An Imperfect God

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The mere act of asking the question is to have already allowed for the possibility of the existence of a god other than the true and living God which is idolatry. Inadvertent though it probably is. God, that is, THE God, who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, is Himself the standard by which ALL things are measured. That means when he commands Joshua to kill every man, women, child and beast in Canaan that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that when he causes Israel to eat their own children as reported in Jeremiah 19 that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed all of the horrific human misery, suffering and death in all of history that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed the existence of billions of human beings for the expressed purpose of casting them into the lake of fire in judgement for sin that He also decreed that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that if He has purposed that everything we consider to be bad, immoral and unthinkably terrible shall be so ordered by divine mechanisms known only to Himself, to His own glory for reasons sufficient unto Himself that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good.

It also means that His not caring one bit how you (or I) feel about that is most assuredly PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. I sleep like a baby knowing that every time I hear about some gut wrenching blood curdling act of barbaric depravity that my Father God has from eternity seen fit to assign purpose to it that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. IF IT WERE MY OWN FAMILY? You ask? Most ESPECIALLY then would I fall to my knees and worship Him knowing that evil has NOT triumphed, but that a PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just, good AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire will receive honor and glory by my praising His name while the world loses it’s collective mind. EveryTHING and everyONE belongs to HIM. His exaltation and glory IS the purpose of all that is. No more PERFECT purpose could ever exist.

Any other questions? [/quote]
Yes I do have one question

I’m sort of nitpicking here I guess, but it jumps out at me so I’m curious

[quote] AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire[/quote]Wassup wit dis man?

Are you disagreeing with Him?
Or are you saying that you too will burn?

Or was it just a small slip? I think I have noticed this before - but I could be wrong

22

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The mere act of asking the question is to have already allowed for the possibility of the existence of a god other than the true and living God which is idolatry. Inadvertent though it probably is. God, that is, THE God, who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, is Himself the standard by which ALL things are measured. That means when he commands Joshua to kill every man, women, child and beast in Canaan that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that when he causes Israel to eat their own children as reported in Jeremiah 19 that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed all of the horrific human misery, suffering and death in all of history that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed the existence of billions of human beings for the expressed purpose of casting them into the lake of fire in judgement for sin that He also decreed that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that if He has purposed that everything we consider to be bad, immoral and unthinkably terrible shall be so ordered by divine mechanisms known only to Himself, to His own glory for reasons sufficient unto Himself that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good.

It also means that His not caring one bit how you (or I) feel about that is most assuredly PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. I sleep like a baby knowing that every time I hear about some gut wrenching blood curdling act of barbaric depravity that my Father God has from eternity seen fit to assign purpose to it that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. IF IT WERE MY OWN FAMILY? You ask? Most ESPECIALLY then would I fall to my knees and worship Him knowing that evil has NOT triumphed, but that a PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just, good AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire will receive honor and glory by my praising His name while the world loses it’s collective mind. EveryTHING and everyONE belongs to HIM. His exaltation and glory IS the purpose of all that is. No more PERFECT purpose could ever exist.

Any other questions? [/quote]
Yes I do have one question

I’m sort of nitpicking here I guess, but it jumps out at me so I’m curious

[quote] AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire[/quote]Wassup wit dis man?

Are you disagreeing with Him?
Or are you saying that you too will burn?

Or was it just a small slip? I think I have noticed this before - but I could be wrong[/quote]

Far be it from me to speak for him and I am sure he’ll clarify. But no one is worthy of saving. And its all predestined anyway. From a certain point of view.

23

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Did you just correlate asking questions with idolatry?[/quote]Not questions. THAT question.
[/quote]

Why is THAT question different from OTHER questions that makes THAT question idolatry? I just see why asking any question, no matter how absurd is a form of idolatry, you’ll have to explain better than stating your conclusion over and over again.

24

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The mere act of asking the question is to have already allowed for the possibility of the existence of a god other than the true and living God which is idolatry. Inadvertent though it probably is. God, that is, THE God, who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, is Himself the standard by which ALL things are measured. That means when he commands Joshua to kill every man, women, child and beast in Canaan that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that when he causes Israel to eat their own children as reported in Jeremiah 19 that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed all of the horrific human misery, suffering and death in all of history that that is PERFECTLY holy righteous, just and good. It means that if He has decreed the existence of billions of human beings for the expressed purpose of casting them into the lake of fire in judgement for sin that He also decreed that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. It means that if He has purposed that everything we consider to be bad, immoral and unthinkably terrible shall be so ordered by divine mechanisms known only to Himself, to His own glory for reasons sufficient unto Himself that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good.

It also means that His not caring one bit how you (or I) feel about that is most assuredly PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. I sleep like a baby knowing that every time I hear about some gut wrenching blood curdling act of barbaric depravity that my Father God has from eternity seen fit to assign purpose to it that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good. IF IT WERE MY OWN FAMILY? You ask? Most ESPECIALLY then would I fall to my knees and worship Him knowing that evil has NOT triumphed, but that a PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just, good AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire will receive honor and glory by my praising His name while the world loses it’s collective mind. EveryTHING and everyONE belongs to HIM. His exaltation and glory IS the purpose of all that is. No more PERFECT purpose could ever exist.

Any other questions? [/quote]
Yes I do have one question

I’m sort of nitpicking here I guess, but it jumps out at me so I’m curious

[quote] AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire[/quote]Wassup wit dis man?

Are you disagreeing with Him?
Or are you saying that you too will burn?

Or was it just a small slip? I think I have noticed this before - but I could be wrong[/quote]

Far be it from me to speak for him and I am sure he’ll clarify. But no one is worthy of saving. And its all predestined anyway. From a certain point of view.
[/quote]
Predestination I can understand

People being unable to ‘earn’ a sort of redemption I can understand

There is a difference with that than saying no one is worthy of saving - that’s for Him to decide, I would think anyways

But that may have just been a semantical slip. That’s what I am suspecting, but I’m not sure…

25

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Some darker things to think about, that I think hold more merit to an imperfect God is the sheer amount of ‘evil’ that occurs in the world.

Free will aside, not all evils are man made, some are man preventable especially when we have the ability and knowledge of problems to come, there is a difference.

Some interesting grey area’s to explore, I’m sure some will argue things like natural disasters are not evil, and that has some merit, but still it relies on things being very very mysterious :slight_smile: Or that this was the best world God could have created.

Cool stuff![/quote]

This is kinda philo 101 stuff though. The problem of evil has been addressed in lots of fashions.

I’d say as well that its out of vogue with any except the most fundamental to really hold a conception of a theistic god like the traditional.

As well the vast majority of “christians” in America are really the same as atheists. If the sole difference in the way you live is that you go to church on Sunday or perhaps some holy days of obligation and other than that there is no appreciable difference in lifestyle from an atheist, or even less you don’t ever go to church but simply classify yourself as Christian and then have no difference in lifestyle, you are deluding yourself to call yourself a Christian.

All that beside the point there are many conceptions of god that wouldn’t be perfect. This is just as likely as a god of any specific type.
[/quote]

Well, for me it’s more about giving God the best chance, the benefit of the doubt if you will. Since the problem of evil is a reality, and probably the biggest sort of hole in the God argument.

The way you get around the traditional problem of evil is by giving up one of the omni properties. The funny thing about us as people is that we are so enamored in might/ power, so people get all ruffled at the thought of a god that isn’t omnipotent in terms of things that are logically possible. For me, that’s a simple, but very important realization that is very effective at sidestepping the problem of evil. You don’t need complicated Aquinas like arguments to work around the problem of evil. Besides, he failed at refuting it.

I bring up the perfect world because it’s not just St. Anselm or the perfect Island retort. At some point, consider the amount of needless suffering in the world and ask yourself, would an all good, all knowing god allow this level of shit to happen? It’s not that bad things happen, it’s the scale and ubiquitous nature of things that are bad, evil, needlessly tragic. Something about it sits with quite a few people, perhaps the Pope himself when he stated that he felt God was asleep sometimes.

26

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Some darker things to think about, that I think hold more merit to an imperfect God is the sheer amount of ‘evil’ that occurs in the world.

Free will aside, not all evils are man made, some are man preventable especially when we have the ability and knowledge of problems to come, there is a difference.

Some interesting grey area’s to explore, I’m sure some will argue things like natural disasters are not evil, and that has some merit, but still it relies on things being very very mysterious :slight_smile: Or that this was the best world God could have created.

Cool stuff![/quote]

This is kinda philo 101 stuff though. The problem of evil has been addressed in lots of fashions.

I’d say as well that its out of vogue with any except the most fundamental to really hold a conception of a theistic god like the traditional.

As well the vast majority of “christians” in America are really the same as atheists. If the sole difference in the way you live is that you go to church on Sunday or perhaps some holy days of obligation and other than that there is no appreciable difference in lifestyle from an atheist, or even less you don’t ever go to church but simply classify yourself as Christian and then have no difference in lifestyle, you are deluding yourself to call yourself a Christian.

All that beside the point there are many conceptions of god that wouldn’t be perfect. This is just as likely as a god of any specific type.
[/quote]

Well, for me it’s more about giving God the best chance, the benefit of the doubt if you will. Since the problem of evil is a reality, and probably the biggest sort of hole in the God argument.

The way you get around the traditional problem of evil is by giving up one of the omni properties. The funny thing about us as people is that we are so enamored in might/ power, so people get all ruffled at the thought of a god that isn’t omnipotent in terms of things that are logically possible. For me, that’s a simple, but very important realization that is very effective at sidestepping the problem of evil. You don’t need complicated Aquinas like arguments to work around the problem of evil. Besides, he failed at refuting it.

I bring up the perfect world because it’s not just St. Anselm or the perfect Island retort. At some point, consider the amount of needless suffering in the world and ask yourself, would an all good, all knowing god allow this level of shit to happen? It’s not that bad things happen, it’s the scale and ubiquitous nature of things that are bad, evil, needlessly tragic. Something about it sits with quite a few people, perhaps the Pope himself when he stated that he felt God was asleep sometimes. [/quote]

Any non theistic god wouldn’t have to have the traditional properties.

Consider as well that positing qualities on a being external to the universe is going to be impossible with anything other than supernatural means.

Another way to look at this would be that good and evil are uniquely human conceits and that they might be meaningless to any god relative to humans. Say you or your neighbor smashes an anthill. You likely wouldn’t consider it evil but you’d visit a lot of suffering and death on those ants.

I don’t even care to visit the many arguments sophisticated or not that try to allow for the existence of a theistic god and for evil. Though it should be somewhat obvious if the bible is treated as a true narrative(literal) than some of it paints god as either non eternal or not all powerful…or of course the bible could not be totally literal.

27

[quote]florelius wrote:<<< He? Didnt know that God had a penis, a pair of testicles and a prostate! >>>[/quote]“He” refers to Himself in the masculine and therefore so do I [quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:<<< AND LOVING God who calls me brother, bride and son though I myself belong in that lake of fire[/quote]Wassup wit dis man?Are you disagreeing with Him?
Or are you saying that you too will burn?
Or was it just a small slip? I think I have noticed this before - but I could be wrong[/quote]No, Groo pretty much had it. One single bite from a piece of fruit in disobedience to the command of God plunged all men descended from Adam into a hopeless state of death and sin. ALL men are conceived and born enemies of God and justly destined for that lake of fire. God Himself provided my payment and freely bestowed upon me the benefit of Christ’s sinless sacrifice in my place. HE chose ME (and maybe you) before creation to be conformed to the image of His only begotten Son. I am no better and much worse than multitudes who will spend eternity under the ferocity of God’s eternal wrath. Therefore, you will never catch me rejoicing in the judgement of someone else. The difference between them and myself is God’s loving, merciful eternal grace. Not any meritorious performance on my part. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why is THAT question different from OTHER questions that makes THAT question idolatry? >>>[/quote]Asking if God is perfect is already a conclusion in self exaltation in that it advances a standard other than God Himself. Namely the individual asking the question who is in essence saying “I have a personal notion of perfection that I will subject God to and thereby make myself His judge”. Self worship. Plain and simple.

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< You don’t need complicated Aquinas like arguments to work around the problem of evil. Besides, he failed at refuting it. >>>[/quote] There is no problem of evil in the sense that that phrase has always been used as a toy gun against the God of the bible. Evil exists because God decreed it to His own glory while being in no way morally responsible for it by divine mechanisms no more known to me than 2+2 equalling 4 is to you.

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Consider as well that positing qualities on a being external to the universe is going to be impossible with anything other than supernatural means. >>>[/quote] Positing an answer to how and why 2+2=4, along with every single syllable of so called “scientific” knowledge that depends on that same logic is going to be impossible with anything other than supernatural means. You, unlike most here DO know that groo. Don’t ya?

28

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Yeah, the omni properties of god that we tend to discuss in Philosophy of Religion are Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and all good.

They can’t all be true, I.E. God cannot do logically impossible things like make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it or make a square circle. But, so what if you can’t make or do things that are logically impossible? If God is around and is all good, but not omnipotent, then who cares? He’s still the most powerful thing around (if he exists).

[/quote]

False. The fact that logically impossible things “cannot” be done does not necessarily make God not omnipotent. You should read more Plantinga, he describes the flaws in that jump.

29

Aragorn is right of course. It is an absolutely non starting impossibility to get something from “nothing”?

Except when almighty God commands light, matter, time and space to “BE” and they not yet existing obey Him. LOL! Once you have a God like this? The discussion of what’s possible changes just a bit. People is jist the silliest critters.

30

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aragorn is right of course. It is an absolutely non starting impossibility to get something from “nothing”?

Except when almighty God commands light, matter, time and space to “BE” and they not yet existing obey Him. LOL! Once you have a God like this? The discussion of what’s possible changes just a bit. People is jist the silliest critters. [/quote]

I didn’t say that. I said logical impossibility. making a square circle, as was the referred to operation. Those are each definitions in themselves, which are discrete and opposing, barring some higher dimensional thing (think hypersquare, like Dr. Matt’s avatar). in 2 D space that cannot exist because it is definitionally logically impossible. That, however, does not limit the concept of God’s omnipotence, and once again I refer to Plantinga.

31

An omnipotent being is able to do everything and anything

A square circle is not a thing. It’s a meaningless addition of words. Nothing more.

32

Positing an answer to how and why 2+2=4, along with every single syllable of so called “scientific” knowledge that depends on that same logic is going to be impossible with anything other than supernatural means. You, unlike most here DO know that groo. Don’t ya? from Tirib.

No I don’t agree with you entirely on this. I think we can know things from logic. And I think we can know things from empirical evidence. And I think its within the realm of possibility people could know things from supernatural means.

I know that you are trying to bog it down to knowing things with 100 percent certainty with no faith and thats not really what I was getting at here. I’ll say I do think you can know logical things with certainty you can be certain enough with many empirical things. And I’ll leave it at that.

More I was saying as generally we consider some things to be known from science. Don’t quibble on this we do. Even you do.

Some things we consider to be known from logic.

And there are some things we consider to be known from supernatural means. Divine inspiration or what have you. These things come from outside of nature is all I mean. And generally they are not readily provable by anything other than an eschatological means. Though I suppose if there is an actual rapture and the godly go up to heaven and I am left here I will have to agree that this does in fact prove there was a supernatural channel all along and it was in fact accurate.

Now this is where you can push your claim that all these ways of knowing are based to greater or lesser degrees on faith so they all have the same rigorousness when proving knowledge.

33

Sorry Aragorn. I was in a hurry… like always. I agree with Kamui completely. A “square circle” is a meaningless semantic abstraction. Groo, I mean no sarcasm Bud, but I am disappointed. I thought we had progressed further than this since our first conversation a year and a half ago now. Especially when you really seemed to get what DrMatt was missing several months ago. The above is not even in the same galaxy as my position/s and your response evinces an almost total lack of understanding of just about anything I’ve ever said to you. Not that you should spend your life understanding what I say because I say it. I also have a high regard for your powers so don’t take that as an insult either. You were the first official winner of the Tiribuls “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award when I asked you if you could know anything for certain and you replied with: “At least I act like I can. Everyone does”. That WAS indeed a “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye”.

Of course we can know things from logic. And we can know them for certain. (or at least act like it as you yourself said above) Like 2+2=4 for instance. You live every second of your life pickled in the inescapable practical certainty that it does. The question is why? The very same metaphysical construct that dictates 4 from 2 sets of 2 also governs all that fancy shmancy scientific gobbeldygook thrown in the face of Jesus as if it somehow disproves His claims. When in fact they, like everything else, require Him for their very existence. I have been over this 200 times with a couple dozen people. You were one of them. This needs to go back to the epistemology thread though IF it goes anywhere which I kinda hope not because I really don’t have time at the moment. I already gave detailed exposition of why the triune God of Christianity and not just any ol God will do. Ya know, even though he disagrees I think Kamui is still the only one who actually gets this.

34

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Asking if God is perfect is already a conclusion in self exaltation in that it advances a standard other than God Himself. Namely the individual asking the question who is in essence saying “I have a personal notion of perfection that I will subject God to and thereby make myself His judge”. Self worship. Plain and simple. [/quote]

Put very well. The base problem of someone trying to judge God’s actions/inactions is THEM, the creation, judging HIM the creator, by THEIR imperfect standard. It’s laughable, really.

35

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I already gave detailed exposition of why the triune God of Christianity and not just any ol God will do. Ya know, even though he disagrees I think Kamui is still the only one who actually gets this. [/quote]

The whole trinity thing still ties me up. I’m going to have to keep on re-reading that long article you gave me.

At first I though there was God the father, the God-hood that is fundamentally different from creation and put all in motion. God the son, the God-hood that is both man and God and proves that God can still be perfect in man’s shoes. And the God the holy-spirit, the God-hood that breathes through and moves creation, and all God-hoods are one because they are all eternal and all the other things like omnipotent, omni-present, etc and you can’t have more than one prime-mover, but I think you’ve told that that’s either wrong or not entirely correct.

I think I’m stuck in one of those ‘I’m trying to see it through my own lens and worldview, but I need to throw that one out and use another one but I can’t find it’ kind of things. I’m not sure if that last bit makes sense to anyone but me.

36

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sorry Aragorn. I was in a hurry… like always. I agree with Kamui completely. A “square circle” is a meaningless semantic abstraction. Groo, I mean no sarcasm Bud, but I am disappointed. I thought we had progressed further than this since our first conversation a year and a half ago now. Especially when you really seemed to get what DrMatt was missing several months ago. The above is not even in the same galaxy as my position/s and your response evinces an almost total lack of understanding of just about anything I’ve ever said to you. Not that you should spend your life understanding what I say because I say it. I also have a high regard for your powers so don’t take that as an insult either. You were the first official winner of the Tiribuls “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award when I asked you if you could know anything for certain and you replied with: “At least I act like I can. Everyone does”. That WAS indeed a “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye”.

Of course we can know things from logic. And we can know them for certain. (or at least act like it as you yourself said above) Like 2+2=4 for instance. You live every second of your life pickled in the inescapable practical certainty that it does. The question is why? The very same metaphysical construct that dictates 4 from 2 sets of 2 also governs all that fancy shmancy scientific gobbeldygook thrown in the face of Jesus as if it somehow disproves His claims. When in fact they, like everything else, require Him for their very existence. I have been over this 200 times with a couple dozen people. You were one of them. This needs to go back to the epistemology thread though IF it goes anywhere which I kinda hope not because I really don’t have time at the moment. I already gave detailed exposition of why the triune God of Christianity and not just any ol God will do. Ya know, even though he disagrees I think Kamui is still the only one who actually gets this. [/quote]

I disagree with you. Its as simple as that. And your distinction wasn’t germane to the point I was making. And its tiresome to try to rehash everything everytime someone makes a point. If I am saying knowledge of a god must come from a supernatural source thats what I think. I also think there are no valid supernatural sources but thats not the point I was making. Its simply a different way of gaining knowledge. I am just as certain as you are there is that there is no Christian God. If I were really going to push an issue I’d ask why the Bible is told as a chain of events that happen in time? This is simply incongruous with the concept of a Christian God if the book is taken to be completely literal.

Its perfectly possible there is an imperfect god. I don’t think it plausible but nonetheless its as plausible as the Christian God. And just as you know what you know. I know this. I am not going to cover why I know everything that I know every time that the topics come up. I find it a bit mendacious to ask actually. And to be frank I don’t really care too much what personal revelation has caused each person to believe they know god is real. I’d rather someone just say divine inspiration I know all his qualities if we are having a religious discussion. If however we are going to entertain things logically I’d like it to be a bit more rigorous in my opinion.

I find trying to turn know into know with absolute certainty not really that interesting because even the people who try to hold such a stiff definition of know don’t act as if they do in their day to day life. Much like the person who solidly believes in predetermination doesn’t act as if they do in day to day life. If someone is committed to the belief they should live it.

37

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Asking if God is perfect is already a conclusion in self exaltation in that it advances a standard other than God Himself. Namely the individual asking the question who is in essence saying “I have a personal notion of perfection that I will subject God to and thereby make myself His judge”. Self worship. Plain and simple. [/quote]

Put very well. The base problem of someone trying to judge God’s actions/inactions is THEM, the creation, judging HIM the creator, by THEIR imperfect standard. It’s laughable, really. [/quote]

It’s equally laughable that humans are so arrogant to presume that they have personal knowledge regarding the nature of the Deus. You simply view the Creator through the manufactured prism of your own ideology. How is that superior to the inquiry of the skeptic?

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Jefferson

38

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Yeah, the omni properties of god that we tend to discuss in Philosophy of Religion are Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and all good.

They can’t all be true, I.E. God cannot do logically impossible things like make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it or make a square circle. But, so what if you can’t make or do things that are logically impossible? If God is around and is all good, but not omnipotent, then who cares? He’s still the most powerful thing around (if he exists).

[/quote]

False. The fact that logically impossible things “cannot” be done does not necessarily make God not omnipotent. You should read more Plantinga, he describes the flaws in that jump. [/quote]

I LOVE Plantinga! If you read, what I posted, I’m saying exactly that. Logically impossible things are things that make no sense. He’s arguing about the definition of omni, I’m saying who gives a shit if God gives up only logically impossible things, like pooping and not pooping at the same time? Making Pi=1+1 without any special values of 1, making a square circle. These are things we can’t even make sense of in our minds, we aren’t even capable of making sense of a square circle. :slight_smile: Hope that clears up my point, I thought it was made quite clear. Go ahead, imagine a square circle… Now, imagine the Universe being formed via big bang, or just popping into existence? You CAN imagine those, but you CANT EVEN IMAGINE WHAT A SQUARE CIRCLE IS.

So to Aragorn and brother Chris, I’m saying I think the problem of evil isn’t such a problem. Rather, all the suffering and ubiquitous nature of evil on the planet brings into question whether God is all good, or omniscient, which are much more bothersome than not being able to do logically impossible things.

And btw, what a classy man Professor Alvin Plantinga is. The illustrious gent has my complete respect and more than holds/ held his own against the 4 horseman.

Nice little piece from him.

So again, I bring up not that there is evil in the world, but the scale of it. This is the real problem of evil. That, “God is asleep.”

39

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Asking if God is perfect is already a conclusion in self exaltation in that it advances a standard other than God Himself. Namely the individual asking the question who is in essence saying “I have a personal notion of perfection that I will subject God to and thereby make myself His judge”. Self worship. Plain and simple. [/quote]

Put very well. The base problem of someone trying to judge God’s actions/inactions is THEM, the creation, judging HIM the creator, by THEIR imperfect standard. It’s laughable, really. [/quote]

It’s equally laughable that humans are so arrogant to presume that they have personal knowledge regarding the nature of the Deus. You simply view the Creator through the manufactured prism of your own ideology. How is that superior to the inquiry of the skeptic?

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Jefferson [/quote]

If you accept the Bible as the Word of God, than there’s not much presumption going on about God’s nature on our part. Doesn’t really have anything to do with arrogance. I’ve got many a skeptical bone in my body, why do you assume otherwise? I’ve done my share of questioning God’s existence, for a good period of time.

40

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Yeah, the omni properties of god that we tend to discuss in Philosophy of Religion are Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and all good.

They can’t all be true, I.E. God cannot do logically impossible things like make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it or make a square circle. But, so what if you can’t make or do things that are logically impossible? If God is around and is all good, but not omnipotent, then who cares? He’s still the most powerful thing around (if he exists).

[/quote]

False. The fact that logically impossible things “cannot” be done does not necessarily make God not omnipotent. You should read more Plantinga, he describes the flaws in that jump. [/quote]

I LOVE Plantinga! If you read, what I posted, I’m saying exactly that. Logically impossible things are things that make no sense. He’s arguing about the definition of omni, I’m saying who gives a shit if God gives up only logically impossible things, like pooping and not pooping at the same time? Making Pi=1+1 without any special values of 1, making a square circle. These are things we can’t even make sense of in our minds, we aren’t even capable of making sense of a square circle. :slight_smile: Hope that clears up my point, I thought it was made quite clear. Go ahead, imagine a square circle… Now, imagine the Universe being formed via big bang, or just popping into existence? You CAN imagine those, but you CANT EVEN IMAGINE WHAT A SQUARE CIRCLE IS.

So to Aragorn and brother Chris, I’m saying I think the problem of evil isn’t such a problem. Rather, all the suffering and ubiquitous nature of evil on the planet brings into question whether God is all good, or omniscient, which are much more bothersome than not being able to do logically impossible things.

And btw, what a classy man Professor Alvin Plantinga is. The illustrious gent has my complete respect and more than holds/ held his own against the 4 horseman.

Nice little piece from him.

So again, I bring up not that there is evil in the world, but the scale of it. This is the real problem of evil. That, “God is asleep.” [/quote]
I see your making a distinction between the logical problem of evil and the evidential one and it know that logical one is pretty much defeated. But even the evidental one has been talked about and under christian theism doesn’t present a problem since the meaning of life isn’t comfort but rather the knowledge of God.