The Problem of Evil

[Ken-1122]

Activity must have a starting point. There had to be a first motion - this should be admitted even by atheists. But what propelled it? Most atheists would probably stipulate the Big Bang Theory but that's just a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish. My theory is more simple. Matter is never created or destroyed and thus had an initial state.

Again, what propelled the first motion? Suppose I punch you in the face. Would you be content with that behavior? If you're a determinist, than you really don't have cause for complaint, mere mechanical cause-effect propelled my fist hence you can't be angry with me. But if you believe in free will, then free will propelled that punch. NOW you've got cause to be angry with me.

Physicists have been ignoring the possibility that free will is a physical force. But doing so seems to divest them of a plausible propellant for the first motion. Ultimately SOMETHING must be self-propelling, and the Big Bang theory doesn't do a good job of identifying it.

Thus the first motion is the first act of free will, it is some of the matter of the Totality (my name for the sum total of matter) beginning to awaken (like a fetus in a womb). The first person to awaken is the being we Christians now know as God. His power? The same as ours - self-propelling free will. Nothing magical about it. Nothing supernatural about it. It's something we all see/experience every moment of every day.

Eventually - out of the leftover matter - He formed the universe, our planet, our bodies, and our physical souls. As we know, this process involved at least 13 billion years.

Again; if God has not always existed, what other option is there other than him being created?

Hard question because I find the terms 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are used in ways still confusing to me. But I think my point was clear enough.

Atheism (and theism) is about what you believe, and Agnosticism (and gnosticism) is about what you know. The two has nothing to do with each other.
Main Differences Between Atheists and Agnostics

 

[JAL]

Again; if God has not always existed, what other option is there other than him being created?

I thought I already addressed that. Matter has always existed. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The first motion might be called the beginning of time. But I don't believe in 'time' as a real thing, it is merely a term that we use for counting motions. All I believe in is matter-in-motion.

Atheism (and theism) is about what you believe, and Agnosticism (and gnosticism) is about what you know. The two has nothing to do with each other.
Main Differences Between Atheists and Agnostics

"Believe" and "know" are concepts beset with epistemological ambiguities. Hence, as I said, I'm not sure I'll ever be fully clear on these terms.

 

[Ken-1122]

I thought I already addressed that. Matter has always existed. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

I get it! Matter has always existed. But I'm not asking about matter, I'm asking about your concept of God which you said has NOT always existed. Again; if your God has not always existed, what other option is there other than creation?

 

[Ken-1122]

"Believe" and "know" are concepts beset with epistemological ambiguities. Hence, as I said, I'm not sure I'll ever be fully clear on these terms.

Let me make it easy for you; Atheism does not require faith.

 

[JAL]

I get it! Matter has always existed. But I'm not asking about matter, I'm asking about your concept of God which you said has NOT always existed. Again; if your God has not always existed, what other option
is there other than creation?

Logical syllogism:
(1) All matter has always existed.
(2) God is matter
(3) Therefore God has always existed.

That's my position. Thought I was clear. I think what you're saying is that God AS NORMALLY DEFINED (a supremely powerful, skillful, and knowledgeable ruler) hasn't always existed.

I would respond by stipulating that God underwent change, He learned over time, and His power and skill developed over time. For example, in some sense He probably grew 'muscles' - not in the conventional sense but in the sense that He probably amassed more matter into Himself over time and thus grew physically over time. But there was still plenty of matter leftover for Him to fashion our universe.

Thus God was very much like a fetus awakening in a womb - but no one 'created' Him. For example I don't believe in creation ex nihilo (sounds like gibberish to me).

 

[JAL]

Let me make it easy for you; Atheism does not require faith.

You're entitled to that opinion. I have my own.

 

[Ken-1122]

Logical syllogism:
(1) All matter has always existed.
(2) God is matter
(3) Therefore God has always existed.

That's my position. Thought I was clear. I think what you're saying is that God AS NORMALLY DEFINED (a supremely powerful, skillful, and knowledgeable ruler) hasn't always existed.

So to answer the question I asked back on post #76, there are no interpretations of the bible where God is not eternal; Agree?

You're entitled to that opinion. I have my own.

How did you arrive at your opinion?

 

[JAL]

So to answer the question I asked back on post #76, there are no interpretations of the bible where God is not eternal; Agree?

If you're referring to an atemporal God, I wholly reject that nonsense. I can only conceive of conscious experience in temporal terms, for example.

God is everlasting - in fact all matter is everlasting.

 

[JAL]

So to answer the question I asked back on post #76, there are no interpretations of the bible where God is not eternal; Agree?

It sounds like you might be trying to pigeonhole either me or the Bible into traditional theological categories - the very ones that I reject.

God is merely my father. He is not any different than I am, fundamentally. That is the only interpretation of the Bible that makes any sense to me.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you're referring to an atemporal God, I wholly reject that nonsense. I can only conceive of conscious experience in temporal terms, for example.

God is everlasting - in fact all matter is everlasting.

I said nothing about an atemporal God, I said the God of the Bible

 

[Ken-1122]

It sounds like you might be trying to pigeonhole either me or the Bible into traditional theological categories - the very ones that I reject.

God is merely my father. He is not any different than I am, fundamentally. That is the only interpretation of the Bible that makes any sense to me.

I'm not trying to pigeonhole you, I'm just trying to understand what your are saying. I'm asking about however you define the God of the Bible.

 

[JAL]

I said nothing about an atemporal God, I said the God of the Bible

My point is that when you talk about an eternal God, do you mean a timeless God? A God who transcends time? For example who exists simultaneously in past, present, and future?

I don't believe in such a timeless/atemporal God, as it's a logically incoherent concept, and hence it's not an acceptable portrait of the biblical God.

Not sure what you're driving at.

 

[JAL]

All matter is eternal, but not in a timeless sense, especially if 'timeless' is meant to convey a simultaneity of past, present, and future.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point is that when you talk about an eternal God, do you mean a timeless God? A God who transcends time? For example who exists simultaneously in past, present, and future?

Only if that is your interpretation of God. I'm talking about God however you interpret him.

 

[JAL]

How did you arrive at your opinion?

I guess it's because I've met people who call themselves atheists and say that is their BELIEF that God doesn't exist. That seems to require a bit of faith. Whereas if they simply said, "I take no position on the issue, I have no idea, I'm totally at a loss, the facts neither lead me to suspect that He exists, nor to suspect that He does not exist", then I generally wouldn't see any faith involved here.

 

[Ken-1122]

I guess it's because I've met people who call themselves atheists and say that is their BELIEF that God doesn't exist. That seems to require a bit of faith. Whereas if they simply said, "I take no position on the issue, I have no idea, I'm totally at a loss, the facts neither lead me to suspect that He exists, nor to suspect that He does not exist", then I generally wouldn't see any faith involved here.

I agree anybody CAN have faith; even atheists! My point is atheism does not require faith.

 

[JAL]

Only if that is your interpretation of God. I'm talking about God however you interpret him.

But I did explain how I interpreted Him. Therefore your question seems moot. Your question was about the usage of the word 'eternal' in the Bible. I'm expecting you to position that term in my system consistently with how I've already defined God and time.

So unless you can be more specific about what details I've omitted, I think I've already answered questions about what 'eternal' in the Bible means to me.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't really 'solve' the Problem of Evil then - rather I agree with its analysis. What I do is formulate a definition of God that is both biblical and, as far as I can see, devoid of logical contradictions. Maybe I'll copy-paste one of my posts from another thread.

I was reading your responses through the rest of the thread. It looks like your answer is that God isn't perfect. Is that really Biblical?

 

[JAL]

I agree anybody CAN have faith; even atheists! My point is atheism does not require faith.

Ok but I gave you two versions of 'atheism' (regardless of whether I'm using that term correctly). Let's call it two postures. As I said, the second posture does NOT require faith. The first one does, as far as I can see.

 

[JAL]

I was reading your responses through the rest of the thread. It looks like your answer is that God isn't perfect. Is that really Biblical?

Impeccably flawless as a ruler? Yes. Has He perfectly realized His potential for virtue? Yes. Incapable of failing us in any way? Yes.

Infinite? No.

 

[Ken-1122]

But I did explain how I interpreted Him. Therefore your question seems moot. Your question was about the usage of the word 'eternal' in the Bible. I'm expecting you to position that term in my system consistently with how I've already defined God and time.

So unless you can be more specific about what details I've omitted, I think I've already answered questions about what 'eternal' in the Bible means to me.

You seem to answer a lot of questions that I did not ask. All I ask is if there were a point in history where God did not exist. My question is not about God evolving, changing, awaking, growing muscles, or any of that other stuff you keep bringing to the table; just existing. Judging from what you've said thus far, it seems you believe he always has.