Why God is Worthy of Our Praise

[JAL]

@JAL
I've also been thinking, yours is not a solution to the problem of evil. If you are arguing that God allows evil for the moment because of some ultimate goal, this is the exact stance of nearly all theodicies that claim God is in complete control, or could be in complete control, but decides not to be for some greater good. I don't like any of these theodicies for the reasons you already provide against other solutions. Did I miss a post where you answered how your theodicy is distinct?

You missed the whole point of the thread. Other theodicies assume that God is infinitely self-sufficient - He has no needs, and never finds Himself in a situation where His back is against the wall. This insinuates that God is sadistic enough to create a world jeopardizing 100 billion people for the mere sadistic pleasure of it, not for any vitally pressing reason.

Also, other theodicies assume that God created us out of nothing which, again, is purely optional on His part. In my view, we are eternal and we NEEDED protection. In order to protect us God needed to become competent (holy) but at that time the loneliness was too painful for Him to attempt this daunting goal without at least promising Himself a bride as His ultimate reward.

 

[JAL]

Not exactly. God and time have always existed in heaven with its own laws, but our universe did not exist in any sense, therefore space-time as we know it began.

Ok so time began when matter began. This is what I also believe. However you are arguing the negligibly conscious matter just "existed" while I am arguing it came from heaven (in heaven "just existed" must make sense due to space-time working differently, while here, it remains incoherent without calling on a cause.

I've addressed this objection multiple times. At some point I will begin to ignore it. Your Platonic bias has engraved upon your mind a double-standard:
(1) You think it's okay for you to assume that an immaterial God existed from the getgo.
(2) You think it's NOT okay to assume that a material God always existed. In fact, you find it more coherent to assert, along with the Big Bang theory, that matter popped into existence out of nothing! Your forensics are totally out of wack.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Please don't pretend you're being perfectly clear. Here's the diagram that you drew:


which seems to conflate you and the Third Person into a single individual. And when I questioned you on this point, your reply was ambiguous, as though standing on both sides of the fence.

Now you've introduced a new term - you say that your spirit is "infused" with the Holy Spirit. Of course no one can possibly say for sure what that means since, historically, immaterialists have never provided a clear definition of things like substance, location, spatiality, and interaction. Linguistic camouflage.
Here too, completely unclear. YOU said that the moral agent (the spirit) is regenerated. Since it is holy (as you acknowledged) it cannot be indulging in the old sinful habits, viz. "The old is gone, the new is come" (2Cor 5:17).

Your words are incoherent because you are saying that your "old habits" commit sin. A habit is not a moral agent that sins. Have you now transitioned from trichotomy to quadrotomy?
(1) spirit
(2) soul
(3) body
(4) habits ???

Born again means:
(1) Spirit<-->spirit (work together as in marriage plus union/infusion, symbolised by sexual union)
(2) spirit-->soul
(3) soul-->body (but the body has old habits in it that don't always get overriden immediately by the soul, it takes some time)

From experience, not everything we do is by conscious choice. I look at this laptop screen, while thinking and typing and sitting, and listening, while my body is digesting the apple I just ate, and my hair is growing etc. My body acts on its own in many ways I am not in control of. Some of our previous habits can affect us even after new-birth. Not always, but it is very common. This is doesn't mean we are sinful. It means we need to learn to live out what we now are.

There are few things I've said here:
1. Our spirit is not controlling every single thing that happens in our body.
2. Our body is responsible for actions we are not in control of
3. The brain never loses old pathways (scientific fact) therefore born again does not mean we get a new body
4. The part of us that sins is our body. Not our spirit or our soul.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I've addressed this objection multiple times. At some point I will begin to ignore it. Your Platonic bias has engraved upon your mind a double-standard:
(1) You think it's okay for you to assume that an immaterial God existed from the getgo.
(2) You think it's NOT okay to assume that a material God always existed. In fact, you find it more coherent to assert, along with the Big Bang theory, that matter popped into existence out of nothing! Your forensics are totally out of wack.

(1) Well something had to exist from the "getgo" yet the science seems to point to a beginning.
(2) Again, science also points this way.

My whole aim is to mesh science, personal experience and the Bible into one coherent model that works scientifically and in our daily lives. It would take some strong conviction to say no to science and yes to a philosophical or religious argument instead.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You missed the whole point of the thread. Other theodicies assume that God is infinitely self-sufficient - He has no needs, and never finds Himself in a situation where His back is against the wall. This insinuates that God is sadistic enough to create a world jeopardizing 100 billion people for the mere sadistic pleasure of it, not for any vitally pressing reason.

Also, other theodicies assume that God created us out of nothing which, again, is purely optional on His part. In my view, we are eternal and we NEEDED protection. In order to protect us God needed to become competent (holy) but at that time the loneliness was too painful for Him to attempt this daunting goal without at least promising Himself a bride as His ultimate reward.

But He could still stop all the suffering right now at this instant. Yet He thinks His own interests are more important. Right?

 

[JAL]

Born again means:
(1) Spirit<-->spirit (work together as in marriage plus union/infusion, symbolised by sexual union)
(2) spirit-->soul
(3) soul-->body (but the body has old habits in it that don't always get overriden immediately by the soul, it takes some time)

From experience, not everything we do is by conscious choice. I look at this laptop screen, while thinking and typing and sitting, and listening, while my body is digesting the apple I just ate, and my hair is growing etc. My body acts on its own in many ways I am not in control of. Some of our previous habits can affect us even after new-birth. Not always, but it is very common. This is doesn't mean we are sinful. It means we need to learn to live out what we now are.

There are few things I've said here:
1. Our spirit is not controlling every single thing that happens in our body.
2. Our body is responsible for actions we are not in control of
3. The brain never loses old pathways (scientific fact) therefore born again does not mean we get a new body
4. The part of us that sins is our body. Not our spirit or our soul.

All these words to argue a conclusion contrary to fact - you are arguing that the believer does not deliberately, consciously sin. Never. And you pretty much have to hold this position because you won't accept my solution that the heart is divisible into parts (some parts regenerate, and other parts the sinful nature).

I can commit sin right now by free will. I know this for a fact, because I've done it many times before, albeit not proud of it. And when I do, I confess:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1John 1:9).

You, however, claim that we have no sins to confess.

 

[JAL]

But He could still stop all the suffering right now at this instant. Yet He thinks His own interests are more important. Right?

No He cannot. The promise is made to all His constituent parts. Remember my doctrine of irreversible holiness? He cannot renege on a promise. Literally impossible. We're talking about a bride with free will (in heaven we won't really have free will). He will terminate this world when His bride has accomplished sufficient acts of freely willed righteousness to satisfy the terms of His own promise - and we are not privy to the specifics of those terms.

 

[JAL]

4. The part of us that sins is our body. Not our spirit or our soul.

That's a taint of gnostic heresy. Unconscious matter was viewed as evil or capable of evil. That's like sentencing my computer to hell for its "sins". The gnostics:

"thought the human spirit was naturally good and was entrapped or imprisoned in the body, which was naturally evil or merely an illusion."
Mind Over Matter: The Heresy of Gnosticism both Then and Now

 

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome

And since you forced me to recap, let me remind you that only in my theodicy does God's holiness have merit and thus merit praise. Because in my view, He labored to become holy, at least 13 billion years (minimum), whereas everyone else defines Him as innately holy. Innate characteristics do not merit praise. You wouldn't praise a slothful son for inheriting wealth - you'd instead praise a diligent son for laboring to acquire wealth.