What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[LadyForCamus]

There is no disconnect that I can see here, but this seems to fit well with compatibilism and if it's meant to be describing libertarian free will, it doesn't seem to provide a sufficient description.

The disconnect, if you need one, is in the elaboration you provided in this quote below:


I already explained what's wrong with this description in my previous response.

Then it seems you are asserting that only physical brain states are responsible for decisions. The only support I know for that conclusion is to presuppose naturalism (it can be no other way). If that is your reasoning, it is question begging. Is there another reason to believe that that is all that is happening?

How about zero evidence to suggest otherwise, for starters...

[Harry Nevis]

Before you go saying that God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere. I believe he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.

Just to nitpick (because why the hell not), the universe and the cosmos are not the same thing.

It can be, if you only believe...

---

Anyway...what the hell is supposed to be the difference between 'causally active' and 'physically present'?  I mean, for fuck's sake, Steve...

Like your sig, Lady.  I'm going to a Tom Waits tribute concert tonight.  Hopefully, someone will cover, "Christmas card From A Hooker in Minneapolis".

[Brian37]

The universe and cosmos are not the same thing is like saying a comedy movie and horror movie means one is a movie and the other is a toaster. So that means Jesus is the one true son of the only God of the bible?

Yea Steve, hope you have a daytime job because you would not make it in a lab.

[Mister Agenda]

So no free will in heaven as long as you stay within God's effective radius. And you turn out to be a literalist. God is omnipresent and located in heaven. God is a spirit and likes to sit in a chair. Good thing you believe he can only do the 'actually possible' or who knows what sleight of reality you'd have him doing.

Your definition of omnipresent is off. The idea is that God is aware of all points in the physical universe--not that he is in them.

You're saying omnipresence but you're describing omniscience. As I said, you seem to be describing a deity much like Odin sitting on he throne observing the universe (all the realms). It's an unorthodox position for a Christian, most seem to prefer to think of God as an omnipresent spirit (literally everywhere), but I think that view has little Biblical support when you get down to it, I'm surprised more believers don't jettison omnipresence; it's not an essential attribute for a theodic deity.

[SteveII]

The hangup you have is that a possible world does not mean a complete possible alternate reality. It is a term used in modal logic to test propositions- and could be paraphrase as "logically speaking, the world could have been this way".

Go to this link:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/facult...ES2006.pdf

How do they define possible worlds? Like this:

Possible worlds are complete ways that things might be.

Want a dictionary definition instead? No problem.

(in modal logic) a semantic device formalizing the notion of what the world might have been like. A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world

From:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...ible-world
 

One last try from a different angle: Possible world =/= feasible world. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. So while the proposition that everyone always chooses good is true in some possible world, it very well might not be feasible for God to create such a world because when God creates the actual world (notice I don't say "that world" because there is no such thing as that world) it very well might out that the 8th person freely chooses to do evil and the chain reaction of that evil has trillions of consequences. And, if in his foreknowledge, God can arrange the 8th person not to be tempted by x, it might be that that action causes the 7th or the 435th person to make a different choice...and so on.

Ignoring the "possible world vs. feasible world" red herring, we still have the problem of you not demonstrating that it is not feasible that all human beings can choose good all the time. All you did basically was speculate about consequences of one person choosing good vs the same person choosing evil. Speculating is not demonstrating. Try harder next time please.

I should not have used the word **possible** marked above.  I see now it could create confusion when someone is new to the terminology--I was simply modifying the phrase 'alternative reality' symmetrically with 'possible worlds'. Just take that word out of the sentence. 

You don't seem to clearly understand what you posted. I highlighted a couple of phrases. I didn't say anything different than what you posted. You have to start with the understanding that this is a modal logic term and until you get the hang of it should be prefaced with "purely logically speaking...". 

In addition, you don't understand the other sentence you posted: "A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world." Exactly--for the PoE to succeed, the proposition that everyone could always choose the good must be necessarily true. It is not and that is why the PoE argument fails. Also this sentence is not defining possible worlds, it is just showing an example of using it. Here are more examples from wikipedia

True propositions are those that are true in the actual world (for example: "Richard Nixon became president in 1969").
False propositions are those that are false in the actual world (for example: "Ronald Reagan became president in 1969"). (Reagan did not run for president until 1976, and thus couldn't possibly have been elected.)
Possible propositions are those that are true in at least one possible world (for example: "Hubert Humphrey became president in 1969"). (Humphrey did run for president in 1968, and thus could have been elected.) This includes propositions which are necessarily true, in the sense below.
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").[1]
Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others (for example: "Richard Nixon became president in 1969" is contingently false and "Hubert Humphrey became president in 1969" is contingently true).

The possible world terminology and modal logic vocab is difficult and it took me awhile to understand whatever arguments I was reading the first time I encountered it. Don't read a sentence and think you got it. You need to read a whole article on the topic complete with examples.

And as far as your closing insistence that I have something I need to prove, I do not. The fact that your proposition is not necessarily true is what defeats the argument.

[Mister Agenda]

This post was a mess and I'd like to take it back, please.

[GrandizerII]

It is better to semantically separate the universe from the cosmos, especially given the possibility of there being a multiverse (so a bunch of universes) instead of just one universe, and if we refer to everything in existence as the universe, then theists will keep making the mistake of equivocating between the local observable universe and the broader universe in their arguments for God (as can be illustrated by Steve's elaboration on God's "omnipresence") and atheists will have to keep paying attention to the equivocation.

[SteveII]

Your definition of omnipresent is off. The idea is that God is aware of all points in the physical universe--not that he is in them.

You're saying omnipresence but you're describing omniscience.

No, I define omniscience as God knows and believes all true proposition and he does not believe any false propositions.

[Mister Agenda]

You're saying omnipresence but you're describing omniscience.

No, I define omniscience as God knows and believes all true proposition and he does not believe any false propositions.

If you're going to use nonstandard definitions, you might as well not say anything.

om·nis·cience

/ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/

noun

noun: omniscience

the state of knowing everything.

[LadyForCamus]

No, I define omniscience as God knows and believes all true proposition and he does not believe any false propositions.

If you're going to use nonstandard definitions, you might as well not say anything.

om·nis·cience

/ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/

noun

noun: omniscience

the state of knowing everything.

So long as words can mean anything we want them to mean, and for any old reason, the narrative remains uncompromised. [emoji6]