Christianity

[evo]

You are very sure of yourself but are often and regularly completely wrong on philosophical issues when I check on them. You said that that 'free will' is an illusion, and imply that nearly all philosophers worth their salt don't believe in it. I look it up in what appears to be a reasonably unbiased online philosophical encyclopedia (the Standford) and it informs me that the subject is very contoversial and there are multiple theories. To your credit you later admit this.
.

I'm accutely aware it is controversial subject.In fact many,perhaps even most philosophers believe in it.

I don't believe I have said otherwise.

I do the same research on omnipotence and find the same thing again. Here look for yourself. This article more or less backs up everything I have said Mr Clear Thinker.

You've got to be kidding me.

Where does it say God defines what omnipotence is?

Of course God defines omnipotence!

 

[jayfox]

Quite simply if God is simultaneously next to me right now and also next to me on the day I die (and at every point in between), free will is a paradox as my entire life is predetermined.

It also makes a mockery of every assertion that God is/was upset with people/events. How could He possibly be upset about something He has known all along would happen. In fact, taking this one step further the conclusion can only be that everything that happens does so by God's will given that He knew it all before creating it.

The other paradox it presents that I can see concerns Hell. You tell me that Hell is eternity without God. Yet for me to be there, Hell must be a place. If it is a place and God is omnipresent, He must be there.

Just because you can't understand it doesn't stop it from being real.

Re your first point, how does someone being where you are and watching what you are doing, take away your free will. You could say the fact that God knows what you will choose in advance of you doing it negates your free will but I don't agree with that either. Just because He knows what you will choose doesn't mean it is not your choice, it's just that He knew which decision you would make. I know you think that's not free will but I do. His knowing did not affect the decision you made in the slightest.

How can you be upset when you know something is going to happen? People have loved ones who die from cancer every day and many of them have known for weeks, months or even years that it will happen. That doesn't stop them from being upset when it happens. God is a compassionate being, He understands pain and therefore He feels for us when we experience it, but He also knows that sometimes it is best for us to endure hardship to become better people because of it.

Yeah, Hell has intruiged me in the past too. I have called it "seperation from God" but I don't think I've ever said that God is not there, as I am not sure. I believe it is a place where all of the good things of God are gone and a place where there is no chance of a relationship with Him but I assume that He knows what goes on in every aspect of Hell. All of this is way beyond our human understanding anyway. We think our lives are so big but we are absolutely minute when you look at the size of the universe. If God created and is in places that we can't even see through the Hubble telescope then I am pretty confident that we will never fully understand how His Omnipotence and Omnipresence actually works. Until perhaps we meet Him, that is.

 

[Djevv]

Strawman. Where have they ever said such a thing? Have you read any of their work? Which ones?

I guess I have read a lot about them, and whenever I have tried to get a firm definition like: we beleive there is no God, I get equivocation. Oh it means we don't belive in formal religions or the like. I know Evo has used this kind of definition. Even your definition of I can't believe until I see scientific evidence seems more like agnosticism. Under these kind of definitions you could get contradictions like athiests who believe in God! There seem to be as many definitions as there are athiests.

My observation is that Christians understand the Bible in a very credulous way that supports their particular worldview and religious view. The claims of particular interpretations to support those views and the wildly different interpretations (such as the one that started this discussion) are evidence of exactly that. I should mention that these same individuals can be very skeptical in other aspects of their lives, but when it comes to their religious beliefs they become amazingly credulous.

Your opinion to which you are entitled.

I called it a cop out because instead of answering the question, you said 'study'. Either you don't know the answer to the question, or you can't be bothered answering it.

You want to know the real reason? There are people out there suffering and dying in these fires. I don't feel comfortable pontificating on this issue on this thread at this present moment. I hope you can respect that.

The fact that I don't agree with your interpretation of different aspects of the Bible does not mean I don't understand your interpretation. When I disagree I qualify the reasons for my disagreement.

Panther I know you are an expert in your field, but you are not a Bible scholar. You use of that scripture a page or two ago made that abundantly clear. I have spent my whole adult life in church and I know my Bible. I know why I believe what I do Biblically speaking. I also that the Bible can be misused to make any point you like. I have found it absolutely pointless discussing the scriptures with athiests on this thread. Where is the commonality?

"Infinite in power" does not mean "Capable of anything"? How do you distinguish them?

Are you saying that God has the attributes of God, when you say he is omnipotent? What does that mean?

Atheists do not unequivocally state that there is no god. They just say, on the balance of evidence, there almost certainly no god. They are not making a claim, but pointing out the logical flaws in the theist's claims. Where is this positive evidence that you claim?

Read back over the thread, I have given plenty of positive evidence. Try reading that omnipotence link I gave Evo.

I probably spend more time on apologetics websites than anti-apologetics websites. From discussions that you have weighed in on that I have some knowledge in the area of, I would say that you need to broaden your study before making flawed responses sourced directly from such apologetics websites.

Where have I made these responses? Seems to me like a strawman to me. I suppose it is good that you spend time on these important issues, I hope you find what you are looking for.

O....k......

How does this relate to my question?

My point here is that human logic and reality do not always dovetail.

 

[Disco08]

Just because you can't understand it doesn't stop it from being real.

Re your first point, how does someone being where you are and watching what you are doing, take away your free will. You could say the fact that God knows what you will choose in advance of you doing it negates your free will but I don't agree with that either. Just because He knows what you will choose doesn't mean it is not your choice, it's just that He knew which decision you would make. I know you think that's not free will but I do. His knowing did not affect the decision you made in the slightest.

How can it be a decision at all if my fate is already determined? How can my fate not be predetermined if God already knows it?

How can you be upset when you know something is going to happen? People have loved ones who die from cancer every day and many of them have known for weeks, months or even years that it will happen. That doesn't stop them from being upset when it happens.

That's because to humans, something isn't reality until it happens. To God, everything that will ever happen is reality because he is there for all of it at once. Time is completely meaningless to Him. Furthermore, no one plans the death of their loved ones.

Yeah, Hell has intruiged me in the past too. I have called it "seperation from God" but I don't think I've ever said that God is not there, as I am not sure. I believe it is a place where all of the good things of God are gone and a place where there is no chance of a relationship with Him but I assume that He knows what goes on in every aspect of Hell. All of this is way beyond our human understanding anyway. We think our lives are so big but we are absolutely minute when you look at the size of the universe. If God created and is in places that we can't even see through the Hubble telescope then I am pretty confident that we will never fully understand how His Omnipotence and Omnipresence actually works. Until perhaps we meet Him, that is.

Firstly, I'd be happy if faith just left it at that. 'There's a God, but we don't understand him. He preaches love and tolerance so if we do our best to follow suit God should be pleased." Without the (IMO) obviously man made constructs of judgment, Hell, damnation and redemption-reserved-for-believers-only religion would look a lot better to me.

Secondly, I personally am well aware of and comfortable with the fact that my life is insignificant and minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm quite happy for it to be that way too.

Yeah, Hell has intruiged me in the past too. I have called it "seperation from God" but I don't think I've ever said that God is not there, as I am not sure.

That is what Hell is. Eternity without God and everything good that has ever been created.

 

[Djevv]

I'm accutely aware it is controversial subject.In fact many,perhaps even most philosophers believe in it.

I don't believe I have said otherwise.You've got to be kidding me.

Where does it say God defines what omnipotence is?

It says you can get a coherent theory (is that the right word) of omnipotence which does not require the performing of logical impossibilities.

Must say I am surprised noone has asked me how to do that square circle!

 

[Rosy]

God is a compassionate being, He understands pain and therefore He feels for us when we experience it, but He also knows that sometimes it is best for us to endure hardship to become better people because of it.

Unbelievable. Poor compassionate God feeling for the people burned to death or suffering in agony this week...how on earth will they become better people for it?

 

[jayfox]

Unbelievable. Poor compassionate God feeling for the people burned to death or suffering in agony this week...how on earth will they become better people for it?

If they were believers then they will never feel pain again. As the Bible says in Phillipians, for a believer to die is gain, i.e. to go to Heaven and no longer feel the pain and sadness of this world.

Tragedy also can bring survivors closer to God so if they find God as a result of this then, in the perspective of eternity, a positive can come from this horrific negative.

 

[evo]

It says you can get a coherent theory (is that the right word) of omnipotence which does not require the performing of logical impossibilities.

Most of the arguments seemed ridiculous to me.He redefined omnipotence so it was no longer omnipotence (In My opinion)--just in case you feel the need to tell me again I'm definately wrong for merely expressing an opinion . ;D

You are aware that is just one fellows opinion?And from one who has wrote a book on apologism , and that he drew on Plantinga, Aquinas et al to support his article?

 

[Disco08]

If they were believers then they will never feel pain again. As the Bible says in Phillipians, for a believer to die is gain, i.e. to go to Heaven and no longer feel the pain and sadness of this world.

And for the non-believers killed in the fires? No compassion for them?

 

[Rosy]

If they were believers then they will never feel pain again.

And if they're not believers?

Beat me too it Disco.

 

[Djevv]

Most of the arguments seemed ridiculous to me.He redefined omnipotence so it was no longer omnipotence (In My opinion)--just in case you feel the need to tell me again I'm definately wrong for merely expressing an opinion . ;D

You are aware that is just one fellows opinion?And from one who has wrote a book on apologism , and that he drew on Plantinga, Aquinas et al to support his article?

Ok I must say I didn't know much about the authors. Saying they are biased is not the same as refuting their arguments.

Must say, in my opinion defining omnipotence in terms of God making a stone He can't lift seems more than a little ridiculous. Seems like definition that is being set up for a fall.

 

[jb03]

Just wondering why references to god such as 'he' and 'him' are spelt with a capital H.

 

[Rosy]

Just wondering why references to god such as 'he' and 'him' are spelt with a capital H.

I wondered that the other day when I did it myself.

 

[Legends of 2017]

I was brought up believing in god. The way certain deaths in my family happened in the past have made me doubt the existance of god, or at the very least, a compassionate and caring god. What might clinch it for me is the front cover of todays hun. For those who haven't seen it or can't see it, it has some of the youngest victims of this bushfire tragedy. A baby, 8 months old, a couple of 3 year olds, 9,8, 10, 12, 14, 7 and 8 year olds. While all the deaths were tragic and devastating, these innocent babies and children never had a chance to grow up and experience life. The way they died must have been unspeakably horrific. How can a compassionate, caring and loving god allow this to happen?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I was brought up believing in god. The way certain deaths in my family happened in the past have made me doubt the existance of god, or at the very least, a compassionate and caring god. What might clinch it for me is the front cover of todays hun. For those who haven't seen it or can't see it, it has some of the youngest victims of this bushfire tragedy. A baby, 8 months old, a couple of 3 year olds, 9,8, 10, 12, 14, 7 and 8 year olds. While all the deaths were tragic and devastating, these innocent babies and children never had a chance to grow up and experience life. The way they died must have been unspeakably horrific. How can a compassionate, caring and loving god allow this to happen?

I know my answer to that question.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I guess I have read a lot about them, and whenever I have tried to get a firm definition like: we beleive there is no God, I get equivocation. Oh it means we don't belive in formal religions or the like. I know Evo has used this kind of definition. Even your definition of I can't believe until I see scientific evidence seems more like agnosticism. Under these kind of definitions you could get contradictions like athiests who believe in God! There seem to be as many definitions as there are athiests.

I think you should reserve your opinion until you actually read what they have written and their justification for their positions. Another example of you limiting your research to apologetics, ie. other people's opinions.

You want to know the real reason? There are people out there suffering and dying in these fires. I don't feel comfortable pontificating on this issue on this thread at this present moment. I hope you can respect that.

Indeed I can. I too have had a difficult week because of this tragedy. You are always welcome to opt out of these discussions. It is perfectly understandable given the current happenings.

Panther I know you are an expert in your field, but you are not a Bible scholar. You use of that scripture a page or two ago made that abundantly clear. I have spent my whole adult life in church and I know my Bible. I know why I believe what I do Biblically speaking. I also that the Bible can be misused to make any point you like. I have found it absolutely pointless discussing the scriptures with athiests on this thread. Where is the commonality?

I would argue that you are not a Bible scholar either. I have spent many years studying the Bible, both intensively as a believer when i was younger (hence my understanding and familiarity with your interpretations) and as unbeliever with a more critical eye. If you disagree with my interpretation of a Chapter or verse of the Bible please point it out. Your interpretations are not shared by everyone, including your fellow Christians. So who is right? Again, this is a problem with dogmatically following an ancient text that is very much open to interpretation.

You don't like to discuss the scriptures because I disagree with a particular interpretation. You use the word "misuse". Why is that? I understand a passage to mean something. Why is my interpretation any less valid than yours? Or any apologetic's? I substantiate the basis of my interpretation and instead of pointing out where I am wrong, I get the "you are reading it out of context" or "that was valid for a certain time and has now been superseded". On what basis do you make such claims? Sure, it strengthens your position, but you need to justify the reason for such a claim.

Where have I made these responses? Seems to me like a strawman to me. I suppose it is good that you spend time on these important issues, I hope you find what you are looking for.

You have made many common arguments against the fact of evolution in our discussions (ie mutation/information argument, second law of thermodynamics argument etc.) these are common, thoroughly debunked arguments that you have sourced from your creationist websites. If you had broadened your search slightly you would see that the responses to these arguments are easy to find and thoroughly address these flawed arguments. No strawman here.

What I am looking for? Well it is my job. I do have aims. There are tangible benefits to many people from the findings. So, cheers for the encouragement.

My point here is that human logic and reality do not always dovetail.

Ok. That suggests a flaw in the logic. Feel free to explain the flaws in my arguments instead of introducing other paradoxes.

 

[evo]

Ok I must say I didn't know much about the authors. Saying they are biased is not the same as refuting their arguments.

Agree.

It is pretty reputable website,I often use it to give me ideas for essays myself,so the guy is obviously no fool if they've accepted his essay

Maybe you can paste the part of his argument that you thought was pretty convincing so we can examine it.

 

[Disco08]

Just wondering why references to god such as 'he' and 'him' are spelt with a capital H.

I didn't know why and this was the best I could come up with.

 

[Djevv]

Agree.

It is pretty reputable website,I often use it to give me ideas for essays myself,so the guy is obviously no fool if they've accepted his essay

Maybe you can paste the part of his argument that you thought was pretty convincing so we can examine it.

This section concerns what we were talking about:

'One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion (Meditations, Section 1). Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction (see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3; and Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, Ch. 15). Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs (e.g., that all cubes are shaped). It is possible for an agent, a, to bring about a necessary state of affairs, s, only if possibly, (1) a brings about s, and (2) if a had not acted, then s would have failed to obtain. Because a necessary state of affairs obtains whether or not anyone acts, (2) is false. As a consequence, it is impossible for an agent to bring about either a necessary or an impossible state of affairs. Obviously, an agent's having the power to bring about a state of affairs entails that, possibly, the agent brings about that state of affairs. Thus, the first sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Henceforth, it will be assumed that it is not possible for an agent to have the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever.'

 

[Djevv]

Evil in this world raises a lot of questions about God. But I have this response:

There is no answer in materialism, the evil and unpleasantness still exists, humans still cause much of it, and those who died have lost their only chance to exist (if they even existed in the first place). In fact if determinism is true (and I think it is a correct view in a purely material universe) those who died were determined to die and could do nothing to save themselves and those who lit the fires were determined to do so and no amount of prevention could have changed anything. Altruism is nothing but selfishness, and solves nothing anyway.

If this is God's world, then all sorts of possibilities come into view. People can make decisions which change things. They live where they choose and they can make decisions about whether to stay or go. Those decisions have consequences and sometimes those are unpleasant - but personally I wouldn't have it any other way. Moreover if I don't like the evil I can fight against it and win real victories, when I give to the victims it can make a real difference. When I pray for comfort and protection for people that can make a difference too. If God were to prevent every difficulty and unpleasantness on this Earth, where would it end? We have a freewill and moral sense, and if he recinds that at a whim, even to prevent evil, then we become less than human. And finally there is a real hope for a better world where there is no suffering and only goodness prevails.

To me abandoning or blaming God because of evil is utter foolishness because in doing so you negate the only hope we have of ridding ourselves of it.