Originally posted by AcolyteThis is true, but I did not claim to have done otherwise since I defined omniscience and free will before I started. Furthermore, I'm not defending any notion of free will at all. Indeed, I'm really not convinced of any free will.
All you have shown is that the strong form of omniscience (for every correctly formed statement, God knows either that the statement is true, or that it is false) is incompatible with the strong form of free will (given a number of conceivable options, you have the potential to choose any option.) However, many Christians are happy with either a weaker form ...[text shortened]... sume!) you didn't. I for one would not be at all concerned by my inability to do such a thing!
I had used the notion that free will as I defined it is incompatible with "strong omniscience" in a much earlier post. Reaper and Ivanhoe have only just taken issue with it, so now I am kind of defending the claim in a vacuum where it is out of context.
Apparently even the Canny Cantabrigian has not yet pursued the fascinating study of icthyomathematics 😛.
Originally posted by FeivelWell whose understading should we use, Feivel? When we attribute properties to things, we attribute propoerites as WE understand them. This is so obvious is shouldn't need to be repeated again and again. You have just agreed that we cannot attribute the property of moral perfection to God.
All that means is that we can't claim God is morally perfect ACCORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL PERFECTION (WHICH MAY BE WRONG). It is clear that saying anything more is a MAJOR inaccuracy on our part.
Ok, now I would ask that since God is incompatible with sin, what definition of sin did they use? I see that now you inserted the phrase "as describe ...[text shortened]... bly have reached their conclusions prematurely?
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by FeivelClaiming that God is perfect is also an attempt at definition, and relies just as much on the applicability of our concepts. If we can't describe God with our concepts, if he is beyond our conceptual reach, then we can say NOTHING about God. No problem of evil arises, in this case. Unfortunately a belief in this type of God would be completely unjustified, because nothing can ever count as evidence for a the existence of something whose nature you cannot represent to yourself. Try to imagine an object with no properties (not even the property of being an object, as we conceive 'object'😉 how could you determine if it existed in the world? You couldn't even begin, and it is the same with a transcendent God.
Considering that only ONE of your examples changed anything, I want to see the definitin of suffering you are using. If you think God should be concerned about a stubbed toe (or even worse...a paper cut 🙂 ) you are using totally skewed idea of what God is. Remember god is NOT what any revealed religion claims he is. God is God, honestly what more can we accu ...[text shortened]... us making an attempt at defining God by our standards.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by bbarrWe could use our understanding but since our understanding is "limited" as far as God is concerned, our conception of God will unfortunately be "limited."
Well whose understading should we use, Feivel? When we attribute properties to things, we attribute propoerites as WE understand them. This is so obvious is shouldn't need to be repeated again and again. You have just agreed that we cannot attribute the property of moral perfection to God.
What is so difficult to understand about this statement?
You are half correct when you say I agreed that we can't attribute moral perfection to God. The HUGE part you purposfully omitted is that I said OUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING IS NOT APPLICABLE TO GOD. If you are going to use anything I say (especially if it misrepresents me), please quote it FULLY or refrain from doing so.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by bbarrNot so Bennett. Claiming God is perfect is all we can do. The problems only arise when we attempt to place conditions on our concept of God's perfection.
Claiming that God is perfect is also an attempt at definition, and relies just as much on the applicability of our concepts. If we can't describe God with our concepts, if he is beyond our conceptual reach, then we can say NOTHING about God. No problem of evil arises, in this case. Unfortunately a belief in this type of God would be completely unjustified ...[text shortened]... f it existed in the world? You couldn't even begin, and it is the same with a transcendent God.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
1 edit
Originally posted by FeivelI don't understand what you mean when you say that "our limited understanding is not applicable to God". I haven't been talking about applying our limited understanding to God, I have been talking about predicating of God the property of moral perfection. If you think that we are not justified in predicating moral perfection to God, then we are on the same page.
We could use our understanding but since our understanding is "limited" as far as God is concerned, our conception of God will unfortunately be "limited."
What is so difficult to understand about this statement?
You are half correc ...[text shortened]... in from doing so.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
If, by saying "our limited understanding is not applicable to God", you mean that God cannot be accurately represented by our concepts, then you are committed to the claim that we can't justifiably predicate any properties to God. But this entails that we cannot predicate of God the property of perfection.
If you think that the only thing we can say about God is that he is perfect, then your position is incoherent. Possession of the property of perfection entails the possession of other properties. A perfect being would be, by definition, perfect in every area. One area in which a perfect being would be perfect is in moral excellence. It is an entailment of being perfect that one is also morally perfect. So you have just contradicted yourself.
If you deny that there are any entailments of the possession of the property of perfection, then you mean something different by 'perfection' than the rest of us.
Originally posted by bbarrOur limited understanding in regards to moral perfection. I really thought it was clear that I meant that Bennett. We are not justified in predicating anything to God other than perfection. That is perfection PERIOD. Nothing added, no conditions, no other attributes...just perfection 🙂
I don't understand what you mean when you say that "our limited understanding is not applicable to God". I haven't been talking about applying our limited understanding to God, I have been talking about predicating of God the property of moral perfection. If you think that we are not justified in predicating moral perfection to God, then we are on the sa ...[text shortened]... operty of perfection, then you mean something different by 'perfection' than the rest of us.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by FeivelWell, if we don't know what moral perfection is, then we are unjustified in attributing moral perfection to God. So we are unjustified in attributing moral perfection to God.
Our limited understanding in regards to moral perfection. I really thought it was clear that I meant that Bennett. We are not justified in predicating anything to God other than perfection. That is perfection PERIOD. Nothing added, no conditions, no other attributes...just perfection 🙂
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
But if we don't know what moral perfection is, then how do we know what perfection is? On what basis are we justified in attributing THAT property to God?
Furthermore, you can't coherently claim that we are are justified ONLY in attributing the property of perfection to God, because the possession of that property logically entails the possession of other properties. Just as you can't claim that we are justified in saying of Jones that he is a bachelor without also being justified in saying of Jones that he is unmarried, so you can't claim of God that he is perfect without being committed to the claim that he is perfect in all spheres that admit to different levels of ability. A perfect being is one that is perfect in every way, including moral excellence. So your claim that God is perfect entails that God is morally perfect. But you claimed earlier that we were not justified in attributing the property of moral perfection to God. So you have contradicted yourself. You are, in effect, saying "God is perfect, whatever that means". Again, to deny that this is a consequence of your view is to be contradictory, or else to be using the term 'perfect' in a radically different way (as you would be if you claimed Jones was a bachelor but also not unmarried).
Originally posted by bbarrFirst point is understandable. Second is just semantical garbage. Perfection is perfection...the opposite of imperfection. Now where are morals mentioned in that definition and I would like you to explain how that is the wrong definition of perfection. We are justified attributing perfection to God simply by the definition of God. If you choose to define God as anything less then perfect then your definition might hold some water but it would certainly be well off the beaten path.
Well, if we don't know what moral perfection is, then we are unjustified in attributing moral perfection to God. So we are unjustified in attributing moral perfection to God.
But if we don't know what moral perfection is, then how do we know what perfection is? On what basis are we justified in attributing THAT property to God?
Furthermore, you can ...[text shortened]... ally different way (as you would be if you claimed Jones was a bachelor but also not unmarried).
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by FeivelBah, calling an argument a name doesn't suffice as a counter-argument. To say that God is perfect implies that he is perfect in all areas. If he weren't perfect in all areas, then he would have an imperfection, to have an imperfection is to not be perfect. Since moral excellence is an area in which it is possible to be imperfect, God must be morally perfect if he is perfect simpliciter.
First point is understandable. Second is just semantical garbage. Perfection is perfection...the opposite of imperfection. Now where are morals mentioned in that definition and I would like you to explain how that is the wrong definition of perfection. We are justified attributing perfection to God simply by the definition of God. If you choose to define God ...[text shortened]... it would certainly be well off the beaten path.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
To say that perfection is defined as the opposite of imperfection is to to provide a definition that is circular. You would define imperfection as the state of not being perfect. Circular definitions are worthless, as the presuppose an understanding of the very thing in need of definition.
You are not justified in claiming that there is a perfect god merely because we define "God" as "a perfect being". Suppose I define "Atlantis" as "the perfect island just off the coast of WA". Would I then be entitled to assert that there actually is a perfect island off the coast of WA? The most you can say is that IF God existed, then he would be perfect. To claim that by definition God exists is to commit the same fallacy Anselm committed in his ontological argument. In the context of this discussion, assuming that God exists is question-begging.
So, to sum up, you have one ad hominem fallacy in your post above, as well as a circular definition and a question-begging argument. I guess this is something like a hat-trick.
4 edits
From The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man. "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
Originally posted by bbarrI do not agree with this. We do not know nothing about God and we do not know everything about God either. This is a key principal in this debate. bbar is trying to be very absolute in defintion, deduction and resoning, but the problem is we are dealing with God, not a human, and we have only partial knowledge. Now the biggest problem for an atheist is that God reveals Himself by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances and the church. With church I mean the Bible's definition of church, not the everyday definition of a church. This means that it is impossible for an atheist to know God. In fact what I constantly see is talk and discussion based on hearsay, quoting the Bible out of context, applying our own "correction" to what the Bible says etc. Jesus says in Mark 10:27 "...all things are possible with God."
...If we can't describe God with our concepts, if he is beyond our conceptual reach, then we can say NOTHING about God.
To conclude: Isaiah 55:9 says "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Originally posted by AcolyteI caught one of those in a pond once.
From The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes i ...[text shortened]... d cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.