God does exist.

MarcAC,

No one attempted to refute the quotes I posted. Maybe because they are clear as day. There is no was that they can be interpreted that Jesus is God. I'm not trying to make an ass out of myself or anyone else. Just curious why most would and do overlook quotes like that.
 
there was some other, but we can take this also.

Hey Avatar. This may help. It was posted a while ago and I forget who did it but it's good stuff. I tried to do a search on it but nothibng came up.


"Some Forgotten Sayings of Jesus"

Any believer can call God “Father” according to the Bible
Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career. He said:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
The writer who is Paul also made it clear that any believer can address God as “Father.” He wrote:
"We cry, Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611).
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“. . . Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught the crowds to call God ‘Father’. He said to them:
“This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .’ ” (Matthew 6:9 NIV).

Jesus made it clear that he is not God when he said:
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him “Good Teacher.” Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.

Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one.
Jesus said:
“I can do nothing of my own authority” (John 5:30).
“I do as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31 RSV).
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone. Jesus said:
“The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority.” (John 14:10 RSV)
“I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me.” (John 8:28 RSV)
God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.

Jesus is not Equal to “The Father”
Jesus said:
“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 RSV).
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe—Jesus or the people?

Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36).

Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.


Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one. Jesus prayed, saying:
“Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.” (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God’s will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus’s wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God’s will to let the crucifixion take place. This shows that Jesus had a will different from the will of God, at least for a moment. Therefore he was not God. He declared in a moment of desperation:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it , he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs (Mark 11 12-13).
When he saw that the tree had leaves, he thought that he might find fruit on it. But when he came up close to the tree he realised there were no fruits. After all, it was not even fig season.

Bible calls Jesus Servant of God
“Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
"The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13).

For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27).
Everyone, except for God, are God’s servants. Jesus, too, is God’s servant.

Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Bible says it was God who did the miracles through Jesus:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man.

Jesus cannot guarantee positions
“To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23).
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.

A Misunderstood saying
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

This shows that what was meant was one in purpose, not one in substance as people think. The disciples could not become one human, but they can pursue the same goal. That is to say, they can be one in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.

Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
Consider the following sayings of Jesus found in John's Gospel alone:
John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
John 6:35: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life."
John 8:12: "I am the light of the world."
John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."
John 10:7: "I am the door of the sheep."
John 11:25: "I am the resurrection, and the life."
John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
John 15:1: "I am the true vine."


Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them. Mark was written around 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John, written around 100 C.E., was the last of the four canonized gospels. The Christian scholar James Dunn writes in his book The Evidence for Jesus:

“If they were part of the original words of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John picked them up and none of the others? Call it scholarly skepticism if you like, but I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus’ teaching. If the ‘I ams’ had been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists made use of them.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 36)

Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
“It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them. . . . The Church was so firmly convinced that . . . Jesus . . . taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)


What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev. James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly, the writer of the fourth gospel
“was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today — Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 43)

Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, “amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century.” (The New Jerusalem Bible: Introduction to John, p. 1742)

It says further:
“It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form.” (p. 1742)
On a previous page, the same Bible says:
“It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse.” (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)


The New American Bible says that most scholars “have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.” (The New American Bible, Revised New Testament, p. 143)


Please read and think. Thank you.
 
i don't want to argue whether jesus IS god, but I haven't seen any quotes that say that jesus is god. I have, however, seen quotes of jesus himself saying he is not god.

Lightbeing posted these excellent quotes:

"Mark 10:18 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Luke 18:19 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Mark 11:13 - And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet."

It seems that jesus is the son of god in that god created him (he was not created using natural germinal organs), but he is a man and only a man. Any miracles jesus does, he does through god. Jesus is a man that was sent by god for a purpose, and through prayer, jesus does what he does. Jesus cannot himself create a miracle or ressurect himself, but with gods help he is able to do all that it says. maybe....

jesus himself asks why people call him good (good=god). This is plain as day, and is at least a contradiction to any biblical quote that says jesus IS god.

Ill just take a couple examples that you think says jesus IS god:

""In the beggining was the WORD, the word was with God, and the WORD was God....and the WORD became flesh, and dwelt among us. He was in the beggining with the world, all things were made through him, but the woirld recieve him not. But to those who did, he gave power and authority to become children of God. BORN NOT OF POWER, NOR BY WILL, BUT OF SPIRIT"- John...

This proves Jesus is God..The Word incarnate"

Nowhere in that quote does it mention either jesus or "the word incarnate".

""Truly if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"- Jesus Christ.. "

This could actually be a quote that says that jesus is god. I just noticed that. But maybe he is saying that he does what god asks and through him they see god

""I will go to heaven and prepare a place for you"- Jesus Christ..

"Amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"- Jesus Christ.. "

However, neither of these refer to himself as god. He merely says he will go to heaven and that he was "before" abraham... Nothing about god.

I think that Lightbeing's point was that even though there are quotes that say jesus is god, there are also others that say jesus is not god. Therefore we can say that the bible is not consistent with itself. After all, the bible wasn't written and translated by god....
 
Frencheneesz,

I think that Lightbeing's point was that even though there are quotes that say jesus is god, there are also others that say jesus is not god. Therefore we can say that the bible is not consistent with itself. After all, the bible wasn't written and translated by god....

Eventhough your last sentence is right, I don't think that there are inconsistencies. I believe that if we pay attention to who is writting, when it is being written, who is being adressed and the whole context of the chapter and the Bible itself, then you will find the Bible very consistent.

For example, as LIGHTBEING pointed out, the Gospel of John was written way after Jesus raised from the dead. His writtings compared to the writtings of other apostles clearly shows how the perspective changed throughout the years. Before you start reading a book in the Bible, better check the date when it was written and see the relationship with what is written in other books. Of course, this requires a lot of study of the Bible.

""In the beggining was the WORD, the word was with God, and the WORD was God....and the WORD became flesh, and dwelt among us. He was in the beggining with the world, all things were made through him, but the woirld recieve him not. But to those who did, he gave power and authority to become children of God. BORN NOT OF POWER, NOR BY WILL, BUT OF SPIRIT"- John..."

This proves Jesus is God..The Word incarnate"

Nowhere in that quote does it mention either jesus or "the word incarnate".

First of all, the Scripture we are talking about here begins in John 1:1 and finishes with a translation that I don't know...

Well... anyways... here is the passage:

John1:1-18
The Word Became Flesh

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. "

Now, discuss among yourselves... ;)

"Truly if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"- Jesus Christ..

This could actually be a quote that says that jesus is god. I just noticed that. But maybe he is saying that he does what god asks and through him they see god
Actually, it means that the Light of God's Love shines through him. That God is within him and that through him He does His works. This also recalls the last Scripture I gave you...

"I will go to heaven and prepare a place for you"- Jesus Christ..

"Amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I am"- Jesus Christ..

However, neither of these refer to himself as god. He merely says he will go to heaven and that he was "before" abraham... Nothing about god.
I'm not sure about those, but I believe in the first he is saying that he will go back to heaven and that he will die so that we may go there (simply that), and the second one maybe means that God planned his coming since the beginning of creation. For a matter of fact, as there is no time in the spiritual realm (it's actually an eternity and an eternal present at the same time...) we have all been created before Abraham (if this actually says what I understand from it). Putting in context is allways good though. Unfortunatly, I have no time left for that...
 
Why Not?

Truly if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"- Jesus Christ.. "

This could actually be a quote that says that jesus is god. I just noticed that. But maybe he is saying that he does what god asks and through him they see god
Why not both? Or is this the atheistic spirit in you speaking?
Closer yet French! Closer yet!! :)
All us theists love all you atheists. Don't think we don't. But tough love is a biblical fact of life
 
Desire & emotion!!

Raither said,

You stated that thought serves desire (which is emotion), suggest that thought is only about emotion, and seem to suggest that thought cannot change desire (emotion). You have strayed from that portion of our discussion but from what you have said that is the conclusion I have drawn. If not then please explain.


Where did i state that thought "serves" desire, and why do you think that desire and emotion are the same thing???

Our desire is based on obtaining some sort of satisfaction, it is very simple. Our thoughts are expressions of the mind, which generally focuses on some aspect of our desires, beit directly or indirectly.

Why have you not posted a reply to my last post, was it something i said? :p

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
MarcAC:

"Closer yet French! Closer yet!!"

Well, the thing is, I am no closer than I was before. I have just articulated my thoughts in a way that you can easily comprehend. I have no more belief in god than I ever did.

Why not both? Well, If he is god, than god cannot be speaking through him. God cannot speak "through" himself, because he IS himself, if you see what I'm saying.
 
Originally posted by MarcAC
The point is we don't know what God knows. We still choose. So we still have OUR free will.
No, within this reference, choice is then merely an illusion... we appear to have a choice but are unable to select other than what God knows.

You should review your logic. Try thinking outside of our 4 dimensions
"outside of 4 dimensions" is getting towards what I was referring to with the modal/temporal reference. We can look at omniscience from a point outside of time (beyond 4 dimensions). This has different ramifications as to God, however.

To illuminate the temporal "escape" from the paradox:
I know what I had for dinner last night yet, prior to my eating dinner, I had freedom of choice as to what I ate. But if I know what I had, how could I have had a choice. The explanation comes though the examination of the temporal frame of reference as I travel through time:

Prior to the event I am causal to the event, I had freedom to select from a variety of options for dinner. It is also important to realize that prior to the event I cannot know the event... I may know what I want and plan to have for dinner but I could be mistaken, all I have prior to the event is a prediction which even if it proves to be accurate is only a prediction. After the event occurs I can no longer change the event. It has collapsed from a probabilistic function to a certainty which I can now know.

Now notice that the very reason I can have knowledge of the event is because I can no longer change the event. The event has become immutable. This is identical to the ramifications for God. God may be omniscient but the very fact of his knowledge would prevent him from being able to interact with that which he knows. He would be beyond time and thus static from within a temporal frame of reference. To look at it more simply; if God knows something he cannot change it because that would cause his knowledge to be false.

Well you know Raithere what you stated as absurd in the latter quote seems to be what you said in the former. I look to my God and my faith for rationale... and science now and then... I also look to fellow believers.
No, I think you must have mistaken something someone else said. I never indicated that knowing and doing are the same... in fact, what I was replying to was your comment "And I have seen that you smartly do not say that knowing is doing."

Oh feel free to introduce your modal and temporal logic. I have a strange premonition I'll enjoy it
I gave a basic outline above... hope you enjoyed it :)

And who says any earthly example can ever be a perfect analogy to God. He was making a point. And it is a solid one. Knowing is not doing.
I've never asserted otherwise. However, yalls question to me is still an invalid question.

Your evidence will come in due time
When and if it comes I will be happy to acknowledge it. Until then I remain highly skeptical.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
To you of course.
I haven't come across a conception of God that I believe in although there are a few that I cannot deny. The closest would be a cosmotheistic definition or, more simply, an expression of the unity of existence. But I find the label of "God" problematic in such instances.

What things do you mean?
I think that there are many psychological factors, here are two that I consider very basic: 1) The loss of and desire to return to the feeling of safety/protection we had when we were infants. 2) A sense of unity that we become confused about because of the misperceptions in conventional views of reality and ourselves.

Its not that, its that you don’t seemed relaxed with yourself, you seem to search for answers outside of your experience, this shows lack of confidence.
Not at all. :) I am a very relaxed person. What you are probably seeing is an excitement regarding ideas. I am a person who is almost never bored because I can find something interesting anywhere... what you are seeing is excitement not agitation. As far as confidence goes, I have great confidence in my intellectual acuity, in fact I probably am overconfident. What you are noticing is my willingness to accept I might be mistaken and there are many things I do not know. I try not to pretend to have knowledge that I do not possess and am always willing to reevaluate my beliefs.

explanations means squat, unless you can relate them to your own self experience, and when you can, you can see through bogus explanations very easily.
I agree with the first part but the second part is not that easy. I do trust my instinctual response because it has proven to be very reliable but figuring though the details and actual reasoning is not always so easy or clear. Nor is intuition always accurate. In fact, I believe that one needs to sharpen one's intuition through reason, logic, and understanding. The "intuition" of those who are ignorant is very often wrong.

That is because one cannot define love in a general sense, it is a personal feeling. All we can do is say what love is to us as individuals, and compare our definitions. Like love, God can only be proven satisfactorily to ourselves.
For the most part, I agree... but that makes it a rather meaningless term to bandy about in the middle of such important matters. I also have no problem with a strictly personal/subjective experience God. But then, whence comes your assertion? I think it very likely we share many of these feelings/experiences, I just use a different name, do not award them a personality, or believe they are a result of something distinct from nature.

Love is not a hypothesis, theory or fact, it is a truth, you can only experience it when it is a part of you.
You're asking me prove the hypothesis that love exists. I ask you to define love. Without a lucid definition your query is meaningless.

But I cannot experience those things you tell me of. People tell people they love them all the time, it doesn’t mean its true, only they know if its true.
An inherent problem with things that are strictly subjective. Now then, if we cannot prove love then how can we prove God? And if we cannot prove it, how do we know it's real? Some people think they love but then their behavior belies their belief. And if I do not 'feel' God or if what you call God I call something else how can you say I am wrong?

It is not different from me telling you what God means to me, do you get my point?
I understand what you are saying but I do not think that you have a point from which to assert God. Essentially, you are saying that Love and God are both indefinable concepts. Which is fine, but then how can you possibly assert them as concrete fact and how can you claim knowledge of the particulars. Both exist purely in the subjective realm. Given this subjectivity, my disbelief is equal in validity to your belief.

They are instincts, but our natural instincts have become perverted due to societal pressure.
While I believe some of them can be traced to instinctual behaviors others cannot.

Take a look at society today, is it any wonder?
Not at all... but I find it to be a human accretion.

I agree totally with the first part, but the second part is too general, it depends what the desire is. It all boils down to whether our mind is our friend or enemy.
Perhaps bestial has too many negative connotations. What I mean is; acting purely from emotion without the benefit of thought. Which I find to be a lower order of behavior... one of the things that separates us from animals (generally).

I can apreciate that, but some things don’t require work, it actually requires calm, relaxation and enjoyment. When we work, we tend to focus the mind on the job at hand, when we relax we can focus on our mind.
Don't worry, I do that too. But learning to be calm and focused upon our own mind requires effort as well.

outside of that, why do we work so hard?
Because, generally speaking, things that are worth attaining take some measure of discipline and effort. Even learning how to be calm and self-contemplative takes discipline.

Just for now, forget what life is at its primary level, just tell what you think it is from your own perspective, now, as you read this. I know you must have one, because you are alive and therefore have firsthand experience of life.
That is what I think life is: patterns within patterns. Like a drop of cream in a cup of coffee.

so whether you accept it or not, that is the standard. If you change the religion, then it is no longer religion, and we have no subject matter.
But I think that religions are primarily an accretion of various manipulations, superstitions, and psychological tendencies.

You do not believe in God either, but we are discussing Him in light of religion, sin is explained in all religion, so you must accept (at least for purpose of discussion), the descriptions as laid out.
Sorry, but I don't find these concepts to be valid. Any being that enforced such concepts I would not respect or honor no matter how powerful it is or how much it accomplished. I reject such concepts from a moral and logical basis, as such they contradict anything that I could call God.

I do not agree that abiogenisis took place, but I cannot change the explanations as put forward by the authorities, to suit my whims.
And thus you reject Abiogenesis as defined. Similarly, I reject such conceptions of God that I find to be invalid.

That make a lot of sense to someone who doesn’t believe in God, I know you don’t believe in God, but at least accept what religion is.
Common "religion" is made up of a lot of things most of which are not really about God or even truth.

You’re right, God would not be offended, but that is not what I implied, sin implies that you offend yourself, see it as a form of self-abuse.
But I'm not offended, nor do I find my actions/thoughts/beliefs to be self-abusive.

Where did i state that thought "serves" desire
From your post on 11-19: "The desire remains in the heart, it is not a thought or consideration, those come later, and they serve your desire which is usually to satisfy the senses."

why do you think that desire and emotion are the same thing???
They're not identical. Desire is an emotion but I never said that all emotions are desire. Desire is a subset of emotion.

Our thoughts are expressions of the mind, which generally focuses on some aspect of our desires, beit directly or indirectly.
Sure, I can accept that thoughts often focus upon some aspect of our desire, however I also believe (and think I have shown) that thoughts can influence desire.

Why have you not posted a reply to my last post, was it something i said?
Not at all. I've simply been quite busy.

~Raithere
 
Why Not?

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
MarcAC:
Well, the thing is, I am no closer than I was before. I have just articulated my thoughts in a way that you can easily comprehend. I have no more belief in god than I ever did.

Why not both? Well, If he is god, than god cannot be speaking through him. God cannot speak "through" himself, because he IS himself, if you see what I'm saying.

I guess you have always been more open to the possibility of God's existence. Good for you. Closer yet.

And in light of the second statement. It is incredible how God spoke to himself in Genesis huh? Jesus was fully God and fully man. When you understand the ramificatrions of that fact you will understand why it could be both.
 
"But I find the label of "God" problematic in such instances."
---------------------

Why? Are you intimidated by the nomenclature? ;-)



"This is identical to the ramifications for God. God may be omniscient but the very fact of his knowledge would prevent him from being able to interact with that which he knows. He would be beyond time and thus static from within a temporal frame of reference. To look at it more simply; if God knows something he cannot change it because that would cause his knowledge to be false."
---------------------


This is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist. Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else. For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He. Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock. What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

><>
 
Knowing is not doing!

Originally posted by Raithere
No, within this reference, choice is then merely an illusion... we appear to have a choice but are unable to select other than what God knows.
O.k. I understand your notion. But my point is that we still make a choice from OUR frame of reference. Is our visual reality an illusion? Bees can naturally see a part of the ultraviolet spectrum. Does that mean what we see is an illusion or what the bees see is an illusion? It just demonstrates our limits. We still make a choice and the fact that we have the ability to choose between those two options means we have the free will to do so. And here AGAIN you imply that if God knows what we will choose then he makes the choice for us IF you insist that if God knows then free will is an illusion

"outside of 4 dimensions" is getting towards what I was referring to with the modal/temporal reference. We can look at omniscience from a point outside of time (beyond 4 dimensions). This has different ramifications as to God, however.

To illuminate the temporal "escape" from the paradox:
I know what I had for dinner last night yet, prior to my eating dinner, I had freedom of choice as to what I ate. But if I know what I had, how could I have had a choice. The explanation comes though the examination of the temporal frame of reference as I travel through time:

Prior to the event I am causal to the event, I had freedom to select from a variety of options for dinner. It is also important to realize that prior to the event I cannot know the event... I may know what I want and plan to have for dinner but I could be mistaken, all I have prior to the event is a prediction which even if it proves to be accurate is only a prediction. After the event occurs I can no longer change the event. It has collapsed from a probabilistic function to a certainty which I can now know.

Now notice that the very reason I can have knowledge of the event is because I can no longer change the event. The event has become immutable. This is identical to the ramifications for God. God may be omniscient but the very fact of his knowledge would prevent him from being able to interact with that which he knows. He would be beyond time and thus static from within a temporal frame of reference. To look at it more simply; if God knows something he cannot change it because that would cause his knowledge to be false.
Above we see that you are trying to bring God down to your niche. Above we see - if you insist on the corollary that we don't have freewill - you are arguing as if GOD made/makes the choice which He doesn't. Here we see the problems of logic with infinite situations. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. And as the Inspector illustrated with veritable acumen. Above is the epitmoy of circular resoning [logic].
No, I think you must have mistaken something someone else said. I never indicated that knowing and doing are the same...

I gave a basic outline above... hope you enjoyed it :)
Now that is how one should argue - not that the argument above aided the antichrist in any way - but it makes you think. Thank you Raithere. Loved it. You seem to indicate the same thing above Raithere.
When and if it comes I will be happy to acknowledge it. Until then I remain highly skeptical.
Your choice. The evidence is there, you just refuse to acknowledge it as evidence. God knows what you will choose to believe bro or sis. I don't, you don't, He does. I hope it is the right choice
 
sorrygod does notexist in the form christians believe- aka all merciful all powerful & all knowing- either he knows about the trouble in the world and doesnt care or cant do anything bout it or he doesnt know therefore it is a paradox (atheists rock !)
Holly
 
sorrygod does notexist in the form christians believe- aka all merciful all powerful & all knowing- either he knows about the trouble in the world and doesnt care or cant do anything bout it or he doesnt know therefore it is a paradox (atheists rock !)
Holly
 
Originally posted by inspector
Why? Are you intimidated by the nomenclature?
Hardly. I find it problematic because of all of the preconceptions it carries. God, to 'Western' culture in particular, carries a sense of 'being' or consciousness that I cannot validate. The 'Eastern' conceptions of God are more subtle but seem to be somewhat self-contradictory and based in a dualistic paradox.

This is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist.
No, this is representative of the paradoxical quandaries that theists get themselves into when they try to assert that they "know" that God possesses certain qualities. I did not invent the paradox, it already existed in the religious assertions. Theists will try all manner of redefinitions and workarounds hoping to escape the quandary.

Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist. Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
Actually, it's quite logical. These are the types of problem you run into when you start defining infinities.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature.
God, as a limited being is quite acceptable. I did not, however, invent the assertion of God as an unlimited being with unlimited knowledge and power. I am merely responding to it. Of course, God, by this definition is merely the most powerful being not an 'all-powerful' being.

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.
This statement is self-contradictory. You state the omnipotence does not include the ability to do anything conceivable and then turn around and state that he has unlimited and universal power. You can't have it both ways... is God limited or unlimited.

This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true.
...
But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Once again, I have no problem (theoretically) with a finite God.

Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.
Once again, the assertion was not posited by the 'critics' but by theists. If you disagree, that is fine, but don't pretend the critics just made it up as a straw-man argument.

~Raithere
 
"Once again, I have no problem (theoretically) with a finite God."
------------------

Then, you obviously have a problem with Jesus.

You have already acknowledged the validity of the Bible. If there is a God, and He encompasses the universe, is it possible that He would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible?

><>
 
Last edited:
Re: Knowing is not doing!

Originally posted by MarcAC
And here AGAIN you imply that if God knows what we will choose then he makes the choice for us IF you insist that if God knows then free will is an illusion
If we stay within a single temporal reference, yes, the fact that the event is known (or even knowable) collapses possibility. Look at it this way, if God knows you will pick up the blue ball and not the red ball can you prove God wrong and pick up the red ball? If not why not? If not how can you say there is choice involved when there can be only one outcome?

Above we see - if you insist on the corollary that we don't have freewill - you are arguing as if GOD made/makes the choice which He doesn't.
No, that would be a false dilemma (God or Us). The function collapses, it is inherent in the nature of the function. The same thing happens when you know that X=5, the function 2X=Y collapses and we know that Y=10. What causes it? Nothing, it is inherent in the function.

Here we see the problems of logic with infinite situations. God is omnipotent. He can do anything. And as the Inspector illustrated with veritable acumen. Above is the epitmoy of circular resoning [logic].
No, inspector has posited that God is limited and not infinite. I have no problem with that but there are other theists who disagree.

~Raithere
 
"No, inspector has posited that God is limited and not infinite. I have no problem with that but there are other theists who disagree."
-------------------

Whoa. Back the truck up. I did NOT say God is limited. I said God cannot violate His own nature. Big difference.

><>
 
LOL, Inspector, I warn you, this people are weird.......LOL....:D Im cracking up right now....They cant admit loosing an argument...
 
Back
Top