The story as I understand it

[LittleNipper]

Analogy didn't really work there.

The ocean didn't create anything. It was created. CHRIST created everything and nothing exists that exists without HIM.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

What part of "If God is omnipresent, he can't be absent" is confusing?

It's not. I've been trying to explain God's omnipresence is not all consuming and that is where your conclusion is askew because of the assumption that omnipresence must always be exclusive presence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am assuming no such thing.

I was and have been pointing out that if God is omnipresent, he cannot be absent. He is always present, exclusively or not.

That's all I've been saying all this time. And originally I said it in response to St.Asia who maintained the position "Evil can exist where God is absent." My response was essentially that God cannot be absent.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I am assuming no such thing.

I was and have been pointing out that if God is omnipresent, he cannot be absent. He is always present, exclusively or not.

That's all I've been saying all this time. And originally I said it in response to St.Asia who maintained the position "Evil can exist where God is absent." My response was essentially that God cannot be absent.

That is exactly what your conclusion assumes. Re-wording attempt of your argument:

"If God is omnipresent that makes it impossible for God to be absent from any location. If evil exists only in the absence of God then there can be no evil if God is truly omnipresent."

Is that a correct description of your position?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is a correct conclusion that one must draw from St.Asia's original position.

It is my position that St.Asia's original position is wrong since one must conclude that if one holds both omnipresence and "Evil exists only in God's absense."

Hence, my conclusion to St.Asia was that if he were correct in both those positions, then evil must not exist. Since evil does exist (for argument's sake), either God is not omnipresent or the statement "Evil exists only in God's absense" must be false.

That is, if the conclusion (C) is correctly inferred and yet it is false, then either P1 or P2 (or both) is false.

From a Christian perspective, I'd say that P2 is necessarily false. That is, evil does exist when God is present since he cannot be absent and evil does exist.

Thus, P2 must be thrown out and some other statement about evil must be made.

 

[Tinker Grey]

\
But I not believe God omnipresent. This been debated thousands years. How can god be not material and omnipresent. Must be space he not inhabit. Also I give classic definition of evil, absence from God. My definition is evil is absence of Love. Because God is Love. But love not every where. I see men with no love. I see place with no love. Some place, God not inhabit. These place, evil.

And you use strict define of omnipresent. Look at history for the discussion. Omnipresent have different meaning for different people. This central problem medieval philosophy.

Yes, I know.

I was trying to explain to RealDealNeverstop how the conversation between him and me arose.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No problem. Nice to know you as well.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It is a correct conclusion that one must draw from St.Asia's original position.

It is my position that St.Asia's original position is wrong since one must conclude that if one holds both omnipresence and "Evil exists only in God's absense."

Hence, my conclusion to St.Asia was that if he were correct in both those positions, then evil must not exist. Since evil does exist (for argument's sake), either God is not omnipresent or the statement "Evil exists only in God's absense" must be false.

That is, if the conclusion (C) is correctly inferred and yet it is false, then either P1 or P2 (or both) is false.

From a Christian perspective, I'd say that P2 is necessarily false. That is, evil does exist when God is present since he cannot be absent and evil does exist.

Thus, P2 must be thrown out and some other statement about evil must be made.

Okay, well, I gave the benefit of the doubt but now I see this is apparently just a dumb game. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I engaged in this discussion in good faith. I apologize that I cannot convey to you what I was trying to say.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I engaged in this discussion in good faith. I apologize that I cannot convey to you what I was trying to say.

I re-worded your argument to make sure I understood it and asked:

"Is this a correct description of your position?"

You ignored that question and claimed it was the only conclusion available.

So back to my original point...you have made the assumption that being omnipresent is on an exclusionary basis. You tried to claim that assumption wasn't being made and have dodged that point several times now.

God being omnipresent doesn't mean nothing else exists. It only means God is never out of reach of anyone, anywhere, anytime. I also explained this earlier by pointing out God is not, and cannot, be in our Free Will. That is where evil exists because it is when we use our free will to choose evil over God that it becomes manifest. God giving us free will doesn't mean God gave us evil nor causes evil. In fact, I'd argue only an evil god would not afford us free will and keep us on slave status.

 

[SiderealExalt]

God being omnipresent doesn't mean nothing else exists. It only means God is never out of reach of anyone, anywhere, anytime. I also explained this earlier by pointing out God is not, and cannot, be in our Free Will. That is where evil exists because it is when we use our free will to choose evil over God that it becomes manifest. God giving us free will doesn't mean God gave us evil nor causes evil. In fact, I'd argue only an evil god would not afford us free will and keep us on slave status.

Then omniscience sweeps in and knocks down the house of cards.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I re-worded your argument to make sure I understood it and asked:

"Is this a correct description of your position?"

You ignored that question and claimed it was the only conclusion available.

I did not ignore the question. I said it was a correct description of the conclusion drawn from St.Asia's statement in conjunction with the concept of omnipresence.

In turns out, however, that St.Asia doesn't believe in omnipresence.

Let me review.

1. St.Asia said that evil can only exist where God is absent. Got that? It's what he said.
2. Assuming that any Christian would believe in omnipresence, I responded, in effect: How can God not be somewhere?
3. You came into the discussion asserting that I am assuming that God's omnipresence prevents other things from existing.
4. I've replied several times that that isn't it at all.

God being omnipresent doesn't mean nothing else exists. It means only God is never out of reach of anyone, anywhere, anytime.

I know this.

All I've said several times now is this: If evil can exist only where God is not, then evil cannot exist.

Someone else made a proposition (St.Asia). That proposition coupled with omnipresence is untenable.

It is untenable for the reason stated above.

Since evil does exist. It follows that the statement that evil exists only where God is absent is false since God cannot be absent and evil does exist!

That's all I've been saying. It agrees with what you are saying!

It would disagree with St.Asia (if he held to omnipresence, which he does not.).

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Then omniscience sweeps in and knocks down the house of cards.

I know the water around an iceberg is Alaska is pretty darn cold. But iam not in Alaska so how can I know that? How does my knowing that cause the water to be cold? Weak analogy, but iam pointing out the problems associated with the concept of omniscience extrapolated by finite minds. God's omniscience doesn't knock anything down because you're assuming an inherent causative link between full awareness and actions.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I know the water around an iceberg is Alaska is pretty darn cold. But iam not in Alaska so how can I know that? How does my knowing that cause the water to be cold?

Has nothing to do with my quoted post.

Weak analogy, but iam pointing out the problems associated with the concept of omniscience extrapolated by finite minds.

So weak in fact that it has absolutey nothing to do with the quoted post of mine. No problem. You can pick up a dictionary and find the definition of omniscience. The rest of you're reply is hyperbole.

God's omniscience doesn't knock anything down because you're assuming an inherent causative link between full awareness and actions.

more hyperbole. You'd have been better off simply saying the Christian God cannot be omniscient if you believe in the Christian concept of free will. They are mutually and unequivocally contradictory. The suggestion to the otherwise either demonstrates a lack of understanding over the definition of the term, or you're just saying omniscience doesn't mean what omniscience means. A nonsensical statement at it's best.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I did not ignore the question. I said it was a correct description of the conclusion drawn from St.Asia's statement in conjunction with the concept of omnipresence.

Oh boy...I didn't ask if it was the correct "conclusion." For the third time...

I ASKED IF IT WAS A CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF YOUR POSITION?

You have bypassed that for the third time and simply claim that is the "only" conclusion one can draw from St. Asia's claims. Iam arguing there is more than one conclusion.

In turns out, however, that St.Asia doesn't believe in omnipresence.

Let me review.

1. St.Asia said that evil can only exist where God is absent. Got that? It's what he said.
2. Assuming that any Christian would believe in omnipresence, I responded, in effect: How can God not be somewhere?
3. You came into the discussion asserting that I am assuming that God's omnipresence prevents other things from existing.
4. I've replied several times that that isn't it at all.

I know this.

All I've said several times now is this: If evil can exist only where God is not, then evil cannot exist.

Someone else made a proposition (St.Asia). That proposition coupled with omnipresence is untenable.

It is untenable for the reason stated above.

Since evil does exist. It follows that the statement that evil exists only where God is absent is false since God cannot be absent and evil does exist!

That's all I've been saying. It agrees with what you are saying!

It would disagree with St.Asia (if he held to omnipresence, which he does not.).

I know very clearly what you've been saying...that's how I was able to state your position with my words. I have the position you assumed St. Asia had stated.

For the last time. The existence of evil does not negate God's omnipresence. You're still assuming God's omnipresence is on an exclusionary basis. Let's try a real world example:

One man stabs another man. Because he could.

That is an evil act and your assumption is since that evil exists that means God cannot be omnipresent if evil only exists in God's absence. God being omnipresent doesn't mean God is inside the man who stabbed the other man. It doesn't mean God is in the metal of the knife that pierced the victim. God is present. But God is not present within the murderer or the knife. Omnipresence does not mean nothing else exists and that is what your position assumes.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh boy...I didn't ask if it was the correct "conclusion." For the third time...

I ASKED IF IT WAS A CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF YOUR POSITION?

No. Of course it isn't. But my position isn't relevant to the discussion. I am an atheist. I don't think God exists. I'm not sure even that evil is a meaningful concept.

This is why I've answered the way I've answered.

You have bypassed that for the third time and simply claim that is the "only" conclusion one can draw from St. Asia's claims. I am arguing there is more than one conclusion.

Ok. Fine.

Explain how God can be omnipresent and be absent.

For the last time. The existence of evil does not negate God's omnipresence.

For the last time -- Duh.

Now explain how God can be omnipresent and absent.

You're still assuming God's omnipresence is on an exclusionary basis. Let's try a real world example:

No, I am not.

I am asking--as I have been since this conversation began--how can God be omnipresent and absent.

Please explain this.

That which is omnipresent cannot be absent. This has nothing to do with whether other things exist. Omnipresence (the attribute of being everywhere) and absence (that attribute of NOT being in some particular place) are contradictory.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Ok. Fine.

Explain how God can be omnipresent and be absent.

That which is omnipresent cannot be absent. This has nothing to do with whether other things exist. Omnipresence (the attribute of being everywhere) and absence (that attribute of NOT being in some particular place) are contradictory.

Nail on the head. And I don't get where this stuff is coming from Real about claims that omnipresence means nothing else exists. If Asia said that fine, but none of your posts have implied that to me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ah, thank you so much, SiderealExalt. I was beginning to think I was nuts.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Has nothing to do with my quoted post.



So weak in fact that it has absolutey nothing to do with the quoted post of mine. No problem. You can pick up a dictionary and find the definition of omniscience. The rest of you're reply is hyperbole.



more hyperbole. You'd have been better off simply saying the Christian God cannot be omniscient if you believe in the Christian concept of free will. They are mutually and unequivocally contradictory. The suggestion to the otherwise either demonstrates a lack of understanding over the definition of the term, or you're just saying omniscience doesn't mean what omniscience means. A nonsensical statement at it's best.

I wondered if the def of omniscient changed after I went to sleep but I guess not:

1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. –noun 2. an omniscient being. 3. the Omniscient, God.

Instead of wasting pontificating dollars how about explaining how it doesn't or can't apply?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Arguments of Christians and Atheists.

God is in all of them.

Or none of them.

And we known that's not logical, reasonable or rational.

All exist.

No cafeteria reality need apply or be applied.

Unless of course we're all just a figment of our own imaginations, or, included in those of someone elses.