you claim your god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-good

[hairykid34]

@rick b, do i own a cat? you have no conclusive evidence either way, but there is a possibility that i do own a cat. you have no idea whether i own a cat or not, and one could say you are an agnostic relative to the existance of a cat that i own.
if you replace the question, 'do i own a cat?' with 'is there a god?' then what you get is agnostism, it is a valid logical arguement. if you don't have any hard evidence to base your conclusion on then it would be illogical to make one.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"daimon" must give you a little consternation being an anti-deist.

Not really. The word eudaimonia really does mean something like "prosperity" or "happiness" in philosophy. It isn't closely associated with any mythological concepts.

I personally take the word daimon as a mythological concept pointing to psychological realities. A daimon, in the context of someone who is flourishing, could represent one's "calling" in life.

For instance, if you have a talent for painting, and you feel a "calling" to paint, then this "spirit" is one's passion and deeply heartfelt desire for spending one's life painting.

An interesting note, to me, in the greek daimon is translated as demon.

It's the same word, actually, although not the same meaning. It was the choice of Christians (most likely Greek themselves) to hijack that word from Greek religion/mythology.

Incidentally, the word daimon is neutral with respect to goodness or badness. Christians use that word to refer to evil spirits alone. I suspect that a kind of religious "politics" is the reason. You may have noticed that Christians have a tendency to "demonize" any perceived opposition.

By "personal flourishing" do mean whatever makes you happy and prosperous?

Not precisely, no. Personal flourishing is a pattern of activity where one lives wisely and successfully as a human individual. Happiness and prosperity are likely consequences, but there are no guarantees. I do not quite have the consequentialist view that your statement implies.

Ultimately you are the moral standard of what is ethically premissable.

Yes, but not "me" in the sense of my desires or opinions. My nature as a living, rational human being is the determiner of the moral standard, not whatever I just happen to think or feel about life.

Another eudaimonist(youdemonist)

Are you trying to be clever? "Eu" means something like "good". A "good spirit" is implied by "eudaimon". Translating this into Christian-speak, it would be like calling someone an "angelist". You may call me an angelist if you like.

would necessarily believe in his own autonomist freedom of moral absolutes.

What is "an autonomist freedom of moral absolutes"? If you mean that I get to pick and choose my moral standard, and anything goes, you are sadly mistaken.

Another eudaimonist, if this is a serious eudaimonist, would be very interested in the wisdom of others. He would not be ethically "solipsistic", ignoring what everyone else, and real-world consequences of one's choices, would have to say on the matter. Think of Socrates as a model.

Socrates accepted his lack of wisdom, and set about to become wise. He spoke with the men of Athens, asking them for their wisdom on matters of virtue. He thought deeply, and considered what other philosophers had to say. He lived the Examined Life, not the same life of the typical unreflective Athenians, who were all too happy to live with their incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of virtue, probably passively absorbed from their religious beliefs. He wanted them to rise above this religious passivity, to a more active and philosophical awareness of the issues.

What a wonderful world filled with psychological egoism you have constructed.

What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Does it scare crows?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rick B]

This statement, "Actually agnosticism is not a religion, and it is probably the safest position to hold regarding logic because I simply am holding out on making any kind of ultimate conclusion. I do this on the bases that the available evidence to make such a conclusion is not complete, and it may never be complete but thats ok by me.", is fully self-contradictory and illogical. Logic is made up of three primary "LAWS". These laws are universal, irrefutable, binding and certain. You refuse ultimate conclusions/laws and so refuse that which you rely on-logic. Self-refuting again.
​

Something illogical or self-refuting would be to make a conclusion that is not consistent with the evidence. I do not make a conclusion of whether there is a god or not. Which you could say that to not make a conclusion is a conclusion in itself. Thats fine, but I am doing so based on evidence that is incomplete and so that would mean that my decision to do so is not an illogical one at all. It seems more illogical to make a conclusion when the evidence is not complete.

Agnosticism and logic are incompatible. Agnosticism=I don't know.

Logic, traditional: the name given to those parts and that method of treatment of formal logic which have come down substantially unchanged from classical and medieval times. Traditional logic emphasizes the analysis of propositions into subject and predicate and the associated classification into the four forms, A, E, I, O; and it is concerned chiefly with topics immediately related to these, including opposition, immediate inference, and the syllogism (see logic, formal). Associated with traditional logic are also the three so-called laws of thought -- the laws of identity (q. v.), contradiction (q. v.) -- and excluded middle (q. v.) -- and the doctrine that these laws are in a special sense fundamental presuppositions of reasoning, or even (by some) that all other principles of logic can be derived from them or are mere elaborations of them.

Your premise: I don't know regarding logic("the laws of identity (q. v.), contradiction (q. v.) -- and excluded middle (q. v.) -- and the doctrine that these laws are in a special sense fundamental presuppositions of reasoning".) is to say "I don't know what is certainly known." What is true, is false. You cannot get more self-refuting than this. To BELIEVE this can only be defined as blind religion.

 

[brightlights]

is the Christian god all powerful and all knowing?
and if it is, does it have the power to travel through time and alter/predict events?
and if it does, why, if it is all good, why does it let those who would sin and go against his word (in a possible future) be conceived instead of only letting those who would grow up to be "good Christians" be conceived?

This seems to be a paradox that can only be resolved by the nonexistence of any god that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-good.
If you have an argument against this lets hear it.

This is otherwise known as the problem of evil. Here's my response in its simplest form:

If you deny the existence of a God then the word "evil" no longer refers to anything and thus cannot be used to demonstrate the non-existence of God.

 

[Rick B]

Agnosticism as atheism and theism in philosophical debate deals initially with the question about the existence of God in the areas of metaphysics, epitemology and ethics as I assume you know. Whether you own a cat and is there a God are not interchangeable questions regarding the agnostic fundamental presuppositions in any of these areas.

 

[Rick B]

"Gee, you have a way with words.
When you don´t know you don´t even need to involve logic. You don´t know - it´s just a fact. Not to draw conclusions from something you don´t know is logically sound."
Your living up to your assertion here:
1. "When you don't know you don't even need to involve logic."? Are you sure? How do you know that? Is that a logical statement?
2. "You don't know it's just a fact." Would you like to try this one again?
3. "Not to draw conclusions from(sic about?) something you don't know is logically sound." Can you prove this? What is your evidence for this statement?
Reminder, logic is the analysis of propositions, if you don't employ it you are not able to reason about anything. I guess that is why your response is incoherent i.e.(lacking logical sequence, rambling, disconnected from reality, irrational, invalid nonsense, absurd.) It would be in your best interest to reevaluate your worldview, accept its futility and repent, turn to God through Christ, and trust Him for the forgiveness of your sins and the renewal of your mind.

 

[Rick B]

This will be the last post to you pointing out your fallacious arguing. I think. Try to comprehend this.
I pointed out that my standard of authority lies outside of my own self-originating imagination - the written revelation of the triune God that exists. Therefore not a subjective assumption. A cannot be both A and non-A.
You state with an unqualified "This is not so." Only infallible, universal omniscience can, with such absolute certainty, "know" this.
With this "knowing", dogmatic assertion you demonstrate, once again, that you are self-deceived and inconsistent in your agnosticism. Your claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality, an epistemologically self-contradictory assumption. Unable to stand on this fallacious worldview, you MUST borrow from my theistic worldview to be able to make sense out of anything. Proving the impossibility of the contrary. You should rather be honest and admit that you are just mad at God for being God. You are angry about the coming judgment of your personal sins. So you are hiding under the blanket of unbelief, hoping that God isn't there and nobody will notice how ridiculous this philosophy is. In the end you will lose much more than your vacuous philosophical arguments.

 

[hairykid34]

@rick b, the bible is not objective: it is hearsay evidence that is totally unverified and has been modified to make it seem more plausible
Also you seem to be operating on the premise that everyone believes in god but some choose to deny it. This is NOT the case.
This thread is about the nature of god IF it exists
The assumption that everyone believes in god is your main source of confusion. agnostics simply believe that given the lack of evidence to form a (dis)proof of god one must hold out on an answer

 

[quatona]

"Gee, you have a way with words.
When you don´t know you don´t even need to involve logic. You don´t know - it´s just a fact. Not to draw conclusions from something you don´t know is logically sound."
Your living up to your assertion here:
1. "When you don't know you don't even need to involve logic."? Are you sure? How do you know that?
Is that a logical statement?

Logic is a coherent way from a premise to a conclusion. No such process is afforded nor attempted in stating a fact. A "logical statement" is word salad. A line of reasoning can be logical or illogical, a mere statement can´t.

2. "You don't know it's just a fact." Would you like to try this one again?

Sure - if you, in return, try to read and quote more carefully. What I said was "You don´t know - it´s just a fact."
When I don´t know the answer to a question this lack of knowledge is just a fact, not the attempt at a logical process.
3. "Not to draw conclusions from(sic about?) something you don't know is logically sound." Can you prove this? What is your evidence for this statement?

Reminder, logic is the analysis of propositions, if you don't employ it you are not able to reason about anything. I guess that is why your response is incoherent i.e.(lacking logical sequence, rambling, disconnected from reality, irrational, invalid nonsense, absurd.) It would be in your best interest to reevaluate your worldview, accept its futility and repent, turn to God through Christ, and trust Him for the forgiveness of your sins and the renewal of your mind.

Irony alert.

 

[Rick B]

By the statement that my standard of authority was the objective Word of God, I was trying to establish that the source on which I base my information is from outside of my own self-generating mind or imagination. Therefore not subjective in origin but revealed, disclosed from the mind of the All-knowing Creator of all else that exists. Some of the attributes which make up his nature are omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, God is spirit and limitless, good, transcendent, holy, sovereign, infinitely independent of needing anything outside of Himself. So I try to present answers, arguments and responses as they are given from the Bible as best I can. God has made certain "Laws of Logic" to aid in the communication from one rational being with another and these laws are universal and binding in every philosophical school of thought that admits to uniformity and order in our universe that I am aware of. When establishing and presenting the worldview from the presuppositions of each individual (and everyone has a worldview) these Laws of Logic and/or the logical fallacies that seek to circumvent these laws are employed by everyone who is attempting to present their case. They are universal. To deny or state that you are not employing logic is simply false. However to be wilfully illogical or refuse to address a premise in a formal or semi-formal logical debate, as this, is a common occurrence. But since you are using your reasoning faculties to do this, unless your are an imbicile, you are, of necessity, employing logic. With well-informed participants on both sides are each held accountable to the rules of logic and logical fallacies are, for the most part, recognized. Those that continually divert from the issue or employ logical fallacies in their argumentation are exposed and considered to have lost the debate by unbiased observers.

"@rick b, the bible is not objective: it is hearsay evidence that is totally unverified and has been modified to make it seem more plausible"


Other than your personal opinion do you have any reliable source which has historical, irrefutable or at least convincing evidence for this accusation. Do you have enough, for say, an agnostic to be convinced? Please cite some.

"Also you seem to be operating on the premise that everyone believes in god but some choose to deny it. This is NOT the case."

Your premise..."This is NOT the case" is NOT the case! Not very convincing is it?

"This thread is about the nature of god IF it exists
The assumption that everyone believes in god is your main source of confusion. agnostics simply believe that given the lack of evidence to form a (dis)proof of god one must hold out on an answer"

An agnostic refuses to know any ultimate reality for certain. Are you now certain what my main source of confusion is?

If agnostics "must hold out on an answer" if God exists, why do all of their answers presuppose the non-existence of God?

Do agnostics(who don't know for certain) simply believe or know there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God? How much evidence is enough to prove the existence of God? Is that enough for everybody? How much lack of evidence is enough to disprove the existence of God? Is that enough lack for everybody? No matter how much evidence is given obstinate unbelievers will always say it is not enough - "neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

• Atheists claim there is no "evidence" for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• The demand for "evidence" and "proof" actually presupposes the historicity of Christ's Resurrection.
• Denying Christ's Resurrection leads to the destruction of the concepts of "proof" and "evidence."
• How would the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Christ be regarded if they were submitted as evidence in a court of law? This fascinating question forms the basis for Simon Greenleaf's classic study of the rules of legal evidence as applied to the New Testament accounts of the first Easter.
• Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, Simon Greenleaf, was considered to be the greatest expert of evidence the world had ever known. The Supreme Justice of the Supreme Court said that Greenleaf's testimony is the most basic and compelling testimony that can be accepted in any English speaking court in the world. When Greenleaf spoke, that settled the matter. He was far and away the most knowledgeable person on evidence the world had ever known. The London Times said that more light on jurisprudence had come from Greenleaf than all the jurists of Europe combined.
  
  Greenleaf had one inviolable principle in his classrooms at Harvard, and that was, you never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence. Greenleaf was not a Christian. When challenged by one of his students with this principle, he admitted that he had not considered the evidence. When he did, he became a Christian: believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus.
  
  After examining every thread of information he could find he said in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence, that if any unbiased jury in the world considered the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, they would have to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead.
  
  And so he became a believer that Jesus was God and was converted. He wrote, "In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind, and those who would investigate the truth of our religion..." He sees that Christianity is, in fact, the only evidential historical religion in the world, and the whole things rests upon evidence which he finds so compelling and so overwhelming that any honest person with an open mind examining the evidence would be like himself inescapably drawn to accept it. And so he sets forth his first rule of legal evidence and for any other ancient document.
  
  "Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."
  
  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."
  
  (Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)
  
  "It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
  
  (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29.)

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT​

This thread was moved from Philosophy to Exploring Christianity.

Closing the thread for a clean up

 

[FreeinChrist]

Mod Hat

This thread has undergone a small clean up.

Please be aware that in this forum, only the OP and Christians can post.​

 

[razeontherock]

Can we look at just how far off-base hairykid is?

if god knows and sees everything, implying understanding everyone completely (i think that is somewhere in the bible as well) and is all powerful (including time travel)

G-d makes DeLoreans now? Back to the drawing board for you!

it would also mean that when he "tests your faith" he already knows what the result of that test will be, making the actual test an unnecessary cruelty.

I bow before your ability to remove all human suffering from the world. Oh wait, you don't really have that ability? So you really had no point at all?

it also means that he knew that adam and eve would eat the forbidden fruit and doom all of mankind to a life of work and hardship.

You're more fun than a barrel full of monkeys Have you ever considered actually learning anything about a subject before opining on it? Obviously not, but you might try it some time. Just sayin

would you describe a being who has committed countless acts of unnecessary cruelty as "all-good"?

And then that takes the cake. Where do you ever get such a silly notion?

 

[razeontherock]

In that case its gods fault that we sinned.


I do not believe in libertarian free will, I am a determinist.

Your "logic" here only makes sense within your world view of determinism. That world view simply does NOT jibe with my experience living in this world.

 

[razeontherock]

the bible is not objective: it is hearsay evidence that is totally unverified and has been modified to make it seem more plausible

WHAT??

Forming opinions w/o gathering info is dangerous business

 

[jonmichael818]

Mod Hat​

This thread has undergone a small clean up.​

Please be aware that in this forum, only the OP and Christians can post.​

How convenient, move the thread from where other non-christians can post to an area where we can't post.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

is the Christian god all powerful and all knowing?

Christian philosophical and theological propositions about God generally agree that, yes, He is. Though not all Christians are in agreement about exactly how to describe and articulate these things. Open Theism, for example, in some ways throws a monkey wrench into the classical thought.

and if it is, does it have the power to travel through time and alter/predict events?

The Christian perception of God generally positions that God is outside of the parameters of space-time and therefore the concept of "travel" whether spatially or temporally is in some sense unintelligible. God is everywhere and everywhen.

and if it does, why, if it is all good, why does it let those who would sin and go against his word (in a possible future) be conceived instead of only letting those who would grow up to be "good Christians" be conceived?

What would be benevolent of a God who permitted only creatures who were "righteous"--all theological concerns and quibbles inherent here aside. I fail to see an intrinsic "better-ness" in this idea.

This seems to be a paradox that can only be resolved by the nonexistence of any god that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-good.

It very well may be a paradox, which is fine there are plenty of paradoxes in Christian faith. However, I'm not seeing why the hypothetical presented is better or that we are left with a paradox that can only be resolved by divine non-existence.

If you have an argument against this lets hear it.

It looks like this thread's been moved and as such probably won't get as much foot traffic; and while I haven't offered much argument here I do think that it would be worthwhile if the propositions offered be given a bit more substance in order to be more adequately responded to.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rick B]

I'm fairly new to Christian Forums. I have briefly visited Exploring Christianity and there seems to be room for open discussions between unbelievers and believers. However, perhaps a new thread could be started in Philosophy to debate atheism and theism if a more philosophical approach could be maintained utilizing the rules of Logic to determine the reasonableness of one's worldview. Keeping emotional content to a minimum.

 

[iwannarock]

I beileve God is "perfect along with Jesus,

but IMO, noone deserves to go to hell forever, not even someone like hitler.

like someone before me said, just the thought of it is really disturbing.

 

[saturnne]

why does it let those who would sin and go against his word (in a possible future) be conceived instead of only letting those who would grow up to be "good Christians" be conceived?

This is the very testimony of God's eternal love. He has a plan for us all--he even planned our birth since the creation of the universe (Ephesians 1:11-12)! We were all made in His Will, because he has a plan. And He loves us so much that he gives us the freedom to choose whether to do His Will on Earth. Those who decide to not listen to his Word cannot be saved by the works of Christ.