It is true because you dont understand it

[fr0d0]

@ Chatpilot: you completely miss the point. "Never changing" and "changing his mind" are two completely different things.

[Rhizomorph13]

Yeah Chatpilot!

God's mind isn't an actual part of him so if he changes that... Wait? WHAT?!

Fr0d0,

That makes no sense and goes against the idea of God being actus purus, the pure actuality that exists always, alpha to omega. There is no part of God that should change given that definition.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

If god created as the bible said he did, he would have to be a sentient being. Sentient beings think for themselves. Are you saying that a thinking being did not change any attitudes or veiwpoints in 2000 years just because he is all-powerful? That is either extreme stubborness or god doesent care; either way those are attributes god supposedly doesent have.

Why would he have to be a sentient being?? ie he doesn't.

Given that the definition you are working with (the Christian God) entails God existing outside of time, how do you explain "changing" without time?

Where is the first statement in quotemarks from? I dont recognize it from anywhere.

The square brackets contain the reference to the subject to make the excerpt make sense.

I agree that ""god exists because humans cannot understand god" - no he doesn't."

"church tells us something, and tries to pass it as truth, and tells us we don't understand it therefore it is true" - crazy logic <--- Entire point of this thread

Point is, that isn't any real declaration of Christianity. To try to attribute any random non Christian proof to Christianity has always got to be mistaken. If it isn't actually Christianity then we aren't discussing Christianity.

Philosophy can and often does use or is based on science, instead of religion, the athiest argument here is that the church sometimes uses screwey logic.

Maybe both are born out of enquiry. I don't see how philosophy is based on science? The screwy logic here is accepting something non evidential scientifically yet using logic. Is science justified in dismissing logic on these grounds? I think not.

I have never confirmed of denied if i think in my opinion the bible is logic or has some bit of reason, i do state the bible was more applicable to the peoples of hundreds of years ago than it is to us here today, as so much changes in such a long time; as you said, 'the morals in the bible are still good', but those are not affected by time, as an ethical lesson is an ethical lesson no matter what religion you are.

I think you're honest and that I underestimate you. All the bible is about is morals and who and what God is. The historical and literal are of little or no importance and only serve to ground the real purpose of it.

[Rhizomorph13]

Given that the definition you are working with (the Christian God) entails God existing outside of time, how do you explain "changing" without time?

Fr0d0,

Nice; all that typing and you ignore my post! So, genius, how do YOU explain changing your MIND when God exists outside of time?

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

Gimme a chance Rhiz! What is this!!! Blimey!!

Fr0d0,

That makes no sense and goes against the idea of God being actus purus, the pure actuality that exists always, alpha to omega. There is no part of God that should change given that definition.

Pure actuality entails creation. "1st 'act'". To create is not to stand still.

[chatpilot]

more apologetic psycho babble way to go fr0d0.

[fr0d0]

Good point CP! ...oh wait

[Rhizomorph13]

Pure actuality entails creation. "1st 'act'". To create is not to stand still.

Fr0d0,

Wrongo! The argument from pure actuality that Jon laid out was NOT a first cause argument. YAY I learned how to search the forum and show the results as posts instead of threads.

From post #20 in Jon's thread:

---

Now, since a pure actuality transcends everything of potentiality - that is, causality - it also transcends everything that comes with causality, including time and space (which, as I mentioned earlier, are connected with causality). The first consequence of this is that the pure actuality is unchangeable/immutable, since it transcends change itself (causality) and of course immortal because mortality is a part of causal and changing reality. It is also eternal, since if it transcends change and causality, it transcends time. It is also immaterial, since it transcends matter. It is also one, since the the principle of individuation, i.e., of numerical distinction of one individual from another with the same specific nature, is matter designated by quantity (and it transcends matter).

---

From post #406 in the same thread:

---

Actually, it's not a first cause argument, but a transcendental source of actuality argument, which means that it doesn't depend on the idea of an unbroken causal chain in which all internal causes are traced to "one" first cause, as I've established several places.

---

Rhizo

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 seriously,what denomination of Christianity do you belong to or if you are not affiliated with a denomination which one do you favor?The reason I ask is because what you are describing as Christianity is so alien to what I have learned that it does not seem like the same beliefs I held at one time at all.

Your brand of Christianity seems like a mixture of philosophy and Christianity which as you know I simply define as apologetics.But at the same time I think in order to reconcile true philosophy with religion it takes alot of reworking of the scriptures themselves and speculation as to the attributes and nature of God himself.Which according to most mainstream Christians is unknowable.

[fr0d0]

Yet all Christians who have commented on it agree with me CP.

@ Rhiz I just checked with JP and he said my statement was correct