VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:09:36 04/26/02 Fri
Author: stored
Subject: R1

Religion I
The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice. Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not. --Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a backup forum. :)


[home] [vip] [post] [next]
MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:06
Dinner time. Something we both can understand.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 18:00
When He was setting up the Universal Boundary Values, She set them up exactly as It wished.
Being all knowing, She knew what effect each invididual parameter would have when she established it.
Being all powerful, He was able to establish those parameters exactly as He willed.

Taking all of these as a given, you still don't know how those things play out. You still can't make an "if this, then that" statement of logic out of all of this. You still can't, based on your earthbound observations, conclude you correctly perceive either the parameters or their outworking.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:53
I gotta go watch kids. Bye.

Have fun.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:52
You say my conclusion is false without providing substantive argument. Time for you to get to work, and lets' see if you can do a better job than Murray. He seems to be in over his head.

Actually, since you made the assertion, it is up to you to support it. Repeating the same premise again and again is not argument, but simply a statement of faith. You believe God is either perfect or infallible, but your belief is not bolstered by logic -- it only an opinion that is convenient to your belief system.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Ron B
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:42
You say my conclusion is false without providing substantive argument. Time for you to get to work, and lets' see if you can do a better job than Murray. He seems to be in over his head.

I gotta go watch kids. Bye.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:40
The issue is that neither you nor I have ability to understand what "makes no mistakes" means

No. You apparently have difficulty with this topic, but I don't. If God makes no mistakes, then when He was setting up the Universal Boundary Values, She set them up exactly as It wished.

Being all knowing, She knew what effect each invididual parameter would have when she established it.

Being all powerful, He was able to establish those parameters exactly as He willed.

I know what words mean. There is no ambiguity here, regardless of your efforts to create it. What part of "No Mistakes" is too difficult for you?
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:39
So is God perfect, or is He fallible?

God is both perfect and infallible. Unfortunately your logic is neither.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:38
If God exists, then freewill cannot.

Since this premise is false, and is your mere opinion, the following conclusions are false.
[Verified RonB] RonB
In Response To Ten Megs
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:34
If God was perfect, Satan could not rebel against the plan. He could only think he was rebelling because he lacked knowledge of the plan.

Again, this does not logically follow. As with man, God gave the angels free will. Why do you assume that a perfect God could not make creatures who could choose to rebel? As for "lacking knowlege of the plan" -- what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If, as your commander, I order to do such-a-such and you disobey my orders you are still rebelling, whether you knew I issued the order or not.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:33
Who's not addressing the issue? The issue is that neither you nor I have ability to understand what "makes no mistakes" means when attempting to apply it to God. You are going past the limits of your ability to understand and you can't accept that. That's the issue as I see it.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:24
No. You've just proved that you can't address the issue. Perfection, as was defined earlier, means "Makes no mistakes". That's one of the premises. If this definiton of the word "perfect" does not apply to God, then that means God can make mistakes.

So is God perfect, or is He fallible?

"Omniscience" means "Possessing all knowledge". If God is not omniscient, then He does not possess all knowledge. Which do you pick?

What you are trying to do is to remove the three attributes without openly doing so, since that would require you to deny your image of God. I'm not stupid, and you can't do that honestly.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:21
"So is our understanding of the word perfect imperfect?"

You're catching on.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:19
So is our understanding of the word perfect imperfect? Or are we lacking knowledge of omniscience? Clearly we don't have the power of omnipotence.

Regardless, in which one of those attributes ls our failing? Either those words mean what they say, or they do not. Make a choice.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:15
My objections to what you say are summarized by the following:

God is neither limited by our understanding of Him nor circumscibed by our definition of Him. Make that the first attribute.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:11
Your surmise is not invincible.

Vanquish it, then. That's why it was posted. I've even given you the correct areas to adress its failures if you can identify any.

You keep saying I limit God to those three attributes. I do not. I say that if She has those three then freewill cannot exist. I make no mention of other alleged attributes because they do not pertain.

If God has those three. That is the key. Are you saying God does not have all three? Then say so. Are you saying that my conclusions are invalid with the Three? Then say how.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:07
"The Truth is sharp, and it doesn't seem to agree with you."

I could just as easily say likewise. Your surmise is not invincible.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:05
That's your opinion. There's a premise on the table and I don't buy it. It's narrow and simplistic. It limits God to three immutable attributes and to our ability to understand what those attributes mean. I neither have to accept the three attributes as being the only three there are nor do I have to accept that any of us can understand what they mean when we attempt to apply them to God.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:04
And you don't have to be right, either. I'm used to that, when this argument comes up. No one has refuted it yet, everyone has resorted to weasel defintions and avoidance tactics.

The Truth is sharp, and it doesn't seem to agree with you.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:00
Sure you can.

No, I can't, Murray. You are showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 17:00
"My "limited" view has placed limits on what your God can do. That's a fine thing to do."

Do whatever you want. I don't have to buy it. I am not obligated to accept your etymology or even to be limited by a three attributes.
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To correction
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:59
...shouldn't believe a word you say...
[Verified `Ctaj] `Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:59
Murray to RonB: "Having a son who is an Eagle Scout, I know about this from going through the program with him."

I gather we should believe a word you say.
[Verified Ten Megaton Solution] Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:58
Well, then give me credit for imagining a God different from the one Basil insists I must of necessity believe in.

Identify where your beliefs contradict what I've said. Are you saying God is not Perfect? That He's not Omniscient, or that He's not All Powerful?

If She is all three, then I've laid out why, using proper logical construction, Man's freewill is a fiction.

That's all I've done. And, as usual, the common and only response to this rational proposition is a retreat into irrationaliy and emotion.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:57
:Sorry, I can't do that.

Sure you can.
[Verified Murray] Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 16:55
"You never did tell me what notions your son has about marriage that you find so unrealistic.

I don't really have a son. I was taking poetic license. After all, we are dealing with an imaginary, i.e. fictional subject.
[next] [post]
Powered by Webforums
Copyright © 1997 - 2001 Waveshift, Inc.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.