04 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsmmmm
The God of the Holy Bible can not lie because the Holy Bible says so.
And He may not be omnipotent but he is certainly Almighty because
the Holy Bible says so.
Isnt "the Holy Bible" the word of god? So if it says he doesnt lie that must mean he always tells the truth .. unless he does lie and the bible is a lie?
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
mmmm
Isnt "the Holy Bible" the word of god? So if it says he doesnt lie that must mean he always tells the truth .. unless he does lie and the bible is a lie?
is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsA classic bit of circular reasoning!
That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
1. I believe #deity does not lie
2. I believe a book is the word of #deity
3. The book says #deity does not lie
4. Therefore #deity does not lie
4 does not follow from 1, 2 and 3. You have just taken your belief and asserted it as undisputable fact.
In no way is the case solved.
--- Penguin.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsso when he told abe to kill his son, that wasn't lying, it was a test (via deceit).
The God of the Holy Bible can not lie because the Holy Bible says so.
And He may not be omnipotent but he is certainly Almighty because
the Holy Bible says so.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziThis was a foreshadowing of what was to come. There was a ram caught
so when he told abe to kill his son, that wasn't lying, it was a test (via deceit).
in the thicket that substituted for the sarifice of the son. The lamb of God,
God's only begotten Son, substituted as a sacrifice for all who believe.
Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
(John 3:16 NASB)
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsFollowing your logic exactly
That's the way I see it. So God always tells the truth and so the Holy Bible
is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of God is
the Holy Bible and the truth of the Holy Bible is God. Very simple. Case
solved. Now we can get a good nights sleep.
That's the way I see it. So "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" always tells the truth and so the "Book of Pasta Deities" is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" is "The Book of Pasta Deities" and the truth of the "The Book of Pasta Deities" is "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky". Very simple.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I've never read "The Book of Pasta Deities" so I have no comment.
Following [b]your logic exactly
That's the way I see it. So "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" always tells the truth and so the "Book of Pasta Deities" is the Word of Truth just like it says it is. The proof of the truth of "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky" is "The Book of Pasta Deities" and the truth of the "The Book of Pasta Deities" is "The Spaghetti Monster in the Sky". Very simple.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me from ploughing). However, I am not anywhere near arable land, have no access to the necessary equipment or, for that matter, have any reason to plough. In the potential sense of the word, I cannot at this moment plough.
If not then he is not omnipotent.
If so is there proof?
I think this is the theist's solution to your argument here. The theist can reply that only the dynamic sense of the word is relevant to his theological vocabulary. By omnipotence, he only means that God has the requisite power and ability, just not the volition since God has an honest character. In one sense of the word, God can lie; in another sense of the word, he cannot. As creator and ultimate power over the universe, God could destroy earth; because, however, he is love and has promised salvation to mankind, it would be impossible for him to do so. Impossibility however does not necessarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by Conrau KIn a previous thread, I wondered what it meant to say 'God can decide not to save mankind'. Adopting modal logic, I suggested that this meant that there must be some world in which God does not in fact decide to save mankind. Obviously this God would be hugely different from the traditional Christian one, requiring a total character transformation. If however we take 'can' not in the sense of 'it is possible that', but in the sense of 'has the power to', then that problem does not arise. To say 'God can decide not to save mankind' does not require a world where God in fact decides not to save mankind; it requires only a demonstration that such an act is at least within his power, whether or not God it is possible for God to not save mankind. Anyway...
I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me f ...[text shortened]... ssarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
06 Aug 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KOne feature that is not conserved with your ploughing a field analogy when considering the question "Can your god lie" is it's universality. By that I mean that presently you lack access to facilities to perform such ploughing, but next year may be different. As such you've only identified a small subset of all the possible situations you will be in whilst you exist here on earth for which you lack the resources to plough fields.
I think there is an ambiguity in the word 'can': One is the dynamic sense ('it is within X's power to do Y); the other is the potential sense ('it is possible that X will do Y'😉. These however do not necessarily overlap. I can plough a field in the dynamic sense (I have the physical strength, the technical know-how and no disability which would prevent me f ssarily challenge his omnipotence unless it entails that the action is outside his power.
However when the theist says outright that some god cannot lie because of it's honest character then he has made a statement about all situations it will be in (or is in); and so for his solution he might get marks for effort but will struggle with marks for attainment on this one,
I am aware that \"presently\" and \"next year\" is loaded with the notion of time and we\'ve had small skirmishes on the issue of \"timeless\" gods before; I don\'t see the need for excessive pedantry yet though.