RE: The Problem of Good
January 25, 2016 at 11:52 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2016 at 11:53 am by RobbyPants.)
(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.
