Ulrich

We all live in an eternal now, as long as we live anyway. None of us live in the future or the past, it simply is not possible. If God's fix has already happened, then someone needs to inform him that it didn't work, because that now has come and gone. If his "fix-it-now-machine" doesn't fix things instantly then God really isn't omnipotent, more like omniincompetent.

Stephen T-B

Well, it's OK god being eternal, and taking an eternity to fix things, but meanwhiles a lot of poor human beings live short and brutal lives. Maybe they getbto have a good time after they're dead, but some people have a good time while they're alive too.
And lots of those who have it bad, have it bad later on as well because they don't happen to have been brought up in a culture which worships the Christian God.
Admiring this God isn't exactly easy.

Magus55

How are you gonna learn anything if God solves everyone's problems? Would 2 people be good parents if they let their children do what ever they wanted, and just cleaned up their mess?

And why does God owe you a reason? God, by merit of being... God deserves worship. Its just who He is. You can disagree or say how stupid that is all you want. What does your opinion change? Most theists don't worship God because He wants it, we do it out of respect, awe, and love. Something atheists can't understand.

He may have that responsibility until you are mature enough to take of yourself. Notice how involved God was with humanity in the beginning, and He is less so in the NT? As humanity matured, God removed Himself more to let us take of ourselves. We are certainly capable of taking care of ourselves, we are just too selfish and arrogant to do it.

And God is worthy of worship. There is no want to be worthy. This isn't an ultimatum. You worship God if you want, or you don't. It's your choice.

Magus55

How do the Trinity and Satan argue against it? Satan isn't a god, and only atheists seem to argue otherwise. And while the Trinity can be difficult, it doesn't require polytheism to work.

Maybe the Roman and Greek gods were weaker and more human because they were created by the human mind, where as Satan was created by God to be the most powerful angel in existence. Not everything in life is this way or that way because atheists say so. Just because you think Christianity is polytheistic doesn't make it so. And what facts are there? This is purely your opinion, not a fact. Based on Christian understanding of God, its logically impossible for Satan to be a god. God is described as the supreme and sovereign being. The Alpha and Omega. The I Am. There is no possibility of there being anyone equal or above God, or He wouldn't be God. The notion of Satan being a god is a paradox under Christian theology. God is also eternal and uncreated. Satan is neither eternal, nor uncreated.

Magus55

And the problem with this viewpoint is that as usual, you are viewing things from a human mind. Why do humans value life? When you are an eternal being, where time is essentially meaningless, why would you assume that from God's PoV, physical life is all that important? 70 years, compared to eternity. Which holds more weight and would be God's primary concern?

Y.B

Are you saying atheists can't understand respect, awe and love?

Or that atheists can't understand feeling respect, awe and love toward a figment of the imagination?

mnkbdky

The Trinitarian Problem

At first glance it seems that the mainstream Christian accepts contradictory statements. That is, it seems that the Christian must affirm both

(1) There is only one God

and at the same accept the contradictory statement

(2) There are three Gods.

However, since no contradiction can possibly be true, it seems that in order to remain rational the Christian must deny either (1) or (2). The question then is this: Does the doctrine of the Trinity involve a contradiction?

How to Solve the Trinitarian Problem

Now since the Christian is charged with believing a contradiction, the only thing a Christian must do to defend herself is to show a possible way in which the two statements can be reconciled; for the objector by charging contradiction is stating that there is no possible reconciliation. The possible way does not need to be the actual way, but it should at least be plausible. Is there a way to reconcile both (1) and (2) to make them coherent?

Attempted Solutions to the Trinitarian Problem

Today philosophers have attempted to defend the doctrine in various ways. These modern attempts may be generally categorized into two broad categories, namely social trinitarianism and, for lack of a better term, anti-social trinitarianism.

The former strategy lays emphasis on the distinctiveness of the divine persons; whereas the latter strategy focuses on the unity of the divine being. Since social trinitarianism is easiest to understand, let us go that route.

Social Trinitarianism

The person most associated with social trinitarianism is Cornelius Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at Calvin Theological Seminary. Social Trinitarianism is at least committed to the following two principles:

(1) The Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct centers of self-consciousness (i.e., they are three distinct persons), which includes, but is not limited to, knowledge, will, love, and action.

(2) Father, Son, and Spirit must be properly related to each other so as to form one single entity.

Social Trinitarianism runs the risk of falling into Tritheism (or polytheism). But is it blatantly incoherent. Is it possible that many distinct centers of self-consciousness or persons constitute one single entity? Brian Leftow discerns three attempts to provide a plausible answer to that question.

Functional Monotheism (FM)

According to functional monotheism, the persons are one in the sense that they function as one. That is, the persons all share the same knowledge, moral character, and have the same inclinations to love and faithfulness. In other words, they share the same will and purposes and, thus, never oppose one another. This unity of will and purpose, it is claimed, is enough to render the judgment that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

Objections to FM

Refined Paganism

Leftow does not think FM is a tenable solution. Indeed, he believes this view is nothing but “refined paganism.�? That is, it is polytheism in disguise. Leftow asks you to imagine the gods of the Greek pantheon. Now, suppose “Zeus, frustrated with his Olympian cohorts, wipes, them out one by one and gradually replaces them with gods qualitatively just like himself [that is, they no longer are opposed to his will] . . . In the end, we have a Greek religious in which Zeus is kinf of the gods, Zeus-2 is god of war, Zeus-3 is god of metallurgy, etc.�? After stating this asks, “Has Greek religious now become monotheist?�? He concludes, “Surely not.�?

Perhaps we can go a step further. Suppose the 33,000 gods of Hinduism held a council in heaven and all decided to agree with each other and never oppose one another. It may now be asked: Has Hinduism become a monotheistic religion? Intuitively, I think one must say, no.

Can a Monotheist Religion become Polytheistic

According to FM, agreement makes the various beings count as one. But what if they were to disagree? If they did disagree (which is conceptually possible) then it seems that a religion that says only one god exists could now be considered polytheistic. But that is absurd. Either a religion is monotheistic or not. Further, we may ask these questions: How much must the gods disagree before the religion is considered polytheistic? What types of disagreement must they have?

The Number of Beings Does not Count

What FM really seems to be saying is that the number of beings is not what matters is a monotheistic religion. Rather, it is if these beings agree or not. But is this really what monotheism means, agreeing gods. Is there no limit to the number of agreeing being to be considered monotheistic. Is there no cut off point? Could 1,000,000,000,000 gods in agreement and cooperation count as monotheistic? It seems the fuctional monotheist is saying that it is not the quantity of gods that makes a religion monotheistic but rather the quality of gods. But this seem patently false.

Divided Devotion

What is more, it seems at least intuitively true that monotheism should make it so that your religious allegiance cannot be divided. However, according to functional monotheism, you devotion can at least conceptually be divided. That is, if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct entities, then, it is possible that you only worship one of them. One may perhaps makes argument for why you should worship one and not the others. Perhaps, only the Son should be worshiped because he gave his life for us and the Father and the Holy Spirit only watched. Perhpas one may make similar arguments for the Father and HS. But this should not be possible if only one God exists.

With these objections, Leftow believes that FM does not provide adequate reasons for being considered monotheistic.

Group Mind Monotheism (GM)

Leftow also considers a theory know as Group Mind Monotheism. A group mind is a mind that is composed of other minds. Thus, according to this view, the Trinity is a mind that is composed of the minds of the three persons in the Godhead. That is, from the three minds of the self-conscious beings, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you get one Master mind that arises. A new mind emerges from the three sub-minds. There would, thus, be “one God on this view in the sense that there is just one ‘minded being composed of all divine beings.�?

Cerebral Commissurotomy

Leftow believes that this idea of a group mind is at least possible. In order to make this view intelligible, Leftow looks to recent scientific experiments done with the human brain. Recently, doctors in search for a cure for sever epilepsy have performed surgical operations in which the severe the cerebral commisures, the network of nerves connecting the two hemispheres of the brain. The results are quite provocative and controversial. After severing the cerebral commisures patients sometimes behave as if the two half of their brain are functioning independently of each other.

Leftow quotes on researcher as saying

One interpretation of such results is that the patients’ hemispheres constiture two distinct functioning minds, which ordinarily so cooperate that the patient is not conscious of the spit but can be brought to act independently. If this is true, then, the human mind is a group mind.

Objections to (GM)

As Leftow sees it there are two ways to use GM with regard to the Trinity. basic problems with GM.

A Quaternity, not Trinity

First, one could hold that a fourth divine mind somehow emerges from the three divine mind, each one being self-conscious. However, if this were the case then technically you would not have a Trinity, but rather a Quaternity, so to speak. Thus, this does not seem to be an option for an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Neither Self-Aware or Other Aware

Second, one could liken the Trinity’s group mind to our mind. It could be one self-conscious divine mind that emerges from three minds that are not self-conscious. This certainly give us a strict monotheism. However, it does at the price of denigrated the other three persons; for how can we consider something to be a person if it is not self-aware? So on this alternative there is one mind that can refer to itself as ‘I’ and not a real Trinitarian society. No real mutual love for one another. The Father does not love the Son because they are not really aware of each other. Further, this move seems to invert the orthodox understand from “one God in three persons�? to “one Person in three minds.�?

Trinity Monotheism (TM)

Trinity Monotheism holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as whole that is properly called God. If this view is to be credible, it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and the persons making it up are not Gods.

Leftow sees these problems with TM.

William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland respond in the following way to these criticisms.

Starting with the first injunction, he [the Trinity Monotheist] will clearly want to say that the Trinity is not a fourth instance of the divine nature, lest there be four divine persons.

Moving then to the next set of options, he [the Trinity Monotheist] must say that the Trinity is divine, since that is entail by Trinity monotheism. Now if the Trinity is divine but is not a fourth instance of the divine nature, this suggests that there is more than one way to be divine. This alternative is said to lead to Plantingain Arianism. What is that? Leftow defines it merely as “the positing of more than one way to be divine.�? This uninformative, however; what we want to know is why the view is objectionable. Leftow responds, “If we take the Trinity’s claim to be God seriously, . . . we wind up downgrading the Persons’ deity and/or [being] unorthodox."

This inference would follow, however, only if there were but one way to be divine (namely, by instantiating the divine nature); but the position asserts there is more than one way to be divine. The persons of the Trinity are not divine in virtue of instantiating the divine nature. For presumable being triune is a property of the divine nature. . . . yet the persons of the Trinity do not have that property. It now becomes clear that the reason the Trinity is not a fourth instance of the divine nature is that there are no other instances of the divine nature. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not instances of the divine nature, and that is why there are not three Gods. The Trinity is the sole instance of the divine nature, and therefore, there is but one God. So while the statement “The Trinity is God�? is an identity statement, statements about the persons like “The Father is God�? are not identity statements. Rather, they perform other functions, such as ascribing a title or office to a person (like “Belshazzar is king,�? which is not incompatible with there being coregents) or ascribing a property to a person (a way of saying, “the Father is divine,�? as one might say, “Belshazzar is regal�?).

So if the persons of the Trinity are not divine in virtue of being instance of the divine nature, in virtue of what are they divine. Consider an analogy. One way of being feline is to instantiate the nature of a cat. But there are other ways to be feline as well. A cat’s DNA or skeleton is feline, even if neither is a cat. Nor is this a sort of downgraded or attenuated felinity: A cat’s skeleton is fully and unambiguously feline. Indeed, a cat just is a feline animal, as a cat’s skeleton is a feline skeleton. Now if a cat is feline in virtue of being an instance of the cat nature, in virtue of what is a cat’s DNA or skeleton feline? One plausible answer is that they are parts of a cat. This suggests that we could think of the persons of the Trinity as divine because they are parts of the Trinity, that is, part of God. Now obviously, the persons are not parts of God in the sense in which a skeleton is part of a cat; but given that the Father, for example, is not the whole Godhead, it seems undeniable that there is some sort of part-whole relation obtaining between the persons of the Trinity and the entire Godhead.

Far from downgrading the divinity of the persons, such an account can be very illuminating of their contribution to the divine nature. For parts can possess properties which the whole does not, and the whole can have a property because some part has it. Thus, when we ascribe omniscience and omnipotence to God we are not making the Trinity a forth person or agent; rather, God has these properties because the persons do. Divine attributes like omniscience, omnipotence and goodness are grounded in the persons’ possessing these properties, while divine attributes like necessity, aseity and eternity are not so grounded. With respect to the latter, the persons have these properties because God as a whole ahs them. For parts can have some properties in virtue of the whole of which they are parts. The point is that if we think of divinity of the persons in terms of a part-whole relation to the Trinity that God is, then, their deity seems in no way diminished because they are not instances of the divine nature.

Thus, the Trinitarian Monotheist does not affirm the two statements that that we started with. That is, they do not affirm

(1) There is only one God

and

(2) There are three Gods

Rather they affirm

(1) There is only one God

and

(2*) There are three divine persons that make up the one and only God.

Now, whereas (1) and (2) are clearly contradictory, (1) and (2*) are logically coherent. Thus, the Trinitarian Monotheist has avoided the charge of contradiciton. But, one may still ask how three divine persons can be one God. If they are stick to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, how can three person be one substance.

How Can Three Persons Be One Being?

Craig and Moreland recognize that this may still leave one wondering how three persons could be parts of the same being, rather than three separate beings. They ask “What is the salient difference between three divine persons who are each a being and three divine persons who are together one being?�?

Cerberus the Guardian Dog of Hades

In order to explain this they start off with an analogy. They ask you to imagine the three-headed dog, Cerberus, that guards the gate of Hades in Greek Mythology. At this point they states,

After imagining this dog, now further suppose that Hercules were attempting to enter Hades and Spike, the second head of Cerberus, snarled at him or bit his leg, he might well say, "Spike snarled at me�? or "Spike attacked me.�? However, he could also say "Cerberus snarled at me" or "Cerberus attacked me." All statements would be true.

We can enhance the Cerberus story by supposing he is rational and self-conscious. In that case, Rover, Bowser and Spike are plausibly personal agents and Cerberus a tripersonal being. If asked what makes Cerberus a single being despite his multiple minds, we one would likely respond that it is because he has a single physical body.

But now suppose Cerberus were to be killed and his minds survive the death of his body. Could we still consider them one being? It seems that we could. Perhaps we could do this by positing that Cerberus has a soul. If that were the case then Cerberus' soul would just have three minds.

At this point Craig and Moreland state

It seems then that there is a way to state the Trinity so that a contradiction does not result and so that it is reasonable to say that God is three person in one being. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is not incoherent and is possibly true. Accordingly, the Christian may maintain their rationality in believing in the Trinity, in the sense that they do not believe anything that is logically impossible.


Regards,
MNKBDKY

Ulrich

Well, he could teach us in no uncertain terms, a reliable text book would be a good start. Please note: The Bible, due to numerous internal and external inconsistencies, does not qualify as a reliable text book.

They would be better than the parents who let their Children do whatever they wanted and did not cleam up the mess.

I know and understand much about respect, awe, and love. I have respect for a great many people for a great many reasons. Love is nearly the same, but I do not love quite so many people as I respect. Awe is an entirely different thing, I have awe for the beauty and enormity of the Universe. I do not worship any of the people or things I respect, love, or have awe for. Of these three things (respect, love, and awe), the only one that I could have for God if I believed he existed, would be awe.

I have awe for the Universe, but I do not worship it, why should I worship God?

Only because the NT covered a much shorter time period. How many miracles were there in the several thousand years covered by the OT? How many miracles were there in the 30 odd years covered by the NT? Divide the number of miracles by the number of years and compare the percentages, then we can talk about how active God was in the respective time periods.

Oh, so that is why God isn't around anymore, because we have matured. We certainly have matured, back in the day God was roaming around protecting us from ourselves, men were able to slaughter each other by the thousands using swords, spears, etc. Now we have the capacity to slaughter each other by the millions using nuclear weapons, in fact we have the capacity to destroy every life on the planet. Seems like we need God more than ever, too bad he is busy elsewhere these days.

Actually, I came to the reasonable conclusion that God does not exist long ago (particularly the God of the Bible), it is no longer a question of whether to worship him or not. If the God of the Bible could be proven to exist, I would like to think I would have the balls to not worship him, given his penchant for violence and bloodshed, but fortunately I don't have to worry about that.

Magus55

And how would that be more convincing to unbelievers, or in anyway prevent people from causing chaos?

Not necessarily.



Because once you have a relationship with God, awe transpires into love and respect and worship symbolizes that.


The only reason the NT shows numerous miracles is because of Jesus, and His one time purpose. Miracles are not an everyday occurence on that scale.


Humanity created that scenario, why shouldn't they deal with the consequences?



Thats an arrogant position don't you think? How do you know you don't have to worry about that? Just because you don't find the concept of God plausible, doesn't have any bearing on the truth of His existence.

Wallener

Just because you do find the concept of G-d plausible, doesn't have any bearing on the truth of it's existence.