|
Post by Satori on Mar 1, 2005 19:23:03 GMT -5
Also, why doesn't God know where Satan's been or what he's been up to. He asks him at least twice in the book of Job exactly that question ( Job 1:7 and Job 2:2 ). Is God omnipotent or isn't he? This is the sort of inconsistency that I find odd in the Bible. Sometimes we are given the impression that He's omnipotent, sometimes we're given the impression that He's either not omnipotent or is 'playing games' with humanity. Orthodoxy tries to make these different impressions consistent with its 'God works in mysterious ways' stance or by shoehorning less than convincing interpretations onto the Biblical stories to try and make them appear consistent. One thing that is clear is that God endures human emotions: He has needs, requires servitude, gets angry and is quoted as being a 'loving' God. This, to me, indicates that God Himself is subject to a greater set of 'conditions' over which He has no control (i.e. the emotions). This doesn't seem to be consistent with the 'absolute power' we understand of omnipotence. In fact it seems far more consistent with a God created in our image than us being created in His. Let's just assume a God exists for one moment (and I'm not bothered one way or the other), it would be reasonable to think that we would try to understand Him in ways we're comfortable with. We'd pass off bad things as this God being 'angry' with us because anger would be a response that we may expect in relation to it. Maybe the 'personailty' we endow upon God is just simply a way to understand Him on our terms; maybe in reality He is beyond our comprehension and is in fact omnipotent. Of course that's all assuming He exists in the first place, but I'm just postulating the only way in which I could conceive of there being a God.
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 1, 2005 23:07:40 GMT -5
The biggest problem is the fact that we are going off of a TRANSLATED bible. we don't know how correct it is!
Another thing, maybe the prophets of that age interpreted God's signs incorrectly. Maybe God was trying to teach the Egyptians nothing more than how to store food with his plague of 7 years.....etc but they took it as a sign that God was angry. (bad example, I know, but I hope you get my drift!)
|
|
|
Post by MrEusOne on Mar 2, 2005 0:01:46 GMT -5
Hey THANK YOU for actually saying you can see my point and not just flaming me. Hahahaha but back to the topic.... Hey, I try to be open minded! Seriously, I'm not here to say that I'm right and you are wrong or anything of that nature. I just love a good debate and I like being able to discuss religion and what I think (not what I know, because I don't claim to know anything!) with other folks. ;D
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 2, 2005 0:05:32 GMT -5
You know, I just want everyone here to know this, I REALLY respect you people cause even though we all have differing opinions (for the most part) we all get along just fine. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 2, 2005 0:25:36 GMT -5
I must say that my impression of this forum is primarily people who like to make strawman arguments and then knock them down.
Let me state this clearly:
If you want to find reasons to not believe in Christianity, you very well can. Why is this so? Because real life itself is complex. Thus, any unified body of thought that sought to dealt with real life would also be understandably complex. It is incorrect to say that "God doesn't know where Satan is" and then to postulate that God isn't omniscient. Of course God is ominiscient - the Bible means something else here. But if you're looking for a reason to disbelieve the Bible, then I can understand why you would say so. It seems to me that much of this forum is less about seeking the truth than in proving one's points. However, many times when I try to make an argument one way or another, there are simply groundshifts back and forth.
Like, "Oh wait, you shot me down there - I'll just raise another objection here."
There are more than enough explanations within the Christian faith for all of your objections. Seriously. Being a human being of finite time and resources, I simply can't answer them all. The Christian philosophical tradition dates back thousands of years and has always dealt in a very rationalistic way with people's objections to Christian principles, both from within the faith and without. St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Tertullian, Ireneus (sp?), C.S. Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreft... the list goes on.
My point is: if you expect someone to somehow "prove" every single thing to you and every single question you have about Christianity, then you will never find all answers because we live in a finite world. If, however, you rationally dissect your own objections so that you avoid merely coming up with objections for the sake of objecting then I think all of you could become intellectually satisfied Christians. Honestly.
Whew. Just wanted to say that.
I have prayed for this forum... may the God of light and peace be here... for His sake...
In Jesus' name, Amen.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 2, 2005 4:23:10 GMT -5
I must say that my impression of this forum is primarily people who like to make strawman arguments and then knock them down. I think that's a bit harsh Bob. A lot of people debate here not because they believe they're going to convert anyone (it's unlikely after all) but because they might learn something new themselves. The debate is an end unto itself and it must necessarily be so where the often strongly held principles of religion and theology are concerned. If that involves 'strawman arguments' then so be it, but your own arguments are no different to anyone elses in that respect. Those of us who don't believe Christianity don't need reasons not to believe in it any more than you need reasons to support your belief. As I said, debate is the point itself - that's why forums like this exist. If nothing else it gives us a greater awareness of the diversity of belief that exists even in this forum's small corner of the world. Yes Bob it is correct to postulate that. It's a perfectly valid point for someone to raise. You only think it's invalid because you don't agree with it which, if I might say so, is a narrow point of view to have. There's an element of that of course, but what is debate if it's not proving ones points? What should we be here for? To agree totally with you and merely post "that's right Bob" in reply to everything? But that's debate! So, if any of us who disagree with you dissect our own opinions rather than yours (because it's ours that must be wrong, yeah?) then we'll all be happy Christians agreeing with you? Oh well thanks for telling me. If only you'd said this before - I'd have realised my mistake and converted to Christianity straight away! I think this forum does rather well in that there is little or no flaming, even in the midst of heated debate. That at least shows a certain amount of mutual respect. If one looks at this forum as an opportunity to convert others to ones own way of thinking, then disappointment and frustration will be the likely outcome. If however one sees this forum as an opportunity to see how others think and why they think as they do then it can be educational. But there's no need to attach to it and get uptight about it in any way; it's just not that important.
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 2, 2005 13:06:00 GMT -5
There is good that comes from every evil. It's just harder to see for such tragic devastation as the tsunamis.
I'm sorry, but the excuse that God works in mysterious ways is just an excuse to say that you don't know and have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 2, 2005 17:25:20 GMT -5
Satori-
I wasn't actually expecting anyone to listen. I just wanted to step out of the system for a while and take a look in.
I'm not complaining about debate. I am on the debate team at my college. What I'm giving is more of personal ideas about this forum - which may have or may not have been a mistake. It doesn't matter. If truth is what I am really concerned about, then I should be concerned when it is not upheld.
My view is this: I will accept an objection to Christianity if you honestly can't provide an explanation yourself. Not that I can't (or more likely that others haven't.) But that it is unfair to postulate that Christianity is flawed and then never actually stick to certain reasons. A groundshift in debate is a logical fallacy. I.e., if you advance proposition x, and I prove it is wrong, it is a fallacy to respond with proposition y. Proposition x needs to be conceded or the debate is over.
Example:
God is not omniscient because he didn't know where Satan was.
No. The Bible postulates again and again that God is all-knowing. So why did He ask Satan? Not because He didn't know. He already knew and like a parent wanted His creation to tell Him in its own words what He already knew. (I.e., did you eat the cookie?) It is the Biblical principle of confession. Even Satan, in the presence of God, could not lie. He had to be truthful of his own activities.
Thus God is both personal and beyond personal. He is absolute and infinite, but in His revelation of Himself we can understand Him through categories that He uses to describe Himself as a Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the three in one. God is the greater because He is three in one - community in unity. He is also greater because He is not merely a "life force" or energy field, but an active deity capable (in fact the originator of) thought, emotion and will. It is always imprecise to use our language categories to describe God - hence the need for philosophy. But that does not mean that descriptions are inadequate. God has chosen to reveal Himself as this, and to dispute it would be to dispute God Himself. Instead, we are to learn from the Bible what God is really like - as much as we can know (and we certainly can't know all.)
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 2, 2005 18:18:09 GMT -5
Satori- I wasn't actually expecting anyone to listen. I just wanted to step out of the system for a while and take a look in. Fair enough. Of course, but it's important to remember that your 'truth' may not be shared by others. If we were talking about provable concepts (such as mathematics) I'd agree with you. Much of my degree was related to proofs and discrete logic so I'm fully aware of what you're talking about: we set the premises, the assumptions and the scope and we either prove of disprove the point within that framework. But religion just isn't simple enough to dissect at those levels. I'll use your next example to show you what I mean. Okay. Let's the set the assumptions as follows: 1. There is a God. 2. The Bible is the Word of God. 3. The Biblical interpretation that you use is the correct one. Result: I agree with your proof and, in fact, what you say makes a lot of sense. I understand the principle of confession and I can see why God wanted it made. I understand how He can be both ineffable and personal and there is nothing in the proof that precludes His omnipotence or omniscience. So where do we go from here?
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 2, 2005 23:12:25 GMT -5
Ok I totally agree. But I have a question. I thought that Satan could not be in God's presence, because any unclean thing could not be in the presence of God?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 2, 2005 23:33:06 GMT -5
In God's presence simply means you can see God (in this context.) Satan's substance is not combining with God's substance (which would be impossible to do anyway. God is without any composition.)
Well, Satori, why don't we proceed with Aquinas' arguments.
God is the prime mover.
Thus all change is contingent on God. Human beings thus owe their being to God. Humans are intelligent. Being created by God (the prime mover), they can only find their ultiimate end in God (which for what end God created the world.) Thus without God, humans can never acheive their end, and are only acting correctly insofar as they act within the end of having God.
However, reason being limited, it cannot arrive at enough information about God. A need for special revelation (the Bible) is postulated. Special revelation, while not proved by reason, does not contradict it but rather exceeds it. Reason without faith is pointless, because it is essentially limited and cannot arrive at necessary truths for humans to find their end - knowledge of God.
Considering the fact that we do not act within our end of knowing God (empirically proven in our sinfulness), we need to somehow redeem ourselves. That would be impossible for us, to restore ourselves since our beings are contingent on God. So God would have to become man - the Incarnation. All of this information is available only through the Word.
Because of God's sacrifice of Himself, we know have direct access to God through God Himself.
The only hope of salvation - and the only hope of return to God, the end of us all.
Peace in Christ.
bob out
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 3, 2005 4:11:55 GMT -5
Well, Satori, why don't we proceed with Aquinas' arguments. Okay, we can do that if you like. Let's attempt to prove God by Aquinas' arguments, but let's take them one at a time or we'll end up making too many of these 'groundshifts' you dislike. Let's just start with his 'Argument from Motion', which (for those not familiar with the arguments) goes roughly like this: (1) We can observe that things are in motion.
(2) If things are in motion this motion must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can't be an infinite chain of causes, so something must have acted as 'first cause' of motion. God is the only possible first cause of motion, therefore God exists.
I have no argument with premise 1. Premise 2 is incorrect (and thus so is premise 3 as it depends upon premise 2 being correct). Newtons laws state that an object will either remain in motion or at rest unless it is acted on by another force. Outside forces are only required to create an acceleration, otherwise something can continue in motion ad infinitum without the need for an external force. The laws of physics do indeed allow things to be in motion for ever, so motion alone (in the strictest sense) is not evidence of God. Bob, over to you. I expect you might want to play on the concept of 'motion' and whether or not Aquinas is really referring to 'change' - or possibly even acceleration - rather than physical motion, so feel free to do so (although let's be careful not to go into ground covered by Aquinas' second proof). I'm deliberately limiting what I say here (and thus it may sound naive) so that we can both be sure we're working on the same assumptions and within the same framework. I'm trying to reduce the potential for 'groundshift'. Note that I've also not got into Big Bang models, inflationary universes, quantum potentialities, bubble universes and such - I've simply limited the argument to 'motion' itself. I'll leave it up to you to introduce whatever you like into the argument and I'll try to respond to that.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 3, 2005 18:05:33 GMT -5
Well if you read Aquinas you'll find that motion does mean more than physical movement, it is really more akin to change in a general sense. That isn't Aquinas' idea, its Aristotles'. All Aquinas does is take Arostotle's philosophy and extend it.
Newton's law only lends evidence to Aquinas' theory. An object stays at rest unless acted on by another, an object stays in motion unless acted on by another. Thus nothing can be in motion unless it was acted on by another.
Motion refers to an object proceeding from one state ot another. Aquinas calls it being in "potentiality" - a potential change. Thus if a rock moves from point A to point B, it is still in motion because it is changing its location.
However, an infinite chain of such causes cannot exist. Aquinas gives many reasons. One of the few I actually understand is that there cannot be an infinite chain of seconday, or instrumental causes. Even if a thing is in motion, something must have caused that motion to occur (to stop it from being at rest.)
I think I answered your question.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 3, 2005 19:42:26 GMT -5
Well if you read Aquinas you'll find that motion does mean more than physical movement, it is really more akin to change in a general sense. That isn't Aquinas' idea, its Aristotles'. All Aquinas does is take Arostotle's philosophy and extend it. Bob, you'll have to be specific about what we're discussing here if you want to limit the point. 'Change' as in what? Any change whatsoever? We need testable cases if we're to make progress. Bob, check Newtons law of motion. An object can be in motion forever without a force acting upon it. Picture a universe without beginning or end; if something's in motion within that universe it stays within motion. Bob, sorry to be harsh here, but that's exactly what motion isn't. Motion describes an object with no energy loss or gain; simply an object in the same state at a different place. Motion has no implication of change, except of course for position, but there is no force required to make that change in position. Acceleration describes a change in energy and implies a force behind it, but do we think that's what Aquinas meant? Did Aquinas actually understand what he meant? It's possible that he'd review his proofs (or at least his wording of them) given today's understandings. If he did understand what 'motion' is, then we have a simpler set of assumptions; if he didn't then we're going to have to agree on what he meant by it before we can make progress. Correct, but - as I said - motion requires no force. Set a bowling ball in motion in space and no additional force is required to keep it moving. An object can be in motion and get from point 'A' where we first notice it in motion to point 'B' where we next notice it in motion without any force needing to act on it. Correct, but that's not motion. Maybe we're getting into Aquinas' second argument about 'efficient cause' here, but I suggest we try to avoid that. You're going to have to give and take a bit here Bob in order for us to make progress. I'm happy to extend the aspect of motion to acceleration but I'm very worried that that would bring us into his second 'proof' as the 'cause' ('efficient cause' if you want Aquinas' term) of motion would be an acceleration-producing cause. As it stands I can see no proof of God in motion as I understand it. I can't see a proof against God in it either. In fact it isn't what I'd consider to be a good argument to choose if I was trying to prove God.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 4, 2005 15:17:54 GMT -5
No. Aquinas didn't define motion, it was Aristotle's concept. When Aristotle used it he meant more generally a change in physical matter (from actuality to potentiality to actuality.)
OK. All Newton's law says is that if an object is in motion, it will stay in motion, and if an object is at rest, it will stay at rest. It does not say that all objects are in motion, or that they are all not. Newton's thesis agrees with Aquinas because Aquinas would say the same thing - for motion (or change) to happen, then something had to have caused that motion to occur (the agent.) Without an agent, the object will stay at rest. Thus Newton doesn't answer why an object is in motion, but only what happens when it is in motion. Aquinas completes Newton's proof by saying that obviously, then, for something to be in motion, something had to have put it in motion.
Efficient cause is the same as instrumental cause, I believe. And there's nothing wrong with this argument. An infinite chain of efficient or instrumental causes cannot exist, because then one still needs a first cause (i.e. something to cause the infinity.)
Satori, this is a very interesting argument to engage in. My thanks to you for an interesting discussion.
Peace in Christ.
|
|