I am baffled, please explain

[Kurisu35712]

Either we have no idea about God or we do. And almost every single post on every thread on this forum presupposes that we do know God. There are thousands of questions and everyone puts forwards thousands upon thousands of answers. God is this. God is that. God wants this. This is the heaven where God will welcome us. This is His son. This is why He sent Him here. These are His words. I mean, for heaven’s sake, you have built a religion BASED on the fact that you understand God.

No-one is suggesting that anyone can FULLY comprehend God. If that is the point you are making, then play the card and leave it at that. But…and this is a huge but…it only seems to get whipped out by Christians when someone points out what appears to be an error in Christian thinking. But if it’s acceptable for Christians to use it whenever it suits, then expect atheists to use the same card and the same argument back at you. “God is Good, God is the source of all morality’ – well, sorry, PR, as you yourself have said…

Some of these discussions come across as a political debate where one side will not admit, under any circumstances whatsoever, that their party can do anything wrong and will not admit that the opposing party can do anything right.

Bradski brings up a good point here. We cannot understand God fully. But it is incorrect to state that we can’t understand Him at all. We understand, or at least seek to understand, what He has revealed to us of Himself. As a result, there are things about God that we do indeed know.

Whether we can adequately explain what we know is definitely another matter.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You are putting the cart before the horse, PA.

Right now, we are still arguing for the existence of the God of the Philosophers.

Not the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity.

Sorry, I am not aware of that. Which posts do you refer to? This whole thread is about the “mysteries” (aka irrationalities) of Genesis. When did the god of the philosophers poke its snotty nose into the conversation?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I am not aware of that. Which posts do you refer to? This whole thread is about the “mysteries” (aka irrationalities) of Genesis. When did the god of the philosophers poke its snotty nose into the conversation?

When we were talking about God being outside of time, and therefore no more responsible for the choices of those in Genesis than he is for the choice I have right now to ignore your “snotty nose” comment.

But I won’t ignore it again. Please stop from making snarky references in the future.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

When we were talking about God being outside of time, and therefore no more responsible for the choices of those in Genesis than he is for the choice I have right now to ignore your “snotty nose” comment.

But I won’t ignore it again. Please stop from making snarky references in the future.

I did not participate in that particular side-conversation. Especially since God is “ultimately” responsible for everything. So your butting in into the conversation with Lily Bernanse was ill-conceived, even though you have every right to poke your… ahem… nose wherever you wish to.

 

[Bradski]

Yep. We do know something about God.

And one thing is His omniscience. So let’s get all God-like and join Him in the Eternal Now and get a glimpse of what this entails.

You could say that life for us is like a movie. Opening credits, introduce the characters, story line, happy ever after (or not, as the case may be) and The End. We can only see what’s happening right now. We can’t see what’s going to happen. It’s only this thin sliver of now to which we have access.

Now God has it all spread about Him. He can see everything all at once. He knows how the story starts and how it unfurls and how it ends. He has all the individual frames of the film printed out and laid all about. There’s no waiting to see what happens. There are no surprise twists and turns. He knows how the show proceeds. After all, He is the writer, producer and director.

The film we are interested in is one about Tasmania. People’s lives, their families, their hopes and dreams, their day to day, every day, run of the mill experiences. We notice that, as the film is running, there are things that are discordant. Things that start to concern us. Things that give us cause for concern.

‘Why has this character been introduced?’ might be a good question to ask if you were watching the film. ‘Why is he loading his car with guns and ammo?’ might be another. ‘Why is he driving to Port Arthur’ you’d surely ask, still not knowing what was going to happen yet feeling extremely uneasy about the direction of the narrative. Then we get a glimpse of the Eternal Now. We get a quick walk around and see the Director’s Cut in its entirety.

As the film is running as far as the Tassies are concerned, children playing, husbands and wives walking together, everyone enjoying a day in the sun, you get to see what happens. You see it all. You turn to the director and ask Him why did he bring him into the film knowing FULL WELL what he would do. “Ah, but he chose to kill those people. I didn’t’, he replies.

But the film is already run. The characters have already been cast. The storyline has been written. And the supporters of the director complain that it’s hardly his fault if the film turned out to be a horror story.

 

[Gorgias]

I apologize. It was not just one post, it was a series of posts, starting on page #4, with post #49… going for quite a while. I especially would like to direct your attention to post #68. But this is not really important. I am willing to discuss it, but we have more pressing discrepancies to explore. The gist of it was that “not creating” someone is unfair and unjust.

By the way, I will reply to your continuation in post #198, but I would prefer to explore the ramifications of your post #197, which I presented in post #228. Do take your time, there is no need to hurry. I tried to take all your objections into account and reflect on all of them. See you when I see you.

Thanks! I got caught up with work IRL, and it looks like I’ve missed six pages of posts! I’ll circle back and try to catch up…

BTW, I’m curious. You wrote this:

I asked why does God seemingly “prefer” the free will of a strong rapist to conquer the free will of the weaker victim. The answer was that the victim’s free will was not impaired, she was perfectly “free” to want not to be raped, she “merely” was unable to put her “will” into practice. The first time I heard that, I was left breathless at the audacity and cruelty of this answer. Later I learned that this particular person was not a far-out aberration, there are many others who share this sick and twisted view.

What is it about this approach that you find to be ‘audacious’, ‘cruel’, and ‘sick and twisted’?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thanks! I got caught up with work IRL, and it looks like I’ve missed six pages of posts! I’ll circle back and try to catch up…

Please take you time. I am much more interested in a well thought out and meaningful conversation than a hasty “shot from the hip”. I am surprised to see the abundance of the posts in this thread. Looks like people like it.

BTW, I’m curious. You wrote this:

What is it about this approach that you find to be ‘audacious’, ‘cruel’, and ‘sick and twisted’?

I simply compare the disappointment of the rapist-to-be who is left hanging with the unfulfilled desire to rape that victim to the horrible experience of the victim being violated against her will. Admittedly the rapist will feel some disappointment when his desire is “thwarted”, but I think that his disappointment is negligible compared to the horror of that is experienced by the victim of the raped one. It is based upon my basic worldview (which you may or may not share) that violence is only acceptable as a final resort against some other violence. To use a very explicit language: “to HELL with the freedom of the attacker”. I am always on the side of the weak one who is attacked. Is this a sufficient explanation? If not, please do not hesitate to continue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, the Christian God pre-planned creation with absolute foreknowledge, then created the world…already having full knowledge of everything that would happen…but, because he’s God he included free will.
There is the conundrum…nothing can be created with a pre-known life and still have free will. Even the encyclopedia ends the discussion with mystery.
It is no mystery…it is logically inconsistent, which even the omnipotent Christian God cannot do.

How would you know what the omnipotent, omniscient God can and cannot do? Does a slug know what human beings can or can’t do? It cannot even fathom what it would mean to be a human being let alone what actions a human being can undertake or be incapable of. You are stretching your credibility with that kind of claim, especially when you add “logically inconsistent,” as if you have any way of being certain about that pronouncement.

Not so long ago humans thought heavier than air flight was “logically impossible,” but it turned out not to be the case. I suspect human beings in a hundred years will be doing things we think are “logically impossible.”

You have no idea what it means to create “pre-known life,” nor do you comprehend what it means to endow a being with free will. You have no authority with which to know with any degree of certainty what is possible, let alone logically inconsistent.

Sorry, not convinced.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please take you time. I am much more interested in a well thought out and meaningful conversation than a hasty “shot from the hip”. I am surprised to see the abundance of the posts in this thread. Looks like people like it.

I simply compare the disappointment of the rapist-to-be who is left hanging with the unfulfilled desire to rape that victim to the horrible experience of the victim being violated against her will. Admittedly the rapist will feel some disappointment when his desire is “thwarted”, but I think that his disappointment is negligible compared to the horror of that is experienced by the victim of the raped one. It is based upon my basic worldview (which you may or may not share) that violence is only acceptable as a final resort against some other violence. To use a very explicit language: “to HELL with the freedom of the attacker”. I am always on the side of the weak one who is attacked. Is this a sufficient explanation? If not, please do not hesitate to continue.

This is precisely why I don’t accept the pain principle as a determiner of what is right or wrong. It isn’t adequate.

Take your grounds for viewing rape as wrong: because the victim is put through “the horrible experience of the victim being violated against her will.” What if the victim found the entire experience not ‘horrible’ but exhilarating and pleasant, would that be sufficient to make rape licit in your view? It seems to me that rape is wrong for more reasons than the experience of the victim. Even if the victim found the experience generally a pleasant one, rape would still be wrong.

 

[oldcelt]

How would you know what the omnipotent, omniscient God can and cannot do? Does a slug know what human beings can or can’t do? It cannot even fathom what it would mean to be a human being let alone what actions a human being can undertake or be incapable of. You are stretching your credibility with that kind of claim, especially when you add “logically inconsistent,” as if you have any way of being certain about that pronouncement.

Not so long ago humans thought heavier than air flight was “logically impossible,” but it turned out not to be the case. I suspect human beings in a hundred years will be doing things we think are “logically impossible.”

You have no idea what it means to create “pre-known life,” nor do you comprehend what it means to endow a being with free will. You have no authority with which to know with any degree of certainty what is possible, let alone logically inconsistent.

Sorry, not convinced.

I did not expect you to be convinced. However, your second paragraph is a pale attempt to defeat logic.
Beyond that…you only say that I do not have this or that…oh well…I guess we have nothing more to say to each other.

John

 

[oldcelt]

And one thing is His omniscience. So let’s get all God-like and join Him in the Eternal Now and get a glimpse of what this entails.

You could say that life for us is like a movie. Opening credits, introduce the characters, story line, happy ever after (or not, as the case may be) and The End. We can only see what’s happening right now. We can’t see what’s going to happen. It’s only this thin sliver of now to which we have access.

Now God has it all spread about Him. He can see everything all at once. He knows how the story starts and how it unfurls and how it ends. He has all the individual frames of the film printed out and laid all about. There’s no waiting to see what happens. There are no surprise twists and turns. He knows how the show proceeds. After all, He is the writer, producer and director.

The film we are interested in is one about Tasmania. People’s lives, their families, their hopes and dreams, their day to day, every day, run of the mill experiences. We notice that, as the film is running, there are things that are discordant. Things that start to concern us. Things that give us cause for concern.

‘Why has this character been introduced?’ might be a good question to ask if you were watching the film. ‘Why is he loading his car with guns and ammo?’ might be another. ‘Why is he driving to Port Arthur’ you’d surely ask, still not knowing what was going to happen yet feeling extremely uneasy about the direction of the narrative. Then we get a glimpse of the Eternal Now. We get a quick walk around and see the Director’s Cut in its entirety.

As the film is running as far as the Tassies are concerned, children playing, husbands and wives walking together, everyone enjoying a day in the sun, you get to see what happens. You see it all. You turn to the director and ask Him why did he bring him into the film knowing FULL WELL what he would do. “Ah, but he chose to kill those people. I didn’t’, he replies.

But the film is already run. The characters have already been cast. The storyline has been written. And the supporters of the director complain that it’s hardly his fault if the film turned out to be a horror story.

It will be interesting to read the responses.

 

[Bradski]

How would you know what the omnipotent, omniscient God can and cannot do?

Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything. We don’t need to know everything that ‘anything’ entails. Just that it does indeed encompasses everything logically possible. Omniscient means knowing everything. Again we don’t need to know everything ourselves to be able to say this, just that it does really include everything without exception. If your God is a God that cannot logically do something or there is something He doesn’t know, then I can think of a greater God and it all falls in a heap.

I can’t believe I’m having to write this on a Catholic forum.

Not so long ago humans thought heavier than air flight was “logically impossible,” but it turned out not to be the case. I suspect human beings in a hundred years will be doing things we think are “logically impossible.”

Hmmm. I wonder from where you got the idea that arguing that something is not possible simply because it appears to be illogical is not an argument at all. Maybe you don’t appreciate the difference in what appears to be illogical because we lack the knowledge to make an educated statement (heavier than air flight, one thing being in two places etc) and the truly illogical. Such as defining God as being omniscient because He knows everything and then suggesting that, well actually, He may not.

Take your grounds for viewing rape as wrong: because the victim is put through “the horrible experience of the victim being violated against her will.” What if the victim found the entire experience not ‘horrible’ but exhilarating and pleasant, would that be sufficient to make rape licit in your view? It seems to me that rape is wrong for more reasons than the experience of the victim. Even if the victim found the experience generally a pleasant one, rape would still be wrong.

‘Against her will’ being the operative phrase. No consent equals rape. If I injected you surreptitiously with cocaine, you would enjoy the experience. But I can’t see you saying that it was OK after the event. Whether the wronged party in either case would want to seek redress is another matter.

 

[tonyrey]

The first question is this:
Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey?

Yes! God may well have created other universes but each of them would have its advantages and disadvantages. Variety is the spice of every form of life! Life without any form of challenge is worthless.

**The second question is: **
Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails?

No life leads to eternal extinction. Life without any form of challenge is worthless.
**

The next question is:
If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. **
Life is not a trick but an opportunity for development. Life without any form of challenge is worthless.

 

[Bradski]

Variety is the spice of every form of life!

Life without any form of challenge is worthless.

No life leads to eternal extinction.

Life is not a trick but an opportunity for development.

Tony. If you’re ever made redundant I can point you in the right direction for a very suitable career: adulteducation.answers.com/careers/a-career-as-a-fortune-cookie-writer.

And hey, no offence meant, mate. We can’t be too serious all the time. Hope you take it in good humour…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Tony. If you’re ever made redundant I can point you in the right direction for a very suitable career: adulteducation.answers.com/careers/a-career-as-a-fortune-cookie-writer.

And hey, no offence meant, mate. We can’t be too serious all the time. Hope you take it in good humour…

All humor to one side, Tony does have a point. A life with no challenges would be boring. But, how many have to suffer and go to hell just so we can escape boredom? If this is the price of admission: “I most respectfully return him the ticket…”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything. We don’t need to know everything that ‘anything’ entails. Just that it does indeed encompasses everything logically possible. Omniscient means knowing everything. Again we don’t need to know everything ourselves to be able to say this, just that it does really include everything without exception. If your God is a God that cannot logically do something or there is something He doesn’t know, then I can think of a greater God and it all falls in a heap.

I can’t believe I’m having to write this on a Catholic forum.

I never argued that God couldn’t do “everything logically possible.” My argument was that the content of “everything logically possible” is not something as easily determined as stringing a few words together and claiming they are logically possible. The actual content of “everything logically possible” is not something that can be determined by human beings, just as everything human beings are capable of is not something a slug would be in a position to flesh out. Given that human beings cannot now produce an exhaustive list of what human beings can accomplish, it would seem audacious of us to make claims about what precisely the 3-Omni God can or cannot do, as if we would have any clue about that.

Kindly refrain from reading into my claim that God cannot do everything logically possible. I am not denying that and never have. What I am denying is that we are in the kind of privileged position required to say what precisely “everything logically possible” would entail. It seems to me that you were arguing exactly this point not so long ago vis a vis science. Hello?

Hmmm. I wonder from where you got the idea that arguing that something is not possible simply because it appears to be illogical is not an argument at all. Maybe you don’t appreciate the difference in what appears to be illogical because we lack the knowledge to make an educated statement (heavier than air flight, one thing being in two places etc) and the truly illogical. Such as defining God as being omniscient because He knows everything and then suggesting that, well actually, He may not.

Except that I am not arguing that God may not “know everything.” I am suggesting that some things may not be worth knowing and, therefore, why would anyone, let alone God, want or need to know them? You seem to want to ascribe as central to and required by God’s omniscience, that which even human knowledge would let pass as absurd, nonsensical or not worth even thinking about as if omniscience entails having no discretionary power to actively think, but was merely equivalent to “the sum of all knowable stuff.”

‘Against her will’ being the operative phrase. No consent equals rape. If I injected you surreptitiously with cocaine, you would enjoy the experience. But I can’t see you saying that it was OK after the event. Whether the wronged party in either case would want to seek redress is another matter.

Take it up with PA, I wasn’t the one arguing that rape is wrong because it involves the horrific experience of being violated, I was arguing that the experience of the victim isn’t what, necessarily makes an act wrong. Open heart surgery involves the experience of one’s body and soul being violated and it isn’t something that involves consent in the sense of anyone “wanting” to go through with it, but those two features together aren’t sufficient to make it wrong for a surgeon to put someone through the procedure.

 

[PRmerger]

And one thing is His omniscience. So let’s get all God-like and join Him in the Eternal Now and get a glimpse of what this entails.

You could say that life for us is like a movie. Opening credits, introduce the characters, story line, happy ever after (or not, as the case may be) and The End. We can only see what’s happening right now. We can’t see what’s going to happen. It’s only this thin sliver of now to which we have access.

Now God has it all spread about Him. He can see everything all at once. He knows how the story starts and how it unfurls and how it ends. He has all the individual frames of the film printed out and laid all about. There’s no waiting to see what happens. There are no surprise twists and turns. He knows how the show proceeds. After all, He is the writer, producer and director.

The film we are interested in is one about Tasmania. People’s lives, their families, their hopes and dreams, their day to day, every day, run of the mill experiences. We notice that, as the film is running, there are things that are discordant. Things that start to concern us. Things that give us cause for concern.

‘Why has this character been introduced?’ might be a good question to ask if you were watching the film. ‘Why is he loading his car with guns and ammo?’ might be another. ‘Why is he driving to Port Arthur’ you’d surely ask, still not knowing what was going to happen yet feeling extremely uneasy about the direction of the narrative. Then we get a glimpse of the Eternal Now. We get a quick walk around and see the Director’s Cut in its entirety.

As the film is running as far as the Tassies are concerned, children playing, husbands and wives walking together, everyone enjoying a day in the sun, you get to see what happens. You see it all. You turn to the director and ask Him why did he bring him into the film knowing FULL WELL what he would do. “Ah, but he chose to kill those people. I didn’t’, he replies.

But the film is already run. The characters have already been cast. The storyline has been written. And the supporters of the director complain that it’s hardly his fault if the film turned out to be a horror story.

Everything you say is reasonable and I don’t discharge any of it.

But everything you say is from the creature’s POV.

When you look at it from God’s POV, you see: free will, love, choice. I will make good out of bad.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Everything you say is reasonable and I don’t discharge any of it.

But everything you say is from the creature’s POV.

When you look at it from God’s POV, you see: free will, love, choice. I will make good out of bad.

How can you so confidently proclaim your knowledge of God’s POV?

 

[tonyrey]

Tony. If you’re ever made redundant I can point you in the right direction for a very suitable career: adulteducation.answers.com/careers/a-career-as-a-fortune-cookie-writer.

And hey, no offence meant, mate. We can’t be too serious all the time. Hope you take it in good humour…

Why not, Brad? You may be telepathic! was made redundant many years ago and tried my hand at writing, not cookies but articles about corruption, disasters and other types of evil. Some were published but not paid well enough to support a family.

It goes to show that not all challenges are welcome and some are excessive but that is a far cry from showing no challenges are necessary. Where do we draw the line?

 

[PRmerger]

How can you so confidently proclaim your knowledge of God’s POV?

I just go by what he’s revealed.