Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I have no idea if you were a Christian. If you say you were then Okay. Eeeeeh.... wha...? Ex in Ex-Christian doesn't give you a hint? Like exodus or exorcism... you don't know what the prefix "ex-" means? We have ex-missionaries here, ex-preachers, ex-ministers, ex-evangelists, ex-... We're not your regular "I don't know, I have no experience of Christianity, but I think it's bull..." group. We're the "been there, done that" group. I have been on your side arguing with atheists in the attempt of making them see my side. I have used many arguments on my own. Even first cause and "evolution is a belief" and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 To be clear I am going to sum up my impression of the definition of supernatural being used: A free willed agent that exists beyond all bounds of the natural world and its laws Who is detectable (meaning, I believe, effects the natural world in ways we can observe) Who is unpredictable (because it is utterly free from all that we understand based on the natural world) And who is thus all powerful (Having no constraints in our world) Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 To be clear I am going to sum up my impression of the definition of supernatural being used: A free willed agent that exists beyond all bounds of the natural world and its laws Who is detectable (meaning, I believe, effects the natural world in ways we can observe) Who is unpredictable (because it is utterly free from all that we understand based on the natural world) And who is thus all powerful (Having no constraints in our world) Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. It could be constrained but there is no reason to assume that it is. Defining it further limits its all powerful and nature-free existence. And an omnipotent being could do anything, even the logically impossible. A man rising from the dead is logically impossible. Its silly to say the supernatural is free and separate from the natural world and then try to constrain it by natural constructs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 To be clear I am going to sum up my impression of the definition of supernatural being used: A free willed agent that exists beyond all bounds of the natural world and its laws Who is detectable (meaning, I believe, effects the natural world in ways we can observe) Who is unpredictable (because it is utterly free from all that we understand based on the natural world) And who is thus all powerful (Having no constraints in our world) Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. The "constraints" of the theoretical beings are interesting. Can God make a square circle or square triangle if it is otherwise logically prohibited? Most Christians would say no. Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree? Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 It could be constrained but there is no reason to assume that it is. Defining it further limits its all powerful and nature-free existence. And an omnipotent being could do anything, even the logically impossible. A man rising from the dead is logically impossible. Its silly to say the supernatural is free and separate from the natural world and then try to constrain it by natural constructs. I use the word "illogical" in a slightly different way. I would say that raising the dead is physically impossible. There are no laws of logic that even relate to coming back from the dead. The law of identity, for example, says "a = a". God cannot make "a ≠ a". It is logically impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. Except for the actual existence of a supernatural being (of any make or model), I generally agree with you here. I would ask, though, if you think God is omnibenevolent - that you think the actions of god are always good, even when to an "ordinary human" they would seem grotesquely immoral and bad? IOW, is God constrained by being good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I use the word "illogical" in a slightly different way. I would say that raising the dead is physically impossible. There are no laws of logic that even relate to coming back from the dead. The law of identity, for example, says "a = a". God cannot make "a ≠ a". It is logically impossible. I suppose its true that logic doesn't really deal with the idea of resurrection. However I would contend that god could in fact make the illogical possible. I believe logic is quite constrained to the 'real' or 'natural' world and therefore the 'super'natural could defy logic as well as physical possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 To be clear I am going to sum up my impression of the definition of supernatural being used: A free willed agent that exists beyond all bounds of the natural world and its laws Who is detectable (meaning, I believe, effects the natural world in ways we can observe) Who is unpredictable (because it is utterly free from all that we understand based on the natural world) And who is thus all powerful (Having no constraints in our world) Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. The "constraints" of the theoretical beings are interesting. Can God make a square circle or square triangle if it is otherwise logically prohibited? Most Christians would say no. Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree? Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God. This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree? Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God. This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. No, you have simply stated that God is goodness, which is the second part of the Dilemma. Your description implies that whatever god does is by default good, even if it is absolutely disgusting, repulsive, and "inhuman." Nice going, Clay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. Except for the actual existence of a supernatural being (of any make or model), I generally agree with you here. I would ask, though, if you think God is omnibenevolent - that you think the actions of god are always good, even when to an "ordinary human" they would seem grotesquely immoral and bad? IOW, is God constrained by being good? Is he both good and just? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree? Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God. This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. No, you have simply stated that God is goodness, which is the second part of the Dilemma. Your description implies that whatever god does is by default good, even if it is absolutely disgusting, repulsive, and "inhuman." Nice going, Clay. Read the link you provided. The second horn is that morality is what is commanded by God, not what God is. It is between morality being independent of God(first horn) or commanded by God(second horn). The reason theists don't like the second is because it implies an arbitrary choice, i.e He could change His mind. If God is moral then it is not arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Such a being could still be constrained by properties - such as the definition of goodness or love. You may disagree with these properties, but the being could still have defining properties. So it is not such a free for all as you claim. Also, even in the case of omni properties there are logical constraints. It is bogus to claim an omnipotent being, for example, could do the logically impossible. Except for the actual existence of a supernatural being (of any make or model), I generally agree with you here. I would ask, though, if you think God is omnibenevolent - that you think the actions of god are always good, even when to an "ordinary human" they would seem grotesquely immoral and bad? IOW, is God constrained by being good? Is he both good and just? By whose standards? You might say God is good, but that only means he is "god-good" which is not goodness that we understand. Likewise, you might say god is "god-just" but that has no understanding for us either. We can wait on a discussion of Hell, but if you are not an annihilationist, reconciliationist or universalist, then there can be no justice about eternal torment for any earthly offense unless you want to call it "god-justice." The atrocities committed by god or at the command of god in the old testament are appalling and despicable, but they are, to you, god-good. Unfortunately, there is little choice for Christians other than to excuse this reprehensible behavior and even condone it. The apologies are equally disgusting: "That was then, this is now (but God is unchanging)." "Jesus made a new covenant (but God is unchanging)." "They deserved their fate." "The children all went to heaven." You would criticize the Muslims for following Leviticus, but you have no basis for doing so. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. Which in turn can be a fallacy of equivocation. God is ... (whatever you want him to be). My pet-rock is good. My pet-rock is love. My pet-rock is all the good things I want it to be. Is good a dependent or independent factor of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree? Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God. This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. No, you have simply stated that God is goodness, which is the second part of the Dilemma. Your description implies that whatever god does is by default good, even if it is absolutely disgusting, repulsive, and "inhuman." Nice going, Clay. Read the link you provided. The second horn is that morality is what is commanded by God, not what God is. It is between morality being independent of God(first horn) or commanded by God(second horn). The reason theists don't like the second is because it implies an arbitrary choice, i.e He could change His mind. If God is moral then it is not arbitrary. The problem still lies in whether God's morality is reflected by what he does, or commands, or not. If his actions or commands are evil, then he is not good, and we know this by an independent standard. Morality is independent of God. Mainly because God doesn't exist, but also because everything that you know about god tells you that his actions are evil, immoral, and "inhuman." There is no meaning to "God is goodness" if the actions of the reputed god do not conform to goodness. Otherwise, you have no standard, or you have a faulty standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Well I know your beliefs are wrong so anything I believe must be closer to the truth than yours. Plus, I remain open minded and admit I don't have all the answers on life, death etc. unlike you and your faith. No offense, but my being wrong would not automatically mean you were right unless your belief was simply my being wrong, which I don't think is what you mean by your belief. So are you saying you believe in the supernatural? Why? One does not have to believe in the supernatural to be a spiritual person or a spirit-lead person. There is no supernatural, everything operates according to natural laws. Spirituality is not a belief in the supernatural nor is it a belief in spiritualism which requires a belief in the supernatural. Not all Deists believe in the supernatural because Deists also believe that if there is a God she also must work within the restraints of natural laws that govern our universe and the life in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 If you still believe in the supernatural (deism is a belief in the supernatural) what makes you think your brand of supernaturalism is correct? Maybe because I have had multiple interactions with the supernatural whereas God was always silent, as usual. Would you bow down and worship God if He were to demonstrate some supernatural event to you? For god to cause a supernatural event then she would also have to make herself known as The God to everyone, in which case it would destroy everything Christianity has claimed for two thousand years and every other religion a liar as well. That would make me a believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 If you still believe in the supernatural (deism is a belief in the supernatural) what makes you think your brand of supernaturalism is correct? My Holy Book same as you. All the reasons your god is real apply to all gods in one way or another. On the other hand all the reasons that the other gods are not real apply to your god as well. So are you claiming to be as right as me or as wrong as me? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Would you bow down and worship God if He were to demonstrate some supernatural event to you? No, but I might applaud like that time I saw David Copperfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 OrdinaryClay, I will offer you a challenge. Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Which contradicts Gideon's fleece and doubting Thomas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken. How do you get what god is? You say god is love and god is good. However, God's biblical actions define him as evil. Evil is as evil does don't you know. As it is written "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Genocide and cow murder is not gathered from good gods. You do not like the way God is, thus you pretend he is otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 You do not like the way God is, thus you pretend he is otherwise. That is brilliant. I'm adding this to my signature. With your permission, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 You do not like the way God is, thus you pretend he is otherwise. That is brilliant. I'm adding this to my signature. With your permission, of course. Ah shucks. permission granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 At what point is goodness a necessary trait for this supernatural agent (God)? Detectable but unpredictable and outside the laws of nature/ physics. Nothing about this implies goodness or any other personality or motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 You wonder if a reverse concept is possible here. Is it possible to believe in God and the Bible without believing in the supernatural ? If so, then everything hinges on the reality of this "supernatural". I still think this "observation" and "predictability" thing is bullshit. Some people would claim that aspects of the supernatural have a general predictability, for instance the "answering of prayers" through one's life. There we have the process of something supernatural (since it's facilitated by God's remarkable private technology called "the supernatural") that will apparently continue to recur if one "has faith". That lends itself to a sort of "repetition" which becomes a "predictable" process. In fact, many promises made about supernatural processes in the Bible have a predictable element to them. We all know the "quotes". I still say that a proper definition of the supernatural, or "God's private technology" that is different from ordinary reality and naturalistic physics, must have a more flexible scope. It's hard to tell sometimes if something was a supernatural event. It might be really subtle. Something more profound would be that which "runs counter-intuitive" to our usual sense of natural process or statistical trends within day to day reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 In the future, rather than talking about "the supernatural"- maybe we should just refer to it as "magic". I think that'll cut down on a lot of unnecessary bandwidth. See, all it takes is a quick word substitution, and nobody is going to bother discussing this nonsense: You wonder if a reverse concept is possible here. Is it possible to believe in God and the Bible without believing in magic ? If so, then everything hinges on the reality of this "magic". I still think this "observation" and "predictability" thing is bullshit. Some people would claim that aspects of magic have a general predictability, for instance the "answering of prayers" through one's life. There we have the process of something magic (since it's facilitated by God's remarkable private technology called "magic") that will apparently continue to recur if one "has faith". That lends itself to a sort of "repetition" which becomes a "predictable" process. In fact, many promises made about magic processes in the Bible have a predictable element to them. We all know the "quotes". I still say that a proper definition of magic, or "God's private technology" that is different from ordinary reality and naturalistic physics, must have a more flexible scope. It's hard to tell sometimes if something was a magic event. It might be really subtle. Something more profound would be that which "runs counter-intuitive" to our usual sense of natural process or statistical trends within day to day reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts