The Logical Premise?

[lesliedellow]

And again, you seem to ignore my point. Regardless of my perceptions or desires, my larger point is "indeterminancy" is inherent in the universe per quantum. ERGO you cannot simply decree that the world is determinant.

I even gave a simple example of indeterminance leading to your choices.

I am attempting to model the system holistically rather than merely "effectively" (vide supra my earlier comments on "effective free will")

"Effective free wiil" is fine, but it is still a disguised determinancy - or indeterminancy, as you wish - and not particularly compatible with a completely autonomous self.

If you are happy with the idea that physical laws, or random events, determine your behaviour, why do you get upset over the theistic idea of God predetermining your actions?

 

[Obliquinaut]

If you are happy with the idea that physical laws, or random events, determine your behaviour, why do you get upset over the theistic idea of God predetermining your actions?

"Upset"? I am not upset. If you read my post you'd note that it matters little to me either way. (Hence my use of "effective free will")

I am here only debating your conception of determinance/indeterminance.

My reason for atheism is unrelated to this discussion so it wouldn't make one whit of difference if I believed in free will or not or the existence of God.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The critiques you have read are presumably philosophical critiques, rather than theological critiques.

Ummm, no. Guanilo was a Benedictine monk. Arguably the history of the Scholastics in the Church shows a much deeper appreciation for philosophy in theology, and indeed I will go so far as to say that theology bereft of philosophy (or logic or reason) is effectively useless to world.

So far as I can see, the rest of your post is waffle.

"Waffle"? I had rather held out hope you were above that level. Perhaps it is my inherent anglophilia that makes me assume Brits are more savvy on philosophical discussions.

As I have said before, the notion of God as, "luv, luv and nothing but luv" strikes me as a typical piece of twenty first century sentimentality.

If you think I'm arguing from some new-agey position you are grossly mistaken. It is clear I've written here at length about topics more closely aligned with the Medieval Scholastics than some new-agey clap-trap.

From the same generation that managed to come up with the so called "Prosperity Gospel."

You seem to have not read a thing I wrote. I've been discussing the early Church fathers and Scholastics. In other words going back to the more medieval thought in order to avoid the more mushy conceptions of the new age explosion of hypotheticals bereft of philosophy or solid reasoning.

Again, my apologies if I've introduced topics of which you were unfamiliar.

 

[lesliedellow]

In a very real sense you are using Anselm's Ontological God in your debate. You have simply opted that that being than which none greater can be conceived is so great as to not be bothered by logic. Another ex cathedra statement. Simply decreeing God beyond logic in this special case or that special case so it doesn't upset the applecart of a particular theology.

Anselm's definition was dreamt up for no better reason than trying to define God into existence. It is usually held to have failed because existence isn't an attribute. But I would add that Anselm's definition is without biblical basis, and that it also fails for that reason.

The only thing I remember saying is that there is no Super-God to whom God is morally responsible. Even if there was, that would only push the "problem" back one stage, and there would be no sense in which the Super-God could be held culpable for not conforming himself to a morality higher than himself.

Legislation presupposes a legislator.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The only thing I remember saying is that there is no Super-God to whom God is morally responsible.

Which is, of course, "that being than which none greater can be conceived".

 

[lesliedellow]

Which is, of course, "that being than which none greater can be conceived".

A God who is the legislator for his creatures, and who is not himself subject to a higher morality than himself, could not, of himself, fulfil the function which Anselm intended his definition to fulfil.

 

[Obliquinaut]

A God who is the legislator for his creatures, and who is not himself subject to a higher morality than himself, could not, of himself, fulfil the function which Anselm intended his definition to fulfil.

Why not? I am honestly confused by your statement. And why do you wish to keep pointing out some "function" Anselm envisioned? The only "function" appears to be to establish necessary existence.

You seem to be indicating that Anselm had some sort of ulterior motive. As if he has created some sui generis conception. Basically the God of Anselm is exactly that which you are describing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why not? I am honestly confused by your statement. And why do you wish to keep pointing out some "function" Anselm envisioned? The only "function" appears to be to establish necessary existence.

You seem to be indicating that Anselm had some sort of ulterior motive. As if he has created some sui generis conception. Basically the God of Anselm is exactly that which you are describing, nothing more, nothing less.

Anselm wanted to define God as "that, than which nothing greater can be conceived," so that he could argue, "Aha, so if God doesn't exist, it is possible to conceive of a being, like God, which does exist, and that would make him greater than God. But since God is that about which nothing greater can be conceived, God must have the attribute of existence. Therefore God exists."

 

[Obliquinaut]

Anselm wanted to define God as "that, than which nothing greater can be conceived," so that he could argue, "Aha, so if God doesn't exist, it is possible to conceive of a being, like God, which does exist, and that would make him greater than God. But since God is that about which nothing greater can be conceived, God must have the attribute of existence. Therefore God exists."

Yes...and what about that do you disagree? And further, how is your conception of God somehow different from that?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes...and what about that do you disagree? And further, how is your conception of God somehow different from that?

I disagree that existence is an attribute.

I would restrict myself to assigning to God those attributes which the Bible assigns to him. "That about which nothing greater can be conceived," is altogether too nebulous - almost to the point of being devoid of meaning.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I disagree that existence is an attribute.

I agree with you on this, as does, apparently, Kant. However it doesn't make the analysis somehow "lacking" in the overall attributions of God. But, again, Kant's critique aside, your definition of God as the most high seems to comport quite well with the concept of "that being than which none greater can be conceived". I can't really think of any actual functional differences between the two.

And remember: disavowing Anselm's Ontological Argument really doesn't solve the Euthyphro dilemma.

I would restrict myself to assigning to God those attributes which the Bible assigns to him. "That about which nothing greater can be conceived," is altogether too nebulous - almost to the point of being devoid of meaning.

And where in the Bible does God disallow free will? Genesis starts off with His primary command to humans being ignored thus resulting in God's need to punish. Further in the same book God "repented ... that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The difference between Deuteronomy 30:19 and Romans 8:29-30 also seem to indicate a difference between what can be chosen.

For a God who is determinist in nature this is most confusing. It appears that God is surprised(!) at man's actions.

The problem with relying on the Bible for the nuts-and-bolts picture of God is that it lacks any real coherence. The same God who loves all his creation ("For God so loved the world...") also seems to require genocide via his prophets commands (1 Sam 15:3).

 

[quatona]

The creator of all that is.

So God himself appoints himself the greatest authority.

 

[lesliedellow]

And remember: disavowing Anselm's Ontological Argument really doesn't solve the Euthyphro dilemma.

So far as I am concerned, there is no dilemma to solve. God is the creator of all things, and that very fact makes him Lord of all things. He is the legislator so far as morality is concerned, and there is no Super-God to legislate for him.

And where in the Bible does God disallow free will? Genesis starts off with His primary command to humans being ignored thus resulting in God's need to punish. Further in the same book God "repented ... that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The difference between Deuteronomy 30:19 and Romans 8:29-30 also seem to indicate a difference between what can be chosen.

For a God who is determinist in nature this is most confusing. It appears that God is surprised(!) at man's actions.

You have no idea how often a Calvinist hears that, or something like it, from other Christians.

God gives his commandments, which he expects us to obey. But since the Fall, we no longer have the will to obey him, and we think we can get along perfectly well without him, thank you very much. That brings wrath and divine judgment in its wake, with the next stop being cast into hell.

Without God's intervention, there the story would end. However, he does graciously intervene to regenerate the hearts of his elect, and he thereby gives them a desire to follow Christ. As a result, the elect are saved. In theory he could regenerate everybody's heart, but warnings throughout the New Testament make it clear that that is not going to happen. The result is double predestination: some to life and some to destruction.

 

[lesliedellow]

So God himself appoints himself the greatest authority.

Who do you suggest he appoints?

"Hello Mr Trump, I hear you are getting a bit tired of being President of the USA.
Perhaps you would like to try your hand as Lord of The Universe instead?"

 

[bhsmte]

I would state it differently. As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation. So it's not a discussion of the possible, but of what has been revealed. As such, the problem is not so much that the knowledge can't be tested, but rather than it can't be transferred. So, you were basically right in saying believers don't "have" the knowledge. They don't own the knowledge, but rather trust the source that told it to them.

In that sense, I don't see much difference between theological knowledge and much of the rest of knowledge people adhere to. The difference is a matter of degree rather than kind.

And how do you go about confirming your revelations are true?

 

[Obliquinaut]

So far as I am concerned, there is no dilemma to solve. God is the creator of all things, and that very fact makes him Lord of all things. He is the legislator so far as morality is concerned, and there is no Super-God to legislate for him.

You "solve" the dilemma by simply decreeing the dilemma doesn't exist.

You have no idea how often a Calvinist hears that, or something like it, from other Christians.

I can guess.

And frankly I'm not all that interested in debating what I perceive to be a rather confused theology. It's not my faith. Whatever works for you is fine. I'm more than happy to discuss the larger world of theology and philosophy but I also realize that many believers are incapable of dealing with any conceptions of God outside of their carefully crafted variant. And I suppose that is fine.

I don't see a lot of value to debating over theology that is dealt with simply by decree. If a believer decrees that logic doesn't apply to his or her God there is little value in the discussion for me. It doesn't require any thought or consideration and if it makes the believer happy it should probably just be left alone.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a believer decrees that logic doesn't apply to his or her God there is little value in the discussion for me.

Looks like you're SOL then (short on luck).

Are you the one who told me (I think it was someone else though) ... but are you the one who told me you've studied almost every other religion and faith around?

If so, then you should know better than to be expecting logic.

If not, then welcome to the world of the theo-logical, where worldly logic doesn't necessarily apply.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Looks like you're SOL then (short on luck).

Are you the one who told me (I think it was someone else though) ... but are you the one who told me you've studied almost every other religion and faith around?

I don't believe I've made that claim.

I have, however, read extensively. I wouldn't, however, claim I had any sort of encyclopedic knowledge.

If not, then welcome to the world of the theo-logical, where worldly logic doesn't necessarily apply.

And that is about the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. There used to be such a great history of actual thought in Christianity. Today, not so much. I assume it's because thought is hard. Speaking in tongues and thinking one is somehow tapping into some deeper truth without actually putting any effort into it is probably a lot easier.

I guess we get the God we most deserve, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is about the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. There used to be such a great history of actual thought in Christianity. Today, not so much. I assume it's because thought is hard. Speaking in tongues and thinking one is somehow tapping into some deeper truth without actually putting any effort into it is probably a lot easier.

Then your extensive studies didn't include true skepticism, did it?

True skeptics withhold taking a stand on an issue on purpose, with the expectation of gaining a higher insight into truth.

So if you think thought is hard for us, let me introduce you to the world of skepticism, where thought is suppressed on principle.

And for the record, the Bible is full of miracles ... not logic.

Logic and miracles can only walk together if logic knows when to quit and let miracles take over.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So if you think thought is hard for us, let me introduce you to the world of skepticism, where thought is suppressed on principle.

Ummm, yeah. Sure, chief, I bet all those fundamentalists are pursuing a true, deep philosophical position.

Logic and miracles can only walk together if logic knows when to quit and let miracles take over.

LOL. Yeah. Sure.