luvluv

Jobar and Goliath... I love you like play cousins, but you do realize you have the option of simply not replying? If any or all of my posts hold nothing of substance for you, I invite you to click past them. No hard feelings. Really.

Old Scratch says:

There is the age old retort:

Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible or self-contradictory.

To skip around a bit and combine questions, sandlewood said this:

And I take this, presented by Old Scratch, to be a slightly more fleshed out version of this concept:

My response to this is that it does not take into account another of God's attributes which is his omnipresence, specifically the temporal aspects of His Omnipresence. God doesn't KNOW what He is going to do "in the future" He is ALREADY doing it. God exists in all times. God is exempt from the human process of decision making which follows from information to plan formulation to plan implementation. We "change our mind" based on new information and new planning. God's information is complete and therefore his plan is complete. How can someone with total information change his mind? On the basis of what new information or unforseen challenge or prompting could the Almighty change his mind? I would argue that the question you ask, even if it were not answerable from the standpoint of temporal omnipresence, would be a nonsense question. I don't see how omniscience could change it's mind. Beyond that, given his temporal omnipresence, the implementation of God's plan is complete. How can He "change" things He is already doing? How can one, at PRECISELY THE SAME MOMENT one is doing an act, also undo the act? That seems to be self-contradictory to me.

(I realize some of your are now becoming naseaus with my repeated use of the term "temporal omnipresence. For you I apologize.)

Scratch goes on to say:

I think the T.O. argument applies here as well. If God does not "know" that you are going to do something in the future but instead "is currently observing" you in the future then his omniscience is "enabled" (so to speak) by your choices (as far as you are concerned). He knows what you are going to do because He can already see you doing it. Your free will + his T.O. informs his knowledge. That's a rough translation and not exactly the totality of what I believe, but that is sufficient to answer the objection (to the best of my ability at any rate).

Wyrdsmth and brighid:

Well, I would argue that they could not have understood the implications of Jesus Incarnation on earth, because it hadn't happened yet. I'll address the complicated doctrines later but I would argue that it is not simply that someone would not have understood some aspects of the gospel, but that the simeltaneous application of several dozen extremely demanding moral responsibilities would have been unendurable. Christians are told they must imitate the character of God through his incarnation in Jesus Christ. To take on the total character of Christ in one gulp would be impossible, in my mind. In my own Christian life, the progression of the working of the Holy Spirit has been gradual. He may have started by dealing with me about my temper, and not my temper overall but my temper with one specific person (my younger brother, usually). Then, when I have mastered that I master patience in other small areas like patience in traffic, patience when dealing with ignorance (I'll ask God to give some of you folks some of that in your dealings with me....). Then once I have my patience pretty much under control God begins to deal with me about my pride in specific circumstances like not letting my pride in my ability to perform my job allow me to slip into a sense of entitlement or arrogance. This is enforced by requiring me to be giving and supportive with my less able co-workers instead of thinking I am better than them as people simply because I am better than them at my job.

But if God required me to be totally morally perfect in every area simeltaneously it would simply be an information overload. I would have too much information and too many requirements to have any possible ability to act correctly. I feel the same is true with mankind. If God demanded all virtues simeltaneously men would not be able to process the data. There is such a thing as information overload. Therefore the virtues have been promoted succesively.

Back to sandlewood:

I believe I posted this in this thread but perhaps I wasn't clear. Is there something missing from this statment posted on page 1 of this thread?:

Parenthetical added.

wide-eyed:

Well, I am encouraged that the people who brought the moral progression were convinced that there concepts were recieved via revelation. This goes for Jesus, Aquinas, Augustine, MLK, and others. Secondly, the teachings of most great theologians is IN ADVANCE of their contempory society (which is the only reason we remember them). Quakers opposed slavery before society at large opposed it. Christians were in advance of any other world religion in terms of promoting slavery's abolition. Most of the times spiritual leaders are ahead of society and it takes society a bit of time to catch up. I am not aware of any situation when, morally speaking, the process has been reversed.

Parentheticals added.

I would like to ask where the OT get's it's authority from? Why do you believe it cannot be questioned?

Not until you explain to me, from a skeptic's standpoint, why it is necessary to assume that the OT version of Yahweh is unalterable.

Yes my theology can certainly be surpassed. I certainly hope that in future generations Christians know more about God than I do and can therefore discard any mistakes I have made. I very much hope that they do.

God, from a human standpoint, is beyond finding out. There will never be a time when He is fully known by us. I don't think that's possible. Yes, He will always need more fleshing out.

Yes, you should by all means continue to be skeptical, but you don't have to be an atheist to be skeptical. I believe myself to be skeptical.

Typhon:

Who is the first person mentioned in the Bible who you believe actually did exist? Did Paul exist? Did Peter? Any of the apostles?

DRFseven

luvluv, my inclination is to ask myself why there WOULD be such a thing as a god. It seem needlessly complicated, far-fetched, and even, at times, comic, so it seems to me that it's not true. It's not as if most of us are "so sure"; I mean, many of us are agnostic. But we realize that we take the seeminly most reasonable explanations of things in all the other areas of our lives, so we do the same in regard to religion. Don't you do that with reported medical cures, theories on ecology, child development, etc.? I'm not saying that atheists/agnostics are always more reasonable, I'm saying that there are reasons we don't think (most) gods are tenable.

As to which gods are most believable, I'd have to nominate my all-time favorites -cargo gods! They're just soldiers, so, of course I believe in them. I was never in the military, so I'm pretty sure I'm no one's god, but my Dad was, during WWII, so maybe I'm at least the daughter of a god. I could be like a sister to Jesus! You think he'd like me or would we bicker and tell on each other and be made to sit far apart in the back seat of God's car? I'm teasing you luv-luv; I actually think you're a good sport.

sandlewood

There are reasons why I have not bought the God-is-outside-of-time claim. I supposed this idea is meant to say that God looks at the existence of humans—actually the whole Universe and the whole course of time—as we would look at a section of motion picture film. But wouldn’t that imply that time doesn’t really exist for us either? If every second of our lives exists at the same time for God to look at it, how can we be said to move through it? What is probably more puzzling is how God could have created the Universe. If we say that he created it, then there must have been a state for God before that when the Universe was uncreated. Then doesn’t that represent a change? From God’s point of view, the Universe didn’t exist, then it did.

The claim also goes against the notion that we are made in God’s image. How can a God that is outside of time have any thoughts as we know them? As our mind works, there occurs a sequence of thoughts from one moment to the next. The process of thinking is an activity. How can you imagine thought occurring without change?

Of course God can have no “plan”. Since he is omnipotent, his goal or plan is instantly accomplished as soon as he conceives of it. The concept of goals or plans should be meaningless for a timeless, omnipotent being. In fact, why would God bother to create time at all? What a waste of time that would be. Why not just create the final state that he wants, which is everyone in Heaven worshipping God? Since these are just a few of the problems I’ve thought of off the top of my head, I’m sure there could be plenty more.

Which future is he observing? The one in which I will choose to turn left or the one in which I will choose to turn right? All possible futures perhaps? But then he doesn’t know which future will be the true one.


Yes, I know you answered that. But I didn’t want to go any further if you didn’t consider it to be on-topic.

Depending on what you mean by church history, I don’t think that the existence of church history can tell you any more than you would already know. How would anyone in the history of the church have any better method than you in determining which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

I assume what you mean by personal revelation is that the answer just comes to you somehow. Perhaps God talks to you and tells you what parts of the Bible are not true.

I have no idea what corporate revelation means.

Typhon

ALL BELIEVERS TO EAT AT JOES

- GodCorp

sandlewood

I meant to comment on this in my last post but forgot.

I don’t think that creating something so heavy you can’t lift it is logically contradictory. I can do it myself. I can build a house but I can lift it. I think that where you get into trouble is when you introduce infinity into the mix. It’s when you try to say that something is infinitely powerful. It’s only under that condition that commonly possible things become logically impossible. That’s why I think omnipotence itself is the problem. Omni-powers are not logically possible.

Answerer

Luvluv, can you give us a historical source of evidence for Jesus other than that piece of junk, you called Word of God?

luvluv

I think the mistake here is confusing the analogy with the reality. Our movment through 4 dimensional space time might appear, to a being who is able to exist in many more dimensions of space time, as the movement of something confined to 3 dimensions of space time might appear to us. Our movement, relative to a being with T.O. might be motionless, but ONLY relative to a being with T.O. I think trying to judge the logical probability of T.O. by visualizing it is a waste of time. If it is real, it would logically be as beyond our conception as it is beyond our perception.

The universe had a begining HERE, in this universe where things must have beginings. But God was probably always creating the universe from His perspective. He was creating it, He is creating it, and He will create it... but He is experiences these "times", and all other times, simeltaneously.

To be made in God's image does not imply being made identical to Him. Our thought process is analagous to His in our own little 4-dimensional way.

Thinking implies processing information or sensory input in order to form action or draw conclusions. What would Omniscience have to "think" about? He perhaps has thoughts, or better translated, static ideas or a static "personality" for lack of a better word. But he does not "brood" or actively process incoming information.

Who did what now? (Sorry, those two sentences just strike me funny).

For a being who exists in all times, how can anything be a waste of time? Time doesn't apply to Him. He is "already" living in His primary future in Eternity. We have to go through it. He is already through with it at the same time He is enduring it and at the same time He started it. Makes your brain hurt, don't it?

I'd argue that God lives in all times that actually happen, not in imaginary ones that do not happen. So he is seeing you do what you actually will do. There's nothing else there for Him to see. For Him, there is no "might" or "probability". You only do what you actually do, and when you do it, He is there watching you. To Him, there is no such thing as what you "might" do.

Well, firstly some were pretty smart. Secondly, by church history I simply meant the collected revelation of all individual Christians over the history of God's interaction with man.

Nothing quite so specific. In my relationship with God I feel I have acquired a grasp on what kind of person he is. Therefore, I am able to say of this or that action attributed to Him "No, He wouldn't do that." Or, "That doesn't sound like Him."

The same thing probably occurs with your friends. You acquire a sense of your friends personalities to the degree that if someone tells you your friend did something or said something that you consider out of character, you are able to form a belief or a disbelief in the probability that those words or deeds are actually attributable to a certain person. You are able to form an opinion irrespective of any direct evidence of the words or deeds in questions.

I believe Typhon's defintion is the most accurate, biblically speaking.

Seriously, it's simple:

personal revelation: God's character as revealed to me.

corporate revelation: God's character as revealed to other Christians.

church history: God's character as revealed to other Christians throughout time.

and then there's the Bible, which collects and reflects all three.

If you can lift anything, what can't you lift?

luvluv

Answerer:

1) I don't know what that has to do with the question at hand.

2) I guess I believe that the simplest explanation must be true in regards to Jesus' story. His existence is central to Christianity. There is no significant Christian ethic that does not involve Christ. He is the religion. I don't know what in the world there would be to "add" Jesus to. He is central to the parables, the ethics, just about everything. So I assume there must have been somebody in the middle of all of that. Whether or not He said everything that is attributed to Him is a valid point that I am not qualified to answer (you're the answerer anyways). But I can't really conceive of a plausible alternate explanation for the religion of Christianity other than the existence of someone who either took claim of or had attributed to Him the title of Christ.

Again, though, I'm not sure this is relavent in the discussion of whether or not Yahweh is plausible. The concept is central to this discussion, not the author.

Typhon

Unless you are specifically referring to your own mythic world-view, i.e. a theist creation, I would hold that you have not at all established this.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, we can say the current state of the Universe is a direct and accepted result of the Big Bang, but what it was before this, remains up for discussion. There is nothing in cosmology or physics that demands such a beginning exist. I think this a very typical human preoccupation that may or may not reflect accurately how the universe actually exists.

Note: There is real and serious reason to suspect that Jesus is a purely fictional and mythical figure. We have better evidence for some of the apostles, but personally I think that modern evidence leans more in favor of a non-historical Jesus than for, not that this makes one bit of difference for the sake of our argument here.

Whether or not Jesus was or was not a historical figure or a mythical one, or something in-between, the case for Yahweh is no more likely to credible. The New Testament is myth, as much as the Old Testament clearly is, and all the scholars and all believers of the faith have yet been able to bring any corporative historical documentation from outside its own scriptures to support it.

.T.

General Zod

I'm not. Got any other stumpers?