10 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrSo, for any unbeliever that goes to Hell, that unbeliever's going to Hell was logically necessary.
No, again, my position has nothing at all to do with knowledge of any sort. According to your view, the following propositions are true:
1) The content of the divine decree is determined by God's will.
2) Via the divine decree, God rendered all events certain.
3) Via the diven decree, all things are brought into being and controlled.
4) Go entails both that God causes everything to happen and that somethings he does not cause.
It is logically necessary because He knew what they would decide. Forget hell for the moment. Instead, the issue is purchasing an ice cream cone on April 10, 2006, at 21:15:32. Because God knew simultaneously all things, at the decree, He made certain that they would purchase ICC in time. Is it possible that they do not? No. Was it, prior to the decree? Kinda. The decree is simply all the actual, sans the possible.
What your formula lacks is the free will of man coexisting with the sovereignty of God in time. Perhaps it is the desire to achieve an understanding of divine character with the limitations of reason. Logic, however, can only go so far. Once faced with the nature of God (beyond limitations of man), logic is reduced to just another board game.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't understand what criterion you are using for worthiness. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for some thing to be considered worthy of my praise? The whole idea of outlining properties that suffice for praiseworthiness (as in something like unconditional entitlement to religious reverence) sounds strange to me. You certainly cannot appeal to wholly descriptive claims/observations and use them to logically argue to such a conclusion. Your 'argument' is touchy-feely garbage. You look at the night sky or the vast ocean and you are suddenly overwhelmed by the glory of God. Yawn.
[b]In particular, how does the property of being infinite entail a value statement concerning worthiness?
While it doesn't seem as praiseworthy as His other attributes, i.e., righteousness carries such import and awe-inspiring glory with it, God's infinity is also awe-inspiring in and of itself.
How many things (let alone people) do you know that a ...[text shortened]... eople from all walks of life, believers and unbelievers alike, who would disagree with you.[/b]
[His] righteousness carries such import and awe-inspiring glory with it
Nonsense. Your God is not righteous. He willfully caused/permitted all those aforementioned natural evils; He is callous at best. How do you counter? Why not answer this question for once (even if is it merely the hackneyed 'God's ways are mysterious' blabber)?
I know hundreds and thousands of people from all walks of life, believers and unbelievers alike, who would disagree with you.
Who cares? There are a whole bunch of morons out there.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it is logically necessary because God decreed that it would be so, and God's decrees are eternal and immutable. Again, and finally, nothing in my argument presupposes or relies upon any particular construal of God's knowledge. Although I have argued in the past that God's omniscience entails that libertarian free will is false, that is not my argument here, as an even cursory examination of my actual argument would show.
[b]So, for any unbeliever that goes to Hell, that unbeliever's going to Hell was logically necessary.
It is logically necessary because He knew what they would decide. Forget hell for the moment. Instead, the issue is purchasing an ice cream cone on April 10, 2006, at 21:15:32. Because God knew simultaneously all things, at the decree, He made cert ...[text shortened]... ith the nature of God (beyond limitations of man), logic is reduced to just another board game.[/b]
10 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThen you are faced with answering the question of whether Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it.
Once faced with the nature of God (beyond limitations of man), logic is reduced to just another board game.
The only reason you can typically escape this question is because it boils down to a logical impossibility, and omniscient beings are not obligated to be able to perform logical impossibilities.
But if logic is a game that God does not play, you cannot appeal to that response, since it presupposes logic in order to characterize God, and you must provide an alternate answer.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't understand what criterion you are using for worthiness. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for some thing to be considered worthy of my praise?
I don't understand what criterion you are using for worthiness. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for some thing to be considered worthy of my praise? The whole idea of outlining properties that suffice for praiseworthiness (as in something like unconditional entitlement to religious reverence) sounds strange to me. You certainly cannot ...[text shortened]... o would disagree with you.
Who cares? There are a whole bunch of morons out there.[/b]
Those things that man calls "good," "right," "excellent," and etc., have (historically) been in agreement with perfection, in whatever category. What standards you currently employ is not known.
You certainly cannot appeal to wholly descriptive claims/observations and use them to logically argue to such a conclusion. You look at the night sky or the vast ocean and you are suddenly overwhelmed by the glory of God. Yawn.
That was strictly for illustrative purposes, as you suggested that infinity did not inspire praise/wonder/awe. Looking into the night sky/vast ocean all by itself is awe-inspiring, whether you attribute such a sight to God or not is irrelevant to the point. The vastness of space--- inner and outer--- typically triggers wonder in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps you are one of the only people alive who could stand on the ocean's shelf or lay on your back at night in an open field in Oregon with the Milky Way smothering you from above and yawn. Perhaps you would be thinking about what is on television later. That being the case, I don't suppose there is anything to which you could relate that would convey why God's infinity would inspire awe. Likely, if God's infinity doesn't inspire awe, neither will any of His other attributes. Not right now, at least. However, a day will come when every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Your God is not righteous.
How does perfect (absolute, complete and entire) deal with imperfect?
Why not answer this question for once (even if is it merely the hackneyed 'God's ways are mysterious' blabber)?
The question has been answered time and again, however, your standards are so firmly embedded in your mind, you cannot see the forest for the trees. You have a false presumption of what righteousness looks like, and you follow up with illogical conclusions. Apparently, in your view, God should have either:
never created
never tested
never sentenced
never imputed
or
never been.
I don't see it that way. I am thankful that He is faithful and gives us all an opportunity to grow in grace and knowledge of Him.
Who cares? There are a whole bunch of morons out there.
And in here.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrNo, it is logically necessary because God decreed that it would be so, and God's decrees are eternal and immutable.
No, it is logically necessary because God decreed that it would be so, and God's decrees are eternal and immutable. Again, and finally, nothing in my argument presupposes or relies upon any particular construal of God's knowledge. Although I have argued in the past that God's omniscience entails that libertarian free will is false, that is not my argument here, as an even cursory examination of my actual argument would show.
The decree is from His omniscience. The decree is certified prior to anything happening, as opposed to man who certifies things that are happening or have happened. When man certifies an act as occuring or having occured, the one so certifying is not one of the participants. They must be an obective observer. God is the objective obeserver of all creation, even though He is also a participant.
He provides everything required for any and all action, including action contrary to His desires, as part of His overall purpose.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe point was, logic cannot get the one so equipped to an understanding of how the free will of man and the sovereignty of God can coexist in human history. Logic cannot reveal how God can be the cause of/certifier of/participant in all that is; understanding His attributes does explain this, however.
Then you are faced with answering the question of whether Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it.
The only reason you can typically escape this question is because it boils down to a logical impossibility, and omniscient beings are not obligated to be able to perform logical impossibilities.
But if logic is a game that ...[text shortened]... ce it presupposes logic in order to characterize God, and you must provide an alternate answer.
His attributes do not allow for self-contradiction or absurdities, therefore, logic follows the attributes/character of God, not the other way around.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNothing in my argument presupposes otherwise.
[b]No, it is logically necessary because God decreed that it would be so, and God's decrees are eternal and immutable.
The decree is from His omniscience. The decree is certified prior to anything happening, as opposed to man who certifies things that are happening or have happened. When man certifies an act as occuring or having occured, the one so ...[text shortened]... r any and all action, including action contrary to His desires, as part of His overall purpose.[/b]
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThose things that man calls "good," "right," "excellent," and etc., have (historically) been in agreement with perfection, in whatever category. What standards you currently employ is not known.
[b]I don't understand what criterion you are using for worthiness. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for some thing to be considered worthy of my praise?
Those things that man calls "good," "right," "excellent," and etc., have (historically) been in agreement with perfection, in whatever category. What standards you currently employ i ...[text shortened]...
Who cares? There are a whole bunch of morons out there.
And in here.[/b]
How does any of this address the point? There are many things in many categories that may be considered good, right, excellent, or perfect. It does not follow that I have an obligation to worship such objects or to shower them with unconditional reverence. If your God and creator exists, then perhaps I might demonstrate gratitude; or perhaps I might respect and admire Him the way I do other upstanding persons. But what, specifically, would constitute a basis for any obligation I might have to worship Him?
You are confused with your wonder/awe talk. Just because my perception of something may inspire wonderment or awe does not necessarily mean that the object of my perception is deserving of my respect or praise. Here's a familiar example: your God willfully causes/permits an extremely powerful storm to rip through and decimate an entire village, killing every man, woman, and child in its path. The sheer power and destructive capabilities of the storm (and your God) fills the onlooker with much wonderment and awe. Still, how many would then drop to their knees and praise Him for His awe-inspiring capacity to deliver such comprehensive destruction of property and life? Perhaps you think that God's infinite power and might make Him an object of veneration; I don't.
Apparently, in your view, God should have either:
never created
never tested
never sentenced
never imputed
or
never been.
No. My view is that the existence of your purported God is not at all consistent with our observations.
You have a false presumption of what righteousness looks like, and you follow up with illogical conclusions.
Please explain to me why it is a 'false presumption' to maintain that your perfectly righteous God would have prevented the needless suffering of those Down's babies.
10 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does perfect (absolute, complete and entire) deal with imperfect?
[b]I don't understand what criterion you are using for worthiness. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for some thing to be considered worthy of my praise?
Those things that man calls "good," "right," "excellent," and etc., have (historically) been in agreement with perfection, in whatever category. What standards you currently employ i
Who cares? There are a whole bunch of morons out there.
And in here.[/b]
I missed this question before. If God exists, He is imperfect. The only problem here is that you wanna have your cake and eat it too.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it is logically necessary that A transpires it is a consequence that it
It is logically necessary because He knew what they would decide. Forget hell for the moment. Instead, the issue is purchasing an ice cream cone on April 10, 2006, at 21:15:32. Because God knew simultaneously all things, at the decree, He made certain that they would purchase ICC in time. Is it possible that they do not? No. Was it, prior to the decree? Kinda. The decree is simply all the actual, sans the possible.
is logically impossible that ~A transpires (that is that A does not
happen).
So, if it logically necessary that a non-believer goes to Hell, then it is
logically impossible that they not go to Hell. And, if this occurred in
accordance with the decree of God, then they were by necessity
predestined to go to Hell (for it was logically impossible for things to
transpire otherwise).
Consequently, the claims that:
Some things God permits; other things He causes.
If it is logically impossible for an event to occur, then there is no
permitting; it cannot transpire any other way.
No unbeliever is ever predestined to go to hell.
If it is a logical necessity and was decreed since the beginning of time,
then the unbeliever is, in fact, predestined.
Nemesio
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSeems oddly convenient, doesn't it? This allows a theist to make any 'Goddunit' argument, and then backtrack to the 'cannot constrain my god with puny logic' line.
Once faced with the nature of God (beyond limitations of man), logic is reduced to just another board game.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou use what as a standard for suffering?
[b]Those things that man calls "good," "right," "excellent," and etc., have (historically) been in agreement with perfection, in whatever category. What standards you currently employ is not known.
How does any of this address the point? There are many things in many categories that may be considered good, right, excellent, or perfect. It does n ...[text shortened]... ly righteous God would have prevented the needless suffering of those Down's babies.[/b]