Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 12, 2018, 10:27:27 AM
-
........and is that straw at his feet?
-
https://youtu.be/sxKFhA3JRwY
-
If Jesus really was God incarnate, then omnipotence and omniscience cannot be essential properties of God, as he was neither during his incarnation. That leaves omnibenevolence, which he did have. The bible specifically says that "God is love" (not has love, or is loving, but is love). It nowhere says in so many words that God is power or God is knowledge. That's why I don't believe in divine omnipotence or omniscience, unless you qualify the words so much as to deny them.
Little Roses - don't bother.
-
If Jesus really was God incarnate, then omnipotence and omniscience cannot be essential properties of God, as he was neither during his incarnation. That leaves omnibenevolence, which he did have. The bible specifically says that "God is love" (not has love, or is loving, but is love). It nowhere says in so many words that God is power or God is knowledge. That's why I don't believe in divine omnipotence or omniscience, unless you qualify the words so much as to deny them.
Little Roses - don't bother.
I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong but I think your post shows the non necessity of getting hung up on terms like omnipotence or omniscience when postulating God and the omnis are more a concern for philosophers than theologians and religious thinkers who, like Anselm, think that God is just the 'most' rather than the Omni.
The actual argument against any God of the Omnis is spoiled for me practically by those who end up saying that if God were omnipotent he would have to do this or that and also one can envisage all things, all knowledge and all power and agree that with others.......but all love? How do you begin to define that let alone agree on the definition?
-
Quite.
-
If Jesus really was God incarnate, then omnipotence and omniscience cannot be essential properties of God, as he was neither during his incarnation.That leaves omnibenevolence, which he did have. The bible specifically says that "God is love" (not has love, or is loving, but is love). It nowhere says in so many words that God is power or God is knowledge. That's why I don't believe in divine omnipotence or omniscience, unless you qualify the words so much as to deny them.
Little Roses - don't bother.
"If Jesus really was.." Your problems start there. "That leaves omnibenevolence, which he did have". Again, a question of interpretation, and not fully supported by the scriptures, the ultimate source material. His nature appears to have been extremely compassionate, though in certain instances, grudgingly so. But certainly not "omnibenevolent".
"[The Bible] nowhere says in so many words that God is power or God is knowledge". In fact, the argument of the Book of Job depends almost entirely on the concept of God's power (which is why the denouement of that scripture is so unconvincing). You will also find quite a few references to God's power in Isaiah.
-
"If Jesus really was.." Your problems start there. "That leaves omnibenevolence, which he did have". Again, a question of interpretation, and not fully supported by the scriptures, the ultimate source material. His nature appears to have been extremely compassionate, though in certain instances, grudgingly so. But certainly not "omnibenevolent".
Since, on here you only seem to show benevolence to those you like or those you consider 'on you team' Dicky I'm not sure you can make pronouncements on omnibenevolence with anything like certainty.
There are huge problems nailing benevolence down definitionally.
Problems which Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence won't have since they are far, far more clear cut.
-
"[The Bible] nowhere says in so many words that God is power or God is knowledge". In fact, the argument of the Book of Job depends almost entirely on the concept of God's power (which is why the denouement of that scripture is so unconvincing). You will also find quite a few references to God's power in Isaiah.
God has power, but is love.
-
Jesus claimed to be many things as the "I AM"; "Light" Way, Truth, Life" The door...allowing entrance and protection The Vine Living Water (Possible hark back to Moses using Aaron's staff) Bread of life (Allusions to thwe wilderness wanderings) Passover Lamb - heralding the new Covenant, as the original heralded the Mosaic. Good Shepherd - Taking on the identity ascribed to God by David. And umpteen other descriptions. Seems pretty comprehensive to me.
-
Jesus claimed to be many things as the "I AM"; "Light" Way, Truth, Life" The door...allowing entrance and protection The Vine Living Water (Possible hark back to Moses using Aaron's staff) Bread of life (Allusions to thwe wilderness wanderings) Passover Lamb - heralding the new Covenant, as the original heralded the Mosaic. Good Shepherd - Taking on the identity ascribed to God by David. And umpteen other descriptions. Seems pretty comprehensive to me.
All those things are aspects of love. He did not say "I am poweful", or "I know everything".
-
Do many here still 'believe' ALL creation is somehow separate from God or, as in Hinduism, we are all PART of God as nothing exists 'outside' of God.????
Might explain a few things - then again.....
Nick
-
If god exists and is the creator of everything, including the human psyche, it is totally responsible for all the bad things people do.
-
All those things are aspects of love. He did not say "I am poweful", or "I know everything".
Given those statements, in the light of His self-identification as the "I AM", He did not need to. If you accept Jesus' nature as part of the Triune nature of God from before the beginning, then it has been proposed that the only time that nature was divided was on Calvary. Therefore, everything God is, Jesus is; everything Jesus is, God is.
-
Do many here still 'believe' ALL creation is somehow separate from God or, as in Hinduism, we are all PART of God as nothing exists 'outside' of God.????
Might explain a few things - then again.....
Nick
The orthodox - small 'o' - Chrisian view is that we are separate from God - by our own failure.
Christ, by His actions, has become our reconcilliation, should we accept Him.
From NT writings, God separated Himself from creation which 'groans in anticipation' for the completion of the parousia.
Well, according to Paul, anyway.
-
Everything God is, Jesus is; everything Jesus is, God is.
My point exactly: since he obviously wasn't omnipotent or omniscient during his incarnation, those qualities can't be essential to God's nature.
-
My point exactly: since he obviously wasn't omnipotent or omniscient during his incarnation, those qualities can't be assential to God's nature.
Why not?
-
The orthodox - small 'o' - Chrisian view is that we are separate from God - by our own failure.
Christ, by His actions, has become our reconcilliation, should we accept Him.
From NT writings, God separated Himself from creation which 'groans in anticipation' for the completion of the parousia.
Well, according to Paul, anyway.
Not at all possible cos it means God is limited & NOT God, no?
N
-
The conventional Christian view is that Jesus shares the absolute power and authority of the Father completely. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews (Paul? ) obviously thought so, anyway, as he wrote that "/this Son perfectly mirrors God, and isstamped with God's nature. He holds everything togrther by what He says; powerful words!" (Heb 1:3( Yes, I'm using the Message - it was the one I'm working on at the moment. I could have quoted Paul's treatise in Colossians instead.
-
Not at all possible cos it means God is limited & NOT God, no?
N
Not at all possible?
"With God, all thingsare possible."
-
Do many here still 'believe' ALL creation is somehow separate from God or, as in Hinduism, we are all PART of God as nothing exists 'outside' of God.????
Might explain a few things - then again.....
Nick
A heretic's view might be that 'God' is a word used to represent the 'life' which is within all life forms. It is sometimes represented by the word 'being' or its Latin equivalent 'essence' and by Whole or Holy Spirit. In essence there is no separation, but conceptually there is. Using an ocean as an analogy, the water is the essence and the superficial waves are the forms it can take. Apparent separation occurs by identifying with the wave rather than the water. The way of Jesus was to turn the attention within beyond the superficial mental concepts and identify with the life essence which to him was the truth and if the 4th Gospel is correct enabled him to say "I am being the way, the truth and life itself, no one comes to God except by me (i.e. being the way the truth and the life itself)".
-
Why not?
*Sigh* Because if they were, Jesus would have had to have them during his incarnation, but he didn't, so they can't be.
-
*Sigh* Because if they were, Jesus would have had to have them during his incarnation, but he didn't, so they can't be.
....His incarnation....the act of God becoming present in man?
If Christ is God - the One who is Creator and Sustainer of all that is, then He was God before anything was, He is God now, and will be God after anything is not.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the authors of the books of both Old and New Testaments believed God was creator and sustainer of all that is.
What makes you think they were wrong?
-
....His incarnation....the act of God becoming present in man?
If Christ is God - the One who is Creator and Sustainer of all that is, then He was God before anything was, He is God now, and will be God after anything is not.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the authors of the books of both Old and New Testaments believed God was creator and sustainer of all that is.
What makes you think they were wrong?
Where have I said that?
-
Since, on here you only seem to show benevolence to those you like or those you consider 'on you team' Dicky I'm not sure you can make pronouncements on omnibenevolence with anything like certainty.
And there was me thinking that I was in a team of one! I do wish you could rid yourself of this annoying habit of thinking in such binary terms. Ironically though, the synoptic gospels give clear indications that the historical Jesus himself was primarily concerned with those "on his team" (i.e.Jews), and only came to acknowledge the significance of people from other nations if he was convinced of their genuine faith in Israel's God. Such a reading naturally conflicts with other statements in the synoptics and elsewhere that indicate that he had a universalist message. I believe that the scriptures relating to the two points of view are irreconcilable - you have to believe in one or the other.
There is of course a troublesome text (found in some early manuscripts) which states that "Jesus was angry" (Mark 1:41) when asked by a paralytic? man to heal him......
There are huge problems nailing benevolence down definitionally.
Problems which Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence won't have since they are far, far more clear cut.
I think you'll find that all the latter have some sizable problems of their own. The last has caused oceans of ink to be eked out, from the Jewish concept of Tzintzum, to Milton: "Boundless the Deep, because I am who fill
Infinitude, nor vacuous the space.
Though I uncircumscrib'd my self retire,
And put not forth my goodness, which is free
To act or not,..." or something
PL, Book 7
-
God has power, but is love.
This is really all semantics, isn't it? I sense that you are simply ventriloquizing one respected view of traditional Christian theology in which you don't really believe. If you do subscribe to the ideas of the 'non-realist God', I don't see how it can be otherwise. In fact, I suspect that your view of Jesus is not so very different from mine - a supremely courageous, compassionate man, with some very significant ideas to impart to humanity. You probably think the words imputed to him about his having a universalist message are authentic, though - if that is the case, then we do certainly differ on that.
Now, feel free to argue theology if that's what floats your boat, but if you are arguing for matters in which you don't truly believe, merely because you can score points that way, it can be confusing.
Anchorman, by contrast, believes with every fibre of his being what he states as his faith. I don't share his faith, but I know he is utterly sincere in his beliefs.
-
God has power, but is love.
God is a human emotion. I have to say that sounds like bollocks.
-
....His incarnation....the act of God becoming present in man?
If Christ is God - the One who is Creator and Sustainer of all that is, then He was God before anything was, He is God now, and will be God after anything is not.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the authors of the books of both Old and New Testaments believed God was creator and sustainer of all that is.
What makes you think they were wrong?
Got any evidence for that? Even your own Bible isn’t in complete agreement on the subject. For example, if you read Mark in isolation, the implication is that divinity was conferred on Jesus at his baptism and deserted him (perhaps temporarily) during the crucifixion.
-
God is a human emotion. I have to say that sounds like bollocks.
Is it just an emotion? Is it also a transaction and interaction, a commitment?
-
Is it just an emotion? Is it also a transaction and interaction, a commitment?
You often post bollocks, but this time you're spot-on. Love as Jesus meant it is an act of will, not an emotion, though the emotion may follow. Otherwise we couldn't be commanded to love - you can't command an emotion.
-
Got any evidence for that? Even your own Bible isn’t in complete agreement on the subject. For example, if you read Mark in isolation, the implication is that divinity was conferred on Jesus at his baptism and deserted him (perhaps temporarily) during the crucifixion.
However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option. Even though we now have a frgment suggesting it was writteh well before AD 90, still the Pauline letters and at least 1 Peter (probably 2 Peter aswell) predate it.
The theology of Jesus taking on "The full nature of God" and God being 'in Christ', were therefore in wide circulation; Mark does not refute them, but his description of Christ's actions - parables of deeds rather than words - show His nature to those Jewish listeners steeped in the O.T.
And the concept of 'sustainer' - God who maintains, upholds,and is active in His creation is implicit in Christ - as second person of the Trinity....Paul makes that very clear in Colossians.
-
However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option. Even though we now have a frgment suggesting it was writteh well before AD 90, still the Pauline letters and at least 1 Peter (probably 2 Peter aswell) predate it.
The theology of Jesus taking on "The full nature of God" and God being 'in Christ', were therefore in wide circulation; Mark does not refute them, but his description of Christ's actions - parables of deeds rather than words - show His nature to those Jewish listeners steeped in the O.T.
And the concept of 'sustainer' - God who maintains, upholds,and is active in His creation is implicit in Christ - as second person of the Trinity....Paul makes that very clear in Colossians.
Wish I could believe all that.
-
Wish I could believe all that.
If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.
-
If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.
Bit difficult squaring epidermolysis bullosa, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ichneumon wasps and other things with it.
-
Bit difficult squaring epidermolysis bullosa, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ichneumon wasps and other things with it.
Not really.
I can manage to square MSand congenital blindness with the concept without any problem.
After all, there are clues in Acts and the later Pauline letters that Paul himself was either losing his sight or had lost it, before his death.
If he could live with the concept, then so can I.
-
If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.
And who exactly did this Christ claim to be then?
He may well have said 'I & God are One' but this doesn't mean 'I AM God' ?!??!?
-
Copied from Is there such a thing as New Atheism? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755317#msg755317).
Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.
Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.
Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?
Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.
-
Copied from Is there such a thing as New Atheism? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755317#msg755317).
Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.
Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe
What about it? This appears to be an example of a no future model but are you proposing it? Do you think therefore that omniscience doesn't include the future?
On a technical note, the wiki article doesn't say how the proponents of this view square it with the relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)...
-
And who exactly did this Christ claim to be then?
He may well have said 'I & God are One' but this doesn't mean 'I AM God' ?!??!?
Actually, He DID claim identity as God - and His hearers threw a wobbly.
In John 8, He claimed the "I AM" name for Himself. Not only did He use the Name that no 'righteous' Jew would utter openly, part of the Tetragrammaton; He used it of Himself.
He also said "I and the Father are One".
Pretty convincing that he thought Himself God.
Then there were the miracles thing. Many of them were 'parables in picture' and illustrated things only God was supposed to do...a fact that, on one occasion, left His disciples petrified AFTER the event.
Scripture records that, after Jesus calmed the storm - AFTER - the disciples were afraid.
Why?
Because, steeped in the psalms as they were, they would know that that kind of thing was Gods' province alone...as, by the waqy, was forgiving sin, which Jesus did on several occasion, to the rage of His detractors.
-
If god exists maybe the universe is just one of the projects it completed before moving on to the next. If that is the case the past, present and future are all done and dusted. We just stand on our own particular timeline doing the bit we were created to do.
-
I and the Father are One does not mean ONE personage. Two in MY book, sorry.
-
Actually, He DID claim identity as God - and His hearers threw a wobbly.
In John 8, He claimed the "I AM" name for Himself. Not only did He use the Name that no 'righteous' Jew would utter openly, part of the Tetragrammaton; He used it of Himself.
He also said "I and the Father are One".
Pretty convincing that he thought Himself God.
He also is supposed to have said: "Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God." which implies a distinction. "I and my father are one" could mean 'in essence' not 'identical', just as the essence in a wave is the same as that in the ocean, but a wave is not the ocean.
-
What about it? This appears to be an example of a no future model but are you proposing it? Do you think therefore that omniscience doesn't include the future?
On a technical note, the wiki article doesn't say how the proponents of this view square it with the relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)...
I am not committed to it. But nothing is committed to having knowledge of everything...or being slated for not being omniscient because they do not have knowledge of that which doesn't exist.
That there is or might be a future is completely, in Christianity in Gods hands. He is not in Christianity obliged to continue the existence of the universe..
With regard to the relativity of simultaneity if that is so you are merely placing God at the beginning of all timelines rather than one absolute timeline. That would not change the deistic nature of the God proposed.In fact where you place him and his act of perfect prediction would not be subject to the relativity of simultaneity at all which is why your inclusion of it is non sequitur to your argument.
-
He also is supposed to have said: "Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God." which implies a distinction.
Not necessarily. He could have been pointing out the implication of the other person's statement, i.e. "You call me good; only God is good; therefore...". The other interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Jesus was not only not God, but not good.
-
If god exists maybe the universe is just one of the projects it completed before moving on to the next. If that is the case the past, present and future are all done and dusted. We just stand on our own particular timeline doing the bit we were created to do.
I think you have encapsulated the deist point of view very succinctly.
-
I and the Father are One does not mean ONE personage. Two in MY book, sorry.
That quote comes from the first part of the tenth chapter of John.
I try not to take verses in isolation...this is a prime example.
Jesus has just made the breathtaking claim to be "The Good Shepherd".
Breathtaking?
Well, His hearers were Jews. They knew perfectly well that,several times in the OT, 'Shepherd' is applied to God...Ps 23, the "Shepherd of Israel", Ezekil, etc. And Jesus takes on the role ascribed to God...and at the same time states "I and the Father are One".
That must have made the Pharisees think a bit.
-
I am not committed to it. But nothing is committed to having knowledge of everything...or being slated for not being omniscient because they do not have knowledge of that which doesn't exist.
As I explained before, this doesn't make much difference to the omniscience. If (note the 'if', this is your idea, not mine) there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.
- According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
- According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
- According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.
If god knows its own mind, then 2 is just as perfectly predictable to it as 1. If the 3 is true, then god has, effectively, given up omniscience. Hence, if a god is omniscient, it knows the future just as well if it doesn't exist yet as if it does (and god can perceive it directly).
That there is or might be a future is completely, in Christianity in Gods hands. He is not in Christianity obliged to continue the existence of the universe..
See point 2 and subsequent comment.
With regard to the relativity of simultaneity if that is so you are merely placing God at the beginning of all timelines rather than one absolute timeline. That would not change the deistic nature of the God proposed.In fact where you place him and his act of perfect prediction would not be subject to the relativity of simultaneity at all which is why your inclusion of it is non sequitur to your argument.
I'm not placing god anywhere, Vlad; THIS IS YOUR IDEA. All I'm doing is pointing out that a proposing a non-existent future makes no difference to omniscience.
-
As I explained before, this doesn't make much difference to the omniscience. If (note the 'if', this is your idea, not mine) there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.
- According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
- According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
- According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.
If god knows its own mind, then 2 is just as perfectly predictable to it as 1. If the 3 is true, then god has, effectively, given up omniscience. Hence, if a god is omniscient, it knows the future just as well if it doesn't exist yet as if it does (and god can perceive it directly).
See point 2 and subsequent comment.
I'm not placing god anywhere, Vlad; THIS IS YOUR IDEA. All I'm doing is pointing out that a proposing a non-existent future makes no difference to omniscience.
Sorry
But you are still doing it.
Mentioning prediction.
Prediction is an act on a timeline concerning a future point on that timeline.
Atheists claim that this act of prediction, which they have already confused with knowledge is also an act of ordination. There is thence massive confusion between ordination, prediction and knowledge.
Gods omniscience though is down to omnipresence. What then is it you think God has chosen to remain ignorant of?
-
Sorry
But you are still doing it.
Mentioning prediction.
Prediction is an act on a timeline concerning a future point on that timeline.
Yes, Vlad, I'm mentioning it because it negates your claim that omniscience wouldn't involve the future if the future doesn't exist.
Atheists claim that this act of prediction...
What atheists? I don't suppose for a moment nobody has thought if this before, but I was just responding in a logical way to your claim. I didn't read this anywhere (not that I remember anyway).
...which they have already confused with knowledge is also an act of ordination. There is thence massive confusion between ordination, prediction and knowledge.
Only in your mind. If you think there is a problem with the reasoning I produced then say what it is. Just claiming there is confusion is a just an assertion.
Gods omniscience though is down to omnipresence.
Fine, but what is the actual model you are making this claim about? What do you think the implications are? You keep on making these isolated statements and then telling everyone they have it wrong.
As I said in the other thread, why won't you come out with the full picture of what you think and what you think "the Christian" view is?
-
Yes, Vlad, I'm mentioning it because it negates your claim that omniscience wouldn't involve the future if the future doesn't exist.
What atheists? I don't suppose for a moment nobody has thought if this before, but I was just responding in a logical way to your claim. I didn't read this anywhere (not that I remember anyway).
Only in your mind. If you think there is a problem with the reasoning I produced then say what it is. Just claiming there is confusion is a just an assertion.
Fine, but what is the actual model you are making this claim about? What do you think the implications are? You keep on making these isolated statements and then telling everyone they have it wrong.
As I said in the other thread, why won't you come out with the full picture of what you think and what you think "the Christian" view is?
I'm not going to revisit your unwanted redefinition of omnipresence and omniscience or prediction.
However if you want a Christian view try omnipresence which is good for any theory of time, eternalism, growing block or presentism.
If God is everywhere anytime then he has knowledge of everything.
In terms of the universe God can therefore grant freedom and yet still have knowledge by dint of omnipresence.
There is also the point that up to now with the exception of God everything has been a physicalist view of the universe.
-
I'm not going to revisit your unwanted redefinition of omnipresence and omniscience or prediction.
You mean you're going to ignore (yet again) your total failure to point out a flaw in what I said... ::)
However if you want a Christian view try omnipresence which is good for any theory of time, eternalism, growing block or presentism.
If God is everywhere anytime then he has knowledge of everything.
That's ambiguous. Do you mean present at all times or at any one time? If the latter, do you include the future in "knowledge of everything" or not?
In terms of the universe God can therefore grant freedom and yet still have knowledge by dint of omnipresence.
What do you mean by 'freedom' and grant it to what?
There is also the point that up to now with the exception of God everything has been a physicalist view of the universe.
So go ahead and introduce something else...
-
You mean you're going to ignore (yet again) your total failure to point out a flaw in what I said... ::)
That's ambiguous. Do you mean present at all times or at any one time? If the latter, do you include the future in "knowledge of everything" or not?
What do you mean by 'freedom' and grant it to what?
So go ahead and introduce something else...
Look
Are you or are you not continually churning out the word Prediction in connection with a thread on knowledge?
I mean present at all times and places and spaces
When you say future are you referring to gods future or the future of any point or all points?
Something else? What about emergent morality which doesn't seem to be linked identifiably to anything physical or mathematics which is the same? I don't really want to introduce anything else that you will have trouble with.
What freedom? The ability to change, evolve, choice, degrees of freedom that sort of thing.
-
Does god have to obey or follow the rules of logic?
-
Are you or are you not continually churning out the word Prediction in connection with a thread on knowledge?
My full argument and its context is in post #46 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755337#msg755337). If you don't think it is a valid argument, why not? Where is the flaw?
I mean present at all times and places and spaces
When you say future are you referring to gods future or the future of any point or all points?
I'm trying to get you to explain what you mean. The crucial point that you brought up is that a an omniniscient god may not know the future, if the future doesn't exist. I still don't know if that's what you're trying to say here or not.
Something else? What about emergent morality which doesn't seem to be linked identifiably to anything physical or mathematics which is the same?
What about them?
This is about the god of the omnis and your rather bizarre claim that it's some sort of straw man. I have seen nothing at all that supports that view.
-
My full argument and its context is in post #46 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755337#msg755337). If you don't think it is a valid argument, why not? Where is the flaw?
I'm trying to get you to explain what you mean. The crucial point that you brought up is that a an omniniscient god may not know the future, if the future doesn't exist. I still don't know if that's what you're trying to say here or not.
What about them?
This is about the god of the omnis and your rather bizarre claim that it's some sort of straw man. I have seen nothing at all that supports that view.
But who is the God of the omnis. Is it the God of the bible?or a God forged by atheists for disproving the Christian God which ,since it has been confected because it lacks omnipresence, is definitively a straw man god!
How can you know something that doesn't exist?
Again when you say future do you mean gods future or what?
-
Does god have to obey or follow the rules of logic?
If logic is dependent on the physical then I would hazard No
If logic can be independent from the physical then.........what right do we have to deny that to Maths or God for that matter?
-
But who is the God of the omnis. Is it the God of the bible?or a God forged by atheists for disproving the Christian God which ,since it has been confected because it lacks omnipresence, is definitively a straw man god!
I have never heard of an argument against a god that requires said god to lack omnipresence. You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you? You need to point to an atheist argument that is based on something that no theists actually believe. Still haven't seen that.
How can you know something that doesn't exist?
As I said on the other thread: propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge) is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.
Again when you say future do you mean gods future or what?
Yet gain: I'm trying to get at what you mean, for example when you said (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."
-
If there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.
- According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
- According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
- According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.
First of all Stranger whatever God you are talking about it is not the Christian God.
It is not the Christian God because God has the power to end the universe immediately.
Your first point confuses God with something like an extremely clever human.
I don't quite get your second point ....or your third for that matter.
-
Wait a minute.
It is Up to God whether the universe has a future.
If there is no future then there is nothing to know about....and most certainly a future that will never exist.
-
I have never heard of an argument against a god that requires said god to lack omnipresence. You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you? You need to point to an atheist argument that is based on something that no theists actually believe. Still haven't seen that.
If you have no problem with omnipresence why are you working in prediction which is an act occurring at one point in a timeline? in other words trying to make omnipresence redundant.
And why are you still confusing prediction with knowledge?
-
First of all Stranger whatever God you are talking about it is not the Christian God.
It is not the Christian God because God has the power to end the universe immediately.
See point 2.
Your first point confuses God with something like an extremely clever human.
No idea why you would think that.
I don't quite get your second point ....or your third for that matter.
They aren't difficult. Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god.
The second point just says that a god might perform miracles that override normal rules (physical laws). The third is just speculating that a god might have introduced something that it's decided not to know about (no idea why it would do that, but it's a logical possibility)
Wait a minute.
It is Up to God whether the universe has a future.
If there is no future then there is nothing to know about....and most certainly a future that will never exist.
I do wish you'd pay some attention. That is in point 2. And I as already pointed out, presumably god knows its own mind...
If you have no problem with omnipresence why are you working in prediction which is an act occurring at one point in a timeline?
FFS! Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet.
-
See point 2.
No idea why you would think that.
They aren't difficult. Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god.
The second point just says that a god might perform miracles that override normal rules (physical laws). The third is just speculating that a god might have introduced something that it's decided not to know about (no idea why it would do that, but it's a logical possibility)
I do wish you'd pay some attention. That is in point 2. And I as already pointed out, presumably god knows its own mind...
FFS! Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet.
That's rich from someone claiming that Gods knowledge is down to what he predicts!
If the future does not exist yet the I think you'll agree it does not exist....got it?
If that is the case then you can still be omniscient if you knew everything that does exist...savvy?
If God deigns that there should be a future then he is there in person since he is omnipresent and not subject to time and that is how he derives his omniscience.
It is prediction that is redundant.
Now what future are you talking about?
-
That's rich from someone claiming that Gods knowledge is down to what he predicts!
Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist). It is you who is trying to limit your god's knowledge (for some bizarre reason).
If the future does not exist yet the I think you'll agree it does not exist....got it?
If that is the case then you can still be omniscient if you knew everything that does exist...savvy?
None of which prevents an omniscient god knowing about the future that doesn't exist yet, for the reasons I've reiterated several times and you seem unable to grasp or even explain what you find difficult about them.
If God deigns that there should be a future then he is there in person since he is omnipresent and not subject to time and that is how he derives his omniscience.
If god is not subject to time, then in what sense can the future not exist for it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
It is prediction that is redundant.
Not if the future doesn't exist for god.
Now what future are you talking about?
What future were you talking about when you said (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?
-
None of which prevents an omniscient god knowing about the future that doesn't exist yet,
If something else also knew everything about the present and the past could that thing be said to be omniscient? would it know everything that existed? arguably yes.
Can perfect prediction could be categorised as knowledge?arguably no.
Does perfect prediction knowledge equate to omnipresence knowledge? arguably no.
-
If god is not subject to time, then in what sense can the future not exist for it?
If it is the Christian God then God could decide to end time.
If it is your confected Straw man God of the Omnis then you are suggesting that God becomes subject to physical laws and that there is existential inertia which God cannot resist.
-
Let me get me head straight.
Here's me manifesto taken from the new atheist thread reply #42
It is my belief that
1: It is God who decides if there is a future
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.
3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.
4: It might seem that God has at least suggested a bit of a future. Due to omnipresence he would be in any future.
Here's the relevant bit
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.
I suppose it depends on what is doing the attributing.
-
If something else also knew everything about the present and the past could that thing be said to be omniscient? would it know everything that existed? arguably yes.
Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?
If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.
Can perfect prediction could be categorised as knowledge?arguably no.
Then argue it. This is just an assertion.
Does perfect prediction knowledge equate to omnipresence knowledge? arguably no.
You still haven't explained your model of time and god to a sufficient extent to know the answer to that. On the one had you are limiting your god's knowledge to the past and present and on the other you say it's not limited by time.
If it is the Christian God then God could decide to end time.
Yes, and...?
If it is your confected Straw man God of the Omnis then you are suggesting that God becomes subject to physical laws and that there is existential inertia which God cannot resist.
I have suggested no such thing. As is so often the case, you are studiously ignoring what I'm actually saying in favour of what you'd prefer that I'd say.
You have yet to point out a single argument that can be classified as a straw man.
-
1: It is God who decides if there is a future
Fine.
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.
It's not that it's dependant on it, it's that, by dint of knowing all about the present, all about how things work, and all about its own mind, it would necessarily know the future (unless it deliberately arranged not to).
3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.
You seem to want omnipresence to extend through time to a future that you say might not exist. You need to define what you think the relationship between your god and time actually is.
-
Fine.
It's not that it's dependant on it, it's that, by dint of knowing all about the present, all about how things work, and all about its own mind, it would necessarily know the future (unless it deliberately arranged not to).
You seem to want omnipresence to extend through time to a future that you say might not exist. You need to define what you think the relationship between your god and time actually is.
If it was using present knowledge then it would be making an act of prediction. That as you point out is an act at a point of time.
Prediction is never referred to as knowledge and you have had to justify your equation of prediction and knowledge and maybe the time is right to put that under scrutiny.
In any case placing God in a timeline at a point, predicting THE future in it's entirety ignores Omnipresence and the direct knowledge of everything that confers. That is not the Christian conception of God.
God is omnipresent in all timelines is his relation to time also incarnated in time in Jesus.
-
Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?
If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.
I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.
-
If it was using present knowledge then it would be making an act of prediction. That as you point out is an act at a point of time.
Prediction is never referred to as knowledge and you have had to justify your equation of prediction and knowledge and maybe the time is right to put that under scrutiny.
I have already explained why 100% accurate prediction is knowledge and invited you to provide a counterargument. I'm still waiting...
In any case placing God in a timeline at a point, predicting THE future in it's entirety ignores Omnipresence and the direct knowledge of everything that confers. That is not the Christian conception of God.
God is omnipresent in all timelines is his relation to time also incarnated in time in Jesus.
So what the fuck were you talking about when you said (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?
What do you actually think the relationship between god and time is?
Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?
If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.
I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.
Which doesn't address what I said.
-
I have already explained why 100% accurate prediction is knowledge and invited you to provide a counterargument. I'm still waiting...
So what the fuck were you talking about when you said (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?
What do you actually think the relationship between god and time is?
I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.
Which doesn't address what I said.
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true
So how do we know the event predicted is true? Because God has direct knowledge of it through presence. So he knows it is true without prediction. Therefore Prediction is redundant. Unless you are saying that God predicts something as it happens? Then how is it a prediction?
-
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true
So how do we know the event predicted is true? Because God has direct knowledge of it through presence. So he knows it is true without prediction. Therefore Prediction is redundant. Unless you are saying that God predicts something as it happens? Then how is it a prediction?
Glad to see you've finally acknowledged the definition of knowledge I cited yesterday (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755225#msg755225).
However, either you think your god has direct access to every moment; so as I type this, it has direct access to your response (the future already exists for it), and you were talking bollocks when you said: (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".", or you are talking bollocks in what you just said in #71 above and you think what you said before, that god cannot directly know of future events until they happen, in which case, it will still know, via perfect prediction, as I've explained.
So, on which occasion were you talking bollocks?
-
Glad to see you've finally acknowledged the definition of knowledge I cited yesterday (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg755225#msg755225).
However, either you think your god has direct access to every moment; so as I type this, it has direct access to your response (the future already exists for it), and you were talking bollocks when you said: (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754852#msg754852) "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".", or you are talking bollocks in what you just said in #71 above and you think what you said before, that god cannot directly know of future events until they happen, in which case, it will still know, via perfect prediction, as I've explained.
So, on which occasion were you talking bollocks?
My main thrust is to point out that the God of the three omnis you attack isn't the Christian conception of God and therefore is a straw man argument
By dint that your theories of God put him at the beginning of time predicting what will happen. That is the Deists conception of God.
It was pointed out to you that relativity of simultainity was irrelevant.
I've achieved my Goal do you disagree that any perfect prediction made at the beginning would already be validated and based on by Gods attendence at the actual event. You are therefore redefining what prediction is and perhaps you should use a different word.
My point was to say that if it were to be established that only the past and present existed anything that knew everything about those two still would be omniscient definitionally. I never claimed that WAS the case and unfortunately any future that we can come up with is a prediction. any future God can come up with is ordination
You have made the question this.......... is
the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".
the same as
god cannot directly know of future events until they happen?
Could you please direct me to where I said this anyway?
-
My main thrust is to point out that the God of the three omnis you attack isn't the Christian conception of God and therefore is a straw man argument
Except I haven't actually put forward an argument against the god of the omnis. Further, I've been trying, without success, to get you to back up your assertion that anybody has produced a straw man argument against such a god.
By dint that your theories of God put him at the beginning of time predicting what will happen. That is the Deists conception of God.
I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist.
How many more times do I need to explain this? Are you even reading my posts?
It was pointed out to you that relativity of simultainity was irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? It's not irrelevant to a growing block universe or any other in which the future doesn't exist.
I've achieved my Goal do you disagree that any perfect prediction made at the beginning would already be validated and based on by Gods attendence at the actual event. You are therefore redefining what prediction is and perhaps you should use a different word.
You still haven't said whether you think the future exists for your god or not. Until you define what relationship you think your god has with time, this is just meaningless wittering.
My point was to say that if it were to be established that only the past and present existed anything that knew everything about those two still would be omniscient definitionally.
...and would, if it were also an omnipotent god, know the future too, via perfect prediction.
I never claimed that WAS the case...
Yes, that's the problem with you trying to make a straw man accusation, you won't say what you think the "true Christian" view is and you haven't said what specifically you think are straw man arguments.
...and unfortunately any future that we can come up with is a prediction. any future God can come up with is ordination
You can call god's predictions ordination, if you want, there would be no functional difference. That was part of my original argument: god has established any rules and would know of anything it wants to do outside of them,
Could you please direct me to where I said this anyway?
What the hell was the point in saying "the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "." if you didn't mean that "god cannot directly know of future events until they happen"?
Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?
-
Is it just an emotion? Is it also a transaction and interaction, a commitment?
Still not looking like the creator of the Universe.
-
You often post bollocks, but this time you're spot-on. Love as Jesus meant it is an act of will, not an emotion, though the emotion may follow. Otherwise we couldn't be commanded to love - you can't command an emotion.
Nice goalpost move. He is responding to a post in which I ridiculed the idea that God is a human emotion. I suggest he is not a transaction or a commitment either.
-
However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option.
Bullshit.
The author of mark did not know Matthew, Luke or Johh because they weren’t written yet.
Even though we now have a frgment suggesting it was writteh well before AD 90, still the Pauline letters and at least 1 Peter (probably 2 Peter aswell) predate it.
I’ll give you Paul’s letters, assuming you are only talking about the seven generally accepted real Pauline letters, but I’m not convinced about 1 Peter and I’d definitely need some evidence that 2 Peter predates Mark. Note that I’d accept a date of early seventies or even late sixties for Mark.
The theology of Jesus taking on "The full nature of God" and God being 'in Christ', were therefore in wide circulation; Mark does not refute them
“My God, why have you foresaken me”. How could God foresake himself? That’s a slam dunk refutation.
-
Still not looking like the creator of the Universe.
And what does the creator of the universe look like then?
-
What the hell was the point in saying "the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "." if you didn't mean that "god cannot directly know of future events until they happen"?
Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?
Oh so you admit I never said that God cannot directly know of future events until they happen. Bearing in mind there is no until for God.
I am interested though in what you think was predicted.
When was the prediction made.
Whe you talk of the future is it gods future?
Do you honestly have no objection to the idea of omnipresence.
Why do you effectively rule this out as a reason behind Gods omniscience.
-
Bullshit.
The author of mark did not know Matthew, Luke or Johh because they weren’t written yet. I’ll give you Paul’s letters, assuming you are only talking about the seven generally accepted real Pauline letters, but I’m not convinced about 1 Peter and I’d definitely need some evidence that 2 Peter predates Mark. Note that I’d accept a date of early seventies or even late sixties for Mark.
“My God, why have you foresaken me”. How could God foresake himself? That’s a slam dunk refutation.
You go to the heart of the theology of Calvary.
Some contend that for the first and only time in eternity, the Godhead was divided as Christ took on the sin of the world.
Do you wish me to start on the theology of Calvary? It's an exhaustive topic, and demands a new thread, if so.
Others contend that Christ quoted from Psalm 22 - which He did - one of the "suffering psalms"...which ends in triumph.
This can be a very intense topic.
-
Oh so you admit I never said that God cannot directly know of future events until they happen. Bearing in mind there is no until for God.
I'll ask again, what did you mean when you said ""the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".""
What was the point of bringing up the growing block universe?
Why did you say (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754897#msg754897) (again in the context of omniscience): "If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists." If there's no 'until' for god, what was that about?
You seem to have brought this up after jeremy raised a contradiction (here (http://no until for God)) and then run away from it.
-
I'll ask again, what did you mean when you said ""the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".""
What was the point of bringing up the growing block universe?
Why did you say (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16301.msg754897#msg754897) (again in the context of omniscience): "If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists." If there's no 'until' for god, what was that about?
You seem to have brought this up after jeremy raised a contradiction (here (http://no until for God)) and then run away from it.
I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.
I am not committed to it.
Growing block time if it were true would render God a predictor but the truth of the prediction would not be established by knowledge derived from actually being there and would not be perfect.
I think by now having God predicting the future shows us that it is you proposing a kind of growing block.
Putting The predictive act at the beginning is a deist view.
The Christian basis of omniscience is omnipresence in a future which exists...block time.
Regarding omnipotence that is in Aquinus who states the common view in Christianity that omnipotence means that God candowhatever he can do. There is admission that he cannot sin or do the self contradictory illogical things and that the argument is circular.
That then is counter to the Atheist charge that Christianity believes that God can make square circles etc. A charge used by Dawkins.
Now be so good as to answer my questions.
-
I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.
I am not committed to it.
Fine - but I was responding to your comments - none of this is my idea.
Growing block time if it were true would render God a predictor but the truth of the prediction would not be established by knowledge derived from actually being there and would not be perfect.
Why wouldn't it be perfect? See #46 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755337#msg755337)
I think by now having God predicting the future shows us that it is you proposing a kind of growing block.
HOW MANY MORE TIMES? I'm just responding to your proposals about there not being a future. I don't believe in any gods, no matter what their relationship with time is. Neither do I believe there is a single Christian view on the matter; and even you don't seem sure what you believe about it (see your 'not committed' comment above).
Putting The predictive act at the beginning is a deist view.
Okay - but that wasn't my idea either. Is it yours?
The Christian basis of omniscience is omnipresence in a future which exists...block time.
So why the fuck have you been wittering on about prediction, the growing block universe, and omniscience not including the future?
Now be so good as to answer my questions.
I don't have answers because I'm NOT making a proposal about god and time - just responding to what you said.
-
Fine - but I was responding to your comments - none of this is my idea.
Why wouldn't it be perfect? See #46 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755337#msg755337)
HOW MANY MORE TIMES? I'm just responding to your proposals about there not being a future. I don't believe in any gods, no matter what their relationship with time is. Neither do I believe there is a single Christian view on the matter; and even you don't seem sure what you believe about it (see your 'not committed' comment above).
Okay - but that wasn't my idea either. Is it yours?
So why the fuck have you been wittering on about prediction, the growing block universe, and omniscience not including the future?
I don't have answers because I'm NOT making a proposal about god and time - just responding to what you said.
I trust folks to read back your posts to see your perspectives on the various issues here and your refusal to answer questions.
-
I trust folks to read back your posts to see your perspectives on the various issues here and your refusal to answer questions.
That's hilarious. I suggest paying more attention to what is actually being said to you...
"Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755368#msg755368)
"Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755368#msg755368)
"Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist)." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755372#msg755372)
"I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755395#msg755395)
...and so on back to when you first proposed the idea and then ran away from it.
-
That's hilarious. I suggest paying more attention to what is actually being said to you...
"Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755368#msg755368)
"Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755368#msg755368)
"Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist)." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755372#msg755372)
"I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist." (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16308.msg755395#msg755395)
...and so on back to when you first proposed the idea and then ran away from it.
I think it's clear now that the atheist conception of the god of the omnis is different from the Christian god.
For starters atheists only deal with 3 and Christians 4 because omnipresence undermines prediction as knowledge as ordination.
-
Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?
If it helps, I believe that I can decect a strong odour of warm bovine excrement!
-
And what does the creator of the universe look like then?
Not a human emotion which didn't come into existence until about 13 billion years after the creation of the Universe.
-
You go to the heart of the theology of Calvary.
Some contend that for the first and only time in eternity, the Godhead was divided as Christ took on the sin of the world.
Do you wish me to start on the theology of Calvary? It's an exhaustive topic, and demands a new thread, if so.
Others contend that Christ quoted from Psalm 22 - which He did - one of the "suffering psalms"...which ends in triumph.
This can be a very intense topic.
It seems odd to me that an event that is central to the Christian concept of salvation is an exhausting (I assume you meant that rather than exhaustive) topic that requires a high level of intense theology to understand. You'd think God would make it a bit easier for his followers.
-
I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.
No, that's you changing the definition of "everything". However, it doesn't matter because the claim is that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows everything in the present and the past (omniscient) then he can predict the future with perfect accuracy because he is omnipotent. Unfortunately that leads to a logical contradiction which proves that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course, since the argument works for any being that is labelled omniscient and omnipotent, it means that at least one of the two concepts is incoherent.
Regarding omnipotence that is in Aquinus who states the common view in Christianity that omnipotence means that God candowhatever he can do.
Which is a tautology. Anything can do whatever it can do. Either your reading of Thomas Aquinus is wrong or he was an idiot.
-
I think it's clear now that the atheist conception of the god of the omnis is different from the Christian god.
Don't be daft, Vlad; you've neither established what "the Christian god" is, nor what "the atheist conception of the god of the omnis" is.
Here's a hint: there isn't just one of either.
For starters atheists only deal with 3 and Christians 4 because omnipresence undermines prediction as knowledge as ordination.
What atheists? Prediction was your idea, not some atheists'...
-
Not a human emotion which didn't come into existence until about 13 billion years after the creation of the Universe.
I thought wed established that it was more than emotion?
We had as they say built on that foundation.
Certainly having given the universe for its own sake rather than his that certainly comes across as love.
Since love is the greatest commandment and nothing non personal can be refered to as love God is love....as God is good or to put it another way if love is absolute good then God is love.
-
I thought wed established that it was more than emotion?
You think a lot of things that are not true.
I will accept that some other animals behave in ways that suggests that they experience something analogous to love, but I’d love to see you establish it is anything more than something animals do, or feel.
We had as they say built on that foundation.
What did Jesus have to say about houses built on foundations of sand?
Certainly having given the universe for its own sake rather than his that certainly comes across as love.
I’d certainly accept that a god could potential experience love. But your claim is that God is love.
Since love is the greatest commandment and nothing non personal can be refered to as love God is love....as God is good or to put it another way if love is absolute good then God is love.
Now you are claiming God is a rule. Make up your mind.
-
No, that's you changing the definition of "everything". However, it doesn't matter because the claim is that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows everything in the present and the past (omniscient) then he can predict the future with perfect accuracy because he is omnipotent. Unfortunately that leads to a logical contradiction which proves that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course, since the argument works for any being that is labelled omniscient and omnipotent, it means that at least one of the two concepts is incoherent.
Which is a tautology. Anything can do whatever it can do. Either your reading of Thomas Aquinus is wrong or he was an idiot.
Yes Aquinus himself said it was a circular argument which I mentioned.......you must have missed that bit.........in fact you've missed a lot.........in fact you miss most of it.
-
You think a lot of things that are not true.
I will accept that some other animals behave in ways that suggests that they experience something analogous to love, but I’d love to see you establish it is anything more than something animals do, or feel.
What did Jesus have to say about houses built on foundations of sand?
I’d certainly accept that a god could potential experience love. But your claim is that God is love.
Now you are claiming God is a rule. Make up your mind.
A rule? No .................a standard or an example if you like.
-
It seems odd to me that an event that is central to the Christian concept of salvation is an exhausting (I assume you meant that rather than exhaustive) topic that requires a high level of intense theology to understand. You'd think God would make it a bit easier for his followers.
Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.
-
Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.
And we're back to the beginning. You can't follow the New Testament because it is confused and self contradictory in parts. If you read Mark's gospel, you get the impression that divinity was conferred upon Jesus at the time of his baptism. If you read John's gospel, you get the impression that Jesus has been divine since the beginning of time. It's a confused mess, which would not be surprising if it were written by a number of different authors working in different times in different places with word of mouth being the primary means of communication. If on, on the other hand, it is the insuredinspired word of God, it is surprising.
Edit: insured? WTF
-
Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.
My reaction to this is similar to Jeremy's. I find it odd coming from you, considering your much more critical attitude to the Old Testament. However, I suppose it is not so odd in the light of your strong faith - which I could uncharitably say confers a great deal of confirmation bias.
However, in one matter alone - the comparison of the Synoptics with John's Gospel, we are faced with irreconcilable contradictions. Even if the authors of the Synoptics did arrive at the conclusions that Jesus was "the Son of God" (in some sense of incarnate divinity), the words of Jesus himself as recorded don't provide much corroboration that the gospels give a unified message on the matter. In John, Jesus shouts his unity with God from the rooftops, in the Synoptics, he urges his disciples to be quiet about such things (and of course,it is only in the notorious exchange with Peter in Matthew's gospel that we find the affirmation "Christ, the Son of the living God" - the other Synoptics merely have Peter saying "the Christ".
No doubt many of the other contradictions have been argued out here before, but they are so abundant as to make none of the gospels compelling as truthful narrative - least of all John (except, probably, over the details of the Passion story).
That is why I find such claims as "Jesus said he was God" utterly absurd - and I'm surprised that other well-meaning non-believers even try to give a 'metaphorical' interpretation of such statements as "I and the Father are one"*.
I'm definitely with Gordon (as well as JP) on the question of the reliability of the original text.
*e.g. trippymonkey
-
The synoptics DO, in fact, give clues - lots of them - as to who Jesus thiught he was/is. Trouble is, we're not first dcentury Jews, steeped in the Old Testament and, to some extent, what we now call Apocrypha. To His followers, and His opposition, the clues were there. Some were scandalised by them; others frightened. Those clues were visual- sometimes backed up with teaching, sometimes not - but visual parables; Healing the paralytic - as a sign that Christ could forgive sin...only God forgives sin. Calming the storm...terrifying the disciples in the process; they knew from the Psalms that only God controlled the weather. Feeding the five thousand - however it was done - alluding to Moses asking God for manna in the wilderness. Raising Jairus' daughter to life....hearkening back to Elijah; referring to God as "Abba" - innocent enough for us today; revolutionary, intimate and self-identification with God in a unique way to His follower...etc, etc The clues WERE there in the synoptics for those who dared to see them. The Pharisees did...and the implications staggered them so much that they plotted His death.
-
The synoptics DO, in fact, give clues - lots of them - as to who Jesus thiught he was/is. Trouble is, we're not first dcentury Jews, steeped in the Old Testament and, to some extent, what we now call Apocrypha. To His followers, and His opposition, the clues were there. Some were scandalised by them; others frightened. Those clues were visual- sometimes backed up with teaching, sometimes not - but visual parables; Healing the paralytic - as a sign that Christ could forgive sin...only God forgives sin. Calming the storm...terrifying the disciples in the process; they knew from the Psalms that only God controlled the weather. Feeding the five thousand - however it was done - alluding to Moses asking God for manna in the wilderness. Raising Jairus' daughter to life....hearkening back to Elijah; referring to God as "Abba" - innocent enough for us today; revolutionary, intimate and self-identification with God in a unique way to His follower...etc, etc The clues WERE there in the synoptics for those who dared to see them. The Pharisees did...and the implications staggered them so much that they plotted His death.
I would simply say that the Synoptics give clues as to only what the writers came to think Jesus was - something that most of the original disciples did not at first think. Mark seems tentative, even if he did eventually believe in Jesus' divinity. Why the diffidence? The writer of Mark is thought by some critics to have lived in Alexandria (he seems remarkably unacquainted with the geography of the Holy Land). If so, did he really fear he might lynched by Jewish hardliners?
Apparently raising Jairus' daughter to life, with an allusion to Elijah's supposed miracle? I don't think anyone has claimed that Elijah was divine on such a basis.
However, it comes down - as I said - to how much you trust the texts, and how much the writers employed reverse engineering to weave their own stories, lacing them with marvels, Old Testament references and legendary material to glamourise their initial perceptions of someone who was - indeed - remarkable.
There are other ways of scrutinising the text for clues about the historical Jesus which critics such as E.P Sanders and Geza Vermes have employed. But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.
-
But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.
... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.
-
... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.
What He taught?
Really? what bits.
That He could forgive sin?
That He would be the b'Suffering servant'?
That if He were lifted up from the Earth, He would draw all men to Him?
That He would be with His followers 'to the end of the age'?
That He was to be 'a ransom for many'?
Yep.
Agreed.
-
I would simply say that the Synoptics give clues as to only what the writers came to think Jesus was - something that most of the original disciples did not at first think. Mark seems tentative, even if he did eventually believe in Jesus' divinity. Why the diffidence? The writer of Mark is thought by some critics to have lived in Alexandria (he seems remarkably unacquainted with the geography of the Holy Land). If so, did he really fear he might lynched by Jewish hardliners? Apparently raising Jairus' daughter to life, with an allusion to Elijah's supposed miracle? I don't think anyone has claimed that Elijah was divine on such a basis. However, it comes down - as I said - to how much you trust the texts, and how much the writers employed reverse engineering to weave their own stories, lacing them with marvels, Old Testament references and legendary material to glamourise their initial perceptions of someone who was - indeed - remarkable. There are other ways of scrutinising the text for clues about the historical Jesus which critics such as E.P Sanders and Geza Vermes have employed. But ultimately, you either believe in Christ's unique incarnate divinity or you don't.
I'd content that the writer of Mark ('John Mark'?) was well aware of the claims Jesus made of Himself. I was going to give a few authors of dust-encrusted theology tomes I try very hard not to re-read, but I found this link instead -which analyses the textual clues for Christ as God contained within Mark - clues we probably miss when reading it in English, but which those who heard it read aloud - Jews and Jewish converst to 'the Way' starting in Alexandria, and probably in Antioch, would not have missed. https://www.michaeljkruger.com/does-the-gospel-of-mark-present-jesus-as-god/
-
I'd content that the writer of Mark ('John Mark'?) was well aware of the claims Jesus made of Himself
Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support that other than what he writes chimes with what you, as a Christian, believes?
-
Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support that other than what he writes chimes with what you, as a Christian, believes?
See the link on my previous post. Mark was obviously literate; probably in origin an Alexandrian Jew, which would make him trilinguial. He chose the words he wrote very carefully, and knew his Septuagint into the bargain.
-
See the link on my previous post. Mark was obviously literate; probably in origin an Alexandrian Jew, which would make him trilinguial.
Why would that make him trilingual just because he lived in Alexandria?
Don't forget that the Septuagint exists because Jews living in Alexandria couldn't understand the Hebrew.
-
What He taught?
Really? what bits.
That He could forgive sin?
That He would be the b'Suffering servant'?
That if He were lifted up from the Earth, He would draw all men to Him?
That He would be with His followers 'to the end of the age'?
That He was to be 'a ransom for many'?
Yep.
Agreed.
No, the bits you have to do for yourself like look within beyond mental imaginings, clarify inner vision and purify the heart amongst others things.
-
... or you could accept that 'son of man' and 'son of God' are Hebrew idioms, treat the man as Joshua bar Joseph, a Rabbi of the time, and focus upon what he is alleged to have taught rather than what he is alleged to have done.
Hi ekim
Unfortunately, there are almost as many problems with those as there are with the theology associated with Jesus' supposed miracles, the Crucifixion and Resurrection and the Atonement (but the problems are probably a bit easier to unravel).
"Son of man" appears to have two distinct forms of reference: just an idiom meaning a person, particularly as a form of circumlocution to refer to oneself, like the English "Yours truly". But it also has a distinct reference, which I suppose derives from the latter part of the Book of Daniel, where the "Son of Man" figure descends to judge the world - Jesus refers distinctly to this in Matthew 24, for example.
"Son of God" has an equally broad reference, starting with the "Sons of God" in Genesis who lusted after human females (they appear to be naughty angels). Elsewhere it has a general meaning, of no particular exalted sense, more like just a human being. But all this has been confused by New Testament theology, where its use is specific to Jesus (except for references in John, where certain elect humans may apparently aspire to Jesus' status - how that squares with the doctrine of the Trinity I haven't a clue, nor am I particular interested in having the matter explained).
I quite like the way you attempt to find parallels between Jesus' sayings and eastern philosophy, though how this is to be verified I'm not so sure. No doubt you'd say that following some spiritual path or practice would reveal the obscure similarities, but in the end, it all seems a bit subjective, and you might be reading stuff into the texts which is not there at all (though 'purifying the heart' seems clear enough, providing you don't think it means removing bad cholesterol blockage)
-
Hi Dicky
Yes I agree with what you say. We can not be sure what words of the past actually meant to the people using them especially when they become associated with Greek, Latin and Germanic terms on their way to us. I suspect that many of the idioms like 'father of', 'son of', 'daughter of', 'mother of' have lost a lot in translation. I would see 'son of God' as representing the divine in man and 'son of man' as representing the physical and mental and emotional aspects of man. It then becomes a question of identity with one or the other and inevitably a conflict between the purity of the divine and the desires (& lusts) and attachments of the human. I could well be reading stuff into the texts which is not there but if I were to follow a path I would rather take personal responsibility for it than be indoctrinated into it by others, no matter how theological they are.