Christianity

[evo]

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.

I'll just point out to start that Aquinas' famous "5 proofs for the existence God" where all logically flawed ,so he is probably not a particularly good place to start.

Nevertheless....

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).

Good so far. Employing the law of noncontradiction.

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.'

This is classic circular reasoning,or begging the question.

premise (1) assumes 'agents' bring cubes into existence.But this is not yet established.

Moreover,this is what most theologian apolgists don't get about ontology.It is the observer (ie humans in our case) that gives a thing it's identity,its "thingness".This is employing the same basic logic that the author starts with when he employs the law of non-contradiction,the law of identity A=A is directly related to it.But he ignores it.

Humans actually define what is a "necessary state of affairs" for a thing to be a cube.If it : "a solid bounded by six equal squares, the angle between any two adjacent faces being a right angle." then we give it the identity of cube.

There is no actual objective cube "out there".You yourself actually pointed to this problem a few posts back with the "squared circle"

So in my opinion he hasn't established that God's omnipotence should be considered limited with that argument.It fails by commiting a logical fallacy and misunderstanding of "existence" ie ontologically.




[/quote]

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

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.

Just because you would prefer it does not make it so. This is pure wish-thinking, which in the pursuit of truth can be a major stumbling block to be avoided.

 

[Djevv]

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.

My comments come from reading various atheists definitions. The dictionary definition is still: NO GOD.

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.

Hope you are well and haven't suffered loss.

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.

There is a correct interpretation that is spritually discerned. See if you can find the verses I am talking about.

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.

How can a godless man (biblically a fool) interpret God's word correctly which is spiritually discerned? Christianity is a revelation faith.

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.

When was the last time we discussed evolution? Definitely a strawman and insulting to boot. Of course I do read apologetics sites as well as wider reading, but I rarely do a direct quote.

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.

Cool. But I have an issue with your evidence requirement. What you are asking is for God to submit to examination by humans, to do party tricks for them, so to speak. This seems as reasonable to me as me asking Marius Klopper to be at my beck and call because I am a BHP ordinary shareholder.

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

There is no flaw, the sqaure root of neg 1 is imaginary and meaningless mathematically. Cubic kilometers of granite replace the country rocks as we speak. Pi can not be completely, correctly defined in our number system, yet circles exist. My further point is that I wonder whether we can truly and completely understand the nature of reality using logic. Prior to the invention of the scientific method, it was a dreadful failure.

 

[Djevv]

Just because you would prefer it does not make it so. This is pure wish-thinking, which in the pursuit of truth can be a major stumbling block to be avoided.

Sorry you are incorrect, it is based on my observation of people and freewill. I believe people have it and can employ it. In your world view it is an 'illusion'.

To me it is real: looks like a dog, barks like a Dog, its a........................

 

[evo]

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.

This is a misunderstanding of determinism.Probably wilful to try and make a point.

If this is God's world, then all sorts of possibilities come into view. People can make decisions which change things

In a determinsitic world they can too.

Why do you need to create strawmen to argue for God?.

 

[Djevv]

I'll just point out to start that Aquinas' famous "5 proofs for the existence God" where all logically flawed ,so he is probably not a particularly good place to start.

Nevertheless....
Good so far. Employing the law of noncontradiction.
This is classic circular reasoning,or begging the question.

premise (1) assumes 'agents' bring cubes into existence.But this is not yet established.

Moreover,this is what most theologian apolgists don't get about ontology.It is the observer (ie humans in our case) that gives a thing it's identity,its "thingness".This is employing the same basic logic that the author starts with when he employs the law of non-contradiction,the law of identity A=A is directly related to it.But he ignores it.

Humans actually define what is a "necessary state of affairs" for a thing to be a cube.If it : "a solid bounded by six equal squares, the angle between any two adjacent faces being a right angle." then we give it the identity of cube.

There is no actual objective cube "out there".You yourself actually pointed to this problem a few posts back with the "squared circle"

So in my opinion he hasn't established that God's omnipotence should be considered limited with that argument.It fails by commiting a logical fallacy and misunderstanding of "existence" ie ontologically.

Thats one argument, there are lots more and an interesting POV, but God is the concious entity that gives cubes their cubeness. It all seems to depend on what you think the ground of reality is. What you're saying seems to nonsense all of reality. If its a cube its a cube, if it's not its not, something can't be a cube if it's not one. Since God, ultimately makes the definitions and he is not the author of nonsense, he doesn't make cubes that aren't cubic or impossibly heavy stones. To me it seems if you try to take omnipotence into the region of nonsense you ARE committing a fallacy.

 

[Rosy]

And finally there is a real hope for a better world where there is no suffering and only goodness prevails.

If it can't happen now how is there a "real" hope for no suffering and only goodness in the future? Fat lot of good that kind of hope is for those who haven't survived this week.

 

[evo]

If its a cube its a cube, if it's not its not, something can't be a cube if it's not one.

Something is a cube if it meets the definitions of a cube. This is the basic law of identity,the very foundation of logic.I don't understand why that is nonesense to point this out to you.

The laws of thought are the very foundation of thinking that humans can employ to assess propositions.

they are as old as Aristotle.

The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic.

law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought

Since God, ultimately makes the definitions

How does God make definitions?You still haven't explained that,and I have bought this problem up repeatedly.Where can I view God's definition of a cube?( If you respond go read the Bible I'm giving up)

Humans make definitions,that is what we do.

What does "cube" mean to a spider,a dolphin or ,say, a visitor from another planet?

... and he is not the author of nonsense, he doesn't make cubes that aren't cubic or impossibly heavy stones. To me it seems if you try to take omnipotence into the region of nonsense you ARE committing a fallacy.

There is no evidence logical or empircal that God makes anything,including cubes.

What fallacy am I commiting?

 

[evo]

If it can't happen now how is there a "real" hope for no suffering and only goodness in the future? Fat lot of good that kind of hope is for those who haven't survived this week.

Presumably they are God's "colateral damage"

 

[Djevv]

Something is a cube if it meets the definitions of a cube. This is the basic law of identity,the very foundation of logic.I don't understand why that is nonesense to point this out to you.

The laws of thought are the very foundation of thinking that humans can employ to assess propositions.

they are as old as Aristotle.

No it's not nonsense, and I have no issue with those laws. To me once you say that the only way cubes are defined is by us, then we effectively define reality, it only exists in our minds. I find that a difficult concept. I don't see how you can ask God to make a cube that is not a cube if cubes don't exist.

How does God make definitions?You still haven't explained that,and I have bought this problem up repeatedly.

Where can I view God's definition of a cube?( If you respond go read the Bible I'm giving up)
There is no evidence logical or empircal that God makes anything,including cubes.

What fallacy am I commiting?

This is a deeper question of the nature of God and how He relates to reality. In the creation week in Genesis He seems to spend time separating things and naming things. This seems to relate to the law of identity. If God makes and defines cubes then presumably he would not unmake them? To unmake them would seem to violate his nature.

 

[jayfox]

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

It is an absolute tragedy that people died in these fires. And God mourns their death just as he mourns the death of non-believers who die in car accidents, from cancer, in terrorist attacks, from old age etc. God wants a relationship with all of us but knows that many are unwilling to have one with Him. We all have a life to lead and choices to make in our lives though and we all know that our lives will end at some stage.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

My comments come from reading various atheists definitions. The dictionary definition is still: NO GOD.

Having read the books that you are referring to, I am sorry to tell you that you are mistaken. The so-called 'New Atheists' are not just against organised religion but about the high degree of improbability that a theist God exists. If you disagree, please provide the quotes and references for scrutiny.

Hope you are well and haven't suffered loss.

Thankfully not directly, but I think there would be few that have less than one or two degrees of separation from this tragedy.

There is a correct interpretation that is spritually discerned. See if you can find the verses I am talking about.

How can a godless man (biblically a fool) interpret God's word correctly which is spiritually discerned? Christianity is a revelation faith.

So you have to believe to see the truth? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

When was the last time we discussed evolution? Definitely a strawman and insulting to boot. Of course I do read apologetics sites as well as wider reading, but I rarely do a direct quote.

Go back to what I said. In the past you have relied solely on argument from creationist propaganda sites. I know this because I am very familiar with the arguments. I never claimed you directly quoted them, just used them to support your argument, when a slightly broader search would have revealed the problems with these arguments.

Cool. But I have an issue with your evidence requirement. What you are asking is for God to submit to examination by humans, to do party tricks for them, so to speak. This seems as reasonable to me as me asking Marius Klopper to be at my beck and call because I am a BHP ordinary shareholder.

In the absence of such evidence how do you know he actually exists? It is a convenient argument. With your knowledge of the limitations of human perception and the common traps of interpretation (ie wish thinking etc) in the absence of evidence how can you be so sure that you aren't deluding yourself? Just 'knowing' doesn't cut it as a convincing argument.

If there was no evidence that Marius Klopper existed outside of the assertions of his many followers, I would find it quite strange that you would expect to hear from him as well.

 

[jayfox]

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

For me it is out of respect for Him and because that is the way it is done in the Bible. It's not compulsory, just respectful in my eyes.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sorry you are incorrect, it is based on my observation of people and freewill. I believe people have it and can employ it. In your world view it is an 'illusion'.

To me it is real: looks like a dog, barks like a Dog, its a........................

So just disregard the rules of causation that you invoke for all other aspects of your existence?

Looks like a dog, barks like a dog, its a.......

 

[Djevv]

This is a misunderstanding of determinism.Probably wilful to try and make a point.
In a determinsitic world they can too.

Why do you need to create strawmen to argue for God?.

How is this a strawman? In a deterministic universe everything is determined by what came beforehand according to the scientific laws.

How can people's actions make any difference when they are fully determined and there is no free will?

 

[Djevv]

So just disregard the rules of causation that you invoke for all other aspects of your existence?

Looks like a dog, barks like a dog, its a.......

I believe human free will can interevene in the deterministic unverse.

 

[jayfox]

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?

Unfortunately, in a world filled with sin tragedies happen. We were advised of this right from the start when Adam and Eve first sinned against God. But as we have discussed on here in the past, children who do not have the full understanding or have an opportunity to know God go to Heaven anyway. You can be sure that these children who have died, albeit in an unimaginable way, no longer have any pain, tears or sadness at all. They are surrounded by God and all His glory.

It reminds me of a CD that I have which tells of the story of a man who died on the operating table and went to Heaven. He was overcome by the wonder of what Heaven was like and then Jesus came to Him and said that his family had been praying that God would save him and, because of their faithfulness, God was willing to grant their request. The man's reply was "Lord, if they could see what I see now they would never ask me to come back". I lost a good friend to cancer in the past month and this is the real consolation that I take from his death; that he is in an unimaginably wonderful place and that I will be able to see him again one day.

 

[evo]

No it's not nonsense, and I have no issue with those laws. To me once you say that the only way cubes are defined is by us, then we effectively define reality, it only exists in our minds.

It is close to that but not quite.Reality is not just in our mind but our mind is the key component,it has to be.We define what things are.Give them there identity,their 'thingness.'

It is hard to explain because most people think in physicalist/materialist terms,including most theists.

I find that a difficult concept. I don't see how you can ask God to make a cube that is not a cube if cubes don't exist.

Cubes do exist,we are speaking about them right now.As soon as you give a thing an identity(ie define it)then it exists(at minimum as an abstract concept)

What I'm saying is they don't exist inherently.As a "cube-in-itself";objectively.

This is a deeper question of the nature of God and how He relates to reality. In the creation week in Genesis He seems to spend time separating things and naming things. This seems to relate to the law of identity. If God makes and defines cubes then presumably he would not unmake them? To unmake them would seem to violate his nature.

Ok,well I think genesis is a myth,or allegory.Cubes, for example, aren't mentioned specifically in Genesis.Does that mean they don't exist? Clearly,no.

So we can only reason, in my view, that humans make definitions,give identity to "things".

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I believe human free will can interevene in the deterministic unverse.

So our will has no cause? Some delicate neurosurgery may prove you quite wrong on that.

 

[jayfox]

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.

Hope it's okay if I butt in. Yes, parts of the Bible are open to interpretation but mainstream Christianity is pretty united on nearly all areas. And the guts of the message are acknowledged by just about all Christian-based religions.