The Meaning of Life

[InterestedAtheist]

Author Robert Jordan was once asked if he would like to have a conversation with one of the characters in his books. He replied that he could not think of anything that could be more boring. He'd spent so much time thinking about them and writing about them that he knew exactly what they would say and do in any situation.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Sure? This is CF, I thought this was implied?

Well your OP is not based on CF belief CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums.
It is your own deduction.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I think you mean the "Christian image of God". I bring that up because there are other images of God where things are not predetermined.

Total predetermination is not universal to Christians.

 

[Resha Caner]

Again, God already knows your final choice(s).

I know it's a digression, so feel free to pass over, but I'm not convinced this is true.

To answer your question, though, it gives God joy to create, to interact with us. It also gives him much sadness. Much the same as my experiences on this earth.

Christianity is a religion which, if true, renders our existence on earth pointless.

This is definitely not true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I know it's a digression, so feel free to pass over, but I'm not convinced this is true.

Tending toward Open Theism?

 

[Resha Caner]

Tending toward Open Theism?

Some might see it that way, but I don't.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Some might see it that way, but I don't.

Are you denying omniscience? If God doesn't know one's final choices, that might be because one asserts that the future is logically unknowable--ala open theism. If God simply doesn't know, but not for reasons of open theism, then he simply is not omniscient.

So how do you see it?

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you denying omniscience? If God doesn't know one's final choices, that might be because one asserts that the future is logically unknowable--ala open theism. If God simply doesn't know, but not for reasons of open theism, then he simply is not omniscient.

So how do you see it?

I've never been able to understand exactly what open theists are saying. I came by my position via my own thought process, and so wasn't influenced by open theists. All I know is it blew up into a major evangelical controversy resulting in the evangelical version of excommunication. I tried to read the literature on it, and my conclusion from that reading was that one side was saying "gkghkj gkgkjoty blughl" and the other side was saying "qweqwer utionsgtr bvdafar". In the end, given the major differences between the Reformed theology of evangelicals and my own Lutheran Confessionalism, we already have a lot of other things to argue about.

Bottom line: whether my views are the same as open theism or not, I really don't care.

I don't see any reason to defend knowledge of the impossible. I don't see anything in the Bible that indicates God acts willy-nilly, making it up as he goes along. As best I can tell, God has created a world for us and only interacts with us within the rules of that world.

I don't see anything that convinces me the future exists. I don't know of any reason to suppose it is possible to know that which does not exist.

With that said, God has maximal knowledge and power. He knows everything that can be known and can do everything that can be done. So if God says, "Christ will come," he has the power to make that happen, and in that sense alone he knows the future. He could do the same with any and all places, peoples, and things that exist. However, again, as far as I know he doesn't.

The last piece though, is that his maximal knowledge would include knowledge of every possible thing I might do, and every possible consequence of that action for every place, person, and thing. What I might do, however, is different from what I actually do.

So, that's my view. Classify it as you please.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@Resha Caner, thank you for taking the trouble. I was genuinely curious. I wasn't so much trying to classify you as to get you to expound. When I was a Christian I wasn't too far from your positions.

As to the future existing, I think that if God is outside time, then the idea of the space-time continuum being complete is compelling. And since time seems to be part and parcel with space, suggesting God is bound to it or restricted by it or is bound to watch it unfold without knowing how or why, seems limiting however good his skills of prediction.

I guess when I say I wasn't too far from your position, I really mean that "defending the impossible" is a statement that resonates with me. To this day, if a fellow non-believer requires that omnipotence entails the ability to make a square circle, I tell him/her that that is silly. Omnipotence just entails the ability to do anything that is possible, those things that aren't logically contradictory. (Too, I don't know how if a god could do such a thing one could verify that he did it.)

Along similar lines, in recent years I've thought fallible limited gods more of a convincing idea than a multi-omni god. A god like Athena who might be persuaded to help and yet fail seems more "reasonable" than a god who could stop child-rape and yet doesn't.

 

[Resha Caner]

@Resha Caner, thank you for taking the trouble. I was genuinely curious. I wasn't so much trying to classify you as to get you to expound. When I was a Christian I wasn't too far from your positions.

Yeah, I'm sorry. When I reread my post I thought: wow that sounds overly defensive. You didn't do anything to prompt that. You always seem very polite … if maybe a little sarcastic at times.

As to the future existing, I think that if God is outside time, then the idea of the space-time continuum being complete is compelling. And since time seems to be part and parcel with space, suggesting God is bound to it or restricted by it or is bound to watch it unfold without knowing how or why, seems limiting however good his skills of prediction.

I wrestled with time for (um, cough) a long time. Oddly enough, when I found what made sense to me, I also found it aligned very closely with a philosopher named Alan Padgett. Now it all seems very simple and straightforward to me.

Bottom line: "God outside time" doesn't make sense to me. Rather, I would say God is time. Or, rather, time and space are not a thing. They are a consequence of something.

I guess when I say I wasn't too far from your position, I really mean that "defending the impossible" is a statement that resonates with me. To this day, if a fellow non-believer requires that omnipotence entails the ability to make a square circle, I tell him/her that that is silly. Omnipotence just entails the ability to do anything that is possible, those things that aren't logically contradictory. (Too, I don't know how if a god could do such a thing one could verify that he did it.)

Cool. It sounds like we share some common ground. I will also, from time to time, call out Christians who are making ridiculous statements just to win an argument. Winning the battle at all costs is never worth it. Stick to your principles, and if that means conceding to an unbeliever or saying you're wrong, do it.

Along similar lines, in recent years I've thought fallible limited gods more of a convincing idea than a multi-omni god. A god like Athena who might be persuaded to help and yet fail seems more "reasonable" than a god who could stop child-rape and yet doesn't.

Ah. Why is child rape always the example? It seems an appeal to emotion. Rather, I would ask why God doesn't stop all pain. Why not stop me from stubbing my toe?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah, I'm sorry. When I reread my post I thought: wow that sounds overly defensive. You didn't do anything to prompt that. You always seem very polite … if maybe a little sarcastic at times.

Me? Sarcastic?

Bottom line: "God outside time" doesn't make sense to me. Rather, I would say God is time.

Granted. I was attempting (when I was a Christian) to maintain God's transcendence. But how does a being outside time sequence his actions or thoughts.

 

[Resha Caner]

Me? Sarcastic?

Smile … I have this weird aversion to emojis, but there are times they seem appropriate.

Granted. I was attempting (when I was a Christian) to maintain God's transcendence. But how does a being outside time sequence his actions or thoughts.

That's why "God is time" works so well.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's why "God is time" works so well.

Well, I went with god-time. As ex nihilo was a concept I abandoned for ex Deo, I conceived of time of our universe as a projection from God's own self-time--as a circle can be a projection of a sphere onto 2 dimensions. It could be considered as a necessary consequence of creation. So, not so much "God is time" as time is a necessary property of God's being.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I went with god-time. As ex nihilo was a concept I abandoned for ex Deo, I conceived of time of our universe as a projection from God's own self-time--as a circle can be a projection of a sphere onto 2 dimensions. It could be considered as a necessary consequence of creation. So, not so much "God is time" as time is a necessary property of God's being.

I suppose I lean ex Deo, but in reality I avoid such labels as much as possible - especially in these forums. People here try to use such things more as a trap than as a bridge to understanding.

So, when pressed, I will simply say my view of creation is Genesis 1:1 … oops, I shouldn't tell you all my debating secrets. You'll have me for lunch. Though as a random diversion I will mention that honesty is a fascinating debate strategy here at CF. The most caustic of unbelievers here are so convinced I'm being deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest, etc. that being straight up honest sends them into a tizzy of confusion. The little devil sitting on my shoulder finds such aspects of human behavior fascinating.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The most caustic of unbelievers here are so convinced I'm being deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest, etc. that being straight up honest sends them into a tizzy of confusion. The little devil sitting on my shoulder finds such aspects of human behavior fascinating.

Well I guess it goes both ways. Have you seen how many posts from believers question the motivations of non-believers?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well I guess it goes both ways. Have you seen how many posts from believers question the motivations of non-believers?

I have.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I went with god-time. As ex nihilo was a concept I abandoned for ex Deo, I conceived of time of our universe as a projection from God's own self-time--as a circle can be a projection of a sphere onto 2 dimensions. It could be considered as a necessary consequence of creation. So, not so much "God is time" as time is a necessary property of God's being.

If you had all these things worked out, what led you away from Christianity?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you had all these things worked out, what led you away from Christianity?

Lack of evidence for any of my ideas let alone for the god I was attempting to understand.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lack of evidence for any of my ideas let alone for the god I was attempting to understand.

Too bad.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Too bad.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I've never been better.