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.
Merry Christmas!
There's an old saying that says otherwise:
There are no atheists in foxholes.
Oh there is no doubt that the celestial body existed. Though one can never say for sure what you believe since your own claims appear to be all over the place. You are just unjustly worried about the name of that body.Unless it was real before it was believed in.
And in that case, their refusal to believe in it makes them wrong.
Remember Planet 9 from outer space?
Just because some believe it is no longer [cue John Lennon] "number nine" [/cue John Lennon], doesn't mean it is no longer number nine.
I don't much care what you call them. I call them fictional.Here's something else I'll QED:
Science isn't just content to draw lines on paper and connect the dots.
Science goes overboard in the area of changing basic terms to theirs, which only ends up confusing itself.
My favorite example is when science calls miracles "magic," which stunts the conversation.
Science has tricks up its sleeve and, as I said, there's a point when you either have to tell science to take a hike or, as you said, agree to disagree.
Many Christians do not appear to agree with you. If you are not one of those mistaken Christians good for you. But then looking up your version of Christianity, and please note I am not saying that you are not a Christian, but your version appears to be different enough that many other Christians would deny that you are a Christian.you'll have to fill me in on what argument you are presenting here. if not to build a case against the existence of God then what is the goal behind saying people believe in different versions of God? people certainly do believe in different versions of God. But that's not an argument, that's a statement.
What is it again you're aguring? I'm still not clear on that one. all I see here is red herrings.Many Christians do not appear to agree with you. If you are not one of those mistaken Christians good for you. But then looking up your version of Christianity, and please note I am not saying that you are not a Christian, but your version appears to be different enough that many other Christians would deny that you are a Christian.
That is why I said that there is more than one Christian "God". I am not saying that multiple gods exist, just different versions of God. And as the saying goes, only one of them can be right, but all of them can be wrong.
I do not need to argue against God because the burden of proof is not upon me in a formal debate.
Kinds is a biblical term not a biological term.
Joy to the World!
A toast to Jólnir and the Wild Hunt!
No red herrings. Simply follow the conversation backwards.What is it again you're aguring? I'm still not clear on that one. all I see here is red herrings.
So omnipresence could get thrown off of your checklist if you’re not tying yourself to the Biblical definition of God and you’re just thinking of it using logic, however on the flip side if you are tied to the Bible then it’s always possible that something could be fuzzy in the meaning and that the Biblical writers were actually trying to teach the concept of supraposition.Christianity defines God with 3 characteristics: omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient or all-powerful, everywhere and all-knowing. These characteristics are immutable so however, they were before creation they are the same what after creation. each in a sense describes each other. ie. one cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent and omniscient too.
omnipresence to me has been the most challenging logically speaking because in order for God to be everywhere does that not also mean he is everything? if not doesn't it mean God is not everywhere but instead fills in the gaps around everything? But in Christianity, there is an important distinction that God and his creation are separate and God is not his creation. So the best place I can put God is in a supraposition to creation that allows him to be omnipresent while also being separate from his creation.
So at first glance it sounds like your basic definition of God doesn’t tie you to a personal agent, however, why create anything then? That’s a decision. So your definition demands that God is a conscious agent then?If God is immutable then before creation certainly he was omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient because there was nothing to compete with but the addition of creation doesn't change these characteristics. God is still immutable and still is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient
The way many of the Christian mystics work with this is that for those folks God is "in" this Creation, but at the same time not the physical form of the Creation. It's like the soul being in us, but is not our physical bodies. Another way I've heard it explained is that God is in the non-created aspect of Creation, but not in the created aspect. But your hitting on why so many mystics are Panenthesit. I bring that up knowing with some caution that in this forum Panentheism isn't well understood and often confuse it with Pantheism.omnipresence to me has been the most challenging logically speaking because in order for God to be everywhere does that not also mean he is everything? if not doesn't it mean God is not everywhere but instead fills in the gaps around everything? But in Christianity, there is an important distinction that God and his creation are separate and God is not his creation.
I'm still missing the argument you're presenting and for some reason you seem unwilling to be clear with this.No red herrings. Simply follow the conversation backwards.
Your avatar reminds me of a map in a video game:I'm still missing the argument you're presenting and for some reason you seem unwilling to be clear with this.
Panentheism seems to be where I'm leaning or at least the easiest to reconcile but with a note that it's vehemently not pantheisticThe way many of the Christian mystics work with this is that for those folks God is "in" this Creation, but at the same time not the physical form of the Creation. It's like the soul being in us, but is not our physical bodies. Another way I've heard it explained is that God is in the non-created aspect of Creation, but not in the created aspect. But your hitting on why so many mystics are Panenthesit. I bring that up knowing with some caution that in this forum Panentheism isn't well understood and often confuse it with Pantheism.
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?