Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Analogy didn't really work there.
What part of "If God is omnipresent, he can't be absent" is confusing?
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.
\
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.
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.
I engaged in this discussion in good faith. I apologize that I cannot convey to you what I was trying to say.
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.
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.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 know this.God being omnipresent doesn't mean nothing else exists. It means only God is never out of reach of anyone, anywhere, anytime.
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.
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.
- St.Asia said that evil can only exist where God is absent. Got that? It's what he said.
- Assuming that any Christian would believe in omnipresence, I responded, in effect: How can God not be somewhere?
- You came into the discussion asserting that I am assuming that God's omnipresence prevents other things from existing.
- 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.).
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?
Ok. Fine.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.
For the last time -- Duh.For the last time. The existence of evil does not negate God's omnipresence.
No, I am not.You're still assuming God's omnipresence is on an exclusionary basis. Let's try a real world example:
Ok. Fine.
Explain how God can be omnipresent and be absent.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?