(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: The only reason to know He is telling the truth is because He is the only one able to testify to the truth of the statement.

That doesn't logically follow. Just because he's the only one who could verify it doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible, but I certainly understand your position.  The only way for it to be proven to you that God exists is for you to be as God is and since you're not God it can never be proven to you that He exists as claimed.    

This doesn't logically follow. God could simply make himself falsifiable without modifying me at all.

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: He didn't create sin.

Sin is a transgression of divine law. Without divine law, there can be no sin. God created divine law and free will, and thus the ability for sin.

You can argue that we're creating it by sinning, but only because he set up the possibility for it in the first place. So far, I haven't seen any non-circular reason for sin to exist other than that "God wants it", cuz reasons. And if he set up the system and wants it to exist... then he pretty much created it. And if you still take beef with that wording, I'll change it to "he is responsible for it".

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I did not say that sin's only purpose is that salvation is feely received.

What is the other purpose? So far, you've only alluded to mercy and justice, which are ways in which God interacts with sin. Basically, this is saying that God's purpose for sin is so that he can interact with it. But to what end?

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Please answer the question you've ignored twice.

Which question is that? I didn't see any questions in this last post.

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: The only reason to know He is telling the truth is because He is the only one able to testify to the truth of the statement.

That doesn't logically follow. Just because he's the only one who could verify it doesn't mean that he's telling the truth.

Sorry for the confusion.  I'm not saying: God is the only one who can verify if He's telling the truth therefore He's telling the truth.  I'm saying that if He is telling the truth, the only reason to know that He is telling the truth is because of His testimony.

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible, but I certainly understand your position.  The only way for it to be proven to you that God exists is for you to be as God is and since you're not God it can never be proven to you that He exists as claimed.    

This doesn't logically follow. God could simply make himself falsifiable without modifying me at all.

How so?  How can God prove to you that He is all knowing without you being all knowing?

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: He didn't create sin.

Sin is a transgression of divine law. Without divine law, there can be no sin. God created divine law and free will, and thus the ability for sin.

To avoid confusion, God didn't create divine law, free will, nor sin.  Divine law was given to mankind and it is a reflection of the holiness of God and our standing before it.  Our free will is a result of having been created in God's image.  God has a free will and is not a created being, therefore free will was not created.  With respect to sin, and I'm sure you'd agree, at most you could claim God created a world with the potential for sin.  Yet given our will, God is not responsible for sin as it was a consequence of our actions.  
That being said, in a sense, you can say that God created these things but you do so at the risk of creating confusion due to the ambiguity of the term 'create.'

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: You can argue that we're creating it by sinning, but only because he set up the possibility for it in the first place.

I agree, God's created order allowed for sin.

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: So far, I haven't seen any non-circular reason for sin to exist other than that "God wants it", cuz reasons. And if he set up the system and wants it to exist... then he pretty much created it. And if you still take beef with that wording, I'll change it to "he is responsible for it".

Only in a deterministic system.  

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I did not say that sin's only purpose is that salvation is feely received.

What is the other purpose? So far, you've only alluded to mercy and justice, which are ways in which God interacts with sin. Basically, this is saying that God's purpose for sin is so that he can interact with it. But to what end?

I gave you two in post #127.  You could add "to make known the glory of His wrath and mercy" to make four purposes.  But even if I knew a hundred purposes for which God works through sin, isn't that just "God wants it, cuz 100 reasons" in your mind?

(January 23, 2016 at 10:50 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Please answer the question you've ignored twice.

Which question is that? I didn't see any questions in this last post.

You're right.  I changed the question from post #115  into a statement of request in post # 130 (hidden in the show content).  I'd read the "show content" from the last post for context, but the question is:  How do you know God had an infinite number of ways He could have chosen to deal with?

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Sorry for the confusion.  I'm not saying: God is the only one who can verify if He's telling the truth therefore He's telling the truth.  I'm saying that if He is telling the truth, the only reason to know that He is telling the truth is because of His testimony.

Agreed, but do you understand why I don't find someone's testimony as to their own honestly non-convincing? Do you understand why I said you can't know they're telling the truth just based on that?

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: How so?  How can God prove to you that He is all knowing without you being all knowing?

If you're getting at this in the sense of "can we really know anything?", then I agree with you. I agree in the same sense that I can't actually know my car is silver without being "all knowing", but I think that sort of definition is a bit trite and contrived.

In the sense that I can reasonably know my car is silver (I do, and it is), God could make himself be reasonably known.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I gave you two in post #127.  You could add "to make known the glory of His wrath and mercy" to make four purposes.  But even if I knew a hundred purposes for which God works through sin, isn't that just "God wants it, cuz 100 reasons" in your mind?

Technically, I'm counting three, but it doesn't really matter if it is four or 100. So far, every reason you've given me for sin to exist is a circular example to show how God interacts with sin. All of these reasons could be paraphrased "God uses sin to interact with sin".

What is it's ultimate purpose other than for God to use it to interact with it? That's the problem. I guess I can give you props for not resorting to "mysterious ways" like everyone else I've talked to does, but it's all still self-referencing. The best consistent answer I can see coming from what I've read so far is "cuz God wants it". While that type of answer is honest and consistent, it also renders everything arbitrary.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: You're right.  I changed the question from post #115  into a statement of request in post # 130 (hidden in the show content).  I'd read the "show content" from the last post for context, but the question is:  How do you know God had an infinite number of ways He could have chosen to deal with?

You said his only limitation is that he cannot do things outside of his nature. If he is otherwise all powerful, he should be able to do an infinite number of things. Even if you subtract out "things against his nature", you're still left with infinity.

...and that's assuming you can make assertions about his nature (and the previously mentioned limitations) in the first place. What I was getting at with the earlier topic of you not knowing if God is telling the truth is that you can't know his nature. All you can "know" is what he chooses to show or tell you.

The only way you limit God to not having infinity options is to put (arbitrary) specific stated limits on him. These are all ad hoc, of course, but that's the only logical way an otherwise all-powerful being can be limited.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: To avoid confusion, God didn't create divine law, free will, nor sin.  

Okay. Going with that...

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Divine law was given to mankind and it is a reflection of the holiness of God and our standing before it.

How is this not God creating divine law? If he "gave" it to us, where did it come from?

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Our free will is a result of having been created in God's image. God has a free will and is not a created being, therefore free will was not created.

The context was "our" free will, not God's. It doesn't matter how God got his free will. If he created us in his definition, then he created human free will. Human free will is what is being discussed. The origin of God's is a red herring.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: With respect to sin, and I'm sure you'd agree, at most you could claim God created a world with the potential for sin.  Yet given our will, God is not responsible for sin as it was a consequence of our actions.  

...and he created the system with that potential.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: That being said, in a sense, you can say that God created these things but you do so at the risk of creating confusion due to the ambiguity of the term 'create.'

Only if we muddle the context.

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Sorry for the confusion.  I'm not saying: God is the only one who can verify if He's telling the truth therefore He's telling the truth.  I'm saying that if He is telling the truth, the only reason to know that He is telling the truth is because of His testimony.

Agreed, but do you understand why I don't find someone's testimony as to their own honestly non-convincing? Do you understand why I said you can't know they're telling the truth just based on that?

Yep, which is why I wrote:

Quote:Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible [of the claim that God cannot lie], but I certainly understand your position.

in post #130.

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: How so?  How can God prove to you that He is all knowing without you being all knowing?

If you're getting at this in the sense of "can we really know anything?", then I agree with you. I agree in the same sense that I can't actually know my car is silver without being "all knowing", but I think that sort of definition is a bit trite and contrived.

Ok, so how can God prove to you that He is all knowing?

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote: In the sense that I can reasonably know my car is silver (I do, and it is), God could make himself be reasonably known.

We weren't talking about God making Himself known, we were talking about how God could prove that He can't lie, or is all knowing, etc.  

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I gave you two in post #127.  You could add "to make known the glory of His wrath and mercy" to make four purposes.  But even if I knew a hundred purposes for which God works through sin, isn't that just "God wants it, cuz 100 reasons" in your mind?

Technically, I'm counting three, but it doesn't really matter if it is four or 100. So far, every reason you've given me for sin to exist is a circular example to show how God interacts with sin. All of these reasons could be paraphrased "God uses sin to interact with sin".

Sure.  In every instance that God uses sin to bring about His purpose sin is involved.      

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote: What is it's ultimate purpose other than for God to use it to interact with it? That's the problem. I guess I can give you props for not resorting to "mysterious ways" like everyone else I've talked to does, but it's all still self-referencing. The best consistent answer I can see coming from what I've read so far is "cuz God wants it". While that type of answer is honest and consistent, it also renders everything arbitrary.

I don't know that there's a single ultimate purpose revealed in scripture, except perhaps to glorify Himself.  A concept that is repulsive to the unbeliever, and at times to some Christians.

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: You're right.  I changed the question from post #115  into a statement of request in post # 130 (hidden in the show content).  I'd read the "show content" from the last post for context, but the question is:  How do you know God had an infinite number of ways He could have chosen to deal with?

You said his only limitation is that he cannot do things outside of his nature. If he is otherwise all powerful, he should be able to do an infinite number of things. Even if you subtract out "things against his nature", you're still left with infinity.

You're equivocating 'infinite' and 'powerful'.  Think simple.  If there are things God cannot do, does He have an infinite number of choices of things He can do?

(January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The only way you limit God to not having infinity options is to put (arbitrary) specific stated limits on him. These are all ad hoc, of course, but that's the only logical way an otherwise all-powerful being can be limited.

You really like throwing around words like arbitrary, ad hoc, and circular.  If I assert that God cannot do X because X is contrary to His nature then there is a stated reason.  To say that God cannot do something just because would be arbitrary.  In the same way if something is ad hoc it is for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.  So saying that God cannot do X because His nature does not allow it is not ad hoc because it is considering the larger application.  Namely that we have to take into consideration God's nature when speaking about the choices He makes.

(January 25, 2016 at 11:57 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: To avoid confusion, God didn't create divine law, free will, nor sin.  

Okay. Going with that...

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Divine law was given to mankind and it is a reflection of the holiness of God and our standing before it.

How is this not God creating divine law? If he "gave" it to us, where did it come from?

God's nature is Holy.
God's nature is inherent to His being.
God is eternal.
Therefore God's holiness is eternal.
Something that is eternal cannot be created.

Like I said, the law is a reflection of the holiness of God and our standing before it.  The 10 commandments are simply a physical representation of the holiness of God (a non-created attribute of His eternal nature).

(January 25, 2016 at 11:57 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 2:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Our free will is a result of having been created in God's image. God has a free will and is not a created being, therefore free will was not created.

The context was "our" free will, not God's. It doesn't matter how God got his free will. If he created us in his definition, then he created human free will. Human free will is what is being discussed. The origin of God's is a red herring.

Free will, as is God's holiness, is a non-created attribute of His eternal nature .  So you can say that God created man in His image and therefore man has the capacity for free will, but that is a different statement than claiming that God created "human free will."

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Ok, so how can God prove to you that He is all knowing?

If the question is "how can we know he is all knowing, then you'd be right. The first question you asked me along these lines is how we know he exists:

(January 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible, but I certainly understand your position.  The only way for it to be proven to you that God exists is for you to be as God is and since you're not God it can never be proven to you that He exists as claimed.  

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: We weren't talking about God making Himself known, we were talking about how God could prove that He can't lie, or is all knowing, etc.  

It somehow split into two topics (as I mentioned above), but in context, this makes sense. You're right. Your two options are two simply trust he's telling the truth, or for him to somehow give you all the knowledge so you know he's telling the truth.

...although, I suppose the knowledge he gives you could all be a ruse, too. I don't know how one would know God made them all knowing. He could sandbag just a little and the person might never know. So, I suppose it all really comes down to trust, and trust alone. Which basically means that God's inability to lie is an inherently unknowable claim; one that's simply asserted and not proven.

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Sure.  In every instance that God uses sin to bring about His purpose sin is involved.    

I don't mean that sin is involved tautologically. Obviously that's true of anything. If you ask me the purpose of a hammer and I tell you it's to drive nails, you can correctly point out that hammering nails involves the hammer. That's not what I'm talking about. The purpose is nails, which do their own thing. The nails hold stuff together, and the hammer is the tool for that. The ultimate reason for the hammer is to hold things together.

When you talk about sin, they way you describe the purpose is effectively like "to show how awesome the hammer is" and "to show restraint when not using it". Nothing is actually happening there that "needs" to happen. There's no other non-self-referencing purpose that you've mentioned.

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I don't know that there's a single ultimate purpose revealed in scripture, except perhaps to glorify Himself.  A concept that is repulsive to the unbeliever, and at times to some Christians.

So, the purpose is narcissism? I mean, this is consistent with what a lot of other Christians say, but they always take umbrage with that wording.

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You're equivocating 'infinite' and 'powerful'.  Think simple.  If there are things God cannot do, does He have an infinite number of choices of things He can do?

What's infinity minus a number?

I suppose you could describe his limitations as infinite, also, which would make the answer indeterminate. Perhaps thinking of this as an infinite number of options doesn't make sense, and instead it's an arbitrarily high number of options. We still get stuck answering "why'd he pick this setup" with the best of all possible worlds defense. That is an exceptionally ad hoc explanation of things.

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You really like throwing around words like arbitrary, ad hoc, and circular.  If I assert that God cannot do X because X is contrary to His nature then there is a stated reason.  To say that God cannot do something just because would be arbitrary.  In the same way if something is ad hoc it is for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.  So saying that God cannot do X because His nature does not allow it is not ad hoc because it is considering the larger application.  Namely that we have to take into consideration God's nature when speaking about the choices He makes.

No, in this context, those words were used to describe any other limitation one might impose on God outside the one you mentioned (acting outside his nature). I've talked to others who try to limit god in ways that are basically consistent with the conclusion they want (ad hoc because they're doing it after the fact to steer to a particular goal and arbitrary because there's no basis for the limitation other than is works with their worldview). I wasn't accusing you of either in this case, but rather saying that I don't know how else you'd limit God without falling into one of these two categories.

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: God's nature is Holy.
God's nature is inherent to His being.
God is eternal.
Therefore God's holiness is eternal.
Something that is eternal cannot be created.

Like I said, the law is a reflection of the holiness of God and our standing before it.  The 10 commandments are simply a physical representation of the holiness of God (a non-created attribute of His eternal nature).

Out of curiosity, who or what is responsible for God having his nature, if he is eternal?

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Free will, as is God's holiness, is a non-created attribute of His eternal nature .  So you can say that God created man in His image and therefore man has the capacity for free will, but that is a different statement than claiming that God created "human free will."

I'm not seeing a real difference here. He created humans with attributes like him (free will). I don't see this as a "capacity" thing. God has free will, not just the capacity.

Also, this reasoning seems sketchy. Otherwise, it'd seem like we'd all be super powerful (like God). So, apparently "in his image" has a lot of unstated limitations.

(January 26, 2016 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote: ...although, I suppose the knowledge he gives you could all be a ruse, too. I don't know how one would know God made them all knowing. He could sandbag just a little and the person might never know. So, I suppose it all really comes down to trust, and trust alone. Which basically means that God's inability to lie is an inherently unknowable claim; one that's simply asserted and not proven.

At this point it's an issue of epistemology.

(January 26, 2016 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Sure.  In every instance that God uses sin to bring about His purpose sin is involved.    

I don't mean that sin is involved tautologically. Obviously that's true of anything. If you ask me the purpose of a hammer and I tell you it's to drive nails, you can correctly point out that hammering nails involves the hammer. That's not what I'm talking about. The purpose is nails, which do their own thing. The nails hold stuff together, and the hammer is the tool for that. The ultimate reason for the hammer is to hold things together.

When you talk about sin, they way you describe the purpose is effectively like "to show how awesome the hammer is" and "to show restraint when not using it". Nothing is actually happening there that "needs" to happen. There's no other non-self-referencing purpose that you've mentioned.

Then as a skeptic I would simply ask: why does something need to be held together?  If the ultimate purpose of a hammer is holding something together, why not use glue?  Why is a hammer necessary?

(January 26, 2016 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I don't know that there's a single ultimate purpose revealed in scripture, except perhaps to glorify Himself.  A concept that is repulsive to the unbeliever, and at times to some Christians.

So, the purpose is narcissism? I mean, this is consistent with what a lot of other Christians say, but they always take umbrage with that wording.

Narcissism:  the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes.  To claim that God glorifying Himself is narcissistic has some assumptions.  Firstly that God uses  self-glorification to pursue gratification.  That one you might be able to claim from revelation.  Secondly, the gratification God seeks is from vanity.  [vanity:  1.excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements  2.  the quality of being worthless or futile].  Thirdly, the gratification God is pursuing is an egotistic admiration of His attributes.  Notice the passage in question:

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (Romans 9:22-24).

So what's happening here.  God is making known His attributes.  And why did He do so?   To make known the riches of His glory.  For what purpose?  For His own vain gratification?  What does the passage say?  It says the purpose is to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy (the believers).  Claiming that God's self-glorifying purpose is narcissistic is not consistent with the teaching of this passage.  In this passage, the purpose of God's self-glorification is for the gratification of the vessels of mercy, i.e. Christians.  

(January 26, 2016 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote: What's infinity minus a number?

If God is limited in choices, by definition His choices are finite.

(January 26, 2016 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 5:22 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You really like throwing around words like arbitrary, ad hoc, and circular.  If I assert that God cannot do X because X is contrary to His nature then there is a stated reason.  To say that God cannot do something just because would be arbitrary.  In the same way if something is ad hoc it is for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.  So saying that God cannot do X because His nature does not allow it is not ad hoc because it is considering the larger application.  Namely that we have to take into consideration God's nature when speaking about the choices He makes.

No, in this context, those words were used to describe any other limitation one might impose on God outside the one you mentioned (acting outside his nature). I've talked to others who try to limit god in ways that are basically consistent with the conclusion they want (ad hoc because they're doing it after the fact to steer to a particular goal and arbitrary because there's no basis for the limitation other than is works with their worldview). I wasn't accusing you of either in this case, but rather saying that I don't know how else you'd limit God without falling into one of these two categories.

Gotcha.  I misunderstood.

(January 26, 2016 at 5:19 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Then as a skeptic I would simply ask: why does something need to be held together?  If the ultimate purpose of a hammer is holding something together, why not use glue?  Why is a hammer necessary?

I'm not all-powerful, so I'm going to pick the right tool for the job. I lack the ability so simply will things to be together. These God -> human analogies always fall short because humans have limitations that God supposedly does not. If he doesn't have those limitations, then the analogy is bad. If he does, then you're getting into "why call him God?" territory.

I'll use glue when it makes sense, and a hammer when it does, but my analogy still holds; neither tool exists for a self-referencing reason. They each do a job.

(January 27, 2016 at 4:48 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(January 26, 2016 at 5:19 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Then as a skeptic I would simply ask: why does something need to be held together?  If the ultimate purpose of a hammer is holding something together, why not use glue?  Why is a hammer necessary?

I'm not all-powerful, so I'm going to pick the right tool for the job. I lack the ability so simply will things to be together. These God -> human analogies always fall short because humans have limitations that God supposedly does not. If he doesn't have those limitations, then the analogy is bad. If he does, then you're getting into "why call him God?" territory.

I'll use glue when it makes sense, and a hammer when it does, but my analogy still holds; neither tool exists for a self-referencing reason. They each do a job.

I agree that analogies fall short.  My intention wasn't to criticize your analogy but rather to illustrate that there is always another "Why" question to be asked.

Yes, of course a hammer and glue are not self-referencing, they don't have a self.  Nor do they [independently] "do a job" they are used to do the job for which their creator made them.  They were created for a purpose.  Wait, this is getting eerily familiar.....

I sense that our conversation may be growing to a close.  I hope that isn't the case [maybe you had little time to respond], but either way I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversation.