From the outset, I wanted to note that I engage in this discussion with Christian faith and love. Although, I understand my responses might be frustrating I’m not trying to frustrate or be difficult or insulting.
"I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations." We're told he has no limits. No problem - vigorous handwaving and tada... he has limits.
His is limited by that which is inconsistent with his nature.
vigorous handwaving.
Handwaving implies a sense of dishonesty. That a person uses flowery or colorful language coupled with emotion appeals to make a point that actually can’t be made. Essentially that a position (or point) isn’t truly grounded in anything else.
Now, although that notion certainly can be true, it can also be a subjectively applied. A claim of handwaving can also be assigned capriciously in a discussion…..a debate tactic to throw someone off their game.
"God can’t be anything other than himself…." Proof? That's right, by vigorous handwaving.
Immutability - Malachi 3:6 “1 am the Lord, I change not."
"he can’t not be divine in nature." Even if had an inkling of what "divine in nature" meant, where's the proof? It's there - just behind the vigorous handwaving.
Now, I’m fairly certain you know what “divine” means, but just in case it means “to have the quality of God or to be God.” His nature is divine…..His nature is to be God.
Divinity - Exodus 3:14-15 God replied to Moses, “I am who I am. Say this to the people of Israel: I am has sent me to you.” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.
"God can’t not exist." Why not? Because vigorous handwaving.
Eternality - Psalm 102:24-27 "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."
Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
“God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself." How do you know this? By vigorous handwaving, of course. Also how are "equal to or greater than" to be interpreted when God is outside the realm of nature and quantification?
Unique - Isaiah 45:5 “ I am the Lord; there is no other God.”
Within scripture we have revealed to us the quantification of God and that quantity is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, “O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
If God could create another being equal to or greater than himself then there would either be multiple Gods or he would no longer be God as the greater creation would replace him. That’s neither possible or logical.
"God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future." Why? Because you say so while vigorously waving your hands around, that's why.
Omniscience - Job 37:1 “Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?”
"God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him." Why not, if he knows what those being will choose before they know it? Because that narrative fits with what you want to say in this sentence. No problem, just liberally sprinkle some handwaving.
Free Will for humanity - Joshua 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”
As I indicated before, the Lord is collecting his church (those whom have freely chosen him) and will then eliminate sin in his future creative efforts; although, first choices must be made.
You told us what God isn't: anything other than himself, not divine in nature, and non-existing. You told us what God can't not know: all things past, present and future. And you told us what he can't do: create another being that is equal to or greater than himself, or any beings who are given free will and that will only choose him. In other words, you've told us nothing.
I’ve defined who God is on several occasions in the past (matter of fact in replies to you)….please refer to that material.
Now I did state in my previous reply that I don’t often speak of God’s limits unless doing so is germane to the conversation. I don’t like to define things by what they aren’t.
You're right - the toast example, tasty as it might be is confusing. Allow me to elucidate by introducing a pink unicorn. Its name is Chuck and it lives in my back yard. It shares all the exact same characteristics you cited above. Specifically: "I think one thing to consider is that the Pink Unicorn does have some limitations. The Pink Unicorn can’t be anything other than itself….it can’t not be divine in nature. The Pink Unicorn can’t not exist. The Pink Unicorn can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than itself. The Pink Unicorn is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The Pink Unicorn also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose it."
Does that help?
Not really. Toast, pink unicorns…..sorry. No correlation with God there that I see, just a substitution of words. I suppose “chimichanga” would work as well?
Of course it is - you claim that it's possible for something to inerrantly know every decision that everyone will ever make, before those decisions are made - or before the people that will be making them are even born - while still allowing those people to freely choose. If a decision is freely made, then it's impossible to inerrantly know the outcome beforehand.
As I explained, knowledge or foreknowledge is simply knowledge….it’s benign. People tend to confuse the “fore” in foreknowledge with “force”…..it’s not “forceknowledge” in that we are forced to do something.
Define God and specifically explain how his omniscience and knowledge aren't incompatible with free will. Back up all your claims rationally.
Again, I’ve defined God for you repeatedly in the past, but my answers aren’t changing. Again, please refer to previous posts.
Rationality is subjective based upon our presuppositions and worldviews (which in this discussion are diametrically opposed). My faith and God doesn’t comport with your worldview so my explanation won’t be deemed rational by you…..it’s an act of futility. I know this because we’ve gone down this path repeatedly.
Because if God inerrantly knows what I will choose when faced with a choice, for every choice, the question is raised: do I really have a choice to begin with? Again, if God's knowledge is inerrant, then I can't choose anything other than what God knows I'll choose. At best I have the illusion of choice.
Here’s the crux: “then I can't choose anything other than what God knows”. That is correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that the knowledge is benign in regards to your choice. You’re inventing a notion of control within the idea of perfect, complete knowledge.
God’s will is that we choose him, enter into fellowship with him, accept Christ and turn from sin.
You firmly reject his will and you aren’t a Christian. Choice made and choice upheld.
And red M&Ms are red. This is known as a tautology and adds nothing to the conversation.
I understand tautology, but not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. If this is just about repetition of ideas then ok. We’re both doing that.
You haven't answered: what's total knowledge and how is total knowledge compatible with freedom of choice?
Again LOL? I have stated my answer. I think Prof. Einstein has a suggestion for this type of activity.
What we both know, is that from me, there is not a sufficient, cogent answer for you. No offense, but satisfying you in particular isn’t my purpose. My answers are directed at the readers not replying that haven’t made a choice about Christ.
I already understand your choices (and they’re firm). You’re just one of the few voices presenting objections and willing to engage in discussion (which I appreciate).
So many words and you manage to say nothing. You add: "God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete." This is nonsense.
I recognize that you keep repeating that (and you can continue to do so if you want), but it doesn’t make it true.
Not only do we have no idea what it means for God's nature to be divine (or what God is), but we don't know what it means for his knowledge to be complete. If he doesn't learn any new information based on our choices that, inexorably, means that he'd knew what we'd choose before we chose it. If that knowledge is inerrant - which you suggest it is - then no choice was possible to us, except the one God knew we'd make. Which again means that free will is reduced to, at best, an illusion.
Again you’re replacing “foreknowledge” with “forceknowledge”.
“It seems smart at first, but this method has a bigger problem:” it invents a forced control burdening a benign attribute.
But it's not incompatible if God knows what we'll choose and we only go through a game where we think we're actually freely choosing when we are, in fact, not. Right?
See previous answers
I don't despise God
I’m glad about that.
I have no feelings towards your imaginary deity.
You’re awfully passionate about something you have no feelings towards.
All I'm saying is that you claim that he loves us all so very very much and wants to be in fellowship with us, but he won't come out and say it to us. It's almost like watching a teenager struggling to ask a girl on a date for the first time - except, you know, it's not as funny.
Scripture attests to it.
Our Lord Jesus Christ attests to it.
The Holy Spirit that indwells believers attests to it.
No - he didn't allow the creation. He, if the Bible is to be believed - allowed Adam and Eve to decide that question for all their offspring and only much later offer this "escape" - which is still unfulfilled and which, for all you know, will remain unfulfilled.
Yes, he pronounced judgment upon them and through them the proclivity to sin is passed to humanity (we’ve already discussed that though).
The promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. Man, I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
If God knows, inerrantly, which humans will choose him and which won't, they why not only create those humans to begin with (surely that isn't beyond his amazing powers) and have a perfect creation to begin with, without any need for all this other nonsense? In the words of James T. Kirk, what does God need with a starship?
I would say that for God to step in and only allow certain folks to be born because he knows they would choose him would violate the free choices of those folks that desired to have families even if some of those children would mature into adults that would reject God.
God entrusted the Earth to man and also encouraged his will by telling man to go forth and multiply. He made it possible for man to do so, but he didn’t force his will. He gave people the ability to choose whether or not to have make families.
We also note in scripture that having children is a gift from God. The adults they might decide to turn into…..not so much.
The notion that we're responsible for our actions and only our actions is nonsense - if that was the case then the "Original Sin" wouldn't be a scarlet letter carved upon our flesh. Your statement that some remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness finds no support in the Bible.
Yes it does.
I remember when I first read the OT I had so many questions. When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives. They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God. The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.
“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”
Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged. The children are lead into sin and out of innocence. Further, the primary attributes of God (justice, love, grace and mercy) don’t jive together if the innocents are separated eternally from him after their death.
As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.
Why did he do that? Why does God need fellowship? And why is fellowship defined as "worship"?
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
God doesn’t need us to appease him, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t taken great pleasure in his creation.
Fellowship isn’t worship. Talked about worship in my last reply.
If your God loves me enough to send his only son to die for me, why doesn't he love me enough to personally reveal himself to me right now?
That’s exactly why I share my faith so that I can help lead others to that revelation. I can’t force them to follow scripture or me.
Unfortunately, all those qualities are providing meaningless when you're faced with the simplest of questions: "what is God and can you prove he's real not a figment of your imagination?"
Yes, I can and it begins with a faithful journey to him as outlined in scripture. You come to God on his terms and not your own. Refuse to do so and you remain in ignorance of him.
Sure.
Non sequitur: Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
So essentially you’re generalizing my entire argument and labeling it a “non sequitor” because it doesn’t agree with your worldview and presuppositions. That isn’t a non sequitor……that’s what I call “fallacy shopping”. Don’t like a premise so you go shopping for a logical fallacy that can be forced upon it.
“We’re out of peanut butter because I wanted a sandwich today.” That’s a non sequitor.
Loaded question: You assume God exists.
Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”. Not the case.
Equivocation and extended analogy: Literally slapping the President isn't the same as figuratively slapping God.
There is nothing unclear about what I presented because you fully grasp it. As I explained the “slap” is an example of an offense or a breaking of a law. Law breaking can occur by humanity in the finite and infinite.
Intuition pump: Slapping is bad and we punish people for it. Therefore God punishes people.
I had never heard of this fallacy before and then I found out it was an invention of Daniel Dennett. You and I both know that simplistic rationale you indicate to coincide with the “Dennett Fallacy” was not at all my point.
Reification: Textbook definition of reification.
Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”. Not the case.
No, there's no continuity. You cannot extrapolate from the finite to the infinite and from the natural to the supernatural.
Scripture relates to God in anthropomorphic language whereby we humanize him. We can adjust our examples to include God as he relates to our situation in a similar manner.
Christianity promises you something great tomorrow, in exchange for something little today: believe now and achieve eternal salvation. Even if you don't see this as extortion ("believe in God or else you'll burn in hell") there's no proof that there's any gains to be had: there's no proof your God exists, there's no proof of an afterlife, there's no proof of heaven, there's no proof of hell. It's a scam.
That’s a lot of absolute statements about God from a man that has absolutely no personal experience or relationship with God.
But why should blood matter at all?
That was God’s chosen vehicle to cover sin. Sin leads to death and life is found in the blood. Life trumps death. Wondering about “why blood” is just a curiousity. I have no problem with that.
