Originally posted by ivanhoeSays you. You don't have to be a theist to have a relationship with the divine; you don't have to be theist to recognize ego-driven idol formation. I am not a theist, but this doesn't mean I have no conception of idolatry, nor that I don't find absurd some modes of worship.
Bbarr: "Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous "
I wonder how you as an atheist can state such a thing. From an atheistic viewpoint your statement of a certain notion being idolatrous is of course nonsense. Sometimes it seems you yourself doubt your own stances and as a result of that obscure your own position.
Originally posted by ColettiYes, yes, I love you, and I'm glad you are back in the threads. Boy you can be frustrating, though!
LOL! 😀 Ya know ya love me!
You respond out of the deeply felt bond between us. I will return to your ealier post and read more carefully. It's not the first time I have misuderstood what you've written - and sometimes it my own fault. 🙂
Take care,
Bennett
Originally posted by bbarr
My argument applies to any god with with three relevant properties, regardless of whether they are conceived of as persons (or three persons, for that matter). If any of the other gods you mention are claimed to have these properties, then the argument applies to them as well.
I do not recognise in your dilemma a God who sends his Son to Earth to be thrown in jail, to be arrested, insulted, to be mocked at, to be tortured, to be put to death on a cross.
Jesus said: If you look at me you will see the father.
I also want to refer to the words spoken to Him while he was deprived of ANY power and might when he was dying on the Cross.
"39and those passing by were speaking evil of him, wagging their heads,
40and saying, `Thou that art throwing down the sanctuary, and in three days building [it], save thyself; if Son thou art of God, come down from the cross.'
41And in like manner also the chief priests mocking, with the scribes and elders, said,
42`Others he saved; himself he is not able to save! If he be King of Israel, let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him;
43he hath trusted on God, let Him now deliver him, if He wish him, because he said -- Son of God I am;'
Is this the Allmighty God you described in your dilemma ?
I can add the words Jesus spoke on the Cross when he was dying:
46and about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a great voice, saying, `Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, `My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?'
Is this the God (the Father) with the property of being morally perfect the way you described this notion in the dilemma ?
As I said earlier in this post, I do not recognise the Triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the dilemma.
Originally posted by bbarr
Says you. You don't have to be a theist to have a relationship with the divine; you don't have to be theist to recognize ego-driven idol formation. I am not a theist, but this doesn't mean I have no conception of idolatry, nor that I don't find absurd some modes of worship.
I think it is about time you reveal what your relationship is with the divine and what your perception is of what constitutes the divine.
Maybe an idea for a new and interesting thread, Bbarr ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, if the God of Abraham that you worship does not have the properties I mentioned at the beginning of the argument, then the argument does not apply to Him. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can be here. If a theist denies that God can do anything, knows everything, and is perfectly good, then that theist faces no problem of evil.
I do not recognise in your dilemma a God who sends his Son to Earth to be thrown in jail, to be arrested, insulted, to be mocked at, to be tortured, to be put to death on a cross.
Jesus said: If you look at me you will see the father.
I also want to refer to the words spoken to Him while he was deprived of ANY power and might when he was dying on th ...[text shortened]... is post, I do not recognise the Triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the dilemma.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm sorry, this is both a private matter and beyond my ability to describe. I will not cheapen the experiences I have had by attempting to capture them in words, and then offering some anemic representation of them up for public consumption. If you are truly interested in my views, read Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy and the poetry of Kabir Sahib.
I think it is about time you reveal what your relationship is with the divine and what your perception is of what constitutes the divine.
Maybe an idea for a new and interesting thread, Bbarr ?
Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, if the God of Abraham that you worship does not have the properties I mentioned at the beginning of the argument, then the argument does not apply to Him. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can be here. If a theist denies that God can do anything, knows everything, and is perfectly good, then that theist faces no problem of evil.
This is a formal and not a substantial reaction to my remarks.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr, you like to shroud yourself in mystery.
I'm sorry, this is both a private matter and beyond my ability to describe. I will not cheapen the experiences I have had by attempting to capture them in words, and then offering some anemic representation of them up for public consumption ...[text shortened]... 's The Perennial Philosophy and the poetry of Kabir Sahib.
You could give us a short exposé of what Huxley is trying to communicate and what Kabir Sahib's poetry is about. Why dont you open a new thread and post one of your favorite poems of his ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I liked to shroud myself in mystery, I wouldn't have pointed out the work of Huxley and Kabir Sahib as expressions of my spiritual beliefs. I have no interest in discussing these matters with those who have not taken the time to educate themselves. I certainly have no interest in discussing these matters with you, at least unless you do the necessary work. So, read Huxley and Kabir Sahib, and I'll be happy to help explain anything you find confusing. Until then, I will consider this matter closed.
Bbarr, you like to shroud yourself in mystery.
You could give us a short exposé of what Huxley is trying to communicate and what Kabir Sahib's poetry is about. Why dont you open a new thread and post one of your favorite poems of his ?
Cheers.
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "I have no interest in discussing these matters with those who have not taken the time to educate themselves."
If I liked to shroud myself in mystery, I wouldn't have pointed out the work of Huxley and Kabir Sahib as expressions of my spiritual beliefs. I have no interest in discussing these matters with those who have not taken the time to educate themselves. I certainly have no interest in discussing these matters with you, at least unless you do the necessary work ...[text shortened]... explain anything you find confusing. Until then, I will consider this matter closed.
Cheers.
If I would use the same criterium as you do I would not be discussing anything at all with anyone concerning the Roman Catholic Faith or the Roman Catholic Church except for some white crows here and there on the site.
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "I have no interest in discussing these matters with those who have not taken the time to educate themselves."
If I liked to shroud myself in mystery, I wouldn't have pointed out the work of Huxley and Kabir Sahib as expressions of my spiritual beliefs. I have no interest in discussing these matters with those who have not taken the time to educate themselves. I certainly have no interest in discussing these matters with you, at least unless you do the necessary work ...[text shortened]... explain anything you find confusing. Until then, I will consider this matter closed.
Cheers.
Imagine what would happen if you were to expand this policy to all of the fields of your interests ........ You would only be talking to the creme de la creme of academia ......
The general point is that you must apply the same reasoning you are applying to humans to God as well. If God's omniscience precludes free will, then it precludes any creature from having free will, God included.
Let me get something off my chest first. Free will is nonsense. It is an argument used by people to try to justify purpose in their lives. It is also a popular argument to try and thwart any concept of predetermination. If you look closely, the definition I use for free will is very open ended. The reason is that people never give a consistent answer as to what free will is. All I have shown is that whatever free will is, it can't contradict having a predetermined future. That would contradict god's omniscience.
Nevertheless, part 2 is self defeating to argue. It is, as I said open ended. If you believe free will exists (as to its definition), God cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient, than he is also bound by predeterminism...
Now let me get to your objections.
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrFor #1
1. Hence, God could not have done otherwise than that which he in fact does.
2. If God could not have done otherwise than that which he in fact does, then God could not have created a world different from the one he in fact created.
...[text shortened]... s merely one link in a predestined causal chain, as are all of us.
Well, many theists also believe #1. God is static in nature, his mind was made up for all eternity. After all, this is the nature of an omniscient god. God will only do what he has already decided to do... he has no reason to change his mind. However, he is not bound by anything (I will explain this later).
For #2
He could have POTENTIALLY created the world differently, since he has the power to. It really all comes down to his will. You can't disagree with this without contradicting omnipotence. This says nothing more than that God is not limited by anything, other than his own will.
For #3
Responsibility isn't contradictory to most definitions of free will or predeterminism. I am responsible, or I am the cause for a lot of things. Of course, if we back up the chain of our predetermined lives, God would have the ultimate responsibility for everything. Predeterminism or not, every theists believes this. To them, without God their would be nothing.
Here is the flaw in your logic and your argument. Coupling 3,4 and 5 you make the categorical mistake of equating our actions to god's actions. As you said, god is just a link in the chain.. but he is the first chain.
In a deterministic system where the cause of everything else is the first link in the chain, the first chain is not bound by any previous influence. Essentially, the first chain has the unique ability to control the future however he (or she) pleases. Since this omniscient being always knew what he was going to do, his actions are also predetermined. However, and important distinction should be made... what is predetermined is based on this beings will, not on any events that came before him (since there were none). There are no other influencingfactors, other than his own will.
If you had an angry omniscient being, things would be different than a passive being who created/started everything.
In the end, it all goes back to the source.. which my proof illustrates. For God, the future is still predetermined, but it is based on his own wishes. There is nothing conflicting about predtermination if it matches perfectly with god's will.