Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do theists decide...

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
...which attributes of god are comprehensible vs. incomprehensible?

I think it is generally accepted for almost all currently depicted god-concepts that they are, as a whole, incomprehensible; The human mind is just incapable of fully understanding their nature.

Yet, this does not seem to stop theists in identifying or talking about attributes of god in a way that requires some level of comprehensibility.

God is incomprehensible, yet good.
God is incomprehensible, yet loving.
God is incomprehensible, yet clearly performed specific acts with specific intents.

So how do theists decide which attributes of god are incomprehensible and which are comprehensible?

Because it seems to me - and I'm just speaking as an outsider here - that it's arbitrary. Whatever fits the necessary argument at the time. If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways.

Is it truly arbitrary? Because, if it is, then - to me at least - that detracts from the legitimacy of any claim made about God; You're just pulling stuff out of thin air in order to adhere to this concept like an emotional security blanket. Something I call adding layers and layers of convolution.

If it isn't arbitrary, if there is some reason or rhyme as to which attributes are comprehensible and which are not, what is it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 1:29:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
...which attributes of god are comprehensible vs. incomprehensible?

I think it is generally accepted for almost all currently depicted god-concepts that they are, as a whole, incomprehensible; The human mind is just incapable of fully understanding their nature.

Yet, this does not seem to stop theists in identifying or talking about attributes of god in a way that requires some level of comprehensibility.

God is incomprehensible, yet good.
God is incomprehensible, yet loving.
God is incomprehensible, yet clearly performed specific acts with specific intents.

So how do theists decide which attributes of god are incomprehensible and which are comprehensible?

Because it seems to me - and I'm just speaking as an outsider here - that it's arbitrary. Whatever fits the necessary argument at the time. If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways.

Is it truly arbitrary? Because, if it is, then - to me at least - that detracts from the legitimacy of any claim made about God; You're just pulling stuff out of thin air in order to adhere to this concept like an emotional security blanket. Something I call adding layers and layers of convolution.

If it isn't arbitrary, if there is some reason or rhyme as to which attributes are comprehensible and which are not, what is it?

Yes theists love special pleading almost as much as their God. They say "You can't understand the mind of God, you don't know why he would allow evil!" , then I just say "Then you can't understand the mind of God either, meaning you have no basis for claiming his mind is good and not evil".
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God.

Which comes first? Does your abliity to relate to an attribute of God result in the conclusion of it being comprehensible or does your ability to comprehend an attribute of God result in the conclusion that you can relate to it?

The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How can something that is incomprehensible be revealed to you?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:08:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No theist I know of thinks God is completely incomprehensible...

Of course not, they believe they can comprehend his will and morality level but atheists cannot... It's called special pleading, and theists are very good at it..
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 6:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.

Because I never said "I can comprehend God's will but atheists can't". No where did I imply that. Hence, you have no idea what I am talking about. A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 6:40:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:08:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No theist I know of thinks God is completely incomprehensible...

To be fair, no one has used the qualifier "completely"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 7:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 6:13:25 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.

Because I never said "I can comprehend God's will but atheists can't". No where did I imply that. Hence, you have no idea what I am talking about. A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute.

"A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute."

So, humans being able to love means that love is an attribute of God? Ok, so humans are able to hate too, does that mean hate is an attribute of God?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways ... If it isn't arbitrary, if there is some reason or rhyme as to which attributes are comprehensible and which are not, what is it?"

That's a ridiculous view. Nobody other than some fruit-cake Holy Rollers and half-baked Baptists believe that first sentence. No, it's not arbitrary because to randomly believe "this n that", whether good or bad, is "God working" is simply the product of a fanciful imagination, unproveable either with the Bible or without it. I'm a Theist and, moreso, a Christian Theist, and, yes, I recall some tardo like Jerry Falwell claiming AIDS was "God's punishment on the homosexuals", but in so doing, he betrayed a lackluster Biblical knowledge. Theists know not one whit more about God than what is revealed in His written word. Anything else is speculative.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:44:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways ... If it isn't arbitrary, if there is some reason or rhyme as to which attributes are comprehensible and which are not, what is it?"

That's a ridiculous view. Nobody other than some fruit-cake Holy Rollers and half-baked Baptists believe that first sentence. No, it's not arbitrary because to randomly believe "this n that", whether good or bad, is "God working" is simply the product of a fanciful imagination, unproveable either with the Bible or without it. I'm a Theist and, moreso, a Christian Theist, and, yes, I recall some tardo like Jerry Falwell claiming AIDS was "God's punishment on the homosexuals", but in so doing, he betrayed a lackluster Biblical knowledge. Theists know not one whit more about God than what is revealed in His written word. Anything else is speculative.

Amen.

When things are good(too me) i thank God; When things are bad(too me) i ask God for strength to get through them.

When there is a tornado that kills hundreds of people, i pray for the families of those who lost loved ones.

When someone win's the lottery, i pray to be next!! hahah..jk.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"So, humans being able to love means that love is an attribute of God? Ok, so humans are able to hate too, does that mean hate is an attribute of God?"

Certainly. Proverbs 6: 16-19: "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." That's quite a few things He hates right there in four little verses, and many more things could be added.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:49:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways ... If it isn't arbitrary, if there is some reason or rhyme as to which attributes are comprehensible and which are not, what is it?"

That's a ridiculous view. Nobody other than some fruit-cake Holy Rollers and half-baked Baptists believe that first sentence. No, it's not arbitrary because to randomly believe "this n that", whether good or bad, is "God working" is simply the product of a fanciful imagination, unproveable either with the Bible or without it. I'm a Theist and, moreso, a Christian Theist, and, yes, I recall some tardo like Jerry Falwell claiming AIDS was "God's punishment on the homosexuals", but in so doing, he betrayed a lackluster Biblical knowledge. Theists know not one whit more about God than what is revealed in His written word. Anything else is speculative.

Your last sentence is basically an affirmation of my first sentence.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:40:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 7:55:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 6:13:25 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.

Because I never said "I can comprehend God's will but atheists can't". No where did I imply that. Hence, you have no idea what I am talking about. A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute.

"A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute."

So, humans being able to love means that love is an attribute of God? Ok, so humans are able to hate too, does that mean hate is an attribute of God?

Well, God does hate but your twisting what I said. The attribute is found first in God and humans relate to it- not the other way around. Humans can sin, God cannot.
Love in particular is an attribute because the Bible says "God is love". It is part of His nature as opposed to an action/emotion yet to a limited degree humans can relate :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:44:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:40:36 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 7:55:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 6:13:25 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.

Because I never said "I can comprehend God's will but atheists can't". No where did I imply that. Hence, you have no idea what I am talking about. A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute.

"A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute."

So, humans being able to love means that love is an attribute of God? Ok, so humans are able to hate too, does that mean hate is an attribute of God?

Well, God does hate but your twisting what I said. The attribute is found first in God and humans relate to it- not the other way around. Humans can sin, God cannot.
Love in particular is an attribute because the Bible says "God is love". It is part of His nature as opposed to an action/emotion yet to a limited degree humans can relate :)

I don't look at The Bible as a reliable source to describe reality, so your argument doesn't really hold much weight.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 9:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:44:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:40:36 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 7:55:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 6:13:25 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:05:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:23:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:17:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:09:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 1:42:06 PM, joneszj wrote:
Because we can relate to the conprehensible attributes of God. The non relatable ones tend to be revealed to us or are the result of a resolved dichatomy.

How do you know you are related to the comprehensible attributes of God?

Because we share to a certain degree those attributes

"Why think that God would want to create the universe? Why 13 billion years ago instead of 10, or 5?" - Austin Dacey

God creating everything is not an attribute. Being able to create everything with nothing is an attribute. The time is only relative to itself.

You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it. That would be like saying that because we experience lightning bolts, Zeus most have wanted to create them. It's fallacious.

I think your misunderstanding me and confusing attributes with things that are not attributes. Therefor, your premise is 'fallacious'.

Theists assume to know the mind of God just like Atheists, they get no special escape route.

We assume that God has revealed Himself through scripture.

Oh so the ability to create a universe is not an attribute? I'm sorry, nothing I said was fallacious. Also, you are talking about a scriptures that say God snapped his fingers and out popped two people in a garden, a book that says serpents can talk, that seas can be split, that water can magically turn to wine, and that zombies can raise from the dead. I think it's safe to say scripture isn't a valid source for describing reality.

If your premise is fallacious then your resolve will be too. This is a clear example of you talking about something that you don't know about: "You can't say that because we experience the universe, God must have wanted to create it"

Bare assertion fallacy. Why is my premise false? Also stating that you can comprehend God's will but atheists can't is special pleading.

Everything you typed was fallacious.

Because I never said "I can comprehend God's will but atheists can't". No where did I imply that. Hence, you have no idea what I am talking about. A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute.

"A comprehencable attribute of God (called communicable atturbute) would be something like love. Human can relate to this attribute as humans can love as well. A noncomprehensible attribute (called non communicable attributes) would be something like aseity. Humans does not have any way to relate to this attribute."

So, humans being able to love means that love is an attribute of God? Ok, so humans are able to hate too, does that mean hate is an attribute of God?

Well, God does hate but your twisting what I said. The attribute is found first in God and humans relate to it- not the other way around. Humans can sin, God cannot.
Love in particular is an attribute because the Bible says "God is love". It is part of His nature as opposed to an action/emotion yet to a limited degree humans can relate :)

I don't look at The Bible as a reliable source to describe reality, so your argument doesn't really hold much weight.

I am sorry! Did I give the impression that I care what matters to you...? I am simply pointing out the flaws in your ideas about Christianity is all bud.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 8:49:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"Anything else is speculative."

"Your last sentence is basically an affirmation of my first sentence."

No, it's basically an affirmation that Christian Theists who go beyond the revealed, written word are simply speculating, and dangerously so, in my opinion. Thus, your example of (paraphrasing) "if it's good, God did it ... if not, He didn't" would be arbitrary - if only it were true. Trouble is: it's not. So Christain Theists are in error for "speculating", and you are in error for citing their error. And I will say that such speculation, followed to its natural end, has divided "Christian" groups and given ammunition to atheists for years.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 11:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 11:31:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 8:49:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"Anything else is speculative."

"Your last sentence is basically an affirmation of my first sentence."

No, it's basically an affirmation that Christian Theists who go beyond the revealed, written word are simply speculating, and dangerously so, in my opinion. Thus, your example of (paraphrasing) "if it's good, God did it ... if not, He didn't" would be arbitrary - if only it were true. Trouble is: it's not. So Christain Theists are in error for "speculating", and you are in error for citing their error. And I will say that such speculation, followed to its natural end, has divided "Christian" groups and given ammunition to atheists for years.

^^ that
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:17:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 11:31:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 8:49:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/22/2012 8:32:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"Anything else is speculative."

"Your last sentence is basically an affirmation of my first sentence."

No, it's basically an affirmation that Christian Theists who go beyond the revealed, written word are simply speculating, and dangerously so, in my opinion. Thus, your example of (paraphrasing) "if it's good, God did it ... if not, He didn't" would be arbitrary - if only it were true. Trouble is: it's not. So Christain Theists are in error for "speculating", and you are in error for citing their error. And I will say that such speculation, followed to its natural end, has divided "Christian" groups and given ammunition to atheists for years.

LOL. I'm in error for pointing out the error in others? I'm not allow to point out the errors in others.

Go F yourself man. LOL Get on out of here, this isn't the place for you.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:29:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"LOL. I'm in error for pointing out the error in others? I'm not allow to point out the errors in others.

Go F yourself man. LOL Get on out of here, this isn't the place for you."

Haha @ you're in error for pointing out the error. No, absolutely not. You're in error, not for pointing it out, but for UTILIZING it as a basis for further error. You use it as a basis for "How do Theists ....?" Well, Theists DON'T - so that ends that. I told you that some silly Holy Rollers might.

It's about like saying "How do atheists decide ...this or that?", then attributing a nonsensical position to atheists (a position that might be occupied by a few atheists), and being "off to the races" with conclusions.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 8:10:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To say we him because we have similar qualities. Does't make anysense. Because everything we know is defined by our own HUMAN conception. Its God made in our image.

Just by the fact what we are natural, any assertion of super natural begs the question by definition.

That is by being Human you are locked in Human conceptions and Human knowledge. It should be obvious just be the term supernatural. We have just combined Super With what know aka Natural.

If a quality of him is uncombrehendable. Then there is no way to assert that we known anything about him. Because that adds in a uncertainty principle. We can't say we are certain about what is uncertain and not. For obvious contradictory reasons. And so this makes all it of uncertain. And thus no kind of logical argument can ever be sound. Not that Religion is or was ever. It was always considers faith based. But suddenly that is not good enough because you want to tell others what to do also.

To understand comes from the idea To STAND--UNDER as in to know how something work. To look from up from under-neath something to see how it functions. That is to understand that God creates depends on understand how he creates or else to say he creates is not justified. All we could say is something happend, we don't know what. And with something happens. Nothing follow from that.
Not be confused with I understand you as in I Feel you pain.

To say you understand God and others aka athiests don't is just special pleading. There is no reason for anybody to think that is true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 8:13:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 7:29:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

"LOL. I'm in error for pointing out the error in others? I'm not allow to point out the errors in others.

Go F yourself man. LOL Get on out of here, this isn't the place for you."

Haha @ you're in error for pointing out the error. No, absolutely not. You're in error, not for pointing it out, but for UTILIZING it as a basis for further error.

No. That's not what you said. You said (which you snipped) verbatim:

"you are in error for citing their error"

You use it as a basis for "How do Theists ....?" Well, Theists DON'T - so that ends that. I told you that some silly Holy Rollers might.

Well, if some Holy Rollers do it, then that counts.


It's about like saying "How do atheists decide ...this or that?", then attributing a nonsensical position to atheists (a position that might be occupied by a few atheists), and being "off to the races" with conclusions.

I didn't draw any conclusions, I asked questions.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 8:29:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 8:13:47 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/23/2012 7:29:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 3/22/2012 9:28:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
Haha @ you're in error for pointing out the error. No, absolutely not. You're in error, not for pointing it out, but for UTILIZING it as a basis for further error.

No. That's not what you said. You said (which you snipped) verbatim:

"you are in error for citing their error"

OK, you're correct on the word "cite." I'll give you that. You are not in error for merely citing it. It would indeed be rather stupid to "cite" an error, then formulate an argument based upon someone else's error, but you obviously didn't attempt that.

You use it as a basis for "How do Theists ....?" Well, Theists DON'T - so that ends that. I told you that some silly Holy Rollers might.

Well, if some Holy Rollers do it, then that counts.

It "counts"? For what? They are in error, so it "counts" as an error. That's about all it's good for. Why was the error mentioned in the first place?


It's about like saying "How do atheists decide ...this or that?", then attributing a nonsensical position to atheists (a position that might be occupied by a few atheists), and being "off to the races" with conclusions.

I didn't draw any conclusions, I asked questions.

Hmmm. "Because it seems to me - and I'm just speaking as an outsider here - that it's arbitrary. Whatever fits the necessary argument at the time. If something good happened, then it happened because God is good. If something bad happened, then it happened because God works in mysterious ways." Why does it "seem" that way to you? Was it because of the Holy Rollerish error you cited? Well, suppose you didn't cite it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."