Children's freedom?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by tekkengod, Jun 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    When I read it, it seemed like he made it clear the Luther was saying something very different to what you claimed, and that the quotes you had selected were very misleading when it came to Luther's teaching.

    No. That's my job! ;)


    Omnipotent is only a lack of limit in power. A lack of limit on what he can do. That's it. It doesn't mention other limits. For instance he can still be limited to only doing "good" while having unlimited power to as much good as he likes. No logical contradiction there.

    No limits in catagory A, limits in catagory B. No contradiction.

    Not at all.
    A limited amount of his characteristics are limitless.
    Makes perfect gramatical sense! :p

    Omnipotence is only limitless power to do things.
    Otherwise people wouldn't have to mention omniscient too! :p
    What sort of limits does an identity need?
    Those naturally given by positive characteristics?
    So if God could have positive characteristics that don't clash with omniscience and omnipotence then we could identify 'him', right?
    Another part to the concept of God is that he has a 'will' and an 'intelligence'.
    These are definately positive characteristics and don't clash with omniscience and omnipotence.

    We're not talking about the epistemology yet. (we'll get onto that later)
    These are positive characteristics given to the theistic concept of God. It was just a point that the concept God does have positive characteristics.

    Your idea of God is very self coherent, but I'm not convinced it's the only rational position. I mean, if there is a God and if 'he' interacts with us then surely we can know that much atleast.

    (it was your conclusion that I assumed to be absurd - that all propositions on God are meaningless) :)
    There's no problem with "initial assumptions" so long as you only use them as a place to start. So far your argument:

    1) Omnipotence = unlimited power
    2) God = omnipotent
    Con) God has no limits whatsoever

    Seems to be an invalid inference.
    Omnipotence talks of one particular characteristic of having no limit.
    Omniscience talks of another characteristic of having no limit.
    Doesn't mean that God can't have limits of other sorts.
    Perhaps the next thing we need to know is which limits are required for identity? The natural limits that come with any positive attributes? So perhaps we could identify the concept of God with positive characteristics?

    I've a slightly different approach.
    I don't let bias affect logic and method.
    My bias determines which position I look for arguments for.
    So my bias even gives me motivation but without jeapordising my logic.
    Some people have a bias so strong that they throw rationality to the wind, but a more moderate amount is perfectly healthy. :)
     
  2. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    He's using a very abstract, technical method for coming to this conclusion which is definately at odds with common sense, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I think it is flawed in this case though.

    I agree with him on this one.
    God know's what would convince us of his existence.
    Homer is going to great lengths to argue against God's existence so you can accuse him of bias, but even people with no "ulterior motive" see no reason to believe in God. God hasn't made it conclusive and is clearly happy to leave us guessing. So God made Homer a guesser and Homer (like the rest of us) has made his guess. If God really didn't like that then he'd set the record straight.
     
  3. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I think this is a key point, because God is all knowing he already knew that Homer would become an atheist, so God put Homer on this earth knowing that he would be an atheist and will then punish Homer for being an atheist. To be this makes absolutely no sense.
     
  4. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Also, how is believing something a moral decision?
    A wrong belief is getting something wrong. That's what a belief is.
    If someone doesn't believe in God then they simply don't think that he's there.
     
  5. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    If he can only do good, than that is definatly a limit on what he can do. Besides, who decides what is good for God, or is there an underlying law of prinpiples that he has to follow. If so, he isn't really omnipotent at all.

    According to dictionary.com Omnipotent means:
    If his power is universal, how could it be limited by certain traits.

    If God is omnicient, why would he need intelligence? If he knows everything that has happened and will happen, aren't his decisions merely based on his opinion or his values as opposed to using any intelligence to deduce somethng.
     
  6. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Yes. He's omnipotent, i.e. he can do anything he wants to do.
    The limits would be on what he wanted to do.
    There are things that you can do but never want to.
    Omnipotence is about what you can.

    You can bring up psychological issues like sometimes say that want to do something but can't bring themselves to go through with it, but that's a slightly different use of the language. Besides, God doesn't have to have such psychological problems.

    Intelligence is being able to think so obviously intelligence is required for knowing anything. You're right, he wouldn't need to use intelligence to deduce empirical facts from others as he already knows all the empirical facts. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the ability to deduce.
     
  7. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    Point taken, but does God decide what is good or evil?

    But what would he need to deduce? If he's omnicient I don't understand how he could deduce anything.
     
  8. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    lol, its true, if you know everything, its impossible to make a deduction.
     
  9. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    A citation to "The Onion" doesn't count. It's common knowledge that "The Onion" only writes fiction. They make up everything.


    Look again. One, I said your "Apostle Paul" quotes were wrong. Two, I said you're not using the Christian definition of God. Three, most of your quotes are untraceable because the citations are garbage. "The Onion" publishes untraceable quotes. Come on, these originally came from a staff writer at "The Onion," right? You can admit it. You're among friends. Your quotes were made up by someone else, you're just borrowing them, and that's why you can't give traceable citations, right?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2006
  10. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Nah.
    Well, being God he's decided how everything is seeing as he's made it as it is.
    I know what you mean though, some talk of these rules from God that you follow if you're "good" and ignore if you're "bad". The way I see it, if God gives moral laws then they'd be purely helpful - a bit like the green cross code and any "punishment" would be purely to help you learn a lesson.

    He'd have the intelligence to deduce still, just nothing to deduce.
    Knowing everything, he'd know all the deduction methods without ever having to use them.
     
  11. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Well said.

    The "wanting to" part ties into God's characteristics. For example, the characteristic of being truth itself, of being honest, of not lying (phrase it however you want to phrase it) leads God to not want to tell a lie or otherwise contradict himself. He cannot tell a lie in the sense that he doesn't want to tell a lie because doing so would violate his own nature.

    That silly question, "Can God make a square circle?" fits here. Circle contradicts square. The question contains a contradiction ---> violates the characteristic of truth ---> God wouldn't want to ---> therefore, in that sense, he cannot do it.

    Anyway, I like how you said it. I might have to snip that one and save it for later use myself. :)
     
  12. jonmonk

    jonmonk New Member

    Except you've given him an idea now. He might have a sense of humour too y'know :D
     
  13. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    He did do a bit of a "gotchya!" on Abraham and his son! ;)
     
  14. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    Refrence Homer in the faith thread:
    To which I replied:
    and quoted:
     
  15. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Ok, guys, I am HIGHLY tempted to close down this thread as it is all territory that we have covered before. Either return to topic or this thread goes down.
     
  16. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Not “to me”

    It’s logical, because it is illogical! Belief/opinion has no effect on logic.

    You can say what your like about god, but the moment you start to make positive assertions, you start to make logical errors. Apophatic theology avoids this error.

    The quotes are logically correct. And they are direct quotes. If they are incorrect, post the correct ‘version’ if such a version exists.

    The “out of context” argument is an evasion ploy when someone interprets information rationally and logically.

    It is only “out of context” according to their irrational interpretation. They need this irrational interpretation for their belief to mean anything, which says it all.

    I ask people to evidence their claims, not god. If you say god provides love… prove it. If you say he thinks homosexuality is evil… prove it.

    You cannot by definition make ANY coherent assertions about god, so when people do, I ask them to prove it. Until they do, their claim is a naked assertion fallacy and nothing more than a desire.

    Yes, I chose to be an atheist, because I’ve seen not reasons no to be.

    In fact… everyone is born without a belief in god, so everyone is technically born an atheist. Religion comes later. People are brought up as religious, or chose to be later.

    Also, why would god give me a rational mind, and then punish me for using it?
     
  17. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Aiki’s interpretation is not based on ration and logic because a rational and logical interpretation would conclude absurdity. Luther said this himself… ”All the article of our christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in the presence of reason shearly impossible, absurd and false.

    aiki said Luther was talking about Jesus (I’m not sure which quote aiki was focusing on) however it didn’t affect that Luther was saying. All it showed was that Luther was talking about Jesus.

    Had I just provided one quote from Luther, then yes, it may have been wrong, yet I provided numerous from various parts of Luther’s works which all corroborated each other. The ‘context’ required to change the meaning would have to have been present in all of them.

    And even if we reject the Luther quotes, I provided others from other prominent theologians who also substantiate the point I was making.

    And even then, I showed how it was logically consistent, so to reject the argument, you would need to disprove the logic.

    Until this is done, there is nothing to debate.

    Yet, ‘he’ can, by definition do anything. If he cannot, then things exist outside of gods purview. Who created the things outside of god purview? Whatever did would be omnipotent, and therefore god. Which means the god we’re debating would not be omnipotent, or a god.

    Your argument actually refutes god!

    How do you know he can only do good? (and I certainly wouldn’t call the biblical god good).

    To limit ‘him’ to good gives unlimitedness a limit! Giving unlimitedness a limit (limited unlimitedness!?!) leaves the theist in a worse place than where he started!

    Also, the only way to define or discuss "power" in the first place, the only way to make the concept meaningful, is to discuss what the power is at some point in time, and this requires that we give this power an identity, and to have an identity is to have limits.

    So what on earth is “power without limit?" To describe any power, we need to discuss limits, so 'power without limits' makes no sense.

    Proof of this is the fact that this definition necessarily leads to a contradiction… power without limits means the power to limit your own unlimited power (i.e. make rock you can't lift, etc.) which is a contradiction

    Wrong!

    Limited unlimitedness is a contradiction. You assert no limits, and then contradict that by asserting limits.

    It’s akin to calling a cat a dog.

    To have a character is to have a nature, which is to be natural. God is SUPERnatural! The supernatural by definition cannot have a nature.

    And you still make the same error of asserting limits to unlimitness!

    Yes, and god by definition, god can do anything. I explained this in the second reply above.

    Identity provides a description, a character, a nature. It is ontology. The supernatural is above all of these.

    No, we could not. Supernatural cannot have identity. Positive characteristics assert what something IS, and doing that necessarily provides limits. i.e. If I say the car is red, I necessarily limit it to being red.

    But to assert what something is, you need to comprehend and have knowledge of what you’re asserting to.

    This is a naked assertion! How do you know this?

    We are when you claim to have knowledge of something.

    How do you know this?

    Until evidence is presented for such claim [of interaction], it’s arguing from ignorance and begging the question.

    Incorrect! You’re begging the question. You assume god has characteristics, however, only natural things have characterises. You cannot apply description, characteristics, identity, nature or any ontological category to something non-natural.

    Omnipotence = without limits, so it’s a contradiction to try delimit omnipotence in any fashion.
     
  18. NewLearner

    NewLearner Valued Member

    I guess it really boils down to this:

    If you believe in God, you really will see no way that you should avoid exposing your belief in God to your children. Your love for your children will require this committment on your part.

    If you believe there is no God, why would you care if someone else exposes their children to their belief in God? Taking a child to church is not child abuse. I would like to hear the laughter on the other end of the phone if someone called child protective services saying that their committed child abuse by taking their son to church.
     
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Actually, to butt in ( :Angel: ), I’m not trying to disprove ‘god,’ but rather, the notion that such a concept is comprehensible and coherent.

    There may very well be a god, I’m not against it, but I don’t think any religion has such knowledge, I think there all made up by man. There a desire.

    Right.

    My position: why would a god create people with rational minds and then ask them to not use them?

    When you rationally and logically analyse the arguments for god/religion the only conclusion you can make that that it’s illogical, irrational. You can then only hold the belief if your willing to hold a illogical, irrational belief!
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2006
  20. Topher

    Topher allo!

    wtf! When did I do this! Lol. And you said I lied :rolleyes:

    Only natural things have characteristics and a nature.

    If god is limited to the parameters of logic, who created logic? Who ever did would be omnipotent and therefore god, so your ‘god’ would no longer be omnipotent, or a god!

    Here you apply a positive description by limiting him to the concept of truth. You apply a characteristic, which strips him being omnipotent, and supernatural!

    God created existence, so ‘he’ cannot even be referred to as ‘existing.’ How can ‘he’ 'exist' within his creation (within existence)? Only natural things exist. God violates ontology!

    If god ‘exists’ then he is natural, and therefore not a ‘god.’ The author of that quote is actually refuting god…

    “Once He moves into the non-existent category He is no longer God” – Actually, god can only ‘be’ in the non-existence category. ‘He’ necessarily has to ‘be’ outside of his creation.

    Someone describe/evidence the existence of something that isn’t natural!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page