Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
tackattack Wrote:God did send a clear message, he can't be fit in a box (despite our best attempts)...
A characteristic that is shared with fuzyy wuzzy woo woo.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
June 25, 2010 at 4:03 pm (This post was last modified: June 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm by tavarish.)
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: I never said God doesn't operate under cause and effect when interacting within this universe. When someone can jump to anywhere on the space time "track" and go in either direction doesn't mean that while he's traveling on the track he isn't part of the space time.
So let's get this straight. God is spaceless and timeless, but he can have en effect on space and time.
Can you give any evidence to support this claim? How would you distinguish this being as being necessarily existent?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: An infinite regress outside the universe is possible. Within this universe an infinite regress isn't possible because we know that the universe at some point started, then begs the question what started it (the big bang). That leads to the question, if there was nothing before the universe then what started the big bang, what was the initial cause to start the causal chain. If you see a design to teh universe then that answer is typically God, if not it typically stops at random chaos from the big bang.
The big bang isn't what started the universe, the big bang is the expansion of the universe. Universal origins are still as of yet unknown, for the reasons I've outlined in my previous post. You've apparently not understood anything I've written about how we have no understanding of causality prior to the singularity, as that is a meaningless term. Causality works within the boundaries of time and space.
To say you have a definite idea of what happens outside these parameters, and demonstrate that they are true would win you a nobel prize, so don't keep it to yourself. However, if you don't, and are just stating this out of necessity to keep the concept of God going in your head despite glaring contradictions - which is the more likely case - then I'd ask you to drop the argument.
The design in the universe is a buzz word for personal incredulity.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Laws of someplace outside this universe which we're not privy to. God being created still doesn't affect this universe at all from what I see.
I never stated what the conditions were, as it would be an exercise in futility and speculation. However, the fact that God is a finite being, having at one point NOT existed, negates an omnipotent being. If he was created, he at one point wasn't - and therefore could not have power over anything, nor could he have been the necessary author of the conditions he was created into.
I asked: "If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version?"
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: through religious study the things I attribute to God are best described by Jesus's interpretation or what God is, as described in the Bible
"My religion says so" isn't a good reason. Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth, especially not with a concept as varied as God.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: 3- You asked my contention of the following:
1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.
This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship.
I would say I'm at none of the above. God did send a clear message, he can't be fit in a box (despite our best attempts), yet who I see as my personal concept of God is quite clear.
OK, this gets absolutely nowhere in distinguishing which version of God is correct, or if one even exists at all. If God sent a clear message, there would be a concensus. I'll take, for example, gravity. Newton developed the Laws if Gravity, which are accepted virtually unanimously by scientific individuals and laymen alike. This is something that is rarely contested, and has a mountain of evidence to support it. This is a consensus.
Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make sense.
I'm sure you have a great idea of what God is to you, but that has no bearing of what something is in reality - it also has no bearing on if that something necessarily exists in any objective form.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: The eternalness of God (whether he grew up or just always was) has nothing to do with his power (powerfull enough to created everything in the universe).
Did you have power over anything before you were born?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: There is a concensus as to what God is.
Really? Please give me an explanation of God that is true and that everyone can agree with. Be specific, preferably without self-refuting attributes.
I guarantee you that at least 2 other theists on this site have different views, not to mention the billions who don't agree with you.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Let's just assume that God did grow up, he'd be "alive long enough" to be the closest thing to eternal that we know, and therefore from our perspective endless.
But he would still have been finite and not an infinite being. He would not always have existed, and he would have necessitated a creator, by your logic, who created him within specific parameters. This is a huge question.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: You'll have to forgive me I'm tired tonight I'll catch up later.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: I never said God doesn't operate under cause and effect when interacting within this universe. When someone can jump to anywhere on the space time "track" and go in either direction doesn't mean that while he's traveling on the track he isn't part of the space time.
So let's get this straight. God is spaceless and timeless, but he can have en effect on space and time.
Can you give any evidence to support this claim? How would you distinguish this being as being necessarily existent?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: An infinite regress outside the universe is possible. Within this universe an infinite regress isn't possible because we know that the universe at some point started, then begs the question what started it (the big bang). That leads to the question, if there was nothing before the universe then what started the big bang, what was the initial cause to start the causal chain. If you see a design to teh universe then that answer is typically God, if not it typically stops at random chaos from the big bang.
The big bang isn't what started the universe, the big bang is the expansion of the universe. Universal origins are still as of yet unknown, for the reasons I've outlined in my previous post. You've apparently not understood anything I've written about how we have no understanding of causality prior to the singularity, as that is a meaningless term. Causality works within the boundaries of time and space.
To say you have a definite idea of what happens outside these parameters, and demonstrate that they are true would win you a nobel prize, so don't keep it to yourself. However, if you don't, and are just stating this out of necessity to keep the concept of God going in your head despite glaring contradictions - which is the more likely case - then I'd ask you to drop the argument.
The design in the universe is a buzz word for personal incredulity.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Laws of someplace outside this universe which we're not privy to. God being created still doesn't affect this universe at all from what I see.
I never stated what the conditions were, as it would be an exercise in futility and speculation. However, the fact that God is a finite being, having at one point NOT existed, negates an omnipotent being. If he was created, he at one point wasn't - and therefore could not have power over anything, nor could he have been the necessary author of the conditions he was created into.
I asked: "If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version?"
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: through religious study the things I attribute to God are best described by Jesus's interpretation or what God is, as described in the Bible
"My religion says so" isn't a good reason. Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth, especially not with a concept as varied as God.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: 3- You asked my contention of the following:
1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.
This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship.
I would say I'm at none of the above. God did send a clear message, he can't be fit in a box (despite our best attempts), yet who I see as my personal concept of God is quite clear.
OK, this gets absolutely nowhere in distinguishing which version of God is correct, or if one even exists at all. If God sent a clear message, there would be a concensus. I'll take, for example, gravity. Newton developed the Laws if Gravity, which are accepted virtually unanimously by scientific individuals and laymen alike. This is something that is rarely contested, and has a mountain of evidence to support it. This is a consensus.
Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make sense.
I'm sure you have a great idea of what God is to you, but that has no bearing of what something is in reality - it also has no bearing on if that something necessarily exists in any objective form.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: The eternalness of God (whether he grew up or just always was) has nothing to do with his power (powerfull enough to created everything in the universe).
Did you have power over anything before you were born?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: There is a concensus as to what God is.
Really? Please give me an explanation of God that is true and that everyone can agree with. Be specific, preferably without self-refuting attributes.
I guarantee you that at least 2 other theists on this site have different views, not to mention the billions who don't agree with you.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Let's just assume that God did grow up, he'd be "alive long enough" to be the closest thing to eternal that we know, and therefore from our perspective endless.
But he would still have been finite and not an infinite being. He would not always have existed, and he would have necessitated a creator, by your logic, who created him within specific parameters. This is a huge question.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: You'll have to forgive me I'm tired tonight I'll catch up later.
I know the feeling.
Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Some thoughts of a fuzzy-wuzzy-woo-woo-ist on fuzzy-wuzzy-woo-woo-ism:
"Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is everywhere
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is all
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is unknowable
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is intangible
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is self evident even if that's circular
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is the meaing of it all
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is to be worshipped without thinking
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo created the universe
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo gave me free will
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is indefinable
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is what gives meaning to my life
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is what I can project my emotions on
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo loves me.....and you too
Fuzzy wuzzy woo woo is what gets me through the day
I'll die for my fuzzy wuzzy woo woo
Stand by your fuzzy wuzzy woo woo
I love my fuzzy wuzzy woo woo and therefore I will fabulate it into existence."
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
June 26, 2010 at 3:48 am (This post was last modified: June 26, 2010 at 3:51 am by tavarish.)
(June 26, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote:
Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out. 1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
1a- It's unlimited power over this universe and unlimited authority over his creation (meaning this universe not his own). I never used immutable, nor is it an attribute any theist I know attributes to God. I don't think anything can be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does.
1b-omniscience does not negate omnipotence. How does the fact you see every possibility have any affect on the power/force you use to direct your will. Let me try and give a metaphor, becuase there's obviously a disconnect here: If the universe is a lake, God loks into the lake and sees every little fish and algae in it and everything they're thinking and doing. He also knows everything about the lake itself (omniscience). He sees some shark about to eat a particularly important fish. He uses his underwater taser (omnipotent) to stop the shark. how does one limit the other?
2- I suppose with consistent demonstratability.
3- You're going to have to either dub that down a bit for me or wait till I get some sleep and some fresh eyes. I reread it twice.
4- They might add more attributes, I don't think they'd take away any of them and that they'd agree to the definitions presented. Consistency is also a product of truth, but you're more than welcome to believe we're all delusional nut cases, everyone else does.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am (This post was last modified: June 28, 2010 at 10:02 am by tavarish.)
(June 26, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote:
(June 26, 2010 at 3:48 am)tavarish Wrote:
(June 26, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
1a- It's unlimited power over this universe and unlimited authority over his creation (meaning this universe not his own). I never used immutable, nor is it an attribute any theist I know attributes to God. I don't think anything can be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does.
1b-omniscience does not negate omnipotence. How does the fact you see every possibility have any affect on the power/force you use to direct your will. Let me try and give a metaphor, becuase there's obviously a disconnect here: If the universe is a lake, God loks into the lake and sees every little fish and algae in it and everything they're thinking and doing. He also knows everything about the lake itself (omniscience). He sees some shark about to eat a particularly important fish. He uses his underwater taser (omnipotent) to stop the shark. how does one limit the other?
2- I suppose with consistent demonstratability.
3- You're going to have to either dub that down a bit for me or wait till I get some sleep and some fresh eyes. I reread it twice.
4- They might add more attributes, I don't think they'd take away any of them and that they'd agree to the definitions presented. Consistency is also a product of truth, but you're more than welcome to believe we're all delusional nut cases, everyone else does.
1. So you just demonstrated that God isn't omnipotent, since he can't change the parameters of his existence, and assert that his power is necessarily confined to our universe (whatever that means).
By the way, immutability is quite common on Christian doctrine:
1b. Because omniscience isn't simply seeing the possibilities of what can occur, it's knowing with absolute certainty what WILL occur at any point. With that, God cannot stray from his own path without compromising his omnipotence.
I'll follow your lake analogy:
God knows that he will be surveying a lake and tasering a shark to save a fish. Now God KNOWS this ahead of time, and therefore has no way of making a choice NOT to do it, otherwise he would not know what he was going to do with absolute certainty. If he could change his actions, that would necessarily mean he was mistaken in his knowledge, and if he couldn't change his actions, that necessarily means he is not only not omnipotent, but impotent.
Do you understand now?
2. Please be more specific.
3. Boils down to two axioms - primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness. I outlined them for you in the previous post. If you support the primacy of consciousness (that existence is dependent on a mind), how do you distinguish the real from unreal, and how can you be certain that mind is necessarily God with the attributes that you list?
4. I'll ask them to chime in.
Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote: Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I'll oblige.
Sounds spot on apart from: "God has a [will and] design" seems odd. Dunno what you mean by that tack.
Like tack said we all agree on the basics. God's nature is constantly being revealed to all of us. We accept it's not something we can know completely. Even collectively. But we all do know and agree upon those basics.
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote: Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I'll oblige.
Sounds spot on apart from: "God has a [will and] design" seems odd. Dunno what you mean by that tack.
Like tack said we all agree on the basics. God's nature is constantly being revealed to all of us. We accept it's not something we can know completely. Even collectively. But we all do know and agree upon those basics.
OK, what are the basics?
When I say consensus, I mean consensus among people, not among people that are already a part of your religion. I wrote "theists" rather than "Christians" for a reason.
(June 26, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
1a- It's unlimited power over this universe and unlimited authority over his creation (meaning this universe not his own). I never used immutable, nor is it an attribute any theist I know attributes to God. I don't think anything can be anything other than what it is or do anything other than what it does.
1b-omniscience does not negate omnipotence. How does the fact you see every possibility have any affect on the power/force you use to direct your will. Let me try and give a metaphor, becuase there's obviously a disconnect here: If the universe is a lake, God loks into the lake and sees every little fish and algae in it and everything they're thinking and doing. He also knows everything about the lake itself (omniscience). He sees some shark about to eat a particularly important fish. He uses his underwater taser (omnipotent) to stop the shark. how does one limit the other?
2- I suppose with consistent demonstratability.
3- You're going to have to either dub that down a bit for me or wait till I get some sleep and some fresh eyes. I reread it twice.
4- They might add more attributes, I don't think they'd take away any of them and that they'd agree to the definitions presented. Consistency is also a product of truth, but you're more than welcome to believe we're all delusional nut cases, everyone else does.
1. So you just demonstrated that God isn't omnipotent, since he can't change the parameters of his existence, and assert that his power is necessarily confined to our universe (whatever that means).
By the way, immutability is quite common on Christian doctrine:
1b. Because omniscience isn't simply seeing the possibilities of what can occur, it's knowing with absolute certainty what WILL occur at any point. With that, God cannot stray from his own path without compromising his omnipotence.
I'll follow your lake analogy:
God knows that he will be surveying a lake and tasering a shark to save a fish. Now God KNOWS this ahead of time, and therefore has no way of making a choice NOT to do it, otherwise he would not know what he was going to do with absolute certainty. If he could change his actions, that would necessarily mean he was mistaken in his knowledge, and if he couldn't change his actions, that necessarily means he is not only not omnipotent, but impotent.
Do you understand now?
2. Please be more specific.
3. Boils down to two axioms - primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness. I outlined them for you in the previous post. If you support the primacy of consciousness (that existence is dependent on a mind), how do you distinguish the real from unreal, and how can you be certain that mind is necessarily God with the attributes that you list?
4. I'll ask them to chime in.
Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I should probably make another thread for that.
1- No I stated he was omnipotent and our perceptions of his power can only be seen from within the only frame of reference we have (within our universe). His power maybe finite outside this universe, idk, but since he's the creator of this universe and has power over it and in it, he's more powerful than it. From our perspective he's all powerfull, but that doesn't necessarily apply outside the universe.
1b-I think I can see what you're talking about. If over the course of 15 billion occurences of 1 incident he's done or will do every possible action and in that way would be unable to change his course of action because at some point in eternity he's done it. In this universe/space time/dimension he can only have one contributing influence on one event at one point in time.
2-I don't think I can be any more specific than that. I don't think God can be objectively proven to exist materialisticaly nor do I make that claim.
3- I think existance isn't based off of a mind. A rock will be a rock if no one is around to see it, and it exists.
(June 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(June 28, 2010 at 9:58 am)tavarish Wrote: Any theists want to revise tackattack's attributes of God?
I'll oblige.
Sounds spot on apart from: "God has a [will and] design" seems odd. Dunno what you mean by that tack.
Like tack said we all agree on the basics. God's nature is constantly being revealed to all of us. We accept it's not something we can know completely. Even collectively. But we all do know and agree upon those basics.
Sure I'll elaborate.
Jerimiah 1
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD. 9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."
Jeremiah 29:11-13 (New International Version)
11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
IT's simple he has a plan for us, sometimes I substitute plan for design, they're interchangable in my mind.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
