The Logical Premise?

[Resha Caner]

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.

 

[Queller]

This is what I mean. I was talking about religious revelation. What I was arguing against was defining it in a way that is contrary to Lutheran belief. But some people couldn't seem to grasp that - and still can't - and can't let go of an issue that should never have been an issue in the first place. Can we please move on?

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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?

 

[Kylie]

I really appreciate your approach here, so I don't want anything I say to be perceived as flippant, irritable, argumentative, preachy ... all the things that typically happen. We just have to appreciate that, for some reason, the religious paradigm I espouse seems to be incredibly difficult for people to accept. For all their statements that they leave it to me to express my experiences with God, they continue to apply all kinds of stuff based on what they think God is supposed to be or how other people have attempted to define God.

So, it's as simple as this - omniscience is not a word in my religious vocabulary. I did use the word in this thread, and maybe I should repent what many seem to think was a horrible transgression, but I still think it was appropriate to the context in which I said it. Just because I don't use "omniscience" to express my experiences with God doesn't mean I'm banned from using the word when the circumstances call for it.

The word is not in my religious vocabulary for the very reason that it causes threads like this one. So, I've been forced to say, "God knows all that can be known." Even then, for the purposes of this conversation, I should say something like, "God knows all that I know and my experiences indicate he knows more than I know" ... but I get tired of typing that out over and over.

When you entered your first science class, you assumed your science teacher knew more than you do about science. There was no way for you to prove it, but it was a pretty darned reasonable thing to assume. @Chesterton even made a quip about this earlier in the thread - the silliness of people arguing over omniscience when they assume all the time without proof that people know more than them.

Now, once the science teacher said, "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen," you had verification that in the past the teacher knew more than you. But now you also know water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, so does the teacher still know more than you? And so on and so on and so on. You never know, but at some point it just becomes silly to constantly debate it, and the pragmatic approach is to say the teacher know more than you.

God knows more than me. Use whatever word makes you happy to describe that. Does that make sense?

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?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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?

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

 

[Obliquinaut]

...

 

[Obliquinaut]

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

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.

Revelation.

1. In revelation God Himself takes the initiative in bridging the gap bet. Himself and His creatures; for He is a hidden God (Is 45:15). In disclosing Himself to men in ways of judgment and grace, God always remains both subject and object of revelation. The knowledge that God grants is unified as regards its object but variable in the matter of means.

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.

3. Scripture is more concerned with special revelation, which takes place in various ways, e.g., in a theophany,* as when God appeared personally to Abraham and Lot (Gn 18–19). In gen., such direct assocs. with God are reserved for persons esp. chosen to this end (e.g., Moses; other prophets).

4. A dream can also be a medium of revelation (Gn 20:3; 28:12; 41:1–40; 46:2). Prophets criticized the illusory character of this kind of revelation when claimed by lying prophets (Jer 23:25–32; 27:9; Zch 10:2).

5. God reveals Himself by angels (e.g., Gn 16:7–13; Ex 23:20–21; Mt 2:13). See also Christ Jesus, I A.

6. God's name constitutes a revelation (Ex 3:14; Is 30:27).

7. God reveals Himself most completely and precisely in the Word* of God. That Word is, above all, God's Son (the incarnate Word; Jn 1:1–14). The Word may also take the form of the spoken or written Word (Jn 20:31; 1 Co 2:13).

a. The most ancient laws are known as words. The preamble to the 10 Commandments (Ex 20:1–2) recalls God's revelation to Moses and God's deliverance of His people. The laws of the holiness code (Lv 17–26; see also Law Codes, 2) are motivated, e.g., Lv 19:32, 34, 36.

b. The Word is characteristic of the prophetic office (Jer 18:18). The prophet is subordinate to his message. The formula “Thus saith the Lord” designates the Word as a royal message to be delivered faithfully and fully. The divine Word is placed into the prophet's mouth (Jer 1:9) or spoken in his ears (Is 5:9). Having been present in the council of God (Jer 23:18, 22), the prophet delivers what has been confided to him. At times the Word seized a prophet with such power that it cast him into an abnormal state of mind (e.g., Eze 3:15). By means of symbolic action or unusual dress a prophet sometimes illustrated his message (e.g., nakedness, Is 20; yoke, Jer 28; belt, or girdle, Acts 21:11).

c. The term mashal (Heb. “discourse; parable”), applied to the maxims of Wisdom literature, is also used of mysterious oracles (Nm 23:7; 24:3). This suggests that the element of revelation is the primary feature of these materials, at whose heart lies the statement that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Pr 1:7).

8. The distinctive mark of Biblical religion is the revelation of God in hist. God calls Abraham to go from his land to one that God would show him. God delivers His people from bondage in Egypt and reveals His power and purpose in the crucial events of Israel's hist., including the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and the creation of the ch. But essential to the full fact of revelation is the sending of prophets, apostles, and evangelists as proclaimers and interpreters of these events. Through the confusion that characterizes man's hist., God accomplishes His saving purpose (Is 5:12, 19; 10:12; 28:21) acc. to a plan conceived in eternity (Mt 25:34; Eph 1:3–6; 1 Ptr 1:2).

9. Revelation deals with the event in which God breaks through to man; inspiration (see Inspiration, Doctrine of), as the term is used in theol., deals with the coming into being of the written Word (2 Ti 3:16) under special guidance of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of inspiration deals with the way in which God, who reveals Himself in word and deed, is active in the process by which the message is committed to writing. The unique significance of the Bible is that it is to this book that we go for knowledge of the revelation that God has given of Himself in hist.

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. Paul spoke to Festus and Agrippa of a proclamation that included his witness to the resurrection; but Paul insists that he is not beside himself (Acts 26:24–25). It is the province of God's gift of human reason to take God's revelation of Himself as given in Scripture and formulate and articulate it in such a way as to relate it to the particular situation of the ch. in a given age (systematic* theol.). MHS

J. Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York, 1956); H. E. Brunner, Revelation and Reason, tr. O. Wyon (Philadelphia, 1946); Revelation and the Bible, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Philadelphia, 1958); J. McIntyre, The Christian Doctrine of History (Grand Rapids, Mich;, 1957).

 

[lesliedellow]

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".

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.

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)

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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".

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.