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

[hobelim]

If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.

As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.

Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.

 

[Boss]

\
So... back on post #1331 where you said: "If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." ...you're now admitting that was incorrect?

No. What I am saying is that what many people think is evidence of God is simply evidence of their stupidity or superstition or gullibility and does not qualify as evidence of anything at all. People point to a burnt grilled cheese sandwich that vaguely resembles Jesus and think it is evidence of the supernatural.

The reality is that it is just a burnt grilled cheese sandwich and not evidence of anything supernatural at all.

No, what it means is my point is confirmed. "Evidence" is widely subjective and open to interpretation. It is your profound opinion that people's "evidence" is not evidence.

"If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence."

This is simply not a true statement. If it were true, there would be no need for judges, juries or trials. There would never be any debates or arguments. We would simply all look at and evaluate evidence the same, and that would be that. But fact of the matter is, evidence is subjective and people value evidence differently.
.

\I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.

Again, you are wrong.

When you point to the historical worship of one thing or another as evidence that people having always worshiped "something greater than themselves" and make the claim that such evidence proves the existence of God or spiritual reality you have made an illogical assumption based on a false premise.

I didn't say it "proved existence" of anything. Evidence that humans have always worshiped something greater than self is evidence humans have always been spiritual. This spirituality has caused them to believe in all kinds of things. I've not argued what incarnation of God is the correct one, only that humans have an intrinsic, inseparable and unquestionable spiritual connection to something greater than self.

The premise that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves is false because what most people have historically worshiped we now know with 100% certainty is not God and never was God and in fact was a delusion that was never greater than themselves.

your evidence is not evidence of God or proof of spiritual reality.

Well, no... we don't know anything with 100% certainty. THAT is a false assumption. We know you have an opinion and we know you reject spiritual evidence. Jury is still out on whether you comprehend "evidence" is subjective.

If you want to prove the existence of anything, you have to provide evidence that can be looked at and verified by anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

Again, there is no such thing as universal evidence. Nothing can be 100% proven, not even REALITY!

How one interprets 'evidence' may be subjective, but conclusions based on interpretation can either be right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false..

The truth is not subjective.

Or they can be both or neither and to a variety of degrees. Truth is not subjective, but if everyone universally understood truth, there would never be a need for evidence or argument.

You just keep making my points for me, this is too easy!

 

[Boss]

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.

Thing is, that is a "belief" and not a behavioral attribute like human spirituality.

 

[Boss]

As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.

Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.

Again, you are talking about a specific "belief" and not a human behavioral attribute.

No, the 5% of the species who are not spiritual are a deviate anomaly.

 

[G.T.]

Other plausible explanations that humans engage in abstract spirituality:

The irrational fear of death/dying comes along with being sentient: widely studied and confirmed.

The ego centrism of being sentient: wanting to be able to explain or rationalize everything, thus inserting theories where no explanations have been observed and accepting said theories en masse until better theories are proven.

Human to human influence: parenting, traditionalism, dogma, social order: hence religious beliefs would appear largely geographically based, which magically they are.

I could go on.

Dreams. Drugs. Empathy driven irrationality, self comforting explanations in dealing with death of close loved ones.



Etcetcetc.

 

[hobelim]

As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.

Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.

Again, you are talking about a specific "belief" and not a human behavioral attribute.

No, the 5% of the species who are not spiritual are a deviate anomaly.

No, the 95% that you claim are spiritual have been spiritual because they would have been, persecuted, imprisoned, maimed or killed if they were not spiritual which has nothing whatever to do with any mysterious spirituality inherent to the species other than an ability to pretend and an instinct to survive.

 

[G.T.]

Engaging in rain dances and it not raining should have been an awesome awakening, but unfortunately dogma is a hard thing for our species to break. Damn.

 

[Justin Davis]

1. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension--collectively, the principle of identity--are the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition. They are not man made, but an inherent component of Man’s nature.
2. The principle of identity asserts that any given A might potentially be two or more things simultaneously.
3. Hence, the principle of identity imposes no limitations whatsoever on the potentialities of either a cosmological order or a transcendental order of things, except, ultimately, the absurdity that the nature of any given thing = NOT-its-nature, or the absurdity of existence = NOT-existence.
4. There is nothing in the cosmological order of things that asserts these absurdities.
5. Hence, the principle of identity asserts that existence has primacy over human consciousness.
6. Hence, there is no evidence for the belief or justifiable reason to believe that the laws of thought do not universally apply to all of existence.
7. The principle of identity universally prevails.

From there we can put God back in and ask why it "universally prevails", right? What I mean is that we can add to this, 8, 9 and so on.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false, nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

Who are these people? Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited. Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.

I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are. Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.

Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong. When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology, I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned: “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11)

It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently. I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools. A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point. He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy. In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.

 

[Taz]

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.

Thing is, that is a "belief" and not a behavioral attribute like human spirituality.

It's a belief of human spirituality. Or, at least it was, until they realized that they were wrong.

So if 95% of the world is stupid, and since they're such a super majority, they're not stupid, but intelligent, and must know what's going on?

 

[Justin Davis]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.

Actually, I'm glad you raised the point. Yes. In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all. I was actually thinking something else and confused it. You are right to call me out on that.

No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.

C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​

But then comes the criticism:

1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given A can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?

Ockham's razor. A legion of problems vs. no problems.

I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle. Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic. My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself. That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way. Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else. I don't know now. What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view. Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all. The only people putting limits on him are you guys.

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.

Actually, I'm glad you raised the point. Yes. In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all. I was actually thinking something else and confused it. You are right to call me out on that.

No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.

C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​

But then comes the criticism:

1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given A can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?

Ockham's razor. A legion of problems vs. no problems.

I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle. Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.

No problem. In the part of the post that threw you I was thinking about Christ emptying Himself of the fullness of His divinity when He took on flesh to save us, but bungled it by not making what was in my mind at the time clear. Then I made things worse when I tried to correct that in the P.S. portion and bungled it again. LOL!

Feel free to alert me to anything like that always. If you think I'm wrong tell me so always. That's not the first time, of course, that I've done that, won't be the last either. LOL!

Expressing clear thoughts is a tough business. It's very easy to think wrong or express something unintended. Actually, I'm aware of several poorly stated items in my posts but I can't edit them anymore, but their not of a serious nature as this one.

 

[Justin Davis]

I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.

That is a flat out lie! You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities. You confounded the law of the excluded middle. You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle. According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.

Stop presses!

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us. It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.

God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science. dblack understands that and so does Justin. You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.

M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.

Actually, I'm glad you raised the point. Yes. In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all. I was actually thinking something else and confused it. You are right to call me out on that.

No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.

C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​

But then comes the criticism:

1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given A can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?

Ockham's razor. A legion of problems vs. no problems.

I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle. Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.

No problem. In the part of the post that threw you I was thinking about Christ emptying Himself of the fullness of His divinity when He took on flesh to save us, but bungled it by not making what was in my mind at the time clear. Then I made things worse when I tried to correct that in the P.S. portion and bungled it again. LOL!

Feel free to alert me to anything like that always. If you think I'm wrong tell me so always. That's not the first time, of course, that I've done that, won't be the last either. LOL!

Expressing clear thoughts is a tough business. It's very easy to think wrong or express something unintended. Actually, I'm aware of several poorly stated items in my posts but I can't edit them anymore, but their not of a serious nature as this one.

Same thing with my posts.

 

[Justin Davis]

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false, nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

Who are these people? Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited. Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.

I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are. Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.

Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong. When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology, I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned: “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11)

It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently. I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools. A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point. He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy. In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.

But who are the people on this thread doing those things. I read the post addressed to M.D.R. suggesting that he's doing that and it feels like you're saying I'm doing that. As far as insulting people his posts to Hollie weren't abusive. They were sarcastic but come on they were funny in an apropos way. I called Hollie an idiot. He is an idiot because all he ever did was call people idiots or say that's stupid. I don't have to explain things, that's my opinion. Great, now go away. Hollie calling somebody like you, QW, M.D.R., Boss, GT or lots others an idiot is like some blond bimbo in a cutie-pie, baby voice babbling about how pretty she is at a science fair. It’s sick. M.D.R.'s adorable blonde remarks were perfect. As for logic, I'm talking about something that's objectively false, not opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith. Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced. But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy. We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process. And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.

Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.? Especially the demand part. That demand part throws me.

Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity". Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that. But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon. And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory): God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong. It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​

I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part. Whenever you find people who say:

1. God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2. God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3. It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4. It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5. You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6. You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.

Who are these people? Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited. Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.

I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are. Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.

Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong. When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology, I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned: “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11)

It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently. I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools. A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point. He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy. In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.

But who are the people on this thread doing those things. I read the post addressed to M.D.R. suggesting that he's doing that and it feels like you're saying I'm doing that. As far as insulting people his posts to Hollie weren't abusive. They were sarcastic but come on they were funny in an apropos way. I called Hollie an idiot. He is an idiot because all he ever did was call people idiots or say that's stupid. I don't have to explain things, that's my opinion. Great, now go away. Hollie calling somebody like you, QW, M.D.R., Boss, GT or lots others an idiot is like some blond bimbo in a cutie-pie, baby voice babbling about how pretty she is at a science fair. It’s sick. M.D.R.'s adorable blonde remarks were perfect. As for logic, I'm talking about something that's objectively false, not opinion.

I have intentionally not named names because names are not important. Those who can relate to my observations will relate to them and those who don't will not. If I'm right I am right. If I am wrong I am wrong. But I don't want to be guilty myself of the problems that I observe.

So what is your motive for calling Hollie an idiot? Is it to persuade him/her of the reality of a loving God or the truth that God has to offer? Or is it to make oneself superior to Hollie? Or something else? How many people do you believe are encouraged to seek the living God by being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid or, by implication, that they are intellectually inferior?

And as for something that is objectively false, where do you separate what you want to believe from what you know? We have already shown that the syllogistic argument for the existence of God can be framed so that it is both logical and reasonable and also framed so that it is full of holes and issues of interpretation.

I get as frustrated as the next person by those who go out of their way to insult, belittle, put down, or be unkind to Christians and Christian beliefs or re any other people of faith. I feel angry when some do their damndest to destroy the faith of believers--I don't understand that kind of unkindness, pettiness, or hatefulness. And I will call people out on it when appropriate to do so.
I just don't want us Christians behaving similarly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.

Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.

Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far.

Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will. That's my understanding too. There's lots of debate.\ That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless. I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from apparent free will to us with God knowing everything and true free will with God still knowing everything. The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God? That's what I don't like. You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God. That's just not true. I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb. When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him. I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more. But I get his premises and what follows generally. Maybe someone is being condescending. It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys. If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say. I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that. If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me. That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems. Also, the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge. Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right. I get it now more fully. The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time. Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.

There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​

He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.

And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic. MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do. "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible. But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc. I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of. But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past. The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up. An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously. The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.

 

[sealybobo]

I just came up with it on my own. It was just a theory. Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.

I'm still waiting for a link from you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories. Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.

I don't believe you came up with it on your own. I believe you heard bits and pieces of various theories which you didn't understand and were incapable of comprehending, and you morphed these together to form the Silly Boob Super Theory.

Hey look man, I am more than happy to leave this at "we don't know, let's keep looking" but you simply refuse to abide by those terms. You say this, but no sooner than you post those words, here you are presenting theories as if they are known facts, rejecting anything to the contrary, and pretending you know. We're not going to be able to have this both ways, but that is consistently what you seem to want.

Well you seem pretty sure of yourself too and we both know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. LOL.

And I did make all that up. I was just thinking out loud.

 

[sealybobo]

You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it? What if I had the power to move things with my mind?

If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.

I just read this: The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter. When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs. Check it out: The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.

Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site. The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Sounds like the shit you say. Check it out. I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.

I can't find anything pal. Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.

Well, I am certainly not alone in thinking Spiritual Nature created everything. In fact, that's what about 95% of the human species believes to one degree or another. And it makes logical sense, unlike your illogical theory. The physical couldn't create itself if it didn't exist.

So you can't prove it? Not even one link that proves or explains how Spiritual nature created physical nature? Even though 95% of the world supposedly believes this I can't google "Spiritual nature created physical nature" and find a god damn thing? Interesting.

95% believe that but have zero evidence or proof to back up their belief? I don't care how many people believe it. Look at how many people believe in Islam or Mormonism. So fucking what 95% believe something.

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens