xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='581927' date='Oct 30 2007, 07:31 PM']Now were getting somewhere. Why is his reason for existance the same as ours?[/quote] Analogy: I make a robot named Steve. Steve is a nice little robot, does his work, watches Sesame Street, etc. Now Steve asks why he exists. I tell him he exists because I created him. He the asks me why I created him. I say because I wanted to. He ask me why I wanted to. I tell him my reasons. He continues to ask. Finally, I just have to tell him, this is who I am. And if he asks why, assuming I have no creator, I have nothing to point to. So Steve continues trying to figure out why I am the way I am, but it is pointless. I have no reason for who I am, and no control over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I believe Lawman gave you a good answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='581934' date='Oct 30 2007, 07:41 PM']God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a [u]state[/u]. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. [i]"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." [/i] This means that God is uncaused and apparently we agree on this notion. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, God would not be subject to the laws of the universe since he exists independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause and he is not subjected to time as we know it. [i]Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?[/i] The argument goes that if he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Therefore God does not exist. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion. What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of his nature; it is part of his nature. God has a nature and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else. The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. But, not being able to do this does not mean he is not God nor that he is not omnipotent. [u]Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable[/u], but the ability to do anything consistent with his nature and consistent with his desire within the realm of his unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean he can violate His own nature. If he did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self contradictory. [b]If God were self contradictory, he would not be true[/b].[/quote] Actually, omnipotence is having the ability to do anything. It's a definition that defeats itself. If I define God as so, he cannot violate who he is, as you said. This, however, is not omnipotence. Have no fear, though, there is light at the end of this tunnel. It is known as open theism. Basically, it states that God is [i]not[/i] omnipotent and [i]not[/i] omniscient, but he is the most powerful, the most knowing. So if God cannot create something that violates who he is, no problem! No one else can either. And that whole mess about omniscience and free will get wiped away, faster than even Oxi-clean! The paradox is valid - we just readjust our definitions in response to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='xamination' post='581768' date='Oct 30 2007, 01:01 PM']No, and if someone shows me convincing evidence of a God existing, I'll become a theist. But since [u]I don't see this evidence[/u], I'm an atheist by default.[/quote] In 1977, during an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Steve Miller was asked why he had introduced the synthesizer on his latest album "[i]Book of Dreams[/i]" hereplied "anything that can be done with a guitar has already been accomplished". In 1978, Van Halen was released with Eddie van Halen shattering this [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm"]paradigm[/url]. What is the criteria of your evidence? Meaning even if proof were provided, The question is could you accept them given your presuppositions currently in opposition to the existence of God? The problem with the proof you are looking for, you have yet to discover. Identify Valerius Gratus and Marcellus, between them should lead to your evidence. [quote]So my question is why would I go to hell for remaining an atheist, if evidence is never presented?[/quote] In Christianity, the evidence has been presented in the essenceof Jesus Christ. The Christian God has provided you with an option otherwise known as "Free Will". The choice is yours, not his even though he knows what it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 But I realize I am getting off topic. The point is that God is as helpless as anyone to the underlying force behind his existence. Can anyone guess at its name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='581955' date='Oct 30 2007, 08:13 PM']In 1977, during an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Steve Miller was asked why he had introduced the synthesizer on his latest album "[i]Book of Dreams[/i]" hereplied "anything that can be done with a guitar has already been accomplished". In 1978, Van Halen was released with Eddie van Halen shattering this [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm"]paradigm[/url]. What is the criteria of your evidence? Meaning even if proof were provided, The question is could you accept them given your presuppositions currently in opposition to the existence of God? The problem with the proof you are looking for, you have yet to discover. Identify Valerius Gratus and Marcellus, between them should lead to your evidence. In Christianity, the evidence has been presented in the essenceof Jesus Christ. The Christian God has provided you with an option otherwise known as "Free Will". The choice is yours, not his even though he knows what it will be.[/quote] If I saw God present in the workings of the universe, I would be theist. Problem is, I don't. And why is sin necessary for Free Will to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote]Actually, [u]omnipotence is having the ability to do anything[/u]. It's a definition that defeats itself. If I define God as so, he cannot violate who he is, as you said. This, however, is not omnipotence.[/quote] Sounds like someone has been reading [url="http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithatheism.htm"]George H. Smith[/url]. I can only simply agree to disagree. Another way to explain is to state that God cannot lie, because this is also against his nature. What is being asked here is that God become self contradictory as a proof he doesn't exist. This assertion is illogical from the start, trying to get God to be illogical. This attempt is to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist [u]instead of logic[/u]. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='581966' date='Oct 30 2007, 08:35 PM']Sounds like someone has been reading [url="http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithatheism.htm"]George H. Smith[/url]. I can only simply agree to disagree. Another way to explain is to state that God cannot lie, because this is also against his nature. What is being asked here is that God become self contradictory as a proof he doesn't exist. This assertion is illogical from the start, trying to get God to be illogical. This attempt is to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist [u]instead of logic[/u]. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.[/quote] Oh, you're so close. I am not arguing the non-existence of God. I am showing you that God's nature is out of his control. I am trying to show you why his nature is what it is. If you would like to know what the answer is, just ask. PS. Why can't God lie? Just because it is immoral for us does not mean it is immoral for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='xamination' post='581961' date='Oct 30 2007, 08:19 PM']If I saw God present in the workings of the universe, I would be theist. Problem is, I don't.[/quote] What is the criteria for the evidence you seek? Have you identified Valerius Gratus and Marcellus? [quote]And why is sin necessary for Free Will to exist?[/quote] Sin is disobedient act against the nature of God; you are the one making that decision outside the coercion of God. God does not want you to sin. God does not want to send anyone to hell. Free Will is the option to believe in God or not. By not sinning as commanded, in essence you have chosen not to offend God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote]I am not arguing the non-existence of God[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote]I am showing you that God's nature is out of his control. I am trying to show you why his nature is what it is. If you would like to know what the answer is, just ask.[/quote] Please, show me. and Thank you in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xamination Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='581971' date='Oct 30 2007, 08:59 PM']Have you identified Valerius Gratus and Marcellus?[/quote] Guys before and after Pilate. I got that immediately, I do know what I'm talkin bout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='xamination' post='581920' date='Oct 30 2007, 07:23 PM']I cant tell if your being sarcastic or not ...[/quote] No, I'm serious. It's a great question. It's the sort of question that caused Einstein to adopt a Spinoza-like God: --Are the laws of the universe fixed, or do they change? --How is it possible that life emerged from matter, that sentience emerged from life? [quote]... but that picture of a monkey is leading me towards sarcasm.[/quote] Hey, I didn't insult your girlfriend, did I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Jamie; Lawman's argument is more unattributed copy and paste... God is not uncaused. God is that which is the cause of itself. If you deny this proposition, then you are insisting on an irrational universe. If you accept this proposition, the the universe is rational. There's no in-between. At that point, step into science (and the philosophy of science.) What do we know about the nature of the universe? Do the laws of cause and effect apply or not? Is the universe an ongoing act of higher and higher levels of specification and organization? Or, is it winding down? And, of course, what tends to muddy the waters is this obsessive insistence on an anthropomorphic God who intervenes in human affairs at will. Drop that bit of mythology and one's appreciation of the marvel of Creation expands, not contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoyalFanInGA v2.0 Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I've really enjoyed this discussion. That part where Lawman stated God is independent of the universe and its laws, but continues to explain how entropy isn't required...Brilliant. How could I forget the great philospher Steve Miller? [i]Abra Abracadabra, I want to reach out and grab ya.[/i] True. So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='581998' date='Oct 30 2007, 10:39 PM']Jamie; God is not uncaused. G[b]od is that which is the cause of itself. If you deny this proposition, then you are insisting on an irrational universe. [/b]If you accept this proposition, the the universe is rational. There's no in-between. At that point, step into science (and the philosophy of science.) What do we know about the nature of the universe? Do the laws of cause and effect apply or not? Is the universe an ongoing act of higher and higher levels of specification and organization? Or, is it winding down? And, of course, what tends to muddy the waters is this obsessive insistence on an anthropomorphic God who intervenes in human affairs at will. Drop that bit of mythology and one's appreciation of the marvel of Creation expands, not contracts.[/quote] Homer, Again, I disagree with your position and you cannot accept it. From my position, God is outside of the universe and is therefore NOT subject to it's laws. I would also disagree with the notion that the universe is winding down. However, I don't hold much investment into the new earth vs old earth argument. As for God intervening into human affairs at will; it's plausible, if not directly, but in ways that we may not be able to recognize on the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='xamination' post='581975' date='Oct 30 2007, 09:05 PM']Guys before and after Pilate. I got that immediately, I do know what I'm talkin bout. [/quote] Guys =Roman Perfects. So, you DO recognize their existence within the context of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='582100' date='Oct 31 2007, 03:35 AM']I've really enjoyed this discussion. That part where Lawman stated God is independent of the universe and its laws, but continues to explain [b]how entropy isn't required...Brilliant[/b].[/quote] God as the creator, established the linear timeline where we currently reside. This linear timeline has no effect on God. Therefore entropy has no effect on God. Actually, I hold my own hypothesis on this subject of God and entropy. [quote]"The humorous man recognizes that absolute purity, absolute justice, absolute logic and perfection are beyond human achievement and that men have been able to live happily for thousands of years in a state of genial frailty." (Justin) Brooks Atkinson[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='582111' date='Oct 31 2007, 05:57 AM']Again, I disagree with your position and you cannot accept it. From my position, God is outside of the universe and is therefore NOT subject to it's laws.[/quote] Mostly what I cannot accept is your convoluted, contradictory, and ethically borderline approach to the presentation of your views. Once, long ago, a friend of mine's older brother blew his mind on the drug scene. He used to sit in his room, tossing ping pong balls around under a blacklight. As the balls would tic-tic off the walls, he would semi-sing, "Mars! Jupiter!" Now, I suppose I could have compared him to Kepler and evaluated their different approaches to cosmology. But I chose not to. As for the latter half of your statement, how does one follow from the other? Once again, either you must posit a rational God or an irrational one. [quote]I would also disagree with the notion that the universe is winding down. However, I don't hold much investment into the new earth vs old earth argument.[/quote] I have no clue about what you describe as "new" vs "old" earth. As for cosmology, I lean more towards a steady state thoery than the Big Bang, for a variety of reasons. [quote]As for God intervening into human affairs at will; it's plausible, if not directly, but in ways that we may not be able to recognize on the surface.[/quote] Plausible is not causal. It's plausible that my house might burst into flames inexplicably. Nonetheless, there will be a cause. Inquiring minds want to know the latter, and pay no attention to the former unless it leads one closer to the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoyalFanInGA v2.0 Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='582113' date='Oct 31 2007, 05:20 AM']God as the creator, established the linear timeline where we currently reside. This linear timeline has no effect on God. Therefore entropy has no effect on God. Actually, I hold my own hypothesis on this subject of God and entropy.[/quote] That went completely over your head. You stated God was independent of the universe and its laws. Entropy is a law of the universe. If God is indepent of laws, of course entropy doesn't apply. Stated another way, you're saying God is independent of entropy and entropy doesn't apply. You're trying NOT to apply a law which you already stated doesn't apply. I'm sorry, I thought that was laugh out loud funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masher Snake Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 I don't understand why it's so hard for most religious people to say "I don't know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Masher Snake' post='582231' date='Oct 31 2007, 11:31 AM']I don't understand why it's so hard for most religious people to say "I don't know."[/quote] If I didnt say it I implied it. I dont [i]know[/i], but I have faith. Just there is alot of theory that we dont [i]know[/i], thats why its theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoyalFanInGA v2.0 Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='582248' date='Oct 31 2007, 10:58 AM']If I didnt say it I implied it. I dont [i]know[/i], but I have faith. Just there is alot of theory that we dont [i]know[/i], thats why its theory.[/quote] Now I think we're getting to the core. When you ask, "Why should I believe in God?" I assume you want an explanation. You're never going to get one. Instead of asking, "Why should I believe in God?" maybe a better question would be, "Why should I have Faith?" In my opinion, it is difficult to believe in God without first making a choice to have [i]faith in God[/i], rather than believing an [i]explanation of God[/i]. You choose to have faith or you choose not to have faith. This decision will lead you to a belief that God does or doesn't exsist. Faith, by definition, requires trust. Maybe even hope. Faith doesn't require a complete understanding or explanation. This is the point where I think Faith and Reason take two divergent paths and you have to choose which path you'll take. You have faith or you don't. You believe or you don't. I think it is that simple. Sometimes, I think we think too damn much. Everytime I jumped out of an aircraft, I trusted my parachute would open. I damn sure hoped it would. My point is you don't know what is going to happen. You're either going to jump or you're going to sit back down. You don't need an explanation, just a gut feeling. Make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarletKnight Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Like the Buddha once said, (paraphrased and probably chopped up) why worry about such things as what is it like once you pass and is there a this and is there a that. Be concerned with living here. Some questions can really never be answered and humans do not have the capacity to understand the answers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 [quote name='LoyalFanInGA v2.0' post='582228' date='Oct 31 2007, 11:24 AM']That went completely over your head. You stated God was independent of the universe and its laws. Entropy is a law of the universe. If God is indepent of laws, of course entropy doesn't apply. [b]Stated another way, you're saying God is independent of entropy and entropy doesn't apply. You're trying NOT to apply a law which you already stated doesn't apply.[/b] I'm sorry, I thought that was laugh out loud funny.[/quote] Thanks for the catch. I was trying to run two idea's into one. God resides outside the law of entropy and our concept of time. I should have seperated them. Hopefully, the follow up linear timeline explanation cleared this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.