Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Learner]

So, if we accept the hidden assumption that things that are created are always less capable than things that create them, can you explain this:

https://slator.com/technology/big-tech-using-machine-translation-ai-proxy/

I had a quick browse in the link. If you mean: we as humans can create things such as the A.I. technology the article high-lights. Then I have no qualms with the idea. No different or contradictory imo than; believers who think - being able to do certain things (within certain limits) -by having the image of God within us to be likened to.

It is an amazing achievement regarding the A.I. coming quite a long way. And on a vast different scale .. it does seem a mirrored parrallel to a far more advanced mechanistic systems, that; can replicate and repair itself, adapt to various environments and solve problems. "Biology"!

The fact is that you can either accept logic as your route to truth or faith. If you accept faith then that's just dandy. I respect your decision and your faith. However, if you want to move beyond simply stating that you have faith, whatever the logic or evidence, then you have a problem.

Theists can have both, which compliment each other ... its not neccessarily the absolute that the notion should be" one or the other" that one shoulld soley help individuals get to the truth, although depending on the conceptual perspectives of individuals and how their reasoning works. Reminding me of William Lane Craig who is a better known example of the type imo.

Does having faith in the logic count as being in the same context?

Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.

A lot you mention I agree with and the description isn't so different to the theology. Which more or less is in agreement to the bible - e.g. It will be difficult,.. people will suffer (even Christians) people good or bad. And even in the event that people did see signs, quite a few would find it hard or too beyond the will to want to resist the power of tempting desires (all the attributes to flesh and mind) as it was written back then.

The ignoring and turning their backs to God for "worldly things" even in the presence of the various prophets and the frequent visible signs.

It would take an event so much bigger to witness ,all and everyone at once to eventually take notice (as the theology goes).

This leads to the fundamental problem, as faith is basically unconvincing, you want to use the tools that work. Logic, science and so on. The problem is that the moment you want to use them it's a double edged sword and they can be used on you. You want to believe in an omnimax God then I'm sorry you are just going to have to put up with people pointing out that such a God violates the law of the excluded middle. This is at the heart of logic and is why things like the internet, your computer and Air traffic control work.

Ironically a system not unlike the internet was proposed by Teilhard de Chardin a century or so ago sadly it was meant to be powered by faith and prayer which turned out not to work as well as logic an electricity, So now the noosphere was made by atheists and the Omega Point is the singularity. It's the same millennial bullshit, but just a bit more, you know, secular.

Logic and science has a neutral position, because anyone across-the-board can use it (as the method is applied correctly). It never really was "science V creation"... I don't say you suggest this in your post. But sure ... a majority of theists were not known to be science savvy ...especially when asked scientific-methodical questions that they'd be bound to find difficult to reply in kind. But then it may also equally ,not widely be known that scientists who were also theists have contributed considerably to science.

So, please carry on using a double standard, render up to Caesar your modern world in which people don't die in childbirth, we can all communicate freely and so on, but at least have the good grace to admit that Christianity is hitching a free ride on the modern world while sticking its fingers in its ears, screwing up it's eyes and chanting 'lalalala' as loud as it can.

Have you not heard... theist believe God created "everything" and the components that abide by the laws of physics is all included?

We don't have to be Amish. ( I wouldn't mind having a little time away in an Amish setting)

In the same way, If you want to critique logic, at least learn how it works and why it's a problem for an omnimax god. Don't just pull the 'it's a mystery' line as that got old back when we thought that Gods lived up mountains...

Its beyond comprehension (at least to me) As my previous post was alluding to: Not enough knowledge of the universe to know what is possible. e.g. Science asks : Is it a wave or particle Or both?

(Perhaps I'm not seeing/understanding the logic in regards to the OP correctly .. to be fair.)

 

[Subsymbolic]

I had a quick browse in the link. If you mean: we as humans can create things such as the A.I. technology the article high-lights. Then I have no qualms with the idea. No different or contradictory imo than; believers who think - being able to do certain things (within certain limits) -by having the image of God within us to be likened to.

It is an amazing achievement regarding the A.I. coming quite a long way. And on a vast different scale .. it does seem a mirrored parrallel to a far more advanced mechanistic systems, that; can replicate and repair itself, adapt to various environments and solve problems. "Biology"!

It was simply a rebuttal of the claim that created things can't do things better than their creator - here's a created thing with translation abilities far beyond those of its creators. That was all.

Theists can have both, which compliment each other ... its not neccessarily the absolute that the notion should be" one or the other" that one shoulld soley help individuals get to the truth, although depending on the conceptual perspectives of individuals and how their reasoning works. Reminding me of William Lane Craig who is a better known example of the type imo.

Well, they could have both except that, in the case of Christians, they believe things that one cannot consistently believe, The classic example is Christ itself. The first couple of centuries of christianity involved Christians arguing, fighting and generally murdering the opposition over the question of Christ's divinity/humanity. After the *ahem* cleansing of the great heresies, Docetism (only pretending to be human) Arianism (not really a God) and so on, the winners, or should I say survivors, settled on the the assertion, still preached, implicitly or explicitly today and a central assertion of the Nicene creed that Christ is literally 100% man and 100% God. Now, while this makes sense from the perspective of The Passion being a mockery if Jesus was just God pretending to be human and the belief that only God can save, it forever puts faith before logic.

As a Christian you are committed to the Nicene Creed. If you don't believe me, go talk to your priest about it. However the Nicene Creed is a deliberate and knowing rejection of the central plank of logic: the law of the excluded middle - simply that something cannot be two things at the same time. You know, wholly blue and wholly red, wholly God and wholly man, formally, P and not P. Please, before trying to imagine a slippery way around it, just imagine the efforts the Church has gone to to square that circle without success over the last two millennia. It's quite simple, The Nicene creed gives you a stark choice: faith or logic. Now I've explained it, I'm pretty sure you'll see it and, frankly, you'll be happy with it that way round.

Then, of course, there's all those pesky paradoxes that spring from an omnimax God, you know: create a weight so heavy He can't pick it up and so on. All these are doing is pointing out that an omnimax God is literally logically impossible. Again, the choice to sweep these under the carpet is a choice of faith over reason.

Does having faith in the logic count as being in the same context?

No, because I don't have faith in logic. I have proof in logic. If my five year old son asks me why modus ponens or why 2+2 =4, I can explain. I can literally draw a diagram in set theory that demonstrates exhaustively why. If your putative son asks you if he'll go to Heaven, reason is of no help to you and all you have is faith.

Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.

A lot you mention I agree with and the description isn't so different to the theology. Which more or less is in agreement to the bible - e.g. It will be difficult,.. people will suffer (even Christians) people good or bad. And even in the event that people did see signs, quite a few would find it hard or too beyond the will to want to resist the power of tempting desires (all the attributes to flesh and mind) as it was written back then.

The ignoring and turning their backs to God for "worldly things" even in the presence of the various prophets and the frequent visible signs.

It would take an event so much bigger to witness ,all and everyone at once to eventually take notice (as the theology goes).

So what you are saying is that prayer fails to the point that Christians are no better off than non Christians because all christians are so sinful that God doesn't answer their prayers? The last time I heard that argument it was from someone in an abusive relationship who was so crushed she blamed herself for the abuse. I'd hate to belong to any faith that blamed itself individually and collectively for their God's failure to make anything better.

This leads to the fundamental problem, as faith is basically unconvincing, you want to use the tools that work. Logic, science and so on. The problem is that the moment you want to use them it's a double edged sword and they can be used on you. You want to believe in an omnimax God then I'm sorry you are just going to have to put up with people pointing out that such a God violates the law of the excluded middle. This is at the heart of logic and is why things like the internet, your computer and Air traffic control work.

Ironically a system not unlike the internet was proposed by Teilhard de Chardin a century or so ago sadly it was meant to be powered by faith and prayer which turned out not to work as well as logic an electricity, So now the noosphere was made by atheists and the Omega Point is the singularity. It's the same millennial bullshit, but just a bit more, you know, secular.

Logic and science has a neutral position, because anyone across-the-board can use it (as the method is applied correctly). It never really was "science V creation"... I don't say you suggest this in your post. But sure ... a majority of theists were not known to be science savvy ...especially when asked scientific-methodical questions that they'd be bound to find difficult to reply in kind. But then it may also equally ,not widely be known that scientists who were also theists have contributed considerably to science.

It certainly shouldn't be Science V creation and, don't forget, the big bang was proposed by a Catholic priest. I have no problem with natural scientists who see the entire thing as God's creation and are trying to make sense of it all... As long as they follow the evidence wherever it leads without fear or favour. I hope, one day, to meet one.

So, please carry on using a double standard, render up to Caesar your modern world in which people don't die in childbirth, we can all communicate freely and so on, but at least have the good grace to admit that Christianity is hitching a free ride on the modern world while sticking its fingers in its ears, screwing up it's eyes and chanting 'lalalala' as loud as it can.

Have you not heard... theist believe God created "everything" and the components that abide by the laws of physics is all included?

No, theists believe that God created everything that God created. They don't believe that God created the Boeing 747, that was Boeing. I'm talking about biological progress since life began and technological progress since we started doing that. If you want to say God created everything Man created, then I think you are way off piste.

We don't have to be Amish. ( I wouldn't mind having a little time away in an Amish setting)

At least Amish are consistent and don't try to be both.

In the same way, If you want to critique logic, at least learn how it works and why it's a problem for an omnimax god. Don't just pull the 'it's a mystery' line as that got old back when we thought that Gods lived up mountains...

Its beyond comprehension (at least to me) As my previous post was alluding to: Not enough knowledge of the universe to know what is possible. e.g. Science asks : Is it a wave or particle Or both?

(Perhaps I'm not seeing/understanding the logic in regards to the OP correctly .. to be fair.)

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand". Would you, as a matter of faith, accept this or would you feel that God had cheated. Because logic is a bit like that chess game. Logic is a proven method of moving from true premises to true conclusions. Things like the law of the excluded middle are not up for revision. Even by a deity. Sadly explaining much beyond that would require you to understand logic and, sadly, you have already made your choice. You'd thank God kindly for showing you a chess miracle.

I'd call it a cheat.

 

[Underseer]

Again, arguing that God is "beyond logic" is self-refuting.

If logic doesn't apply, then you have no means of establishing the truth of whether or not God exists, and you have no means of making any truth claims about God.

"God is beyond logic" = "I have no valid truth claims"

Want to have valid, verifiable truth claims so that you can say X is true and Y is not true? Sorry, you'll need logic for that, and you've already declared that can't be part of any discussion about God. Saying "Oh, but God's logic is different from your logic" can't ad hoc you out of this. To prove that, you would need to prove that God exists, then explain what God's logic is and how God's logic works, and at the very front, you already denied yourself any possible tools for proving any such thing.

 

[Learner]

Well, they could have both except that, in the case of Christians, they believe things that one cannot consistently believe, The classic example is Christ itself. The first couple of centuries of christianity involved Christians arguing, fighting and generally murdering the opposition over the question of Christ's divinity/humanity. After the *ahem* cleansing of the great heresies, Docetism (only pretending to be human) Arianism (not really a God) and so on, the winners, or should I say survivors, settled on the the assertion, still preached, implicitly or explicitly today and a central assertion of the Nicene creed that Christ is literally 100% man and 100% God. Now, while this makes sense from the perspective of The Passion being a mockery if Jesus was just God pretending to be human and the belief that only God can save, it forever puts faith before logic.

I'll just say briefly (sparring Atheos et al the long post for the OP). I seemed to have a different POV of the early Christian history than you do.

As a Christian you are committed to the Nicene Creed. If you don't believe me, go talk to your priest about it. However the Nicene Creed is a deliberate and knowing rejection of the central plank of logic: the law of the excluded middle - simply that something cannot be two things at the same time. You know, wholly blue and wholly red, wholly God and wholly man, formally, P and not P. Please, before trying to imagine a slippery way around it, just imagine the efforts the Church has gone to to square that circle without success over the last two millennia. It's quite simple, The Nicene creed gives you a stark choice: faith or logic. Now I've explained it, I'm pretty sure you'll see it and, frankly, you'll be happy with it that way round.

Christians should be commited to the teachings of Christ which was long before the Nicene Creed and Christians did so. Jesus does say have faith but doesn't mean He says "throw away logic" which is a requirement to living and making sense of the world to exist in.

Then, of course, there's all those pesky paradoxes that spring from an omnimax God, you know: create a weight so heavy He can't pick it up and so on. All these are doing is pointing out that an omnimax God is literally logically impossible. Again, the choice to sweep these under the carpet is a choice of faith over reason.

I personally can't fathom it (especially when you put Omnimax God as part of the equation). Although I do understand what you're getting at.

Does having faith in the logic count as being in the same context?

No, because I don't have faith in logic. I have proof in logic. If my five year old son asks me why modus ponens or why 2+2 =4, I can explain. I can literally draw a diagram in set theory that demonstrates exhaustively why. If your putative son asks you if he'll go to Heaven, reason is of no help to you and all you have is faith.

Faith also emphasises on "trust" including the biblical interpretation. Trusting God ..trusting personal abilities etc.

Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.

So what you are saying is that prayer fails to the point that Christians are no better off than non Christians because all christians are so sinful that God doesn't answer their prayers? The last time I heard that argument it was from someone in an abusive relationship who was so crushed she blamed herself for the abuse. I'd hate to belong to any faith that blamed itself individually and collectively for their God's failure to make anything better.

There have been various claims to prayers and miracles which of course, should be on a case by case, on the whole.. a very large number. Sure I wouldn't believe every single claim to be true, but at this stage ..its about getting in the "after life" and the context of it all, in all its aspects is very large for this post.

No, theists believe that God created everything that God created. They don't believe that God created the Boeing 747, that was Boeing. I'm talking about biological progress since life began and technological progress since we started doing that. If you want to say God created everything Man created, then I think you are way off piste.

I'm merely saying God gave us the crayons to draw with (for lack of better wording)

Its beyond comprehension (at least to me) As my previous post was alluding to: Not enough knowledge of the universe to know what is possible. e.g. Science asks : Is it a wave or particle Or both?

(Perhaps I'm not seeing/understanding the logic in regards to the OP correctly .. to be fair.)

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand". Would you, as a matter of faith, accept this or would you feel that God had cheated.

Because logic is a bit like that chess game. Logic is a proven method of moving from true premises to true conclusions. Things like the law of the excluded middle are not up for revision. Even by a deity. Sadly explaining much beyond that would require you to understand logic and, sadly, you have already made your choice. You'd thank God kindly for showing you a chess miracle.

I'm not so sure... perhaps we ARE using similar logic if not the same, it seems to me. The only difference is then: the interpretation of what's in front of both of us. Your analogy certainly implies God CAN "alter" or "manipulate" the rules that we only understand (Jumping the "naturalist" pawn beyond the laws of physics ).

(Sorry its a little brief ...busy moment)

 

[Lion IRC]

Christ is literally God.

...As a Christian you are committed to the Nicene Creed. If you don't believe me, go talk to your priest about it.

I did. They all said there is no violation of logic in the Nicene Creed.
And so I told them they were all wrong because atheist bystander on the internet says so.

...the Nicene Creed is a deliberate and knowing rejection of the central plank of logic: the law of the excluded middle - simply that something cannot be two things at the same time.

Neither deliberate nor knowing nor actual.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim God and Jesus are simultaneously 'opposites' subject to the law of excluded middle.

...You know, wholly blue and wholly red, wholly God and wholly man, formally, P and not P.

See John 10:30
It's not either Jesus or God. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Consubstantial. Look it up.

Please, before trying to imagine a slippery way around it...

Why do you imagine the doctrine needs a workaround? Who is claiming the Trinity involves some logical contradiction? (Apart from you)

...just imagine the efforts the Church has gone to to square that circle without success over the last two millennia.

Imagining is exactly what YOU are doing when you claim Jesus is a square and God is a circle.
You're simply inventing a straw argument and expecting Christians to defend something they don't believe.

Moreover, your own claim about the nature of God/Jesus' coexistence is (heretical) special pleading. You just expect us to take your word that God must be 'x' and Jesus must be a contradictory 'y'.

... It's quite simple, The Nicene creed gives you a stark choice: faith or logic.

Nope. That would be the opposite of the word theology. Christian theology would have dumped the Trinity doctrine long ago if logical minds saw a problem with God having a Son.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I did.

What? ask them if you were committed to the Nicene creed? Because that is what I asked you to ask them. Mostly because they are, hopefully qualified to answer that question.

They all said there is no violation of logic in the Nicene Creed.

Did they? are they qualified logicans? Much more importantly, did they offer you an argument or explanation in support of their assertion? because otherwise you are just accepting their answer on the basis of faith, not on the basis of reason. Which was rather my point.

And so I told them they were all wrong because atheist bystander on the internet says so.

Which was a mistake. What you should have said is that they were wrong because a random bystander on the internet offered an argument that they have failed to even address, let alone prove wrong. They can, of course, tell you not to put your God to the test, burn you, excommunicate you, shun you, torture the demons out of you and other fun things Christians really have done to deal with disagreement in the past. (references available if you wish) What they can't do is disprove a logical argument with assertion, dogma or force.

It's not about me, it's about the quality of the argument.

Neither deliberate nor knowing nor actual.

I'd go back and read up on the great Church councils leading up to the first council of Nicaea in 325. Everyone knew what was at stake, the options available and the consequences of each choice. Or you can ignore the history of your own Church if you wish.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim God and Jesus are simultaneously 'opposites' subject to the law of excluded middle.

Really? What I love about theology is that you can work from premises that Christians are dogmatically committed to and thus have to accept, no matter how ridiculous. So, let's look at the precise wording of the relevant bits of the Nicene Creed, or more precisely the version of the Nicene creed ratified in Constantinople in 381 as that is the one that is accepted by almost all people who call themselves Christian. I'm sure you know the words, but here are the key bits:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

While it is surprising that you appear to be unaware that every word of this was argued, and often fought, over, the fact is that 'being of one substance with the Father' leaves no wiggle room. Christ is God, 100% God. To be anything less than 100% God reduces his perfection. I'm not saying this, I'm just paraphrasing Christians here. I assume that this establishes that Christ is 100% God? If not, I'm happy to explain further, but denying Christ's divinity is a formal heresy

So that's premise one: Christ is entirely God.

Next we have the claim that:

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man...

Now, once again, this simple sentence covers up three or four centuries of internecine struggle but, once you work through all the formal heresies (which of course I'll be happy to do, if you don't accept the premise) there's no other options.

So that Christ became entirely man.

Now, of course, this wording seems to leave some wiggle room: one could claim that he was God then he became man (and no longer God). This, of course, Arianism. Look it up. While you are at it, check out the small print to the Nicene creed, you know, the one that goes:

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

And, of course, before you state that you are not a Catholic then double check whether your particular denomination existed in the fourth century and whether it accepts this. If it's a mainstream Church and a WCC member, it does. Don't trust me on this, fact check it. The great thing is that all the other possibilities have been tried and declared heretical, often with a little light burning. You can try to be avoid this conclusion but your own Church history is against you here.

So there's the two claims:

Christ is entirely God

and

Christ is entirely man.

I assume that you accept that God and man are not the same thing?

Feel free to argue this isn't true, I'll happily point out which heresy you are committing.

Thus the claim violates the law of the excluded middle.

To be logical you have to reject one or the other (or explain how they are not mutually exclusive)

Now, you can ignore me, but you can't ignore the argument. Either you accept an impossible claim as a matter of faith or you reject it as a matter of logic. That's for you to decide.

...You know, wholly blue and wholly red, wholly God and wholly man, formally, P and not P.

See John 10:30
It's not either Jesus or God. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Sadly, whichever way you twist it, John 10:30 doesn't avoid the problem. First, I don't know what your source is here, but the exegetic consensus here is that this is a statement that they are 'of one purpose', this is largely because of the context and the use of the gender neutral ἕν rather than the masculine εἷς in the Greek allow for no other interpretation. This disambiguates to what the 'one' refers; in this case, one purpose rather than one person.

Here's John Calvin making the same point:

The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.

Consubstantial. Look it up.

I really don't need to, although I'd rather use homoousian, the Greek term from which it is imperfectly translated. You however, need to look up the heresy of Sabbellianism because it's the one that you are currently falling into (the road to Hell and all that...)

Because you are asserting that Christ is merely consubstantial with God. The Nicene creed and indeed anyone who is actually a trinitarian would argue that, to use the classic Catholic formulation:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

Obviously, this is from the Catechism which you would presumably reject, but I can assure you that if you were a deliberate Trinitarian rather than an inadvertent Sabbellian, you would accept some surprisingly similar version. Seriously, there's no wriggle room here.

Please, before trying to imagine a slippery way around it...

Why do you imagine the doctrine needs a workaround? Who is claiming the Trinity involves some logical contradiction? (Apart from you)

Well obviously, the Church don't go out of their way to make it explicit, but I think thirty seconds on Google will confirm that it's common knowledge among the logically competent. As opposed to all the priests you talked to...

...just imagine the efforts the Church has gone to to square that circle without success over the last two millennia.

Imagining is exactly what YOU are doing when you claim Jesus is a square and God is a circle.

You're simply inventing a straw argument and expecting Christians to defend something they don't believe.

It really isn't. I hope I've demonstrated that - and indeed saved your from your inadvertent Sabbellianism! However, feel free to actually argue your case rather than merely state it.

Moreover, your own claim about the nature of God/Jesus' coexistence is (heretical) special pleading. You just expect us to take your word that God must be 'x' and Jesus must be a contradictory 'y'.

No that's the last thing I expect. I expect you to have a working knowledge of the implications and history of basic Christology. This is explicit (and implicit) in Trinitarian accounts of Christology. Any other option is heresy. I'm not claiming anything - I'm just pointing it out to you and being faintly surprised you don't already know it.

... It's quite simple, The Nicene creed gives you a stark choice: faith or logic.

Nope. That would be the opposite of the word theology. Christian theology would have dumped the Trinity doctrine long ago if logical minds saw a problem with God having a Son.

Logical minds did, so the people in charge burned them, excommunicated them and made it quite clear that the Trinity was more important than logic.

I suspect you will not accept this yet, but it's the truth.

I'm only the messenger.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I'll just say briefly (sparring Atheos et al the long post for the OP). I seemed to have a different POV of the early Christian history than you do.

Cool, perhaps you can explain, with evidence, where i've got it wrong.

Christians should be commited to the teachings of Christ which was long before the Nicene Creed and Christians did so. Jesus does say have faith but doesn't mean He says "throw away logic" which is a requirement to living and making sense of the world to exist in.

According to your own scripture, Christ was born, lived and died a Jew, he did not preach a message to non Jews, was explicit that “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mark 7:24) described non Jews as 'dogs' and mentions no non Jewish converts in his lifetime. Christianity as a non Jewish phenomenon was invented after his death. Are you sure you want to commit to scripture alone?

Then, of course, there's all those pesky paradoxes that spring from an omnimax God, you know: create a weight so heavy He can't pick it up and so on. All these are doing is pointing out that an omnimax God is literally logically impossible. Again, the choice to sweep these under the carpet is a choice of faith over reason.

I personally can't fathom it (especially when you put Omnimax God as part of the equation). Although I do understand what you're getting at.

If you understand what I'm getting at, why are you not so concerned: I'm pointing out that the God you worship is logically impossible.

Does having faith in the logic count as being in the same context?

No, because I don't have faith in logic. I have proof in logic. If my five year old son asks me why modus ponens or why 2+2 =4, I can explain. I can literally draw a diagram in set theory that demonstrates exhaustively why. If your putative son asks you if he'll go to Heaven, reason is of no help to you and all you have is faith.

Faith also emphasises on "trust" including the biblical interpretation. Trusting God ..trusting personal abilities etc.

Only in an informal sense.

Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.

So what you are saying is that prayer fails to the point that Christians are no better off than non Christians because all christians are so sinful that God doesn't answer their prayers? The last time I heard that argument it was from someone in an abusive relationship who was so crushed she blamed herself for the abuse. I'd hate to belong to any faith that blamed itself individually and collectively for their God's failure to make anything better.

There have been various claims to prayers and miracles which of course, should be on a case by case, on the whole.. a very large number. Sure I wouldn't believe every single claim to be true, but at this stage ..its about getting in the "after life" and the context of it all, in all its aspects is very large for this post.

If you don't want to fool yourself, you don't look at things on an anecdotal case by case basis. However, I'm pretty certain that pragmatic faith that's 'about getting in the "after life"' is no faith at all.

No, theists believe that God created everything that God created. They don't believe that God created the Boeing 747, that was Boeing. I'm talking about biological progress since life began and technological progress since we started doing that. If you want to say God created everything Man created, then I think you are way off piste.

I'm merely saying God gave us the crayons to draw with (for lack of better wording)

Fair enough, who would have guessed we'd be so handy with them.

Its beyond comprehension (at least to me) As my previous post was alluding to: Not enough knowledge of the universe to know what is possible. e.g. Science asks : Is it a wave or particle Or both?

(Perhaps I'm not seeing/understanding the logic in regards to the OP correctly .. to be fair.)

Logic isn't science. one is a priori and the other a posteriori. They are very very different toolkits.

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand". Would you, as a matter of faith, accept this or would you feel that God had cheated.

Because logic is a bit like that chess game. Logic is a proven method of moving from true premises to true conclusions. Things like the law of the excluded middle are not up for revision. Even by a deity. Sadly explaining much beyond that would require you to understand logic and, sadly, you have already made your choice. You'd thank God kindly for showing you a chess miracle.

I'm not so sure... perhaps we ARE using similar logic if not the same, it seems to me. The only difference is then: the interpretation of what's in front of both of us. Your analogy certainly implies God CAN "alter" or "manipulate" the rules that we only understand (Jumping the "naturalist" pawn beyond the laws of physics ).

It certainly doesn't. My point is that God certainly can't be beyond the rules of chess or logic and any claim that he can merely shows ignorance of how chess or logic works. Once you know all the rules of chess there are no higher extra rules. The same is true of logic.

(Sorry its a little brief ...busy moment)

that's cool

 

[Lion IRC]

...God certainly can't be beyond the rules of chess or logic and any claim that he can merely shows ignorance of how chess or logic works. Once you know all the rules of chess there are no higher extra rules.

Really?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess

 

[Subsymbolic]

...God certainly can't be beyond the rules of chess or logic and any claim that he can merely shows ignorance of how chess or logic works. Once you know all the rules of chess there are no higher extra rules.

Really?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess

View attachment 15310

Yeah, really. That isn't chess, it's fairy chess. Different game, different rules. Go back and look at my example and ask yourself if this is a rebuttal. Here's my point again:

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand". Would you, as a matter of faith, accept this or would you feel that God had cheated. Because logic is a bit like that chess game. Logic is a proven method of moving from true premises to true conclusions. Things like the law of the excluded middle are not up for revision. Even by a deity. Sadly explaining much beyond that would require you to understand logic and, sadly, you have already made your choice. You'd thank God kindly for showing you a chess miracle.

The point is that if you want to play someone at chess, you accept the rules and their consequences at the outset, if you wanted to play circular chess, cheops or fairy chess that's cool, but you accept those rules at the outset. In the case of Christianity, I've already stated clearly enough that there's nothing wrong with arriving at truth by faith, or tossing coins if you so wish. However, it's not a good way of actually learning stuff, creating stuff that works oir curing diseases. For that you need to start using other toolkits that unfortunately can also be used to point out the inconsistency of faith claims. So if you want to believe that God could make a triangle with four sides, that's cool, but you really want to consider what the definition of a triangle is. Likewise, if you are dogmatically committed to believing in a creature that is entirely God and entirely man, and you are if you are a WCC Christian, then you really need to understand the implications of such a thing being possible. Your computer wouldn't work for a start, nor would the internet.

I'm still a bit surprised you, and your priests, were unclear about the history and implications of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Lion IRC]

You said there are no extra rules. But I demonstrated that new rules can be added.
None of this violates logic. If God says I don't want to use FIDE rules that isn't a violation of the law of excluded middle.
Your chess reference is a red herring.
And the Nicene Creed doesn't assert or imply or concede that Jesus incarnate and God immanent are mutually exclusive.
Quite the opposite.

What's funny here is you are insisting that I accept the heretical view that God cannot (because he is powerless) have a Son and that His Son cannot be flesh and bone. And you haven't shown why an omnipotent being cant have that.

This is metaphysics pal!
Show me a coercive syllogism against Transubstantiation. One which doesn't involve your personal opinion.

 

[bilby]

You said there are no extra rules. But I demonstrated that new rules can be added.

No, you didn't. You demonstrated that different games have different rules (duh). That in no way addresses the point, which was about adding new rules while a game is in progress, aka 'cheating'.

Seriously, you are not kidding anyone but yourself with this kind of half-arsed non-reasoning. Are you really this bad at thinking things through (perhaps you have some kind of short-term memory issue?), or do you know that you are bullshitting, but hope nobody else is smart enough to notice?

 

[Learner]

Cool, perhaps you can explain, with evidence, where i've got it wrong.

You first (you forgot your evidence in previous post ).

Seriously .... for now I'll stick to different POV (till I come back -day off later).

 

[Copernicus]

You said there are no extra rules. But I demonstrated that new rules can be added.

Lion, who determines that the rules of chess can be changed?

 

[Lion IRC]

You said there are no extra rules. But I demonstrated that new rules can be added.

No, you didn't. You demonstrated that different games have different rules (duh). That in no way addresses the point, which was about adding new rules while a game is in progress, aka 'cheating'.

No. Subsymbolic's scenario did NOT stipulate that God had actually broken a rule or changed the rules DURING the game.

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand".

I've had players accuse me of cheating when I took their Pawn en passant and others who didn't know that threefold repetition allowed me to unilaterally declare a draw. Similarly, the Fairy chess example shows that "a game" of chess is not the same as "the game" of chess.

Try following the play more closely bilby.

 

[bilby]

No. Subsymbolic's scenario did NOT stipulate that God had actually broken a rule or changed the rules DURING the game.

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king. When you protested that this broke the rules, it laughed heartily and said "oh little mortal, only the rules you understand".

I've had players accuse me of cheating when I took their Pawn en passant and others who didn't know that threefold repetition allowed me to unilaterally declare a draw. Similarly, the Fairy chess example shows that "a game" of chess is not the same as "the game" of chess.

Try following the play more closely bilby.

I think you do have a short term memory issue.

Or perhaps you should follow the play more closely:

Imagine you are playing a game of chess against God and half way through, God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king.

...

I'd call it a cheat.

(My bold)

 

[Lion IRC]

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

Also, God can see the future, so he'd have known that he would be making that move and stuck a note about how it's legal into one of the appendices in the rule book.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

Really? Perhaps you can point out where in the rules of chess this can happen:

God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king.

If you really want to deliberately twist everyday phrases like 'playing a game of chess' into playing a game of fairy chess and so on, then all you do is look like you are trying to be slippery. If that is the effect you are after then please carry on.

Either way, all that is happening here is quibbling about the analogy that was meant to elucidate the point about logic, maths and set theory.


The point I'm making should be uncontroversial to a Christian. So I'll just ask it straight: which is more important to you as a Christian: faith or reason?

More to the point, do you recant the heresy of Sabbellianism that you promulgated earlier? Or perhaps you can carry on explaining your personal christology so that I can explain the further heresies you falling in to. Do you even realise how sinful heresy is? I'm an atheist and I'm shocked. Mostly at your ignorance of christology. Ignorance of science, logic or ethics I can understand, but christology? At this point it feels a bit like some of the conversations I've had with facebook users recently: they signed up without reading the TOU and small print and are utterly aware of what it commits them to. Actually, thinking about it, facebook and Catholicism? that could be a radio show:

Oh...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09ydb7r

I shouldn't find it funny, but having two people who claim to be Christians outraged at simple, well known, facts about their faith, arguing against a position that is tediously orthodox and thus falling into formal heresy is a lovely example of situational irony. `

 

[Subsymbolic]

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

Also, God can see the future, so he'd have known that he would be making that move and stuck a note about how it's legal into one of the appendices in the rule book.

Ah, so are you saying that God's omnisience is a limit to his free will? but then his omniscience would be a formal limit to his omnipotence and that would lead to a paradox: could God predict he's going to do something in the future then choose to do something else? If he can he's not omniscient if he can't then he's not all powerful.

Omnimax deities, like shooting fish in a barrel...

 

[Learner]

It certainly doesn't. My point is that God certainly can't be beyond the rules of chess or logic and any claim that he can merely shows ignorance of how chess or logic works.

Ah...I think I got the gist because I couldn't understand the significance of "Cheating" ( Quite sure Lion too) and whether I should either accept it as faith and that it was ok because it was God or unless I see it otherwise ...not abiding by the chess rules and cheating.

Why didn't you use Satan instead ...the right character? I would of understood the "logic" perspective a little sooner.

Or are you secretly an agent of the adversary trying to make us theists proffess from our own mouths; that God is a cheater? I jest.

(both choices in your analogy is the same: By faith and acceptance or by calling out the cheater ... the entity is still a cheat either way!)

Once you know all the rules of chess there are no higher extra rules. The same is true of logic.

God wouldn't cheat ,abiding by the rules of the "game" HE would also be many chess games (moves) ahead. HE would imo make it as easier (to learn the moves) cause HE loves you (from the theist POV).