Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems With God's Perfection.
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 58 (461388)
03-25-2008 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
03-24-2008 10:04 PM


iano writes:
You don't need freewill in order to plump for damnation of your own accord...
Bluejay writes:
I hope you see that the bolded phrases are complete contradictions of one another.
Seeing as it is not possible to plump for salvation of your own accord I see no contradiction. Freewill (to my mind) involves the ability to make choices in opposite directions: me at a fork in the road and able to choose equally for left fork or right fork. But a will which can only express itself in one direction cannot be described as freewill. Such a uni-directional will is the one I believe all men are born with.
Such a will can plump for damnation of it's own accord simply by expressing itself. That's what "plumping for" means: the sinful will expressing itself - in this case to the point where God says "Thy will be done".
{AbE} Naturally we have free will in the arena of plumping for forks in the road. The area of no free will I am referring to is in the spiritual realm: good/evil sin/righteousness etc.
-
But, this doesn't really answer any questions. "Calculator" is not the answer to "How is multiplication done?" This is only the way to reap the rewards without having to learn or even to think.
"I need God" appears to be pinpoint of the truth to be arrived at if a man is to be saved. It is not so much designed to answer questions as it is designed to save men. That it is this stripped down indicates that all men can (at least potentially) access it - certainly if it God who has set himself the task of attempting to bring all men to this saving truth
Certainly it is possible to get into further detail about how the mechanism of the gospel works and why it works the way it does. But I think we might be talking crossed purposes here so I'll leave off.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2008 10:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 10:18 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 47 of 58 (461399)
03-25-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Critical Rationalist
03-24-2008 4:55 PM


You already cannot experience God through your senses and there’s a good many of us that would say, we either haven't, or contest that no one can experience God through the faculty of our mind; nor through the machine or the ghost. Dogma complicates the whole issue even further, it creates a set of rules, you have said mechanisms, by which we might discuss God. But in this frame work its impossible not to believe in God, because it has been set up in such a way that it is allegedly consistent; it has been produced in a way as to generate belief in a religion once someone takes on certain components of the Dogma. What’s the point of having a religion if no one believes in it?
I would have thought that in order to discuss attributes of God that might or might not be perfect you would assume for the sake of arguement that God exists. There is no need to believe that God exists in fact however.
You would also need to have some idea of the God you wanted to talk about. For instance, you indicate God as a personhood who does things(in your OP). Where did you get this idea if not by assuming some or other dogma for the sake of argument?
The example you gave and I responded to didn't necessitate the introduction of Christian dogma (although I did expand in that direction). It simply took forgiveness as we understand it and suggested perfect forgiveness an extention (unto perfection) of our everday, imperfect attempts at forgiveness. This in response to what you called a contradiction. Or to put it another way: it argued against perfection in forgiveness being solely in the mind of the beholder.
Here’s the part where it breaks down, much of the dogma can't really be experience through your senses either and so only resonates in the mind anyway. Take sin, sin is extensively evil, but what’s considered evil is culturally relevant, both in place and time, and if you contest its not it is a very ethnocentric idea. So then we are discussing something which can't be experienced using a set of rules which can't be experienced. Creating is I have said a straw man which one must first kill every time before being able to discuss the actual point of an argument.
In the other example I gave (where God is perfectly just) I said that all offences would be dealt with perfectly and the due justice issued for the offience. There is no need to define what is or isn't and offence so there is no need to worry about what you or I consider an offence. We are not the judge.
If no attribute can be introduced due to it being considered dogma then I'm not too sure what kind of discussion you want to have. You started out questioning me on the logic behind the assertion of perfect attributes and now seem to reject discussion of attributes at all.
-
You already cannot experience God through your senses and there’s a good many of us that would say, we either haven't, or contest that no one can experience God through the faculty of our mind; nor through the machine or the ghost.
I can experience God through my senses via what he has made. You can get to know a lot about a mind by the way it expresses itself.
I'm not sure how anyone can determine that God cannot be experienced in the mind (and by extension via the senses). They might speak for themselves of course, but they would be in disagreement with both myself and the Christian God.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-24-2008 4:55 PM Critical Rationalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-25-2008 5:11 PM iano has not replied

  
Critical Rationalist
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 17
From: Australia
Joined: 03-15-2008


Message 48 of 58 (461460)
03-25-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by iano
03-25-2008 8:53 AM


quote:
I would have thought that in order to discuss attributes of God that might or might not be perfect you would assume for the sake of argument that God exists. There is no need to believe that God exists in fact however.
Yes and no, in many ways we were discussion if he did exist. Those who take the position of believing in God assume for the sake of the argument that he does exist. Those who are atheist would assume he doesn't but then make hypotheticals. Those who are agnostic, like me, sit on the fence and try and look at all the evidence.
quote:
You would also need to have some idea of the God you wanted to talk about. For instance, you indicate God as a personhood who does things(in your OP). Where did you get this idea if not by assuming some or other dogma for the sake of argument?
I was trying to talk about God in the most general way starting at the base elements that are largly agreed upon by western theologians: Omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence as well as the idea of perfection. Then through some logical steps examine this idea. Say you didn't know anything about Christianity and someone posed you this problem, it would be highly unlikly that you would create the institution of Christianity all the dogma within to explain it.
quote:
The example you gave and I responded to didn't necessitate the introduction of Christian dogma (although I did expand in that direction).
Case in point.
quote:
...I'm not too sure what kind of discussion you want to have.
See the one me and Bluejay have had.
Edited by Critical Rationalist, : No reason given.
Edited by Critical Rationalist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 03-25-2008 8:53 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Grizz, posted 03-25-2008 8:21 PM Critical Rationalist has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 49 of 58 (461490)
03-25-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Critical Rationalist
03-25-2008 5:11 PM


Critical, I also am not sure where this thread is going either.
Maybe we can start by asking how various faiths have arrived at notions of God's atrributes? Where did they get the idea that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient? Did we get these ideas from revelation or do we somehow think of them as logically neccesary attributes of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-25-2008 5:11 PM Critical Rationalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-25-2008 9:14 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Critical Rationalist
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 17
From: Australia
Joined: 03-15-2008


Message 50 of 58 (461500)
03-25-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Grizz
03-25-2008 8:21 PM


For me this, the interplay of perfection, is resolved and to some extent the ideas of how we know anything about Gods attributes. I explained my conclusion in an earlier post.
That conclusion being reached, baring the interjection of some new incite, made the topic stagnate. In the meantime me iano have been having a discussion on if dogma is good form.
I think what you have proposed, Grizz, is a fine continuation of the theme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Grizz, posted 03-25-2008 8:21 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 58 (461515)
03-25-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
03-25-2008 7:23 AM


iano writes:
"I need God" appears to be pinpoint of the truth to be arrived at if a man is to be saved. It is not so much designed to answer questions as it is designed to save men.
This is exactly what I have been arguing: the word "truth" is used differently in the Bible than it is used in a courtroom. Therefore, because the intent of this "truth" is not to answer questions, IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!!! The Bible (and you, just now) defines "truth" as "the prerequisites or aids for salvation," not as "the mechanistic descriptions of natural functions and processes" (which is what I think "truth" means).
Therefore, that the Bible says "God is perfect," is not evidence that God is actually perfect in the usual sense of the word, but is only an aid to man's search for salvation. Likewise, God's omniscience only means (as far as we can be certain) that He knows everything that He needs to know to save you. God's omnipotence means (as far as we can be certain) that He can do everything that He needs to be able to do to save you. His omnipresence means (as far as we can be certain) that He can be everywhere He needs to be to save you (note that Mormons do not belive in God's physical omnipresence).

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 03-25-2008 7:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 03-26-2008 4:44 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 58 (461544)
03-26-2008 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
03-25-2008 10:18 PM


Blueay writes:
This is exactly what I have been arguing: the word "truth" is used differently in the Bible than it is used in a courtroom. Therefore, because the intent of this "truth" is not to answer questions, IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!!!
Whilst God's intent for man arriving at the truth: "I need God", is to set a man free, it's answering of a mans question cannot be avoided. Man arriving at the truth: "I need God" is man arriving at the answer to his question "what do I need?". That it might only be after the provision of the answer that a man realises he had the question is neither here nor there. How often it occurs that you realise you have found what your looking for - after you have found it.
In answering questions, truth automatically frees. Frees from untruth, or miscomprehension or ignorance. It seems to me that you can't have the one without the other, that the distinction you draw above is a false one.
I'm not sure that this doesn't interrupt the flow of your point.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 10:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 10:00 PM iano has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 58 (461666)
03-26-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
03-26-2008 4:44 AM


iano writes:
In answering questions, truth automatically frees. Frees from untruth, or miscomprehension or ignorance. It seems to me that you can't have the one without the other, that the distinction you draw above is a false one.
Well, my point is that, if God's intent wasn't to answer mechanistic questions, we shouldn't assume that He did give us answer them. In fact, it makes more sense to assume that He didn't, and try to work it out on our own. If our independent work ultimately converges on what He did say, then we could easily make the transition to believing that He did give the answers.
iano writes:
In answering questions, truth automatically frees.
This brings up an interesting concern for me: does "calculator" really free me from the lack of knowledge about math? I would argue that the learning process is more important than the result is. If God just gave us the answers to our questions without expecting us to work for it, it would in fact be a great detriment to us. There would be no point nor purpose for our big brains, which would then be a waste of 25% of our metabolism.
I think a perfect God would have to be one who understood this and utilized it in the way He/She/It/They managed our affairs. That would be the best reason that I could think of why He doesn't just show Himself to us and directly tell us all the answers.
I also don't understand why a perfect God would have made us if the only point of our existence was to give up that which is most unique and defining about us. It seems like He's taken a lot of work upon Himself just for the sake of taking a lot of work upon Himself. That doesn't sound like a perfect (or even intelligent) God to me.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 03-26-2008 4:44 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 03-27-2008 7:00 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 58 (461699)
03-27-2008 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
03-26-2008 10:00 PM


Bluejay writes:
Well, my point is that, if God's intent wasn't to answer mechanistic questions, we shouldn't assume that He did give us answer them. In fact, it makes more sense to assume that He didn't, and try to work it out on our own. If our independent work ultimately converges on what He did say, then we could easily make the transition to believing that He did give the answers.
I'm not sure if "what do I need?" qualifies as a mechanisic question. But supposing that it does.
My point was that God carrying out his intent in this case inevitably results in our associated question being answered. My intent might be to drive a nail into wood but the noise you hear as a by-product is specific to that nail, that wood, that hammer and that way of hammer striking. The two are inextricably entwined. My intent cannot alter that.
Question answering is a by-product of freeing truth (or freedom the by-product of true answers to questions - if you prefer).
You seem to be arguing for separation between the two but I cannot see how that is possible. The nature of truth is it's nature and it's nature is to both answer questions and to free.
-
This brings up an interesting concern for me: does "calculator" really free me from the lack of knowledge about math? I would argue that the learning process is more important than the result is. If God just gave us the answers to our questions without expecting us to work for it, it would in fact be a great detriment to us. There would be no point nor purpose for our big brains, which would then be a waste of 25% of our metabolism.
In an earlier post I pointed out that Jaywill had spent 40 odd years digging out gold nuggets of Gods truth. And that I had spent somewhat less time doing the same thing. Indeed, part of the sheer thrill of the quest is the piecing together of the mechanistic jigsaw that might be called "Gods plan".
This is not to say that truth cannot just drop out of the sky on you. I read a book by a guy called Allen Carr some years back. The book was called "The easyway to stop smoking". If you are or ever were a smoker or know of someone who is hooked, you'll realise that 'easy' and 'quitting smoking' are not usually considered bedfellows.
But I found it easy to stop. And so have an estimated 10 million others. It's a slim volume written in simple English and all it does is tell the truth about smoking. And the truth about why smokers smoke dispels all illusions smokers have for why they continue to smoke. It was utter revelation to me. In the case of cigarette smoking, the instant result from Allen Carrs calculator is far more important that all the failed attempts of the smokers who have died agonising and premature deaths to figure out the answer for themselves.
-
I think a perfect God would have to be one who understood this and utilized it in the way He/She/It/They managed our affairs. That would be the best reason that I could think of why He doesn't just show Himself to us and directly tell us all the answers.
In the case of a persons salvation, the gospel of Gods grace says that man cannot arrive at the truth about his position before God by his own power. That God must (attempt to) bring man to this truth. A perfect God would allow man to work for truth workable for. And would give man truth unworkable for, for nothing.
There is greater and lesser reward in heaven for the work man puts in, truth being the wages of work I think. But entrance to heaven in the first place? A gift from God.
-
I also don't understand why a perfect God would have made us if the only point of our existence was to give up that which is most unique and defining about us. It seems like He's taken a lot of work upon Himself just for the sake of taking a lot of work upon Himself. That doesn't sound like a perfect (or even intelligent) God to me.
What is most unique and defining about us? Our freewill? As you know I don't hold we are born with one. In which case God is asking us to give up our sinful will. Which would seem like the sensible thing for us to do. But as with smokers so with sinners. Both blinded by illusions and lies.
But our will is unique and defining for all that - for it is our own. It's just that what it can be exchanged for, is so very much better. What we get it still a will - make no mistake about that - but it becomes a will which is to be finally freed from the ability to choose for sin.
Some would call that will 'captive'. Not a will worth the name at all. One would have to wonder at the mind that would demand the freedom to continue to eat the putrid fruit of sin. And wonder what that mind is captive to and why it could be called a free will by some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 10:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2008 2:59 PM iano has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 55 of 58 (461747)
03-27-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by iano
03-27-2008 7:00 AM


iano writes:
I'm not sure if "what do I need?" qualifies as a mechanisic question.
I don't consider it mechanistic, either. I was using the word "mechanistic" to distinguish the type of question I was talking about from questions like that one.
iano writes:
Question answering is a by-product of freeing truth...You seem to be arguing for separation between the two but I cannot see how that is possible. The nature of truth is it's nature and it's nature is to both answer questions and to free.
I'm not separating "answering question" from "setting free": I'm separating "why" and "what" questions from "how" questions. I contend that the Bible was designed to answer "what" and "why" questions, not "how" questions. So, the Bible says what God did and why He did it, but it doesn't say how He did it.
I know that Christ died for our sins, but I don't know how such a sacrifice accomplished it (neither does any biblical or other scriptural scholar on the face of our plant). I know that God created the Earth, but I don't know how He did it (though I have a vergy good theory). I'm pretty sure the Bible (nor the Book of Mormon, for that matter) does not contain information as to the mechanisms used to accomplish miracles, the Creation, the Atonement, etc.
iano writes:
In the case of a persons salvation, the gospel of Gods grace says that man cannot arrive at the truth about his position before God by his own power. That God must (attempt to) bring man to this truth. A perfect God would allow man to work for truth workable for. And would give man truth unworkable for, for nothing.
I agree almost completely with this. I think mechanistic questions are "truths" that we can work out on our own--we have the sensory and intellectual capabilities to observe, question, test, predict and conclude. This is the reason I would propose for why God does not include answers to mechanistic questions in the Scriptures. In light of this, the Bible is a very good testament to the perfectness of God.
You know, reading this, I think I understand a little better where you're coming from with the idea of man having only a sinful will. I think I agree with at least as much as you state here (i.e. "we need God to attain salvation"), but I still disagree with the idea that we can't do anything good on our own. However, I do agree that our goodness is only made perfect by God's grace.
Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Fixed dBcodes

I'm Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 03-27-2008 7:00 AM iano has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 58 (461836)
03-28-2008 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Critical Rationalist
03-15-2008 12:54 AM


Critical Rationalist writes:
The key issue which this argument examines is Gods perfection. Perfect for who?
Personally, I think that the key question is whether God attempts to establish relationship with humans. If so, He is perfectly capable of being attuned to our individual belief and personality quirks.
IF, on the other hand, God is unknowable, your argument would have merit and would explain why the world (and all of our religions) continues to be incapable of agreeing on religious issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-15-2008 12:54 AM Critical Rationalist has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 58 (461837)
03-28-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
03-26-2008 10:00 PM


Good Point
Bluejay writes:
I think a perfect God would have to be one who understood this and utilized it in the way He/She/It/They managed our affairs. That would be the best reason that I could think of why He doesn't just show Himself to us and directly tell us all the answers.
I also don't understand why a perfect God would have made us if the only point of our existence was to give up that which is most unique and defining about us. It seems like He's taken a lot of work upon Himself just for the sake of taking a lot of work upon Himself. That doesn't sound like a perfect (or even intelligent) God to me.
Obviously, however, any amount of "work" that God undertook would be as nothing stressful to Him.
I know that for me, giving up my freewill is not something that I consciously strive to do on a daily basis, apart from issues that my conscience informs me about.
Its not important to me either way. If it were important to me to consciously lay down every aspect of my freewill, I would probably be part of a cult.
If, on the other hand, it were equally obsessive of me to hold tight to my freewill, I would probably be a militant atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 10:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2008 11:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 58 (461874)
03-28-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
03-28-2008 5:33 AM


Re: Good Point
Phat writes:
Obviously, however, any amount of "work" that God undertook would be as nothing stressful to Him.
You're probably right, given the God we're all assuming. However, I'd say, given the temper that is attributed to Him in the Bible, and given the astounding lack of coherence and sensibility people seem to be capable of, the "work" would likely be quite frustrating.
Still, I'm not sure the God we're assuming (the omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Christian God) can pass CR's test of plausible perfection, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024