Religion Discussion Thread

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:49 am

I go back and forth on this. I don't believe God is an inactive participant who created then took a however many year siesta after all that hard work. But it's also similar to the concept of time we were discussing earlier. I can't pretend to know what God really experiences, but I believe he was, he spoke, he is and he will be are all on one timestamp. So in that sense, yes, he is still creating.
Do you believe that God is perfect (i.e., complete, flawless)?

There's an ancient Jain argument that God (or anything) which is perfect cannot create anything or, indeed, act in any way. IMO it's a pretty sound argument.
This never impressed me too much. I guess I get tripped up on the premise that a perfect (or take your pick of whatever word we want to use) being has no wants. Or I guess it could also be constructed as a premise that wants are imperfect/dispreferred. I'm not sure where that comes from. It seems to make value judgments that don't have readily apparent objective support.

I have always thought the better path here is that a perfectly-benevolent being has no free will because it must do the most benevolent thing in all situations. That seems more logically unassailable. It doesn't necessary prevent God from acting like the Jain argument, but it hits pretty hard against important aspects of Christian conceptions of God, at least as I understand it.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:02 am

There are multitudes of perfect conditions concerning Earth, at least as far as we're concerned. It is because of those conditions that we appear now. Those conditions were cultivated by the surrounding universe, the life that came before us, the moon and the way it came to be, the distance from the sun, our axis and rotation that gives us a heat gradient.
All of these things work out to a place that supports our type of life, which is why we have evolved to be harmonious with it. If the conditions were different, we would be different, or not exist. Our form of life has nothing to do with "perfect" conditions, we are this way because of the conditions we have.
That's a fair point. I guess beyond that, one of the other problems I have with the total atheist viewpoint is the idea that the Big Bang just was. Why did the universe even exist in the first place? It was just...there?
if god is the creator, then the same question is posed to you. was he just...there?
Both take a leap of faith. It’s just which side do you leap towards.
if god is the creator, then the same question is posed to you. was he just...there?
And there's where it comes down to faith, doesn't it :wink: But IMO, the argument that the universe just "was" is no more valid or believable than the argument that it was designed.
There's also the third option. One can remain agnostic about the subject as opposed to taking any such leap, since, after all, one need not have a committed position about the origins of the universe. Far preferable to accepting something for which I see no evidence or kidding myself into thinking I can understand cutting edge astrophysics.

redwill
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:08 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby redwill » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:42 am

This never impressed me too much. I guess I get tripped up on the premise that a perfect (or take your pick of whatever word we want to use) being has no wants. Or I guess it could also be constructed as a premise that wants are imperfect/dispreferred. I'm not sure where that comes from. It seems to make value judgments that don't have readily apparent objective support.
I'm sorry, man. I don't get what you don't get about the argument. If you are perfect and complete, what is there left to do? WHAT?

What do you want to do if there is NOTHING POSSIBLE to be done? WHY would you want to do anything if there is nothing possible to be done?

In fact, you cannot even think that thought. You are done. Finished. Complete.

Perfect.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:13 am

This never impressed me too much. I guess I get tripped up on the premise that a perfect (or take your pick of whatever word we want to use) being has no wants. Or I guess it could also be constructed as a premise that wants are imperfect/dispreferred. I'm not sure where that comes from. It seems to make value judgments that don't have readily apparent objective support.
I'm sorry, man. I don't get what you don't get about the argument. If you are perfect and complete, what is there left to do? WHAT?

What do you want to do if there is NOTHING POSSIBLE to be done? WHY would you want to do anything if there is nothing possible to be done?

In fact, you cannot even think that thought. You are done. Finished. Complete.

Perfect.
I mean, I get the logical soundness of:

Perfect beings cannot act.
God is a perfect human being.
Therefore, God cannot act.

I am more interested in the syllogism associated with arriving at premise 1. I expect there's more being done than just defining our way there.

But I guess in the way I'm thinking about it I'm imagining something external to God (since I don't buy a creationist account of the universe). And if there's actually nothing external to a perfect being, then, yes, I would agree, a perfect being could not act. Once there's something external to the perfect being, then I think that's where you encounter the sort of compulsion to act to bring that external into perfection. Would you agree it hinges on this?

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:32 am

Parents don’t have conditional love for their children.
Oh, really? Tell that to a child that was disowned because of their beliefs or sexual orientation...
I'm assuming that robbiestoupe 's love for his children is unconditional - and all of the other parents here too.
H E double hockey sticks no. I wish.

Wait... what?
That came off as a bit harsh, but my point is I may try to project unconditional love towards my children, but I fall short quite a bit. Nobody is capable of perfect, unconditional love except God himself.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:35 am

Well it was a civilized conversation.
I knew it would get to this point. Hence my motion a few pages back to change it to the Religion Bashing Thread.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:24 am

This never impressed me too much. I guess I get tripped up on the premise that a perfect (or take your pick of whatever word we want to use) being has no wants. Or I guess it could also be constructed as a premise that wants are imperfect/dispreferred. I'm not sure where that comes from. It seems to make value judgments that don't have readily apparent objective support.
I'm sorry, man. I don't get what you don't get about the argument. If you are perfect and complete, what is there left to do? WHAT?

What do you want to do if there is NOTHING POSSIBLE to be done? WHY would you want to do anything if there is nothing possible to be done?

In fact, you cannot even think that thought. You are done. Finished. Complete.

Perfect.

I think the problem here is this:

1a) Your definition of perfection includes the idea of composition, to use a bad analogy, perfection in how you define it is like Voltron is only complete/perfect when all his constituent parts are put together into one. He does not "need" anything else to be Voltron, if he did then he wouldn't be Voltron, but is only Voltron when each member unites.

1b) God in the Christian conception is not divisible into parts, He is perfect primarily because He is without need of outside influence and/or material/metaphysical needs. (This book explains it well, imo).

1c) One biblical example of this is the very name of God. He is the "I AM". He has no past, nor future, but is. There has never been a time when God has not, nor is their a time when God will not.

I have a lot to do today, but here is a quick answer.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:38 am

This never impressed me too much. I guess I get tripped up on the premise that a perfect (or take your pick of whatever word we want to use) being has no wants. Or I guess it could also be constructed as a premise that wants are imperfect/dispreferred. I'm not sure where that comes from. It seems to make value judgments that don't have readily apparent objective support.
I'm sorry, man. I don't get what you don't get about the argument. If you are perfect and complete, what is there left to do? WHAT?

What do you want to do if there is NOTHING POSSIBLE to be done? WHY would you want to do anything if there is nothing possible to be done?

In fact, you cannot even think that thought. You are done. Finished. Complete.

Perfect.

I think the problem here is this:

1a) Your definition of perfection includes the idea of composition, to use a bad analogy, perfection in how you define it is like Voltron is only complete/perfect when all his constituent parts are put together into one. He does not "need" anything else to be Voltron, if he did then he wouldn't be Voltron, but is only Voltron when each member unites.

1b) God in the Christian conception is not divisible into parts, He is perfect primarily because He is without need of outside influence and/or material/metaphysical needs. (This book explains it well, imo).

1c) One biblical example of this is the very name of God. He is the "I AM". He has no past, nor future, but is. There has never been a time when God has not, nor is their a time when God will not.

I have a lot to do today, but here is a quick answer.
Regarding 1c), I think this is where I get the Jain argument. If God is always perfect and there is only God (nothing external to God), then I think the argument works. God cannot act because God has always been perfect and since there is only God, all of what exists is perfect. In that situation, God cannot have thoughts about wanting something else because what is is perfect as it is (and as it always has been and always will be).

Once there's anything outside of God, then this is where I have a harder time with the argument. But, I don't know that this really applies because I don't think creationist accounts of that which is external to God allow for it to exist in any way other than God's creation.

redwill
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:08 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby redwill » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:41 pm

I think the problem here is this:

1a) Your definition of perfection includes the idea of composition, to use a bad analogy, perfection in how you define it is like Voltron is only complete/perfect when all his constituent parts are put together into one. He does not "need" anything else to be Voltron, if he did then he wouldn't be Voltron, but is only Voltron when each member unites.

1b) God in the Christian conception is not divisible into parts, He is perfect primarily because He is without need of outside influence and/or material/metaphysical needs. (This book explains it well, imo).

1c) One biblical example of this is the very name of God. He is the "I AM". He has no past, nor future, but is. There has never been a time when God has not, nor is their a time when God will not.
With all respect, I don't know where we can go from here. You declare things by fiat.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "Isn't that just a little bit too easy?"

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:50 pm

The Jain paradox is a strawman to begin with. The Jain have their definition of perfect, apply it to the Christian God, then tear down the entire religion on this basis.

The real paradox should say that the Christian God is not a perfect Jain god.

redwill
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:08 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby redwill » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:51 pm

The Jain paradox is a strawman to begin with. The Jain have their definition of perfect, apply it to the Christian God, then tear down the entire religion on this basis.

The real paradox should say that the Christian God is not a perfect Jain god.
Is the Jain definition of "perfect" different from yours?

What is your definition of "perfect"?

redwill
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:08 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby redwill » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:01 pm

Once there's anything outside of God, then this is where I have a harder time with the argument. But, I don't know that this really applies because I don't think creationist accounts of that which is external to God allow for it to exist in any way other than God's creation.
External to a perfect God?

In the system of a monotheistic religion, who the hell is suggesting that?

What are you suggesting as an alternative that is still within the boundaries of such a religious mindset?

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11556
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:03 pm

The Jain paradox is a strawman to begin with. The Jain have their definition of perfect, apply it to the Christian God, then tear down the entire religion on this basis.

The real paradox should say that the Christian God is not a perfect Jain god.
Is the Jain definition of "perfect" different from yours?

What is your definition of "perfect"?
Whatever it is, it doesn't include not having any wants or desires.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:10 pm

I think the problem here is this:

1a) Your definition of perfection includes the idea of composition, to use a bad analogy, perfection in how you define it is like Voltron is only complete/perfect when all his constituent parts are put together into one. He does not "need" anything else to be Voltron, if he did then he wouldn't be Voltron, but is only Voltron when each member unites.

1b) God in the Christian conception is not divisible into parts, He is perfect primarily because He is without need of outside influence and/or material/metaphysical needs. (This book explains it well, imo).

1c) One biblical example of this is the very name of God. He is the "I AM". He has no past, nor future, but is. There has never been a time when God has not, nor is their a time when God will not.
With all respect, I don't know where we can go from here. You declare things by fiat.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "Isn't that just a little bit too easy?"
Before we can really talk about the nature of the Christian God we probably need to define what we mean by "God".

Obviously there are presuppositions that you and I both bring to the table which are "fiat", per your use of the term.

You have declared, without any real substantiation, that the Christian God cannot be because He fails the test of Jain's understanding of perfection when it comes to Creation.

This is why the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity is so important, imo. It shows how radically different the metaphysical idea of the biblical God is from the Hindu conception, for example.

A basic definition (which I teach kids) is:

What is God?

God is a Spirit. Infinite, eternal, unchangeable, in is being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

What I confess:
1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

2. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Kaiser
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 pm
Location: In these uncertain times

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kaiser » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:32 pm

Well it was a civilized conversation.
I knew it would get to this point. Hence my motion a few pages back to change it to the Religion Bashing Thread.
I have no problem with you or this discussion staying civil. nobody on the other hand, used up his credit long ago.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby grunthy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:35 pm

Well it was a civilized conversation.
I knew it would get to this point. Hence my motion a few pages back to change it to the Religion Bashing Thread.
I have no problem with you or this discussion staying civil. nobody on the other hand, used up his credit long ago.

So did you when it comes to discussing religion.

Consider this my last reply to you in this thread.

Kaiser
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 pm
Location: In these uncertain times

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Kaiser » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:41 pm

Thank god

columbia
Posts: 34731
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:23 am
Location: South Baldwin Yinzer Strokefest

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby columbia » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:43 pm

:lol:

Gaucho
Posts: 49571
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Gaucho » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:44 pm

He forgot to add that he doesn't care.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby grunthy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:44 pm

I think the problem here is this:

1a) Your definition of perfection includes the idea of composition, to use a bad analogy, perfection in how you define it is like Voltron is only complete/perfect when all his constituent parts are put together into one. He does not "need" anything else to be Voltron, if he did then he wouldn't be Voltron, but is only Voltron when each member unites.

1b) God in the Christian conception is not divisible into parts, He is perfect primarily because He is without need of outside influence and/or material/metaphysical needs. (This book explains it well, imo).

1c) One biblical example of this is the very name of God. He is the "I AM". He has no past, nor future, but is. There has never been a time when God has not, nor is their a time when God will not.
With all respect, I don't know where we can go from here. You declare things by fiat.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "Isn't that just a little bit too easy?"
Before we can really talk about the nature of the Christian God we probably need to define what we mean by "God".

Obviously there are presuppositions that you and I both bring to the table which are "fiat", per your use of the term.

You have declared, without any real substantiation, that the Christian God cannot be because He fails the test of Jain's understanding of perfection when it comes to Creation.

This is why the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity is so important, imo. It shows how radically different the metaphysical idea of the biblical God is from the Hindu conception, for example.

A basic definition (which I teach kids) is:

What is God?

God is a Spirit. Infinite, eternal, unchangeable, in is being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

What I confess:
1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

2. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
I definitely enjoy reading your posts on religious subjects.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby grunthy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:45 pm

He forgot to add that he doesn't care.
Nope. I care sometimes.

Gaucho
Posts: 49571
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Gaucho » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:49 pm

Don't care.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby grunthy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:53 pm

Don't care.
Cared enough to make sure I didn’t forget anything.

redwill
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:08 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby redwill » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:06 pm


You have declared, without any real substantiation, that the Christian God cannot be because He fails the test of Jain's understanding of perfection when it comes to Creation.
I don't recall declaring that.

I said that IMO it is a pretty sound argument that a perfect being cannot act in any way.

You say the "Jain's understanding of perfection." So I'll put to you, too: What is your definition of "perfect"?

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:40 pm

I answered that above. In Christian orthodoxy the idea of God's perfection is that he is complete in and of himself and does not require anything outside of himself.

His desire to create is not because of something lacking within him or from need but because that was his desire.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dickie Dunn, pens9192, skullman80 and 97 guests