The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[john_ennis]

Originally Posted by rossum forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

Which of the following two statements is false:

• Jesus is eternal.
• Jesus is truly man.

If both statements are true, then there is at least one eternal man.

This logic has an error caused by the ambiguity of “Jesus is truly man” being assumed to mean “Jesus has always been truly man.” He hasn’t always been. Thus, the syllogism doesn’t at all justify the conclusion, Jesus is an example of a man who is eternal–meaning a man who has always existed.

 

[STT]

It is inherent in the word. Someone existing outside space and time seems to me as incomprehensible as saying someone can swim outside water. You need a space and time for existence, in the same way you need water for swimming.

You need to consider the fact that God is the creator of universe, and time and space are elements of universe hence God didn’t exist in time and space before creation since there were neither time nor space. So God exists outside time and space if you accept that He exists. That is another problem if you cannot imagine it. God’s believers can argue that God is beyond human imagination.

And there is another problem. The god of the Bible does exist within space and time. I’ve given a few examples a few pages back of God intervening in this world. So even if a god exists outside space and time, it wouldn’t be the god of the Bible.

God stays in the eternal now and in the same time can intervene in universe. God performs one eternal act that contains all temporal acts which we observe at proper times and locations. You need to try to imagine this. This is possible.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus-as-God is not the same as Jesus-as-man. Jesus-as-God existed in 500 BCE. Jesus-as-man did not exist in 500 BCE. The same single thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.

We have at least two separate entities here.

rossum

A person is not a thing. Nor is there any obvious reason why the Creator of the entire universe does not have the power to choose to become incarnate on this planet and elsewhere:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” - Hamlet

 

[tonyrey]

A teapot circling the globe and a spaghetti-monster are things, objects. Materialists and other fundamentalists believe there to be only things. It is as if nothing else exists, even existence itself. The spiritual is considered illusory at best, if not purely hallucinatory, thinking that the analogous objects, the description are the reality. Some people, like Rossum apparently, believe there to be no reality (The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth) behind the analogies/descriptions.

A category that has more explanatory value would be of relationship. God is perfect relationality in itself - Love, an eternal act of giving itself to what is other, the Father begetting the Son, united in the Holy Spirit. The Triune Godhead is the Source and final destiny of creation, which in its totally awesome hugeness, power, intricacies, and infinite amazingness manifests God’s glory. This includes persons, beings who exist separate with the capacity to love.

A very good point. Our starting point should be love - without which life is meaningless. Unless compassion is regarded as an aspect of love Buddhism is defective in that respect. Wwhere persons are concerned materialism is defective in every respect because they are reduced to biological organisms without the capacity for the highest form of love.

 

[Cheiron]

You need to consider the fact that God is the creator of universe, and time and space are elements of universe hence God didn’t exist in time and space before creation since there were neither time nor space. So God exists outside time and space if you accept that He exists. That is another problem if you cannot imagine it. God’s believers can argue that God is beyond human imagination.

The assertion that God created the universe is a hypothesis that must be substantiated with evidence. Also, it doesn’t follow that God is therefore outside space and time. Perhaps the universe exists in another universe (as a bubble in a bubble) in which God lives.

God stays in the eternal now and in the same time can intervene in universe. God performs one eternal act that contains all temporal acts which we observe at proper times and locations. You need to try to imagine this. This is possible.

One of the problems I have is that I can’t make the connection between this spaceless and timeless God residing outside the universe and the Biblical God Who intervenes in a small part of the Middle-East to help some local tribe win a few skirmishes over their enemies. I find it very hard to believe that such a great God - if He exists - would concern himself with a few petty squabbles two millennia ago. The step from the philosophical God to the Biblical God is very, very big.

 

[STT]

A very good point. Our starting point should be love - without which life is meaningless.

I think that I have asked this question before. What is meaning? And how love which is mere feeling can make our lives meaningful? Love simply a byproduct of biochemical activities in brain. Just think of a depressed person who has no sense of love or fulfillment at all. This person become a normal person and feel love by having some medications. Medication is nothing but a chemical substance so how love could give meaning to our lives knowing the fact that can be disrupted or activated by a chemical substance.

Unless compassion is regarded as an aspect of love Buddhism is defective in that respect.

That of course included in Buddhism. In fact Christianity doesn’t offer anything new in this regards.

Where persons are concerned materialism is defective in every respect because they are reduced to biological organisms without the capacity for the highest form of love.

This is covered in the first comment.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t see how God can be walking around in a garden and not be in time.

In the Mass, God has location. The Host becomes God, does it not? The Host has a specific location.

Two great examples.

Clearly, if God can come and go, acting inside what we call space/time, whenever He wants, (immanence) then He is not bound by that space, time, matter, energy, etc.

When we talk about God being outside time, it all hinges on what we mean by the word “outside”.
I tend to think of this as meaning that He is not bound by space/time - rather than Him being somehow stuck “outside” space/time unable to get in.

 

[STT]

The assertion that God created the universe is a hypothesis that must be substantiated with evidence.

Evidence is possible if you existed before and after creation. You of course cannot exist before creation since you are part of creation so the demand for evidence is meaningless.

Also, it doesn’t follow that God is therefore outside space and time. Perhaps the universe exists in another universe (as a bubble in a bubble) in which God lives.

We were talking about timeless God. Temporal God (the one who dwells in a bubble) has its own problem. God in this picture is eternal meaning that He existed since infinite past to now. This is however problematic since God needs to wait infinite amount of time to reach from infinite past to now.

One of the problems I have is that I can’t make the connection between this spaceless and timeless God residing outside the universe and the Biblical God Who intervenes in a small part of the Middle-East to help some local tribe win a few skirmishes over their enemies. I find it very hard to believe that such a great God - if He exists - would concern himself with a few petty squabbles two millennia ago. The step from the philosophical God to the Biblical God is very, very big.

I don’t think so. The believers can tell you to ask God if you are questioned by His actions.

 

[Cheiron]

Evidence is possible if you existed before and after creation. You of course cannot exist before creation since you are part of creation so the demand for evidence is meaningless.

Just because it’s not possible to give evidence, doesn’t mean the demand for it is therefore meaningless. I decide for myself whether my demand for evidence is meaningful or not, thank you very much. Since you don’t exist before creation either, you can’t give me the evidence either. And I’m not going to believe without evidence. That way lies madness.

We were talking about timeless God. Temporal God (the one who dwells in a bubble) has its own problem. God in this picture is eternal meaning that He existed since infinite past to now. This is however problematic since God needs to wait infinite amount of time to reach from infinite past to now.

Again, a timeless God is not in line with the Bible or the eucharist. If the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, and God and Christ are one and the same person, then God is in this space and time.

I don’t think so. The believers can tell you to ask God if you are questioned by His actions.

I had religious education for 14 years with compulsory prayer. If God wanted to contact me, He could have done so in those 14 years. All I heard were crickets. God can easily give me a revelation, just like He did with Paul. I’m starting to think God, if He exists, doesn’t want me to be a believer.

 

[rossum]

It should, otherwise there is a change in Jesus after incarnation.

Erm… There was a change from Jesus-alive to Jesus-dead on the cross, or are you denying the death of Jesus? There was a subsequent change from Jesus-dead to Jesus-resurrected, or are you denying that as well? If you deny that someone can change, then the scope of action for that someone is very very limited.

That would be simple for a God who created universe.

It would be very difficult for a God who did not change to create the universe. Creation is an action in time, and hence is impossible for an entity that cannot change. Was the God of 100 billion years ago the creator of the universe? Has that answer changed between 100 billion years ago and today? If the answer has changed, then God has changed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This logic has an error caused by the ambiguity of “Jesus is truly man” being assumed to mean “Jesus has always been truly man.” He hasn’t always been. Thus, the syllogism doesn’t at all justify the conclusion, Jesus is an example of a man who is eternal–meaning a man who has always existed.

Then the nature of Jesus, and hence the nature of the Trinity, has changed between 500 BCE and today. The Trinitarian God is not eternal, because some properties of that God have changed, and hence it is not the same God today as it was in 500 BCE.

Alternatively the changed properties are not essential to God, but are peripheral, such as the humanity of the Second Person. Or is the entire Second Person rejected as changing, and hence incompatible with an unchanging God?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by rossum forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

This logic has an error caused by the ambiguity of “Jesus is truly man” being assumed to mean “Jesus has always been truly man.” He hasn’t always been. Thus, the syllogism doesn’t at all justify the conclusion, Jesus is an example of a man who is eternal–meaning a man who has always existed.

It is amazing that St Paul - an orthodox monotheistic Jew who knew nothing about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - realised Jesus is God who became a man for our sake:

For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11

He was obviously inspired by his vision on the road to Damascus where he was going to persecute Christians and have them stoned to death like St Stephen…

 

[rossum]

A person is not a thing.

Then I will rephrase: “The same single person cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. We have at least two separate persons here.”

You now have two Jesuses: Jesus-as-God and Jesus-as-man.

rossum

 

[rossum]

One of the problems I have is that I can’t make the connection between this spaceless and timeless God residing outside the universe and the Biblical God Who intervenes in a small part of the Middle-East to help some local tribe win a few skirmishes over their enemies.

But not all their skirmishes. He had problems defeating chariots of Iron; Judges 1:19.

The step from the philosophical God to the Biblical God is very, very big.

Indeed it is.

rossum

 

[STT]

Just because it’s not possible to give evidence, doesn’t mean the demand for it is therefore meaningless. I decide for myself whether my demand for evidence is meaningful or not, thank you very much. Since you don’t exist before creation either, you can’t give me the evidence either. And I’m not going to believe without evidence. That way lies madness.

Well, I have nothing more to say.

Again, a timeless God is not in line with the Bible or the eucharist. If the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, and God and Christ are one and the same person, then God is in this space and time.

I already discuss that temporal God is logically impossible in post #328 so the only viable option for a believer is timeless God. Whether timeless God can be present in time and space is another topic. We don’t have any argument against or in favor of that. Do you?

I had religious education for 14 years with compulsory prayer. If God wanted to contact me, He could have done so in those 14 years. All I heard were crickets. God can easily give me a revelation, just like He did with Paul. I’m starting to think God, if He exists, doesn’t want me to be a believer.

I have the same doubt long time ago. We simply don’t know God’s purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

Then the nature of Jesus, and hence the nature of the Trinity, has changed between 500 BCE and today. The Trinitarian God is not eternal, because some properties of that God have changed, and hence it is not the same God today as it was in 500 BCE.

Alternatively the changed properties are not essential to God, but are peripheral, such as the humanity of the Second Person. Or is the entire Second Person rejected as changing, and hence incompatible with an unchanging God?

rossum

The divine properties of God are not changed by the human properties of Jesus: they are simply supplemented. His immutable nature is not static but dynamic as one would expect from the Creator. Causing change does not necessarily entail **being **changed. Otherwise we would lose our identity whenever we make a decision or create something!

 

[STT]

Erm… There was a change from Jesus-alive to Jesus-dead on the cross, or are you denying the death of Jesus? There was a subsequent change from Jesus-dead to Jesus-resurrected, or are you denying that as well? If you deny that someone can change, then the scope of action for that someone is very very limited.

These are only changes in flesh not in person/soul.

It would be very difficult for a God who did not change to create the universe. Creation is an action in time, and hence is impossible for an entity that cannot change. Was the God of 100 billion years ago the creator of the universe? Has that answer changed between 100 billion years ago and today? If the answer has changed, then God has changed.

rossum

The idea of temporal God is incoherent. Please read the second comment in post #328.

 

[tonyrey]

Then I will rephrase: “The same single person cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. We have at least two separate persons here.”

You now have two Jesuses: Jesus-as-God and Jesus-as-man.

rossum

A false dilemma! It is quite possible for the Creator of the universe to have two aspects, one divine and the other human. No one would exist without God’s ontological support anyway. We are all divine in that respect although obviously not to the same extent as our Redeemer. So there is no problem in believing that Jesus is divine as well as human without being a separate person. It is a mistake to impose human limitations on Ultimate Reality.

 

[Cheiron]

I already discuss that temporal God is logically impossible in post #328 so the only viable option for a believer is timeless God. Whether timeless God can be present in time and space is another topic. We don’t have any argument against or in favor of that. Do you?

Neither do I. Or I can’t think of any at the moment. I think this is a pretty good conclusion of our conversation, because it’s pretty late here in Europe, so I’m going to sleep now. Sorry. Good night and thanks for everything.

 

[john_ennis]

Then the nature of Jesus, and hence the nature of the Trinity, has changed between 500 BCE and today. The Trinitarian God is not eternal, because some properties of that God have changed, and hence it is not the same God today as it was in 500 BCE.

Alternatively the changed properties are not essential to God, but are peripheral, such as the humanity of the Second Person. Or is the entire Second Person rejected as changing, and hence incompatible with an unchanging God?

rossum

Yes. I follow you: if Jesus at one time had only a divine nature, then at some point acquired a human nature as well, doesn’t that mean that God has changed? I confess I hadn’t thought of it that way. Since God is unchanging, that would seem to be a contradiction. I haven’t figured out the answer…

Anybody?