there is a claim of mountains when I see plains.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's not why I pointed you to that entry.

Then explain it.

Of course those things happened. That's obvious. But it would be misleading to present that as common practice.

Except insofar as it forms the core of the faith. Indeed even the BIble the Lutherans uses is created to a great deal through those early developments of the faith.

The Lutheran split differs in soteriology and justification by faith, but even that lead to so MUCH bloodshed and horror it is strange to somehow assume that today we are all past that. When it was all born of contention and battle.

The need of modern co-habitation allows us to differ without killing each other and certainly in more ecumenical circles soteriology almost has to be mushed beyond recognition. I would assume you as a Lutheran would not consign a Catholic to the flames of hell, but the differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism certainly were the reason so many, many people died in the past.

Drama always gets more attention than a bunch of monks debating dry topics day after day. The church has a long tradition of amicable debate.

So you are saying the Church itself had nothing to do with the bloody suppression of heterodoxy and heresy?

Look, don't get me wrong: I'm glad people of faith today are able to get along with each other. It is a mystery to me how one can believe that God holds ultimate truth but the acceptance of non-truth is somehow acceptable to religious people. I always assume that it is because they realize that they don't necessarily have any bead on the "Truth" anymoreso than anyone else and in order to get along they accept a level of secularism that is a hallmark of our age. And I like that aspect to modern Christianity.

But you seem to be painting a picture of "amicable debate" that is only very recent in the history of the church.

Indeed it has been the rise of secular needs in our society that have allowed us to push aside the drives and desires of religious thought in order to allow for an ecumenical and rather more plural society.

This is the core of the debate is it not? What truth and what source of truth do we accept and work with? I again claim that "revelatory" (as it is usually interpretted in religion, even most of the definitions in your Lutheran source) is exactly USELESS when it comes to a modern stable society.

It is the abrogation of that "revelatory truth" that allows us to all get along.

 

[Obliquinaut]

There is no absolute right or wrong for God, but for us his revealed will is the source of absolute right and wrong.

As I said, you have not solved the dilemma, you have merely claimed that one horn of the dilemma is the right one, ex cathedra.

That all depends upon what you perceive the motive for worship to be. God's absolute sovereignty should be a source of awe to a much greater extent than an avuncular grandad in the sky would be.

To worship the God demonstrated through his prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 15:3 (as but one example) is the same as "worship" of a crime lord. Abject terror upon punishment of death. That is not "love", and would certainly not count as a theologically sound reason to worship God.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that the God of so many, many other verses in the Bible is worthy of worship or love. And that, of course, would probably put me in with the Marcionites, which is, as you know, a heresy.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then explain it.

I'm afraid my phrasing would be too clumsy for you.

So you are saying the Church itself had nothing to do with the bloody suppression of heterodoxy and heresy?

Not at all. Churches have done some horrible things. But to focus only on what churches have done wrong is to skew history.

 

[lesliedellow]

As I said, you have not solved the dilemma, you have merely claimed that one horn of the dilemma is the right one, ex cathedra.

You see it as a dilemma. I think the Creator gets to call the shots for his creatures.

To worship the God demonstrated through his prophet Samuel in 1 Sam 15:3 (as but one example) is the same as "worship" of a crime lord. Abject terror upon punishment of death. That is not "love", and would certainly not count as a theologically sound reason to worship God.

Awe is not the same thing as terror. After all, in the Calvinist scheme of things, the only people likely to be worshipping him are those he has chosen to save.

Don't get me wrong: I understand that the God of so many, many other verses in the Bible is worthy of worship or love. And that, of course, would probably put me in with the Marcionites, which is, as you know, a heresy.

Don't worry about it. Nowadays you don't even need to believe in God in order to be a pastor. The one in the URC church near here being a prime example.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not at all. Churches have done some horrible things. But to focus only on what churches have done wrong is to skew history.

Here I put all that effort into bringing the point right back around to the discussion at hand and it was all swept away and rendered pointless.

Oh well. I had fun anyway. Built a concept, attempted to explain it and clearly define it. Apparently tl;dr.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You see it as a dilemma. I think the Creator gets to call the shots for his creatures.

Well, to be fair to me, it isn't just me, considering that the Dilemma has been around since Socrates.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, that would be a good summary of what I said.

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?

Not asking you to speculate, just want to make sure I have a proper understanding of where you are coming from.

 

[Kylie]

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

So then, your position is that God knows the future with 100% accuracy?

 

[lesliedellow]

So then, your position is that God knows the future with 100% accuracy?

Yes.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

So then if God knows I am going to wear my green top tomorrow instead of my blue top, then there's nothing I can do to do anything different?

 

[AV1611VET]

So then if God knows I am going to wear my green top tomorrow instead of my blue top, then there's nothing I can do to do anything different?

Whether God exists or not, if you're going to wear your green top tomorrow, you're going to wear your green top tomorrow.

 

[lesliedellow]

So then if God knows I am going to wear my green top tomorrow instead of my blue top, then there's nothing I can do to do anything different?

How did I guess that was coming?

As a Calvinist, I believe that God foeordains whatsoever comes to pass. Maybe the colour of your clothing would seem completely trivial, the course of history is determined by lots of people making their own micro decisions.