Total Posts:234|Showing Posts:151-180|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Considering an "Unchanging" God

lightseeker
Posts: 1,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 7:45:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?

This thread is intended to gather responses from those who believe in an unchanging God (in some sense), but it's still open to anyone, being an public forum and all.

we believe God as an infinite being. though when we say this, we mean that God's essence is infinite and therefor unchanging, not in the sense that God is not creating and making change in the universe and other creations.

let me give you an example:
imagine a person who's lying down and imagining stuff. for that person, imagining a drop of water, is not that different from imagining a sea.
as soon as he decides to imagine those, those images will form in his mind.
that person himself isn't moving or changing, but the images in his head are .

God's creation also can be described (not with 100 accuracy) using this example.
when God wills something, that thing comes to be. but God himself doesn't change form.
because an infinite being, can't have a form or shape.

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 9:58:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 7:45:40 AM, lightseeker wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?

This thread is intended to gather responses from those who believe in an unchanging God (in some sense), but it's still open to anyone, being an public forum and all.

we believe God as an infinite being. though when we say this, we mean that God's essence is infinite and therefor unchanging, not in the sense that God is not creating and making change in the universe and other creations.

let me give you an example:
imagine a person who's lying down and imagining stuff. for that person, imagining a drop of water, is not that different from imagining a sea.
as soon as he decides to imagine those, those images will form in his mind.
that person himself isn't moving or changing, but the images in his head are .

God's creation also can be described (not with 100 accuracy) using this example.
when God wills something, that thing comes to be. but God himself doesn't change form.
because an infinite being, can't have a form or shape.

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

I've got another one, imagine there's a god, oh wait people have already done that.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:55:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 6:59:26 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

One particular American English dictionary may define it so. But dictionaries are like gods (but far more useful) in that you can pick whichever one happens to suit your purpose or personality.

Obviously, these are instructions from the dictionary I'm referencing......

The Merriam-Webster definition of "God" is more in line with what theologians say than any other dictionary I've found. That said, it isn't the only dictionary I can make my case with. Not all dictionaries are created equal either. I endorse the dictionary that I endorse because It is accurate. How can I say this? Studying language is a huge part of studying theology. The folks at Merriam-Webster do a fine job.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:14:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?
A "personal" divinity of the kind you describe is a superstitious phantom which is nowhere to be found in Abrahamic tradition. Scripture presents a Creator named G-d or YHWH who is a wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry god. He requires absolute obedience and does not present himself to his subjects. One time he appears as a burning bush, and one time he allows Moses to see his back. There is no "spiritual" contact whatsoever with his followers and his behavior is simply beyond human reason.

A closer reading of the Old Testament also uncovers a "legislative background" beyond the Ten Commandments. There are actually 613 commandments which G-d requires to be followed by the members of his Covenant. Obedience to the point of death is especially important, the most popular example being that of "the binding": Abraham and Isaac. But a more severe test awaited Moses, who was prompted to slaughter all 3,000 of those Hebrews who didn't respect the Covenant, friends and family members that Moses had led out of Egypt. But unlike Abraham's test, Moses and the brothers of Levi carried this out in full to satisfy the wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry Father.

The decisive break in G-d's nature is the "emptying" of himself (Philippians 2:7). This reverses the ultimate sacrifice required by Abraham and Moses, as G-d the Father abandons his heavenly transcendence, becoming a mere human born into poverty. From this point and on there is no longer a wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry god of the heavens, but a humble carpenter presenting the path to an afterlife in paradise. He tries the Law on himself, as a lowly subject, and the Law fails the test of justice (Galatians 2:21). In fact, the Law turns out to be a curse (Galatians 3:10).

In this new theology, under the New Covenant with Jesus, the Hebrew Law comes undone (Romans 10:4). Instead, the entirety of the old Law can be reduced to one single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8). But this does not render void the Old Covenant or the status of Jews as the chosen people (Romans 3:2, 9:4-6, 11:2), for G-d does not make mistakes (Romans 11:29). Regardless, the consummation of the rise of the Son is finalized in his death, as he pronounces that "surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age [eons]" (Matthew 28:20), invoking the spirit of the Father and the Son in the community of believers, the Holy Ghost.

These decisive steps sum up the transformation:
1. G-d the Heavenly Father and Creator, beyond all human interaction;
2. the Covenant with Moses under the Law of the Tablets and Scripture, open to a select few;
3. the emptying of the Heavens;
4. the birth of the Son, Jesus; G-d taking human form;
5. the Son initiating the New Covenant, open to Jew and gentile;
6. the death of Jesus and the rise of the Holy Ghost as the community of believers;
7. the gospels of the New Testament summing up the life of the Son and the teachings of the New Covenant;
8. the Apocalypse (revelation, uncovering, or 'lifting of the veil') which spells the end of times (eons) and of G-d's Creation.

Theologically, each and every step is initiated but never finalized, each beginning and ending at every moment. Christianity recognizes both Jew and Gentile, the Old and New Covenants, the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost), Creation and Apocalypse. But there is no room for a "personal god."

Being a Jew or Muslim (the Quran is more or less a rewriting and revaluation of the Old Covenant) puts you in stage 2: as a subject/subordinate before an unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful god who has presented strict laws for you to follow.

A Christian, however, is caught in the radical changeability of the divine, as described above, which is exotericized in the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:20:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:55:44 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:59:26 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

One particular American English dictionary may define it so. But dictionaries are like gods (but far more useful) in that you can pick whichever one happens to suit your purpose or personality.

Obviously, these are instructions from the dictionary I'm referencing......

The Merriam-Webster definition of "God" is more in line with what theologians say than any other dictionary I've found. That said, it isn't the only dictionary I can make my case with. Not all dictionaries are created equal either. I endorse the dictionary that I endorse because It is accurate. How can I say this? Studying language is a huge part of studying theology. The folks at Merriam-Webster do a fine job.

How many, German, French, Italian, Greek, Mandarin, Russian etc.etc. or other English dictionaries have you checked?
Di mortuis
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:29:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 12:20:23 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:55:44 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:59:26 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

One particular American English dictionary may define it so. But dictionaries are like gods (but far more useful) in that you can pick whichever one happens to suit your purpose or personality.

Obviously, these are instructions from the dictionary I'm referencing......

The Merriam-Webster definition of "God" is more in line with what theologians say than any other dictionary I've found. That said, it isn't the only dictionary I can make my case with. Not all dictionaries are created equal either. I endorse the dictionary that I endorse because It is accurate. How can I say this? Studying language is a huge part of studying theology. The folks at Merriam-Webster do a fine job.

How many, German, French, Italian, Greek, Mandarin, Russian etc.etc. or other English dictionaries have you checked?

More important than what any of these dictionaries say, including the one I reference, is what theology says. Atheists tend to dismiss theologically sources, something that perpetuates their ignorance. Why do I use the dictionary? Because it is supposed to be a neutral source that is respected by all parties.

The Ultimate Reality is something that is recognized across faith lines. In so doing, the word is fulfilled..

"the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith"

Yes, there is universal consensus about this, and it transcends language boundaries. Not everyone uses the word "God". It's an English word. The concept it represents is universal.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 12:29:58 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:20:23 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:55:44 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:59:26 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

One particular American English dictionary may define it so. But dictionaries are like gods (but far more useful) in that you can pick whichever one happens to suit your purpose or personality.

Obviously, these are instructions from the dictionary I'm referencing......

The Merriam-Webster definition of "God" is more in line with what theologians say than any other dictionary I've found. That said, it isn't the only dictionary I can make my case with. Not all dictionaries are created equal either. I endorse the dictionary that I endorse because It is accurate. How can I say this? Studying language is a huge part of studying theology. The folks at Merriam-Webster do a fine job.

How many, German, French, Italian, Greek, Mandarin, Russian etc.etc. or other English dictionaries have you checked?

More important than what any of these dictionaries say, including the one I reference, is what theology says. Atheists tend to dismiss theologically sources, something that perpetuates their ignorance. Why do I use the dictionary? Because it is supposed to be a neutral source that is respected by all parties.

The Ultimate Reality is something that is recognized across faith lines. In so doing, the word is fulfilled..

"the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith"

Yes, there is universal consensus about this, and it transcends language boundaries. Not everyone uses the word "God". It's an English word. The concept it represents is universal.

Neat dodge, liar.
Di mortuis
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2016 12:19:42 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/15/2016 7:57:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Thanks for your response. Okay, I understand what you're explaining, here. So, regarding these fixed principles: how did they come to exist? Did God establish them or are the separately existent?

I know what your next question is so I'll answer it first....yes, God "could" adjust or a change a principle but I believe they are one and the same, in other words you cannot separate God from His principles.
I would say God established them, just like He establishes natural laws in the universe. Could God change those laws? perhaps, but then everything would fall apart, imagine if God changed the laws of gravity! now imagine the impact it would have on everything else... perhaps, it should only work one way....

That's quite an assumed limitation to God, isn't it? I mean, I don't foresee managing such would even be a challenge for God.

Now, the reasons behind them would be another question.

Which would be pretty much unanswerable.

But to answer your first question, God both established them and they are separately existent. That's how principles work, on their own.
Just as we are encapsulated in the environment of the natural world hinged on principles, the spiritual dimension encapsulates our entire existence and is hinged on principle, but the causal world is "invisible" to our naked eye, but both the natural and spiritual work parallel there are many similar functions in how they operate, only the spiritual is not limited to the material/physical.
Sorry, not trying to rant, just trying to give you a better picture of what I'm saying. This is how some people can be confident about their beliefs, and learn concrete facts about God and His environment. God didn't just leave us high and dry, perhaps got bored with us after He spent all this time creating an elaborate, enormous, intimate world for it's inhabitants and decided to leave us on our own.....not....God would not do that, He left us bread crumbs, those who would pick up the trail and follow will learn and receive.

I appreciate the elaboration. Some follow-up questions:

1) How have these principles been determined to be existent at all?
2) How has the existence of some "invisible" spirit dimension been determined?
3) Why would God leave only 'bread crumbs' and create the illusion that he isn't there which so many are under?

By what manner do we make this decision, though. For instance, if the principles are actually good, why do some individuals come to adhere to them while others ignore them? In other words, what variable/factor is responsible for person A choosing adherence and person B choosing non-adherence?

The principles are absolutely good for one, I doubt you could find one error in them if you really approached this honestly, and with an open mind. So you don't have to worry about that, the spirit is perfect unlike the physical world, it's also incredibly dynamic, you could learn so many things just from ONE principle....the way it illuminates and fills your being with light, shows you so many angles at one time in one revelation, it's incredible, life changing. Once you go spirit, you never go back lol.

Well, in order to determine "error", then there must be some standard to compare them to. If those principles ARE the standard, then "error" is not applicable, even if those principles are established arbitrarily. Can you cite a specific principle and how it's been determined to actually exist?

To answer your question, you simply answered it yourself above..."some individuals come to adhere to them while others ignore them? " the answer is that, some individuals come to adhere to them, while others IGNORE them.

The question that followed that was the important one.

Now to elaborate....because I think I know what you are going to ask next.... in reality we don't "need" scripture to observe these principles, only to pinpoint them, have a foundation and a source that confirms these facts, this is why Jesus came to testify, why Paul followed up...these principles are what hold scripture together, it's the foundation of it all.
Al the teachings, lessons, stories, parables, illustrations ect ect are revealing these to you, to me.

However, because spiritual principles are just that, they can be discovered without scripture, because the environment never changes and it's always there with or without the Bible, so those who love God and pursue that connection can learn from these principles as I did.
But it's imperative that we have a source and a foundation for anything to be stable, to be able to learn, confirm, create unity especially dealing with humans. That's part of the reason I accept Christianity, because it's principles line up with what I observe, have been observing since I was a young kid, real young.
But no one wants to hear about spirituality, no one wants to hear about application, no one wants to hear about principles and the environment of the spiritual, they only want finger prints, hair samples, foot prints and perhaps a video of God (physical evidence).
Everybody wants to know if God exists, but nobody wants to apply lol... so what now, let's say someone finds a video of God floating down the street, maybe some fingerprints, maybe a voice recording or maybe some secular scientists will put together a lab experiment that demonstrates God exists? now what....
The principles will remain the same, no scientist is going to get anyone to God....you're still gonna have to apply to learn, still gonna have to accept the authority of God, still gonna have to abide in what Jesus taught, still gonna have to learn lessons and grow, cultivate ect ect nothing will change with some physical evidence, the application will be the same.
Sorry if I rambled here, don't have much time so I wanted to cover a few areas for ya. Thanks for the response minus insults and accusations, I can certainly accommodate that. It really sucks as you probably know to have to sift through so many insults, accusations and name calling. How can anyone ever share any truth if everyone accuses someone of lying? or mental illness? anyways thanks for not injecting that, it's a bit of fresh air in this forum.

Thank you once again for elaborating. It gives me a little more insight as to where you're coming from on this matter. I'm not going to delve into any specifics mentioned, here, but one of the reasons to maintain a skeptical attitude towards empirically unverifiable conclusions is that it can be demonstrated that while human beings are psychologically inclined to seek out explanations about the world, we are terrible at discerning the truth of the matter. This is why so much of science seems counter-intuitive, for one.

The human mind is geared towards managing beliefs with the end goal of consistency, NOT truth. This is clearly evident in the large number of demonstrable psychological tendencies that humans display: Cognitive Dissonance and the methods of dissonance reduction, the plethora of powerful cognitive biases (e.g. Backfire Effect, Confirmation Bias), Belief Perseverance, Anthropomorphism and Apophenia, the Misinformation Effect, and so on. I can go on for quite some time. To conclude, worldly conclusions that are derived from the human mind should be treated with the utmost skepticism until they can be empirically verified to be in accordance with reality.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:47:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2016 8:41:17 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:03:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:52:13 PM, 12_13 wrote:
If this desire isn't innate, then why couldn't it just be changed?

If person doesn"t want it and if it is not wanted to force anyone to want something against their will.

But that desire was instilled in them, as well. They didn't choose to have it - they were created with it.

I have no reason to believe that.

Then, from where did this desire originate? People don't choose what they find desirable and undesirable. Desire drives our decisions.

But that still doesn't address the unnecessary application of suffering that preceded this.

Suffering is necessary, because people wanted to know evil like God knows.

Who exactly are these people that you're speaking for?

Adam and Eve. however, I believe most people would have made the same decision that they did.

I don't see how that belief can be justified. And even if accepted, most is clearly not all, so suffering is being forced upon them unnecessarily.

Then this life is irrelevant. If one's true nature is what's important in the first place, then peoples' choices in this world don't matter. This is predestination, no? (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I don"t think it is predestination.

How is it different, especially if you believe that God knows (or could possibly know) beforehand what the final destination would be?

If you know person and world well enough, you will know also the destination. If that is what you mean with predestination, then it is ok. But if you mean that everything has been foreordained by a God I think that is not true, at least if it means God orders people to be something and that people don"t have own will.

What aspect of a given individual was not deliberately created by God? If God knows an individual well enough to know their nature, then why would a person with an undesirable nature be created, at all? And if it's possible for God to know the ultimate destination of an individual, then that ultimate destination must be already established for it to be subject to knowledge.

I also want to say, one"s true nature or mind is what matters, because all actions come from there. Actions are only result of mind. Therefore actions don"t matter as much.

I largely agree, but does one get a say in what their own true nature is or how their mind works?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:57:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 3:17:00 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:07:10 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:58:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:37:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:28:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:23:35 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:21:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:11:37 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What is the difference between "pantheism" and "panentheism"?

The former describes that God is the universe while the latter describes that God is the universe and then some. The specifics of this additional meaning is dependent on the specific panentheistic claims.


That's a very simplistic way of looking at it, sure.

Did you have something different in mind?


The universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

God's existence is not dependent on observation or postulation, so God is greater than the universe.

I strongly disagree with this definition. If there exist an unknown element in the universe that has not yet been observed or postulated, it's still a part of the universe. When a logical, universal proposition is issued (e.g. All S are P), it isn't necessary that all individual elements be identified.


Disagree all you want, that is what is written in the dictionary.

That doesn't make it objectively correct. The simple definition is more accurate...

The simple definition comes from a children's dictionary, and is intended to get them to speak language quicker. Most people do not have an accurate comprehension of the English language. Oh, they think they do, but they don't. They should probably read an academic dictionary.

The full definitions are definitely more accurate, and they come from an academically credible dictionary, not a dictionary intended for children or people who are learning English.

You ignored this: So, would you disagree that an object that actually exists but has not yet been observed nor postulated is still actually a part of the universe, since it clearly exists like everything else in it?

I don't see how anyone could disagree with the above, which means that Webster's definition doesn't accurately represent the common concept they are intended to represent. It's in error.

The dictionary does NOT dictate the meaning of the concepts that are being represented by the use of the word; they present a standard by which a base understanding of the concept can be communicated. So, please answer the above question.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

What's the difference between "supreme or ultimate reality" and just "reality"? What more information is introduced by the adjectives and capitalization?

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

Yes, it's virtually always presented in ways that infer MORE than just demonstrable reality, in accordance to the examples. Hence, the valid rejection of the truth of the represented concept by atheists. Please answer the previous question.
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 8:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 1:47:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Then, from where did this desire originate? People don't choose what they find desirable and undesirable. Desire drives our decisions.

What one sees desirable is based on what person likes. If person himself doesn"t decide what he likes, who makes that decision?

I don't see how that belief can be justified. And even if accepted, most is clearly not all, so suffering is being forced upon them unnecessarily.

Maybe. I don"t see that as a problem, because this is good lesson and on basis of the Bible, those who are or become righteous, can get eternal life and compensation and till they get also the knowledge of good and evil, which can be seen as valuable lesson, even though it can be painful for short moment.

What aspect of a given individual was not deliberately created by God? If God knows an individual well enough to know their nature, then why would a person with an undesirable nature be created, at all? And if it's possible for God to know the ultimate destination of an individual, then that ultimate destination must be already established for it to be subject to knowledge.

I believe God created Adam and Eve, other people are offspring of them and not directly created. Bible says:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

So love seems to be the answer why God created and gave life also for those who choose evilness. And maybe it is so that those who become righteous, grow better when there is also those who are unrighteous.

I believe destination is already established, but in many things it is set by humans by their free will, not by God.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 9:03:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:55:44 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

The Merriam-Webster definition of "God" is more in line with what theologians say than any other dictionary I've found. That said, it isn't the only dictionary I can make my case with. Not all dictionaries are created equal either. I endorse the dictionary that I endorse because It is accurate. How can I say this? Studying language is a huge part of studying theology. The folks at Merriam-Webster do a fine job.

Essentially, what you're saying is that you're personally satisfied with Merriam-Webster's reference book.

Btw, an Fyi, that a reference book is a book containing useful facts or specially organized information, as an encyclopedia, dictionary, atlas, yearbook, etc.

They're used as a reference. If I didn't know what a zebra was, I would refer to a reference book so that I could get a general understanding.

You have provided us with the closest version of your God found in a reference book by Merriam Webster, hence we can all look it up and see for ourselves your version of God, according to you.

Now that your version has been established and the reference book is no longer required, what else is there you wish to tell us about your God?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 8:01:48 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:47:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Then, from where did this desire originate? People don't choose what they find desirable and undesirable. Desire drives our decisions.

What one sees desirable is based on what person likes. If person himself doesn"t decide what he likes, who makes that decision?

Exactly. People don't decide what they find appealing or what they desire. One doesn't choose what one finds to be beautiful or whether one cares about his fellow man or not. These desires are definitive of one's nature, which could only have been chosen by God upon creation.

I don't see how that belief can be justified. And even if accepted, most is clearly not all, so suffering is being forced upon them unnecessarily.

Maybe. I don"t see that as a problem, because this is good lesson and on basis of the Bible, those who are or become righteous, can get eternal life and compensation and till they get also the knowledge of good and evil, which can be seen as valuable lesson, even though it can be painful for short moment.

So, it was ultimately a good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

What aspect of a given individual was not deliberately created by God? If God knows an individual well enough to know their nature, then why would a person with an undesirable nature be created, at all? And if it's possible for God to know the ultimate destination of an individual, then that ultimate destination must be already established for it to be subject to knowledge.

I believe God created Adam and Eve, other people are offspring of them and not directly created.

I see a couple of problems, here. First, how is the nature of an individual determined, then? If God is omniscient, then why would He be ignorant of the consequences following Adam and Eve and their progeny?

Secondly, there are lots of Biblical verses that oppose this:

"He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made."
John 1:2-3

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb."
Psalms 139:13

"Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"
Job 31:15

"This is what the Lord says - he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen."
Isaiah 44:2

Bible says:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

So love seems to be the answer why God created and gave life also for those who choose evilness. And maybe it is so that those who become righteous, grow better when there is also those who are unrighteous.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Isaiah 45:7

The ability to choose evilness, in of and itself, was created and bestowed by God. Evil would not exist had God not made it so. Those who are unrighteous are so because God allowed them to be, or even further, created them to be. The latter is true if righteousness is based on one's nature.

I believe destination is already established, but in many things it is set by humans by their free will, not by God.

But, if a destination is already established, how can free will affect anything? If a particular person's free will is part of the reason that their destination is established, isn't free will then necessarily established, too?

Thank you for this conversation, BTW. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 12:14:43 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?
A "personal" divinity of the kind you describe is a superstitious phantom which is nowhere to be found in Abrahamic tradition. Scripture presents a Creator named G-d or YHWH who is a wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry god. He requires absolute obedience and does not present himself to his subjects. One time he appears as a burning bush, and one time he allows Moses to see his back. There is no "spiritual" contact whatsoever with his followers and his behavior is simply beyond human reason.

A closer reading of the Old Testament also uncovers a "legislative background" beyond the Ten Commandments. There are actually 613 commandments which G-d requires to be followed by the members of his Covenant. Obedience to the point of death is especially important, the most popular example being that of "the binding": Abraham and Isaac. But a more severe test awaited Moses, who was prompted to slaughter all 3,000 of those Hebrews who didn't respect the Covenant, friends and family members that Moses had led out of Egypt. But unlike Abraham's test, Moses and the brothers of Levi carried this out in full to satisfy the wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry Father.

The decisive break in G-d's nature is the "emptying" of himself (Philippians 2:7). This reverses the ultimate sacrifice required by Abraham and Moses, as G-d the Father abandons his heavenly transcendence, becoming a mere human born into poverty. From this point and on there is no longer a wrathful, vengeful, jealous, and angry god of the heavens, but a humble carpenter presenting the path to an afterlife in paradise. He tries the Law on himself, as a lowly subject, and the Law fails the test of justice (Galatians 2:21). In fact, the Law turns out to be a curse (Galatians 3:10).

In this new theology, under the New Covenant with Jesus, the Hebrew Law comes undone (Romans 10:4). Instead, the entirety of the old Law can be reduced to one single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8). But this does not render void the Old Covenant or the status of Jews as the chosen people (Romans 3:2, 9:4-6, 11:2), for G-d does not make mistakes (Romans 11:29). Regardless, the consummation of the rise of the Son is finalized in his death, as he pronounces that "surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age [eons]" (Matthew 28:20), invoking the spirit of the Father and the Son in the community of believers, the Holy Ghost.

These decisive steps sum up the transformation:
1. G-d the Heavenly Father and Creator, beyond all human interaction;
2. the Covenant with Moses under the Law of the Tablets and Scripture, open to a select few;
3. the emptying of the Heavens;
4. the birth of the Son, Jesus; G-d taking human form;
5. the Son initiating the New Covenant, open to Jew and gentile;
6. the death of Jesus and the rise of the Holy Ghost as the community of believers;
7. the gospels of the New Testament summing up the life of the Son and the teachings of the New Covenant;
8. the Apocalypse (revelation, uncovering, or 'lifting of the veil') which spells the end of times (eons) and of G-d's Creation.

Theologically, each and every step is initiated but never finalized, each beginning and ending at every moment. Christianity recognizes both Jew and Gentile, the Old and New Covenants, the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost), Creation and Apocalypse. But there is no room for a "personal god."

Being a Jew or Muslim (the Quran is more or less a rewriting and revaluation of the Old Covenant) puts you in stage 2: as a subject/subordinate before an unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful god who has presented strict laws for you to follow.

A Christian, however, is caught in the radical changeability of the divine, as described above, which is exotericized in the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

My apologies - I somehow missed this response. I appreciate your input on the matter. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 7:45:40 AM, lightseeker wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?

This thread is intended to gather responses from those who believe in an unchanging God (in some sense), but it's still open to anyone, being an public forum and all.

we believe God as an infinite being. though when we say this, we mean that God's essence is infinite and therefor unchanging, not in the sense that God is not creating and making change in the universe and other creations.

How have you reached the conclusion that God is an infinite being?

let me give you an example:
imagine a person who's lying down and imagining stuff. for that person, imagining a drop of water, is not that different from imagining a sea.
as soon as he decides to imagine those, those images will form in his mind.
that person himself isn't moving or changing, but the images in his head are .

God's creation also can be described (not with 100 accuracy) using this example.
when God wills something, that thing comes to be. but God himself doesn't change form.
because an infinite being, can't have a form or shape.

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

According to the clarification in the beginning of your reply and to this analogy, it would be more apt to say that if God is infinite (like the water) then He would have no definition or limitation which is what defines character (like the water's shapelessness). If God is truly limitless, than all actions and characteristics are attributable to Him, aren't they? If some aren't, then that is indicative of some sense of limitation.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:19:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2016 1:22:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies - I somehow missed this response. I appreciate your input on the matter. :)
No worries. I honestly thought you found it too dreary to be worthy of a reply (it was a bit unstructured). I just want to show you and others how difficult it is for non-fundamentalist Christians to pin down the many aspects, and radical nature, of the Christian divine.

Theologians and Christians versed in Scripture know that the "emptying" of the heavens, when the creator subjects himself to his own curse/Old Testament Law, is the crucial moment that tips the old order on its head. As the creator is now embedded in his own creation, omniscience and omnipotence are no longer viable. In this way, the Father-turned-Son-turned-Ghost -- Jesus resurrected -- turns out to have committed the ultimate sacrificial act.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
lightseeker
Posts: 1,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:58:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2016 1:28:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 7:45:40 AM, lightseeker wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?
This thread is intended to gather responses from those who believe in an unchanging God (in some sense), but it's still open to anyone, being an public forum and all.
we believe God as an infinite being. though when we say this, we mean that God's essence is infinite and therefor unchanging, not in the sense that God is not creating and making change in the universe and other creations.
How have you reached the conclusion that God is an infinite being?
we define God as the true and complete existence. and since existence is infinite, then we can say that God is infinite.
also God is an immaterial and singular existence.

let me give you an example:
imagine a person who's lying down and imagining stuff. for that person, imagining a drop of water, is not that different from imagining a sea.
as soon as he decides to imagine those, those images will form in his mind.
that person himself isn't moving or changing, but the images in his head are .

God's creation also can be described (not with 100 accuracy) using this example.
when God wills something, that thing comes to be. but God himself doesn't change form.
because an infinite being, can't have a form or shape.

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

According to the clarification in the beginning of your reply and to this analogy, it would be more apt to say that if God is infinite (like the water) then He would have no definition or limitation which is what defines character (like the water's shapelessness). If God is truly limitless, than all actions and characteristics are attributable to Him, aren't they? If some aren't, then that is indicative of some sense of limitation.
not all characteristics. for example, ignorance, which is lack of knowledge, is not attributable to God. all positive characteristics are attributable to him. we can say that God is kind and omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, but we can't say that God is powerless ... because powerlessness, ignorance, ... are lack of power, knowledge, ... and they don't exist by themselves. therefor existence doesn't have them. they come to be, in contrast with positive attributes like power, knowledge ...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 6:46:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2016 2:58:34 PM, lightseeker wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:28:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 7:45:40 AM, lightseeker wrote:
At 8/15/2016 3:33:11 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Certainly, a personal God that one is capable of having a relationship with would have to at least appear to change or react on some level (i.e. emotion-like response, or altered reactions) or else it would be akin to dealing with a programmed robot. I understand that "unchanging" in regard to God is not meant to mean, "100% static". So, what does "unchanging" entail, exactly? Does this instead pertain to God"s nature or core being, and mean that God"s core personality, ideals, and disposition are fixed? Moreover, if free will is the inverse of a determined nature, does God lack free will in light of this?
This thread is intended to gather responses from those who believe in an unchanging God (in some sense), but it's still open to anyone, being an public forum and all.
we believe God as an infinite being. though when we say this, we mean that God's essence is infinite and therefor unchanging, not in the sense that God is not creating and making change in the universe and other creations.
How have you reached the conclusion that God is an infinite being?
we define God as the true and complete existence. and since existence is infinite, then we can say that God is infinite.

Are you saying that God is identical to reality? And also, what do you mean by "existence is infinite", and how have you determined this?

also God is an immaterial and singular existence.

"Immaterial" only describes what He is not, so I don't think this holds any definitional validity. It says about as much about a subject as saying, "that guy doesn't collect stamps!"

let me give you an example:
<snipped>

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

According to the clarification in the beginning of your reply and to this analogy, it would be more apt to say that if God is infinite (like the water) then He would have no definition or limitation which is what defines character (like the water's shapelessness). If God is truly limitless, than all actions and characteristics are attributable to Him, aren't they? If some aren't, then that is indicative of some sense of limitation.
not all characteristics. for example, ignorance, which is lack of knowledge, is not attributable to God. all positive characteristics are attributable to him.

The claim, "all positive characteristics are attributable to him", requires some serious justification. If God is the creator of the universe, then He is responsible for all that exists within it, and is subsequently responsible for the existence of the most heinous evils. Evil entails the will to cause harm to other beings, which is an applicable characteristic.

we can say that God is kind and omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, but we can't say that God is powerless ... because powerlessness, ignorance, ... are lack of power, knowledge, ... and they don't exist by themselves. therefor existence doesn't have them. they come to be, in contrast with positive attributes like power, knowledge ...

Given that you subscribe to the typical "omni" traits, how do you deal with the Problem from Evil, then? (You can ignore the logical notation; I'm including it for my own amusement and to say that I can demonstrate that the conclusion is proven from the premises).

P1) (Ax)(Ay)((Gx&Vy)>(^Fxy>Fxy))
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly good being and y belongs to the set of evil things, then if it is possible for x to forbid y from existing, then x would forbid y from existing."

P2) (Ax)(Ay)(Kx>Uxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly knowledgeable being, then x possesses understanding of y."

P3) (Ax)(Ay)((Px&Uxy)>Cxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly powerful being and possesses understanding of y, then x possesses capability of forbidding y."

P4) (Ay)(Ex)((Uxy&Cxy)>^Fxy)
"For all of y, if there exists an x such that x possess both understanding and capability of forbidding y, then it's possible for x to forbid y."

P5) (Ax)(Ay)(AQ)(Qy>~Fxy)
"For all of x, all of y, and all of Q, if y belongs to some real set Q, then it's not the case that x forbade y."

P6) (Ey)(Vy)
"There exists a y such that y belongs to the set of evil things."

C) ~(Ex)(Gx&Kx&Px)
"Therefore, it isn't the case that there exists an x such that x is all of perfectly good, perfectly knowledgeable, and perfectly powerful."
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 8:05:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2016 1:06:55 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Exactly. People don't decide what they find appealing or what they desire.

I think they do. But if you think it is not the people, who it is? God? Do you believe in God?

One doesn't choose what one finds to be beautiful or whether one cares about his fellow man or not. These desires are definitive of one's nature, which could only have been chosen by God upon creation.

I disagree with that.

So, it was ultimately a good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

I think it was not good or bad that they ate the fruit. It was just a thing that had consequences. It would have been easier for all people to choose another path.

I see a couple of problems, here. First, how is the nature of an individual determined, then?

What is person"s nature anyway?

If God is omniscient, then why would He be ignorant of the consequences following Adam and Eve and their progeny?

I don"t think God is ignorant.

Secondly, there are lots of Biblical verses that oppose this:
"

Ok, those were good scriptures. And perhaps peoples body is formed by God in the womb (the scriptures doesn"t seem to say they are about all possible people).

But, if a destination is already established, how can free will affect anything? If a particular person's free will is part of the reason that their destination is established, isn't free will then necessarily established, too?

God knows us so well that he knows what we freely choose. It is our choice, but God knows so deeply us that He knows what we will in every situation do. He doesn"t need to make us do something, it is enough to set the situation in certain way and we will do the thing that we want to do in that situation. Or what do you think, if I know what you will say to this, have I determined your answer?

Thank you for this conversation, BTW. :)

Your welcome :)
lightseeker
Posts: 1,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:57:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How have you reached the conclusion that God is an infinite being?
we define God as the true and complete existence. and since existence is infinite, then we can say that God is infinite.
Are you saying that God is identical to reality? And also, what do you mean by "existence is infinite", and how have you determined this?
don't change my words. I said God is the complete and ultimate existence.

also God is an immaterial and singular existence.

"Immaterial" only describes what He is not, so I don't think this holds any definitional validity. It says about as much about a subject as saying, "that guy doesn't collect stamps!"
it means that it's not made of matter. matter is limited, God isn't.

let me give you an example:
<snipped>

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

According to the clarification in the beginning of your reply and to this analogy, it would be more apt to say that if God is infinite (like the water) then He would have no definition or limitation which is what defines character (like the water's shapelessness). If God is truly limitless, than all actions and characteristics are attributable to Him, aren't they? If some aren't, then that is indicative of some sense of limitation.
not all characteristics. for example, ignorance, which is lack of knowledge, is not attributable to God. all positive characteristics are attributable to him.
The claim, "all positive characteristics are attributable to him", requires some serious justification. If God is the creator of the universe, then He is responsible for all that exists within it, and is subsequently responsible for the existence of the most heinous evils. Evil entails the will to cause harm to other beings, which is an applicable characteristic.
God created humans as creatures who have choice and will be held responsible for their actions. if you have a choice in your action, you're responsible for it. otherwise no one should've been sent to jail according to your logic. you're responsible for your actions, and will ultimately answer for them.

we can say that God is kind and omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, but we can't say that God is powerless ... because powerlessness, ignorance, ... are lack of power, knowledge, ... and they don't exist by themselves. therefor existence doesn't have them. they come to be, in contrast with positive attributes like power, knowledge ...

Given that you subscribe to the typical "omni" traits, how do you deal with the Problem from Evil, then? (You can ignore the logical notation; I'm including it for my own amusement and to say that I can demonstrate that the conclusion is proven from the premises).
what problem with Evil? Evil, is like darkness. darkness is lack of light, Evil is lack of goodness. people who can choose the right path, but don't, and do evil things, are following their own choices and will be held accountable for them. but if you have a specific evil in mind, tell me about it, and I shall answer.

P1) (Ax)(Ay)((Gx&Vy)>(^Fxy>Fxy))
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly good being and y belongs to the set of evil things, then if it is possible for x to forbid y from existing, then x would forbid y from existing."

P2) (Ax)(Ay)(Kx>Uxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly knowledgeable being, then x possesses understanding of y."

P3) (Ax)(Ay)((Px&Uxy)>Cxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly powerful being and possesses understanding of y, then x possesses capability of forbidding y."

P4) (Ay)(Ex)((Uxy&Cxy)>^Fxy)
"For all of y, if there exists an x such that x possess both understanding and capability of forbidding y, then it's possible for x to forbid y."

P5) (Ax)(Ay)(AQ)(Qy>~Fxy)
"For all of x, all of y, and all of Q, if y belongs to some real set Q, then it's not the case that x forbade y."

P6) (Ey)(Vy)
"There exists a y such that y belongs to the set of evil things."

C) ~(Ex)(Gx&Kx&Px)
"Therefore, it isn't the case that there exists an x such that x is all of perfectly good, perfectly knowledgeable, and perfectly powerful."

I really don't want to bother with this. write more succinctly and in a way that others can understand.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 12:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2016 8:05:18 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:06:55 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Exactly. People don't decide what they find appealing or what they desire.

I think they do. But if you think it is not the people, who it is? God? Do you believe in God?

I think our natural desires are determined by biological composition and influenced by environmental experiences. No, I don't have belief in God.

One doesn't choose what one finds to be beautiful or whether one cares about his fellow man or not. These desires are definitive of one's nature, which could only have been chosen by God upon creation.

I disagree with that.

Do you willingly choose whether you find something or someone to be attractive or not? Do you willingly choose to feel bad for someone who is harmed unjustly? Do you willingly choose which foods you find desirable? As far as I've seen, no one has the power to change these things by will alone. We can put forth effort, but only if we possess a desire or motive to do so in the first place. If you still disagree, I'm interested to hear why.

So, it was ultimately a good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

I think it was not good or bad that they ate the fruit. It was just a thing that had consequences. It would have been easier for all people to choose another path.

Do you believe that happiness is possible without the existence of suffering? Could Adam and Eve have lead happy lives had they not disobeyed God?

I see a couple of problems, here. First, how is the nature of an individual determined, then?

What is person"s nature anyway?

I would define it as the fundamental thoughts, desires, and inclinations which drive decisions and behaviors.

If God is omniscient, then why would He be ignorant of the consequences following Adam and Eve and their progeny?

I don"t think God is ignorant.

OK. So, prior to creating Adam and Eve, God was aware of their future actions as well as all of the future actions of all of there progeny, then, right? If that's the case, then God was fully aware that massive evil would be included in the consequences, yet, went ahead and created them that way, anyway. This implies that the existence of evil was God's intention.

Secondly, there are lots of Biblical verses that oppose this:
"

Ok, those were good scriptures. And perhaps peoples body is formed by God in the womb (the scriptures doesn"t seem to say they are about all possible people).

I included the verses about all made things were created by God (John 1:2-3) to address that issue.

But, if a destination is already established, how can free will affect anything? If a particular person's free will is part of the reason that their destination is established, isn't free will then necessarily established, too?

God knows us so well that he knows what we freely choose. It is our choice, but God knows so deeply us that He knows what we will in every situation do. He doesn"t need to make us do something, it is enough to set the situation in certain way and we will do the thing that we want to do in that situation. Or what do you think, if I know what you will say to this, have I determined your answer?

I'm not saying that God is forcing people to do anything, per se, just that the knowledge of future events contradicts free will. Let me put it this way, from our non-omniscient perspective, a world with free will is indistinguishable from a world without free will. We have literally no way to determine this, so if it turns out it doesn't actually exist, it's an inescapable illusion.

To illustrate the contradiction, imagine you have a choice between X and Y. God, being omniscient, knows that you will choose X. Now, is it possible for you to choose Y and prove God wrong? If yes, then God didn't actually know. If no, then did you really have a choice beyond the illusion thereof? Nope.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 1:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
D'oh! Accidentally replied to my own post, previously...

At 8/25/2016 8:05:18 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:06:55 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Exactly. People don't decide what they find appealing or what they desire.

I think they do. But if you think it is not the people, who it is? God? Do you believe in God?

I think our natural desires are determined by biological composition and influenced by environmental experiences. No, I don't have belief in God.

One doesn't choose what one finds to be beautiful or whether one cares about his fellow man or not. These desires are definitive of one's nature, which could only have been chosen by God upon creation.

I disagree with that.

Do you willingly choose whether you find something or someone to be attractive or not? Do you willingly choose to feel bad for someone who is harmed unjustly? Do you willingly choose which foods you find desirable? As far as I've seen, no one has the power to change these things by will alone. We can put forth effort, but only if we possess a desire or motive to do so in the first place. If you still disagree, I'm interested to hear why.

So, it was ultimately a good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

I think it was not good or bad that they ate the fruit. It was just a thing that had consequences. It would have been easier for all people to choose another path.

Do you believe that happiness is possible without the existence of suffering? Could Adam and Eve have lead happy lives had they not disobeyed God?

I see a couple of problems, here. First, how is the nature of an individual determined, then?

What is person"s nature anyway?

I would define it as the fundamental thoughts, desires, and inclinations which drive decisions and behaviors.

If God is omniscient, then why would He be ignorant of the consequences following Adam and Eve and their progeny?

I don"t think God is ignorant.

OK. So, prior to creating Adam and Eve, God was aware of their future actions as well as all of the future actions of all of there progeny, then, right? If that's the case, then God was fully aware that massive evil would be included in the consequences, yet, went ahead and created them that way, anyway. This implies that the existence of evil was God's intention.

Secondly, there are lots of Biblical verses that oppose this:
"

Ok, those were good scriptures. And perhaps peoples body is formed by God in the womb (the scriptures doesn"t seem to say they are about all possible people).

I included the verses about all made things were created by God (John 1:2-3) to address that issue.

But, if a destination is already established, how can free will affect anything? If a particular person's free will is part of the reason that their destination is established, isn't free will then necessarily established, too?

God knows us so well that he knows what we freely choose. It is our choice, but God knows so deeply us that He knows what we will in every situation do. He doesn"t need to make us do something, it is enough to set the situation in certain way and we will do the thing that we want to do in that situation. Or what do you think, if I know what you will say to this, have I determined your answer?

I'm not saying that God is forcing people to do anything, per se, just that the knowledge of future events contradicts free will. Let me put it this way, from our non-omniscient perspective, a world with free will is indistinguishable from a world without free will. We have literally no way to determine this, so if it turns out it doesn't actually exist, it's an inescapable illusion.

To illustrate the contradiction, imagine you have a choice between X and Y. God, being omniscient, knows that you will choose X. Now, is it possible for you to choose Y and prove God wrong? If yes, then God didn't actually know. If no, then did you really have a choice beyond the illusion thereof? Nope.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 1:30:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2016 7:57:25 AM, lightseeker wrote:
How have you reached the conclusion that God is an infinite being?
we define God as the true and complete existence. and since existence is infinite, then we can say that God is infinite.
Are you saying that God is identical to reality? And also, what do you mean by "existence is infinite", and how have you determined this?
don't change my words. I said God is the complete and ultimate existence.

I didn't. I asked my own question because what you describe is very vague and unclear. What is the difference between reality and "complete and ultimate existence"?

also God is an immaterial and singular existence.

"Immaterial" only describes what He is not, so I don't think this holds any definitional validity. It says about as much about a subject as saying, "that guy doesn't collect stamps!"
it means that it's not made of matter. matter is limited, God isn't.

That's beside the point. Does God consist of "spirit" or something, then?

let me give you an example:
<snipped>

imagine a mass of water infinitely large. this means that it's borderless. it penetrates everything and there is no where that it's not present. now since that mass of water is infinite, it can't change shape. because it doesn't have a shape.

According to the clarification in the beginning of your reply and to this analogy, it would be more apt to say that if God is infinite (like the water) then He would have no definition or limitation which is what defines character (like the water's shapelessness). If God is truly limitless, than all actions and characteristics are attributable to Him, aren't they? If some aren't, then that is indicative of some sense of limitation.
not all characteristics. for example, ignorance, which is lack of knowledge, is not attributable to God. all positive characteristics are attributable to him.
The claim, "all positive characteristics are attributable to him", requires some serious justification. If God is the creator of the universe, then He is responsible for all that exists within it, and is subsequently responsible for the existence of the most heinous evils. Evil entails the will to cause harm to other beings, which is an applicable characteristic.
God created humans as creatures who have choice and will be held responsible for their actions. if you have a choice in your action, you're responsible for it. ...

But you said that God is omniscient. That means that God necessarily knows what actions and decisions all people will make, or else He isn't omniscient and is, therefore, limited. So, when prior to an omniscient God created men, He knew the outcome and consequences to His creation to infinite depth and, being omnipotent, could have created men in any way that He willed to achieve the ends He wanted. Despite this, God created men that choose evil actions, anyway. This is indicative that all evil in the world is intentional.

...otherwise no one should've been sent to jail according to your logic. you're responsible for your actions, and will ultimately answer for them.

No. If it's the case that people are ultimately not responsible for their actions, then imprisonment and punishment are still functional deterrent towards evil behavior. They introduce factors into the decision-making process that very well could alter an individuals decision. Punishment should not retributive.

we can say that God is kind and omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, but we can't say that God is powerless ... because powerlessness, ignorance, ... are lack of power, knowledge, ... and they don't exist by themselves. therefor existence doesn't have them. they come to be, in contrast with positive attributes like power, knowledge ...

Given that you subscribe to the typical "omni" traits, how do you deal with the Problem from Evil, then? (You can ignore the logical notation; I'm including it for my own amusement and to say that I can demonstrate that the conclusion is proven from the premises).
what problem with Evil? Evil, is like darkness. darkness is lack of light, Evil is lack of goodness. people who can choose the right path, but don't, and do evil things, are following their own choices and will be held accountable for them. but if you have a specific evil in mind, tell me about it, and I shall answer.

But you're arbitrarily defining evil, here. I could easily say that goodness is the lack of evil. Both of these things, though relative to each other, entail distinct and specific motives and actions. The lack of all good and all evil is indifference, so both good and evil have substance. An example of evil is given in (P5) in the syllogism, below.

I really don't want to bother with this. write more succinctly and in a way that others can understand.

Sure.

P1) If God is perfectly good, then He is willing to prevent evil whenever possible.
P2) If God is perfectly knowledgeable, then He will know all of the ways that evil can come to exist.
P3) If God is perfectly powerful, then He will have the capability to prevent any known evil from existing.
P4) If God possesses all of these attributes, then there is no evil that He is unwilling or unable to prevent.
P5) Sadistic individuals who derive pleasure from causing needless suffering to others, therefore, evil was not prevented.
C) God is not all of perfectly good, knowledgeable, and powerful.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 3:06:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2016 7:57:25 AM, lightseeker wrote:
what problem with Evil? Evil, is like darkness. darkness is lack of light, Evil is lack of goodness. people who can choose the right path, but don't, and do evil things, are following their own choices and will be held accountable for them. but if you have a specific evil in mind, tell me about it, and I shall answer.

Sorry, but your analogy fails. Light and darkness are not actions, they aren't someone doing something, as you have said yourself above. Hence, the lack of good is NOT evil, the lack of evil is NOT good. One must do an action of good or evil in order for them to exist, otherwise good and evil don't exist.


P1) (Ax)(Ay)((Gx&Vy)>(^Fxy>Fxy))
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly good being and y belongs to the set of evil things, then if it is possible for x to forbid y from existing, then x would forbid y from existing."

P2) (Ax)(Ay)(Kx>Uxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly knowledgeable being, then x possesses understanding of y."

P3) (Ax)(Ay)((Px&Uxy)>Cxy)
"For all of x and for all of y, if x is a perfectly powerful being and possesses understanding of y, then x possesses capability of forbidding y."

P4) (Ay)(Ex)((Uxy&Cxy)>^Fxy)
"For all of y, if there exists an x such that x possess both understanding and capability of forbidding y, then it's possible for x to forbid y."

P5) (Ax)(Ay)(AQ)(Qy>~Fxy)
"For all of x, all of y, and all of Q, if y belongs to some real set Q, then it's not the case that x forbade y."

P6) (Ey)(Vy)
"There exists a y such that y belongs to the set of evil things."

C) ~(Ex)(Gx&Kx&Px)
"Therefore, it isn't the case that there exists an x such that x is all of perfectly good, perfectly knowledgeable, and perfectly powerful."

I really don't want to bother with this. write more succinctly and in a way that others can understand.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
lightseeker
Posts: 1,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 4:18:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
don't change my words. I said God is the complete and ultimate existence.

I didn't. I asked my own question because what you describe is very vague and unclear. What is the difference between reality and "complete and ultimate existence"?
reality, can have an opposite. for example, sometimes, truth is the opposite of reality: a person goes to jail for a crime he hasn't commited. the reality is that he's the criminal, therefor he has gone to jail. the truth is that he isn't.
existence, doesn't have an opposite. because opposite of existence, is inexistence, which doesn't exist.
also, existence covers everything that exists, reality doesn't.

it means that it's not made of matter. matter is limited, God isn't.
That's beside the point. Does God consist of "spirit" or something, then?
nope. God created matter and spirit ... he's not made of anything like that. think of existence for example, everything is a manifestation of existence, yet existence itself is not defined as material or spiritual ...

God created humans as creatures who have choice and will be held responsible for their actions. if you have a choice in your action, you're responsible for it. ...

But you said that God is omniscient. That means that God necessarily knows what actions and decisions all people will make, or else He isn't omniscient and is, therefore, limited. So, when prior to an omniscient God created men, He knew the outcome and consequences to His creation to infinite depth and, being omnipotent, could have created men in any way that He willed to achieve the ends He wanted. Despite this, God created men that choose evil actions, anyway. This is indicative that all evil in the world is intentional.
God is omniscient. though one can say that God created time, therefor is beyond time. so, he sees all simultaneously, therefor he knows what I'll do, before I'm created. though that doesn't mean that I don't have any choice in my actions. me having choice in my actions, and God knowing about them completely, can both exist together. the ultimate Goal of creation of man, is good, and not evil. it's true that some people are evil, but they will cause good people to grow stronger. because fighting bad, and opposing it, is a very good deed.
also, a wolf is an evil being for an antelope for example, but is it an evil being for the whole system? no.
and a being like Satan, is a being that gives more choices to the people, and choosing the right path will cause people to get stronger.
and people who're bad and oppressive, should be countered by people who can oppose them.
any other evil you have in mind?

...otherwise no one should've been sent to jail according to your logic. you're responsible for your actions, and will ultimately answer for them.

No. If it's the case that people are ultimately not responsible for their actions, then imprisonment and punishment are still functional deterrent towards evil behavior. They introduce factors into the decision-making process that very well could alter an individuals decision. Punishment should not retributive.
I said that people are responsible for their actions, and you said no. so do you mean that they aren't? it's not like you can send a knife to prison because of a murder. people who don't have a choice in their actions, aren't responsible for them.

we can say that God is kind and omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient, but we can't say that God is powerless ... because powerlessness, ignorance, ... are lack of power, knowledge, ... and they don't exist by themselves. therefor existence doesn't have them. they come to be, in contrast with positive attributes like power, knowledge ...

Given that you subscribe to the typical "omni" traits, how do you deal with the Problem from Evil, then? (You can ignore the logical notation; I'm including it for my own amusement and to say that I can demonstrate that the conclusion is proven from the premises).
what problem with Evil? Evil, is like darkness. darkness is lack of light, Evil is lack of goodness. people who can choose the right path, but don't, and do evil things, are following their own choices and will be held accountable for them. but if you have a specific evil in mind, tell me about it, and I shall answer.

But you're arbitrarily defining evil, here. I could easily say that goodness is the lack of evil. Both of these things, though relative to each other, entail distinct and specific motives and actions. The lack of all good and all evil is indifference, so both good and evil have substance. An example of evil is given in (P5) in the syllogism, below.
Evil is a very general word. define it exactly so that we can move this forward. but for the time being, think about knowledge and ignorance. ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and knowledge is the lack of ignorance. though knowledge exists by itself, and ignorance is a result of not having knowledge. one exists on it's own, the other comes to be in opposition to the other.

I really don't want to bother with this. write more succinctly and in a way that others can understand.

Sure.

P1) If God is perfectly good, then He is willing to prevent evil whenever possible.
God created man as a creature who can choose. also gave power to good people so that they can fight bad people. and what remains of God's provision will ultimately cleanse the world of evil.

P2) If God is perfectly knowledgeable, then He will know all of the ways that evil can come to exist.
sure. but what does it have to do with anything? Good will get stronger in the face of stronger Evil. and humans are creature who can choose between those. any other Evil, is probably Evil for certain creatures, not all the system.

P3) If God is perfectly powerful, then He will have the capability to prevent any known evil from existing.
if God wanted to prevent Evil before it's formation, then humans wouldn't have the choice in their actions. so, the creature known as human, wouldn't come to be.

P4) If God possesses all of these attributes, then there is no evil that He is unwilling or unable to prevent.
there is no evil in God. Evil can exist in creatures like Humans who can choose between right and wrong.

P5) Sadistic individuals who derive pleasure from causing needless suffering to others, therefore, evil was not prevented.
God leads people to good through his messengers. also, if people want to fight against evil, they're more than capable to do so. sadistic people, gain power, when some people choose them as their leaders. so, the responsibility is on them, and the duty to fight them, is on good people who have the power to do so.

C) God is not all of perfectly good, knowledgeable, and powerful.
why not?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2016 4:18:17 PM, lightseeker wrote:
reality, can have an opposite. for example, sometimes, truth is the opposite of reality: a person goes to jail for a crime he hasn't commited. the reality is that he's the criminal, therefor he has gone to jail. the truth is that he isn't.
existence, doesn't have an opposite. because opposite of existence, is inexistence, which doesn't exist.
also, existence covers everything that exists, reality doesn't.

What I meant by "reality" was objective reality; the actual state of affairs. Not the colloquial use. I'm not following this analogy - if an innocent man is sent to jail, the perception may be that a guilty man went to jail but in reality, he was actually innocent.

That's beside the point. Does God consist of "spirit" or something, then?
nope. God created matter and spirit ... he's not made of anything like that. think of existence for example, everything is a manifestation of existence, yet existence itself is not defined as material or spiritual ...

Existence isn't a thing, in of and itself. It's the conceptual set of all things that exist. If you disagree, show me "existence" (as a noun) without referencing any existent objects (as an adjective). Given that, you've still only said what God is not, rather than what he is. This isn't suitable for definitional purposes.

God is omniscient. though one can say that God created time, therefor is beyond time. so, he sees all simultaneously, therefor he knows what I'll do, before I'm created. though that doesn't mean that I don't have any choice in my actions. me having choice in my actions, and God knowing about them completely, can both exist together.

If God is omniscient, you only have the illusion of choice, since your decision would have to be determinable in order to be knowable. Consider this: you have the choice of X or Y. Suppose God knows you're going to choose X. Now, is it possible for you to choose Y and prove God wrong? If yes, then He really didn't know. If no, then you really only perceived that you had a choice.

the ultimate Goal of creation of man, is good, and not evil. it's true that some people are evil, but they will cause good people to grow stronger. because fighting bad, and opposing it, is a very good deed.

If God's goal is for people to grow stronger, then He is deliberately choosing a method that entails great suffering when He could have accomplished the same goal by other means if he was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. God created both good and evil with intention.

also, a wolf is an evil being for an antelope for example, but is it an evil being for the whole system? no.
and a being like Satan, is a being that gives more choices to the people, and choosing the right path will cause people to get stronger.
and people who're bad and oppressive, should be countered by people who can oppose them.
any other evil you have in mind?

Do you believe that morality is a subjective matter, rather than an objective one?

...otherwise no one should've been sent to jail according to your logic. <snipped>
No. If it's the case that people are ultimately not responsible for their actions, then imprisonment and punishment are still functional deterrent towards evil behavior. They introduce factors into the decision-making process that very well could alter an individuals decision. Punishment should not retributive.
I said that people are responsible for their actions, and you said no. so do you mean that they aren't? it's not like you can send a knife to prison because of a murder. people who don't have a choice in their actions, aren't responsible for them.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the "no" was in regard to the "according to your logic" part, and I thought it would be clear. And no, I don't think they ultimately are, especially if their creator is omniscient and omnipotent. And regardless of responsibility, I already justified criminal punishment. Also, those who dictate and administer the punishment wouldn't be responsible for their actions, either, so that part isn't relevant.

what problem with Evil? Evil, is like darkness. darkness is lack of light, Evil is lack of goodness. <snipped>
But you're arbitrarily defining evil, here. I could easily say that goodness is the lack of evil. Both of these things, though relative to each other, entail distinct and specific motives and actions. The lack of all good and all evil is indifference, so both good and evil have substance. An example of evil is given in (P5) in the syllogism, below.
Evil is a very general word. define it exactly so that we can move this forward.

How about, the unjust causing of suffering to capable beings?

but for the time being, think about knowledge and ignorance. ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and knowledge is the lack of ignorance. though knowledge exists by itself, and ignorance is a result of not having knowledge. one exists on it's own, the other comes to be in opposition to the other.

I would disagree that this analogy is apt. Good and evil isn't comparable to this or light and dark, as I expressed previously.

P1) If God is perfectly good, then He is willing to prevent evil whenever possible.
God created man as a creature who can choose. also gave power to good people so that they can fight bad people. and what remains of God's provision will ultimately cleanse the world of evil.

If God deliberately created the bad people who need to be fought (which entails suffering of both the good and evil people), how is that more benevolent than creating only good people who don't have to suffer?

P2) If God is perfectly knowledgeable, then He will know all of the ways that evil can come to exist.
sure. but what does it have to do with anything? Good will get stronger in the face of stronger Evil. and humans are creature who can choose between those. any other Evil, is probably Evil for certain creatures, not all the system.

If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then good was already infinitely strong until God created evil. I've expressed my contention with the 'free will' defense, above.

P3) If God is perfectly powerful, then He will have the capability to prevent any known evil from existing.
if God wanted to prevent Evil before it's formation, then humans wouldn't have the choice in their actions. so, the creature known as human, wouldn't come to be.

Why does choice necessitate evil? Could there be choices between only good things? That seems like a False Dilemma brewing.

P4) If God possesses all of these attributes, then there is no evil that He is unwilling or unable to prevent.
there is no evil in God. Evil can exist in creatures like Humans who can choose between right and wrong.

Whom God did not prevent from existing, hence, the premise is true as He was unwilling to prevent this evil.

P5) Sadistic individuals who derive pleasure from causing needless suffering to others, therefore, evil was not prevented.
God leads people to good through his messengers. also, if people want to fight against evil, they're more than capable to do so. sadistic people, gain power, when some people choose them as their leaders. so, the responsibility is on them, and the duty to fight them, is on good people who have the power to do so.

You do know that behavioral disorders aren't a matter of choice, don't you?? If a person lacks the capability of discerning right and wrong, then cannot simply choose to have that ability. Such people are evil not of their own will.

C) God is not all of perfectly good, knowledgeable, and powerful.
why not?
12_13
Posts: 2,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 10:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2016 1:00:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Do you willingly choose whether you find something or someone to be attractive or not? Do you willingly choose to feel bad for someone who is harmed unjustly? Do you willingly choose which foods you find desirable?

I think, if I want I can change what food I like. :)

I willingly want to understand and that also leads t situation that I feel bad if someone is harmed.

Attractiveness is a matter of point of view and reasons. It is possible to see attractive things in many people and many things can be reasoned to be attractive.

Do you believe that happiness is possible without the existence of suffering? Could Adam and Eve have lead happy lives had they not disobeyed God?

I think so.

I see a couple of problems, here. First, how is the nature of an individual determined, then?

What is person"s nature anyway?

I would define it as the fundamental thoughts, desires, and inclinations which drive decisions and behaviors.

I think those are mostly things that develop when we grow. The starting point may actually be the same for all, but things that we experience form how we develop by our own will.

OK. So, prior to creating Adam and Eve, God was aware of their future actions as well as all of the future actions of all of there progeny, then, right? If that's the case, then God was fully aware that massive evil would be included in the consequences, yet, went ahead and created them that way, anyway. This implies that the existence of evil was God's intention.

I think it means only that God wanted that people have possibility to know also evil.

I included the verses about all made things were created by God (John 1:2-3) to address that issue.

Yeah, but that seems to about the things that were created in the beginning.

I'm not saying that God is forcing people to do anything, per se, just that the knowledge of future events contradicts free will. Let me put it this way, from our non-omniscient perspective, a world with free will is indistinguishable from a world without free will. We have literally no way to determine this, so if it turns out it doesn't actually exist, it's an inescapable illusion.

To illustrate the contradiction, imagine you have a choice between X and Y. God, being omniscient, knows that you will choose X. Now, is it possible for you to choose Y and prove God wrong? If yes, then God didn't actually know. If no, then did you really have a choice beyond the illusion thereof? Nope.

It would be possible, but it is already known that you don"t do so. I think the whole problem in this is really the illusion.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 3:46:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 1:57:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:17:00 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:07:10 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:58:50 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:37:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:28:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:23:35 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:21:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:11:37 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What is the difference between "pantheism" and "panentheism"?

The former describes that God is the universe while the latter describes that God is the universe and then some. The specifics of this additional meaning is dependent on the specific panentheistic claims.


That's a very simplistic way of looking at it, sure.

Did you have something different in mind?


The universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

God's existence is not dependent on observation or postulation, so God is greater than the universe.

I strongly disagree with this definition. If there exist an unknown element in the universe that has not yet been observed or postulated, it's still a part of the universe. When a logical, universal proposition is issued (e.g. All S are P), it isn't necessary that all individual elements be identified.


Disagree all you want, that is what is written in the dictionary.

That doesn't make it objectively correct. The simple definition is more accurate...

The simple definition comes from a children's dictionary, and is intended to get them to speak language quicker. Most people do not have an accurate comprehension of the English language. Oh, they think they do, but they don't. They should probably read an academic dictionary.

The full definitions are definitely more accurate, and they come from an academically credible dictionary, not a dictionary intended for children or people who are learning English.

You ignored this: So, would you disagree that an object that actually exists but has not yet been observed nor postulated is still actually a part of the universe, since it clearly exists like everything else in it?

I don't see how anyone could disagree with the above, which means that Webster's definition doesn't accurately represent the common concept they are intended to represent. It's in error.

The dictionary does NOT dictate the meaning of the concepts that are being represented by the use of the word; they present a standard by which a base understanding of the concept can be communicated. So, please answer the above question.

Look at you denying the dictionary because you've been duped by ignorant atheist arguments. Of course atheists aren't talking about big "G" God, but they blaspheme big "G" God all the time in ignorance.

God is real, and you'd be better off coming to terms with it.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 3:46:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2016 2:02:18 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:25:33 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:13:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
You previously showed a definition for "God" that clearly infers more attributes and properties than what is demonstrable in what we call "reality". Therefore, "God" is not equivalent to "reality", and atheist are not rejecting reality as a whole by rejecting the existence of God. They are just rejecting all of the extras being claimed about reality (e.g. wisdom).

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Lets look at the definition again...

Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Quote from the instructions on how to use the dictionary...

"The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples."


The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality".

What's the difference between "supreme or ultimate reality" and just "reality"? What more information is introduced by the adjectives and capitalization?

That's what the words mean. Everything after "as" are examples of how this is interpreted.

Yes, it's virtually always presented in ways that infer MORE than just demonstrable reality, in accordance to the examples. Hence, the valid rejection of the truth of the represented concept by atheists. Please answer the previous question.

I just answered your question.

God means "The supreme or ultimate reality."

Why do I capitalize it? Because I consider it a name of God, and it is done out of reverence.

You aren't accepting my answers because it isn't what you want to hear.

I don't care what atheists think they are denying, a theist can deny the same things. Atheist argue against little "g" gods. When they profess atheism, they are not just denying the little "g" gods that they typically have problems with, but they throw big "G" God in as well.

This is stupid, and they'd be better of abandoning the label "atheist".
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.