jojo-sa

God is the creator.

Everything else is the creation, this being the universe, us, our thoughts, constants in nature etc. etc.

Fundamental error in my opinion which I see on this thread is that we all want to explain God by using the creation.

It is like trying to explain what a human is by looking at a car, human being the "so called " creators of cars.( we just put pieces together we create nothing)

This will not work.

So about free will and the plan and God thinking and all those things, these are things we know and understand .God operates on another "dimension" or "plane" or "Zone" outside that of creation. So in His "domain " laws of nature which apply here for sure wont be the same there.eg. 1+1 might be 82 or whatever.

Bill Snedden

This assumes, of course, that there is no necessary relation between God and His creation. of course this is not the position of orthodox Christian theology.

But, in fact, it will work. We can infer certain facts about humans by looking at cars: average height, the existence of appendages, the average length of those appendages, the existence of visual and auditory organs, the existence of purpose and motivation, intelligence, the existence of some degree of social structure, etc. The list is quite long. We can do this because there exists a relationship between the human creator and the creation. We can infer facts based upon our knowledge of that relationship.

All well and good, but not consistent with Christian theology. From the Bible we know that there is a relation between God and His creation. In fact, most Christians of my acquaintance would argue that it is God's nature that determines the nature of the universe in which we live, so it would not be possible for 1+1 to equal 82 for God. In fact, it states explicitly in the Bible that humans are formed in the image of God, so we should be able to infer some facts about God merely from introspection into our own nature combined with information from the Bible.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

bgponder

Hi Y'all;

I really hate to intrude on all this absolutely beautiful and astute theology, and as a matter of fact it makes my head swim after a short while, so I have to keep to the simple concepts.

Will somebody tell me how God can be "omni", or even just perfect here and now, if He's jealous? Doesn't that indicate selfishness, envy, blahblahblah? Lots 'o non-perfection?

Thanks, Peace and cornbread Barry

jojo-sa

I do not talk for Christianity. In my opinion this is the biggest "breeder" of atheists and free thinkers seeing that the system is so "confused" and leaves the average born and then thinking Christian with no option but to reject it.This is another topic.

For sure we can do this , problem is ,what type of form do we then put together?, does the human have two legs or one with 3 feet? what type of tissue is it made of? how does it move its appendage/s? what other qualities does it have? how does it think how does it exist etc.
basic ideas we can get but the whole picture is not possible. aslo this was and example,
and very importantly the car is something that humans made to assist them. Everything humans ever made was to assist him or for him to use etc.

We could also say the human was all knowing in what would happen when each part of the car was twiggled etc.

whereas in God's case we are not here to assist him.none of creation is here to assist Him Or creation is not something God needs for fun or sport or movement etc

remember God created creation from nothing. creation is not a part of him that was taken out and made into creation. this would then not be creation, to create is to make from nothing, to start at zero.
Only God has this Quality, humans merely put things together, that was created before. so hence God knows exactly how everything will function and take place. just like the human knows that when pressure is applied on certain pedal in the car certain reations occur.

so we cannot then deduce God had appendages things like that.

We can get an idea of the Qualities of God from looking at the creation, We can see that God must have amazing Knowledge to create . God must be very Powerful.etc. and most importantly operates in another reality, however still has the power to interact with our reality, like the human can repair faults in his car at times.
but the whole picture and His Reality, that is something else.

As for the Christain definition of God. well that is another topic.

Bill Snedden

True, but "God's Great Plan" is usually discussed on these boards as a Judeo-Christian belief. I see that you list "Islam" as your belief system, but can the case be any different for Allah? If Allah is purported to have the same qualities as the Christian God (at least in the context of this question), then the objections raised against God also apply to him.

Certainly we cannot infer everything, but where there are relationships, we should be able to infer facts about that relationship.

Well then, we should also be able to infer that Allah is rational (for we, his creations, are rational) and that his nature encompasses the laws of mathematics and logic (for nature obeys those laws).

By that reasoning, all of the objections raised in this thread should apply to Allah as well as God.

And how can we know that Allah operates in another reality by inference from this one? That seems to me a non sequitur. It could be the case that Allah lives within this reality and only created the observable universe. That certainly fits our observations equally well.

Basically your objection assumes a plethora of facts not in evidence, at least not by observation alone.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Kenny

Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t do long distance relationships. Of course, since you are married, I imagine having a girlfriend in another city would be a bad idea in multiple respects In all seriousness, yes, of course we experience God all the time. We also experience gravity all the time, but that doesn’t make us all masters in understanding General Relativity. Not only is God a personal being that we can enter into a relationship with, but it is God that is the very context in which our being is had. It is God who sustains the universe in existence moment by moment.

However, we do not experience the interior workings of God’s own being directly. We have no experience of what it is like to be necessarily or to be omnipotent or to posses a mind of infinite capacity. This type of existence is so far above our own that we should not expect to easily understand everything about it, or be able to easily describe it.

All analogies have their limitations. With respect to the issue at hand, however, I believe that the analogy is apt. QM deals with things far outside of our direct experience so we shouldn’t be surprised that we have a hard time describing it in everyday terms. The inner workings of God’s being are also far outside our direct experience.

I agree with this statement to a certain extent. In fact, I believe that part of what it means to be created in God’s image is having the capacity to understand certain fundamental truths about God which other types of creatures are incapable of, and this is so that we could love God more. On the other hand, the finite mind can never fully understand God or anything else for that matter. I enjoy learning about physics, but I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t fully understand it at times, and the more I learn, the more I realize just how limited my understanding is. I adore my girlfriend, but there are times when she can be a complete mystery to me . With respect to one’s relationship with God, I believe there is a positive feedback loop between love and understanding. Love for God drives us to seek to understand God more. When you love someone, you want to know everything there is to know about them. Understanding God more causes us to love Him more, which causes us to seek to understand more about Him... However, the more one’s understanding of God is increased, I believe, the more one’s awe of Him increases as well, and there becomes a greater realization of just how limited one’s capacity to fully understand Him is.

Since God’s common grace is present to all persons, we can have meaningful conversations. We are right now, I think

He’s given us the Gospel, that’s enough. The purpose of apologetics, I think, is mainly to clear away certain spiritual barriers that arise in the intellectual sphere, to make room for the proclamation of the Gospel. Not every Christian is all that gifted in engaging in sophisticated intellectual arguments, but anyone can preach the Gospel. The Gospel, I believe, stands on its own. It’s simple enough for a child to proclaim and to understand the basic content, but profound enough that its implications take a lifetime of study (and beyond ) to work out.

I don’t think I am exaggerating. If this is not a position that many atheists explicitly state, it is one which many that many seem to imply. I have encountered numerous statements to the effect that our inability to understand something about God is reason to reject theism. To me, that’s just plain irrational. As far as being free of contradiction is concerned, yes, I believe that, in actuality, the nature of God is free of all contradiction. However, there may be some paradoxes about God which we are unable to resolve because of our limitations.

Thanks. I hope you realize that my own theology and philosophy is still in the process of being worked out, and I may not always easily fit in the Reformed position and I still have questions about it that I have not completely worked out. I think I prefer to label myself as “one who has leanings toward Reformed theology” rather than as Reformed. Maybe that’s just my resistance to labels, however. As far as posting time is concerned, it gets difficult when your trying to finish up two majors so you can finally graduate

Yep


I think this argument is ambiguous at best. I do think that freewill involves not being wholly determined in one’s actions by an external source, but I do not believe that it involves the logical possibility to choose otherwise in a given set of circumstances. To me, freewill is the ability to act from out of the self as causal agent. Since identical causes in identical situations are bound to produce identical effects, I believe that it is meaningless to hold a view of freewill that holds that the self could have (in terms of logical possibility) made a different choice in the same circumstances. The ambiguity of these discussions of freewill, IMHO, is that terms like “could have” or “possibly” have multiple possible meanings that often get confused.

No, that’s not what I am saying. God is good. It is true that He also freely chooses to be so, because that is His nature, but, because that is His nature, He could not have chosen otherwise.

You don’t, but that’s probably my fault for lack of clarity. I was “thinking out loud” to a certain extent. I do not believe that God’s nature is subject to His will in the sense that God could have chosen a different one. Nor do I think that God’s will is subject to his nature. God’s will is determined by God’s self. God’s nature is the abstract set of characteristics which define Who God is. In other words, God’s nature does not hold some sort of causal power over God, but is merely an abstract description of Who God is. Nevertheless, God “is Who He is,” after all; as the ground of being itself, God could not have been any different.

I think that God chooses analogously to the way that we do, He acts from within Himself to carry out a particular course of action.

No, lets look at it in a little more detail. Think about this question “am I capable of killing my family?” In one sense, yes, I am. I have the mental ability to conceive of ways it could be done (though I don’t really like to dwell on that subject too long), and I have resources at my disposal which would enable me to do so if I so desired. The broader question, though, is could I possibly desire to do such a thing (given my current sanity and my love for my family)? The answer (thank God) is no. There is nothing within me that would ever produce the desire to do such a thing. So, to a certain extent, I can separate the actions that are within my power/resources to carry out, from the actions I could actually will to perform. What I am suggesting, is that, perhaps, the notion of possible worlds is defined with respect to actions that God could have carried out had He willed to do so, but not with respect to what God actually could or could not will to be the case. The reason is that, were this not the case, there would only be one possible world and that would seem to render mute the whole point of speaking in modal terms.

Perhaps I am still not expressing myself clearly, but I don’t think this paradox is limited to just a theistic conception. Formulated more broadly, we could define X as the set of all possible worlds, and x as the set of circumstances which characterize alpha (the actual world). We could define A as whatever it is that actualizes x. If there is a reason why alpha is the actual world instead of some other world, then A must reflect some fundamental property of being that could not have been otherwise. But if A could not have been otherwise, then it would seem that in all possible worlds, A holds true. But if A holds true in all possible worlds, the only coherent world would be alpha itself, and, hence, our world would be the only possible world. This means, to talk meaningfully about counterfactuals, we must exclude A from the definition of X; that is X must be defined independently of A. To talk meaningfully about counterfactuals, we must restrict the set of logical connections within being to exclude whatever it is that makes the actual world actual. In a theistic context, I am suggesting that A corresponds to God's will. It is not that God's will could have been different, but when it is excluded from the set of logical connections, the subset formed underdetermines which state of affairs become actual, and gives us a meaningful notion of counterfactuals

I agree.

Actually, I believe that causal relationships are ontologically prior to time; see the link in my first post on this thread.

A) is not correct. The good is that which accords with God’s nature. A) should read, “God commands things that are in accordance with His nature, and, hence, good (by definition)."

Your right, its a side issue, and an extremely difficult question. Thus, I will evade it for now

God Bless,
Kenny

P.S. I don’t know when I’ll have time to get to the other posts, so I can’t promise anything.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

The first premise of Plantinga’s ontological argument is simply that maximal greatness (as defined) is a coherent property. Denying this premise amounts to saying that maximal greatness is not a coherent property. It is no less a positive assertion to assert that maximal greatness is not a coherent property as it is to assert that it is.

Whether moral perfection and perfect knowledge can be defined in analogous ways or not, I fail to see the relevance to the question as to whether or not the concept of moral perfection is arbitrary. To say something is “arbitrary” suggests that there is no reason why it should be one way rather than another. If moral perfection is defined in terms of God’s nature, and God’s nature could not logically have been different than it is, then it is certainly not the case that moral perfection is arbitrary.

As I recall, this discussion is assuming a Judeo-Christian (and, now, it seems, Islam has been thrown in the mix) context. I am simply applying that context to this question. Of course you don’t believe that all of God’s attributes are interrelated; you don’t believe in God. Nevertheless, this discussion is about the internal coherence of Christian theism, so it is appropriate to look at how various other Christian doctrines impact the question at hand. I would point out that if God is the ground of all being and necessarily exists, the notion that all of his attributes are interrelated is implied. The fact that God necessarily exists means that his nature instantiates itself in all possible worlds. This means that God could not logically have been different than He is. But if it is not logically possible that God could have been different, this implies that the set of characteristics which define God are interrelated in such a way that it is impossible to alter one of the without compromising them all.

Now wait just a minute here, it seems that you did not follow the argument closely enough. I said that the Christian doctrines of God’s necessity and God’s simplicity imply that God could not have been any different than He is in any respect. I also said that we might not be able to fully understand how all of God’s attributes are interrelated, but this says nothing against the fact that they are. That’s not throwing up my hands, that’s making an argument by drawing inferences from the Judeo-Christian concept of God.

In turn, I supported my argument with an analogy. I gave Pi as an example. I know how to construct various approximation methods for Pi, and I know that because it is possible to do so and because these methods follow from definition of Pi and the mathematical structures in which Pi finds itself embedded, that it is logically impossible that Pi could have ever had a different value. Nevertheless, I can’t immediately see how it is that the value of Pi follows from its definition nor can I see completely why it is that the various approximation methods I can employ for Pi all converge on the value that they do. In fact, to see that, I would have to understand Pi and the structures of mathematics exhaustively, which, of course, is impossible for a finite being such as myself. Analogously, all of God’s attributes are interrelated and necessarily held, but in order to fully comprehend how that they are interrelated and necessarily held would require full knowledge of the interior workings of God’s infinite being, which is something that can only be had by God alone. Just because we can’t understand all the reasons why God must be the way He is, that does not mean that God could have actually been different.

But you are no longer talking about God as understood by classical Christian theism. The doctrines of classical Christian theism imply that there are no “scenarios where it would be logically possible for God to have a different nature.”

I think that you are confusing intrinsic properties with relational ones. Suppose Jones is a perfect chess player (in the sense that His strategy is always maximally efficient and he always wins as a result). Jones holds his property of “perfect-chess-playingness” (PCP) intrinsically. Whether Jones plays against Bobby Fisher or my Grandma, however, has to, not with his intrinsic holding of PCP, but with how that property expresses itself in a particular context. Jones is no more or less a perfect chess player for having played against Bobby fisher or against my Grandma. In either context, Jones’ PCP property will manifest itself in terms of a maximally efficient chess strategy, though the particular way in which it is manifested will depend on the context in which it manifests itself. Likewise, God is love and God loves perfectly in all situations where that love is manifested, but the particular way that this property manifests itself will vary from context to context. This variance, however, in no way affects the fact that God’s has the intrinsic property of perfect love.

God Bless,
Kenny.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

God is “static” in the sense that He does not change, but not in the sense that He is inactive. Since God, according to Christian theology, is the Creator and sustainer of all things. The fact that He transcends space-time and causally relates to all aspects of the universe in all space-time locations in a single subjective present, then, means that God’s mode of being is one of constant activity.

Meta said that, not me. If “thinking” means having thoughts caused by one’s mind, then I believe that God does think. Meta may have meant that God doesn’t involve himself in the same sorts of processes of deliberation that we do, however. In which case, I agree.

To say that everything God does is “prerecorded in his nature” implies that God’s nature somehow proceeds God’s being. It does not. God’s nature and God’s being occur simultaneously with God’s nature simply being the abstract set of characteristics which describe God’s being.

The Laws follow as a natural result of the operations of God’s mind and in accordance with what God wills to be the case.

God does decide how He will act. God wills a particular course of action in accordance with His own nature.

There is no “prior” to creation in a temporal sense since time depends on the universe. In terms of the order of being, however, God is “prior” because everything else depends on Him. In this sense, God exists “prior” to the creation of the universe as a perfect self-conscious, wholly good, all powerful, personal being.

I think this is wrong. All-powerful is simply the ability to actualize whatever logical possibilities one wills to be the case. That is a meaningful concept with or without the universe. Likewise, all-knowing means having the property of knowing all true propositions and believing no false ones. God’s knowledge (in the order of being) begins as self-knowledge.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

jojo-sa

The definition of God in Islam is much different to the one in Christianity which means for sure the attributes are different so the objections raised would be different and might or might not apply. This is another topic so lets put it to another topic, ok. here you can find the attributes

<a href="http://www.islamworld.net/99.html" target="_blank">http://www.islamworld.net/99.html</a>

I say this try to "toss" all your Christian ideas of God away then start to relook at the objections you then find .

Well to say God is rational will imply that God needs to reason, which will imply that God needs to think and when one thinks this indicates we trying to figure out something indicating we did not know something, this will be wrong then to say God is rational in Islamic view since God is all knowing and do not need to think.

An then to infer that He is subject to nature from this, dont follow.

He is clear from the attributes of Creation. that is physical laws in this universe dont realate to Him. He created the Laws and is not subject to it.

Remember this thread is not to showing proof of GOD it just to show His attributes and indicate that God is able to do what ever He Pleases to do and is not subject to any laws in Creation.

For proof of GOD all you need to do is look around , analyse things, look at the universe, see how it perfectly fits. You need know religion for this .

Also to date no scientist can show or expalin how life can come about spontaneously by in inanimate things.

As for looking to use the five senses to actually sense God. Well this you will never find and if thats what will convince you of God , well you will remain an unbeliever, for God's reality is something outside creation and the 5 sense are things created. in chemistry to detect certain things you need the correct tools.

The tools we have for detecting God is to look at Creation and see the greatness in it and realise that it must have a creator.

jojo

Panta Pei

jojo-sa:

You seem to equate the amazing Universe in plain view as proof of a gender-based "God" outside of the universe. Preferably the one the 'revealed' religion of your choice prescribes, no doubt.

Of course, since 'universe' is defined as 'all things' then you must explain the concept of 'outside'. If one is outside of the universe, one would by logical necessity have to be 'inside' another milieu.

This merely brings up the tiresome (to me) problem theists ultimately must face (but, rarely acknowledge through irrational double-speak):

If the everything requires a creator God, then who/what created the creator God? If the creator God can be said to have just always existed, then why can this not be said of the Universe in plain view?

It is far simpler to assess existence through the human senses and promote scientific theories to explain them than to indulge in the mindsnaring dogma of an ancient and moldy tribe of nomads.

Perhaps you should consider the buddhist concept of eternal 'interdependant co-arising' a more satisfactory philosophy. It would, after all, remove the nasty paradox you assert in the 'outside creation' model.

~ Steve