Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Don't hold your breath.

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.


I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.

I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Of course we want to you fucking idiot!

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic.

If only they taught basic history in school.

That's arguable, but I know what you mean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.

 

[Yarddog]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place? No one knows and they can t prove its orgin . Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God, because every culture through out history has had one. No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses , sight which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
hearing which is again limited by our physicsl world
touch, even more limited
smell , dito
Taste ?

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of. As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else...... of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.

Actually, I believe that to be so as well. We are told in scripture outright that many are chosen just as you say. The Bible clearly states, for example, that the Apostles were predestined in the Calvinist sense, also, Moses, the prophets, King David. . . . That's part of the equation. But putting it altogether still hurts my head . . . really bad. The Foreknowledge view seems to get at, but not quite.

 

[BreezeWood]

and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?

Do you have actual examples I should consider, or should I just laugh?

.by your account, hysterically.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

I agree with all of this. I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has. That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.

What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?

Dang it! dblack, you must think I'm whack. I'm not. I just lost the train of thought, but either way I wasn't clear. I wasn't alluding to free will, actually.

When I wrote "I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds", I meant that you apparently do not believe there exists a transcendentally immutable, eternally self-subsistent Agent of first cause. The fundamental laws of thought are an intrinsic component of His being. That's ultimately what the transcendental argument for God's existence demonstrates. The major premise of the transcendental argument is demonstrably true via the laws of logic.

QW writes: "The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic."

Well, on the face of that statement alone, I would agree. But we do have an incontrovertible theorem, namely, the transcendental argument, that constitutes justifiable knowledge of compelling evidence that these axioms are grounded in an immutable, universal Truth, namely, the eternally self-subsistent Agent of first cause. Granted, we'll still in "the realm of logic," but given the fact that the truth claim in the major premise is independently and objectively demonstrable after all, why should we believe that the axioms of logic aren't universal truths?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place? No one knows and they can t prove its orgin . Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God, because every culture through out history has had one. No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses , sight which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
hearing which is again limited by our physicsl world
touch, even more limited
smell , dito
Taste ?

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of. As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else...... of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.

Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.

 

[Yarddog]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place? No one knows and they can t prove its orgin . Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God, because every culture through out history has had one. No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses , sight which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
hearing which is again limited by our physicsl world
touch, even more limited
smell , dito
Taste ?

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of. As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else...... of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.

Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.

Thats great, and Im not competing with anyone. that was just a thought, thats all

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place? No one knows and they can t prove its orgin . Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God, because every culture through out history has had one. No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses , sight which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
hearing which is again limited by our physicsl world
touch, even more limited
smell , dito
Taste ?

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of. As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else...... of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.

Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.

Thats great, and Im not competing with anyone. that was just a thought, thats all

It's not an easy business though, so no one's slighting you. Just saying. If you're interested, given the importance of the issue, you could start with post #91 and read on to see what I'm talking about.

 

[Yarddog]

91 ? must be a diferent number

 

[Hollie]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place? No one knows and they can t prove its orgin . Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God, because every culture through out history has had one. No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses , sight which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
hearing which is again limited by our physicsl world
touch, even more limited
smell , dito
Taste ?

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of. As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else...... of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.

Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.

It's typical for the hyper-religious representing their inventions of gods to demand their gods "must be". None of the claims are ever accompanied by anything more than "... because I say so".

What you actually proved is that your fundamentalist beliefs are nothing more than reiterations of tales and fables that are no more true than any other pedestrian claims to magical gawds and supernatural entities.

 

[Hollie]

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.

Actually, I believe that to be so as well. We are told in scripture outright that many are chosen just as you say. The Bible clearly states, for example, that the Apostles were predestined in the Calvinist sense, also, Moses, the prophets, King David. . . . That's part of the equation. But putting it altogether still hurts my head . . . really bad. The Foreknowledge view seems to get at, but not quite.

You're told many things in the bibles that are not true. "The bibles clearly state..." Is clearly not a literal rendering of what rational people defined as fact. You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But you extremists think the various bibles do relate an accurate worldview, and those opinions are representative of fear and superstition

 

[DriftingSand]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.

 

[OZman]

Came across this when I was looking for information on the holy annointing oil mentioned in scripture. I have no idea if it is true or not , but it certainly gave me a new perspective on the origins of divine inspiration in the bible. It was certainly worth a read.

kanehbosm

 

[Foxfyre]

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.

I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.

This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.

Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.

For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind. For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom. And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.

Exodus 32:9-14:
(Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​

I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end. I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined. If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing. Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind. I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.

I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.

So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.

 

[Justin Davis]

"For context,

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW."











.

It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
LOL!

That's so weird, maybe you're autistic. I answered it several times, and for being a dickhead and pretending I* didn't, you can apologize or you're dismissed.

post 1020 answered it the very FIRST time you asked it, and then you continued asking.

"Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge."





post 1028 elaborates.

"No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -"








Then 1034 really solidifies my answer for you.

"For context,

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW."














And so, we're done. Or, you can apologize for stating that I continued to not answer. Peace.

It doesn't look like you understand the point. Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false? That doesn't follow. If anything you're arguing for Deism.

 

[G.T.]

It doesn't look like you understand the point. Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false? That doesn't follow. If anything you're arguing for Deism.

.

TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.

They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.

You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.

Don't hold your breath.

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​

​

I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.

2. The origin of logic?

3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!

I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.

The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.

?

LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.

The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.

Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.

Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.