nameandnature (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nameandnature) wrote2005-01-29 11:21 pm
nameandnature) wrote2005-01-29 11:21 pm
Different Tan
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ladysisyphus writes about why she is a Christian even though she cannot say unequivocally that Jesus Christ is her Lord and Saviour, which, as we all know, is the litmus of such things. People who thought that the Jerry Springer entry was intended to imply that I believed all American Christians were nutters, take note: there is at least one who is not. andrewducker says what I'd have said about truth and facts, in a conversation which reminds me of those I've had with cathedral_life.People who read Hebrew might want to have a look at the huge thread on Creationism that developed under my post here, since some of it relies on what I suspect are standard Creationist assertions about the Hebrew used in Genesis. Or you might not: after I while, I learned to avoid the Creationism threads on uk.r.c, only popping out occasionally to ambush people with physics.
There are more photos of the musicals party, to add to bluap's. My camera's rubbish in low light, alas.
Random Flash linkage: To Kill A Mockingbird, Numa Numa. Been doing the rounds, but I mention it in case you've not seen it.
Update: I got a comment from someone recommending the CICCU mission talks this year (which have now been and gone). This has started a debate on whether God is just. Read all about it in the comments inside.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Ummm. No it's not. If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement, listing *all* of your assumptions, and I will happily tell you which of your assumptions I disagree with. (He says in the hope that you haven't suddenly come up with some stunning new proof)
Out of interest, are you happy with what is wrong with this arguement (or do you think it is a valid argument against God's omnipotence?):
"Can good make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
If the answer is no the is something God cannot do. If the answer is yes the is something God cannot do. So God can't be omnipotent.
I ask, as I feel at some stage I might want to show that other arguments are equivalent to that, so would be helpful now to agree with a simple example that such arguments are invalid.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
I would say that that shows fairly clearly that God cannot be omnipotent. Unless God chooses for some reason not to be omnipotent to create such a rock, in which case he loses his omnipotence by choice.
If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement
OK, I'll give it a go - I'll pass this thread on to a friend of mine who is much better at explaining these things than I.
What about this:
- God would not create evil
- God is the only being capable of creating things
- Evil exists
- If only God is capable of creating things and evil exists either God is not the only being capable of creating things, evil does not really exist, or God does not exist.
or- God is omnipotent and omniscient
- God is the only being capable of creating beings
- God would not create evil
- Evil is defined as rebellion against God
- Given two, three, and four: God would not create a being who would rebel against him
- God created the devil
- The devil rebelled against God
- Given six and seven: God created a being who would rebel against him
- Given five and eight: God cannot exist
or- God is perfectly just
- Men commit sin
- If God is just, then God will punish the sin of men
- God can punish Jesus for the sin of mankind
- Hell is the punishment for sin
- Hell can be avoided if Jesus is punished in someone elses place
- God is perfectly loving
- God is able to save anyone
- God can choose who to save
- It is more loving to save everyone than it is to save some
- Not everyone is saved
- If everyone is not saved then God is not perfectly loving
or- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Therefore, God doesn't exist.
orRe: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Such arguments are not logically invalid - they are perfect proofs that God cannot be omnipotent!! Therefore no omnipotent God can exist!
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Oh dear. I think then we have very different ideas of what is valid logic. Maybe you would care to explain your idea of what logic is, and how it is used to show contradictions, as if we disagree on that then reasoned discussion becomes kinda pointless.
Meanwhile, I will try to explain why I consider this to be a nonsensical play on words, rather than a valid logical proof. My apologies if I am making this sound too simple, I haven't got a clue what sort of level to aim it at. (How much do you know about logic?)
When we have a system, which contain concepts of truth and falsehood, we can seek to show that the system is contradictory by taking true statements in that system, applying the rules of deduction, and showing that we can derive false.
We can build up more complex statements by assigning them variables and substituting them into other statements.
So in my system with we are starting with an omnipotent (this could require more careful definition later on, but for now we will define it as meaning that he can create a rock of of any size, and can lift a rock of any size) God.
So we have the question:
"Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
I would rephrase this as:
1) "Can God make a Z"
2) "Z is a rock big enough that he cannot lift it"
Z I would now argue is a meaningless concept. We have defined God being omnipotent as meaning he can lift a rock of any size, so the concept of a rock which he cannot lift is meaningless in this system. (If you don't find this bit convincing try expressing it to yourself formally in first-order predicate calculus. I would do so myself but typing the symbols would be problematic!)
So this definition of Z as as meaningless as saying that Z is a square circle, or Z is a strawberry flavoured electron.
(Note: the answer to "Can God make a strawberry flavoured electron?" or "Can God make a four sided triangle?" is not "Yes. God can do anything." but "Your question is meaningless."....of course God can make strange flavoured quarks)
So our question becomes "Can God make a (meaningless concept)?"
This question doesn't have a true, or false answer, it is nonsense, so then cannot be used in deduction.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
So, do the inhabitants of Heaven have free will?
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
The Problem of Evil is then solved by arguing that a universe in which there is no evil but we still have free will is a logical contradiction. God cannot create a logically contradictory universe and so can't be blamed for evil. A counter to this is to ask whether the inhabitents of heaven have free will. Discuss [20 marks].
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Indeed - I was hoping that he would define omnipotent in this way. If we define omnipotent as "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful" for instance that then leads us to having to consider whether or not God created logic, and if not (and so he is in some way constrained by it) then where did it come from?
Omnipotence in its pure form cannot be true because as you have pointed out it you can easily show that it would be contradictory, so if God exists he cannot be omnipotent in this way. I'm just reading "The blind watchmaker" by Dawkins, and he makes a similar comment - that if God is constrained to some degree then the real question is what/who is the origin of that constraint, for it cannot be God.
The Problem of Evil is then solved by arguing that a universe in which there is no evil but we still have free will is a logical contradiction. God cannot create a logically contradictory universe and so can't be blamed for evil. A counter to this is to ask whether the inhabitents of heaven have free will. Discuss [20 marks].
I am aware of that solution, I was waiting for him to suggest it then I was going to ask whether or not the inhabitants of heaven do have free will :0)
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
I quite deliberately did not define it as "able to do anything which is not logically impossible", my arguement is that logic impossiblities are not things, they are nonentities, they are nonsenses. So by nature of not being things, they don't enter into the question of "able to do anything". There is no such thing as a square circle, so a statement about any-thing are not about it.
I am aware of that solution, I was waiting for him to suggest it then I was going to ask whether or not the inhabitants of heaven do have free will :0)
Ahem. I think I'll need you to tell me what this free will is you speak of before I answer such a question (also would be nice to know in your view of the world, do you think you have it now?). I suspect I may completely reject your concept of free will, but that might depend on how you define it.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Both statements resolve down to the same thing from your position. God is unable to do something because he is constrained by the system of logic. I would argue that a stronger definition of omnipotence (the first point in the linked Wikipedia entry) would be that he is able to change / 'exists somehow outside of' (*cough*) / something the system of logic that we are constrained by.
I think I'll need you to tell me what this free will is you speak of before I answer such a question (also would be nice to know in your view of the world, do you think you have it now?)
A highly interesting question :0) I'm not sure I have a good definition, but it would seem to be something like:
"Something is said to have free will when it has the ability make choices"
Some choices (for instance choosing to no longer have gravity available to me) are possible but cannot be acted out due to physical limitations, others (deciding to love a person) needn't even result in a physical action.
It could be argued that our free will is limited to a large degree by our environment, perhaps this is true - if so then we have less free will in such an environment. I don't agree with this defintion though as we can will something without being able to act upon it.
The heaven problem is rather thorny because even if I am entirely unable to act upon my sinful willful choice it still exists within my head/soul/core program - and as we all know sinful thoughts are just as bad as sinful actions.
Then there is the old Christian chesnut that God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose (freedom of will) in the garden of evil because that is a prerequisite of love, without choice they are robots as they love him purely because they have no other choice and so the love is meaningless. This falls to pieces both because it doesn't deal with the obvious question of how all this relates to the angels (and specifically Satan who decided to rebel against God and so therefore presumably also has free will), and if people are transformed such that they cannot sin in heaven then that ability to choose has been taken from them and so although perhaps they have free will in other respects (choosing what colour socks to wear for instance) they certainly don't have the ability to love God anymore.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
No they don't
"Can God make a square circle?"
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
the system of logic that we are constrained by.
This argument actually has nothing to do with God. It is about the system of logic we are using. You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process, this is not something the systems of logic I use allows! Of course if you do accept meaningless statement as part of proofs (do you?) it does make it very easy for me to prove everything (and anything) I want about God, I just need to start by reciting Jabberwocky:
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
The way they resolve to the same thing is that if god is constrained by the system of logic that God is unable to do something for whatever reason.
God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
The issue here is whether the omnipotent being created the system of logic itself, and therefore whether that being is able to transcend the limitations of logic that we are bound by as limited beings existing within the universe created by the omnipotent being.
You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process
No not really. I accept that we are using different definitions of what omnipotence is - yours is the most widely used by theists now, that I accept; but I am not alone in the way I am defining omnipotence. It would seem to be more fruitful to continue on the basis that I understand that with your definition of omnipotence God is only able to do things which are not logically contradictory.
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).
So if free will is not required for love then presumably a robot could love?
One might ask what the point of giving humanity free will in the first place was, the consequence of it (which God would have known in advance) was that humanity fucked up creation by introducing evil into the world (let's ignore the fact that the devil rebelled before man for the moment!). If man was able to love without free will then it was clearly a mistake for God to give it to man, God could have made mankind able to love him without the fall.
I would say that love requires a choice, and for there to be choice one must have free will. Therefore if you do not have free will you cannot choose, and if you can't choose you can't love.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Interesting question. If God is omnipotent, in the sense of being able to manipulate the fundamental constants of physics (which is reasonable, given that he created our current universe), then you would probably be able to make it possible to create a quadrilateral with 4 "straight" lines and 4 90-degree angles had its perimeter equidistant from a certain point. (You could probably do this in the current universe, in places where space-time is extremely curved)
However creating such a square circle would no-doubt have side effects, such as obliterating any life that existed nearby.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Time for a joke: What's the difference between an engineer, a physicists, and a mathematician?
The engineer thinks his equations are approximations of the real world.
The physicists thinks the real world is an approximation of his equations.
And the mathematician hasn't spotted the connection yet!
C'est drôle parce que c'est vrai!
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
And it is possible to find geometries whereby some squares and indeed circles.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
If we are reasoning in a non-Euclidian system, where a square and circle are not mutually exclusive, the question "Can God make a square circle?" is meaningful.
If we are reasoning in a Euclidean system, the question "Can God make a square circle?" is meaningless.
If we are reasoning in a system with an omnipotent deity, (which we need to be doing to show a contradiction in such a system), the phrase "a rock so big God can't lift" is similarly meaningless.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
So the system of logic being used may be insufficient to convey the capabilities of a God who is not bound by it, rather that the question itself being meaningless.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Bingo! Correct! That is a very good conclusion.
Whatever system of logic we use may very well be insufficient to describe God completely. Almost all attempts to do so will simplfy has character, so any conclusions reached (or contradictions shown) in these logical system should be treated with extreme caution as they are probably dealing with a distorted concept of God. I do agree with
Maybe I should suffix all my words with "in the logical system". When we form arguements about God "in a logical system" we are talking about a concept of God as defined "in that logical system". We are forming questions "in that logical system", which must be meaningful "in that logical system". How statements in this system relate to the real world is another question!
It is possible for a question to be meaningful in a different logical system to the one we are using (cf. square circle in Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry). But to reach conclusions "in that logical system" it must be meaningful "in that logical system" rather than "in another logical system".
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Possibly that is true - but we should expect Gods actions within the world we inhabit not to be contradictory. This is especially true of a god who wants to be known by the inhabitants of the world she has created, acting in a way that makes belief in her illogical would be a very cruel thing to do.
Almost all attempts to do so will simplfy has character, so any conclusions reached (or contradictions shown) in these logical system should be treated with extreme caution as they are probably dealing with a distorted concept of God.
Ah - so where there are any contradictions or ways in which we can see that Christianity is false it's because the answers are beyond us? How convinient! I find Santa Claus operates in much the same way.
I don't so much define God as confess the God made know to us through Jesus Christ
We know very little if anything for certain about Jesus Christ. There is very limited and disputed evidence from secondary sources about who he was and what he did (in fact some respected scholars question whether he did in fact exist at all). So if we are to know God through Jesus Christ then we can't really be sure who God is at all. Some Christians (presumably including yourself) would say that they experience God's presence internally, or that they have a personal relationship with God - unfortunately people have these kinds of experiences in other religions as well, so that's hardly a reliable source of evidence!
It's ridiculous to believe in a God who is all powerful, who wants everyone to know about him but stubbornly refuses to be plainly obvious. Many who earnestly seek God (such as myself) question why God is so hidden if indeed he does want us to know about himself. Some have said (on the CE course for instance) that if God were to make his existence obvious it would take away my choice (although its never explained why this is a bad thing), this can't be the case because JC made it obvious that he was God to the disciples and the people he performed miracles to and yet they still had the ability to choose not to follow. Others say that we need to have "faith" where faith is defined more or less as believeing in something although there is no good evidence to do so (or at least no good evidence compared to many other religions) - I might as well believe in Allah, and other god, or pixies.
The purpose of my statements about logic are not to suggest that they are a good way to know God, but to refute the allegation that logical can be used to disprove God by showing he is self-contradictory.
So if there is a clear contradiction your answer is what exactly? One might wonder if there is anything you could be shown that would end your belief. I was talking to a doctor of psychology the other night, and he said he had found this quite often with (Evangelical, and *perhaps* other) Christians - their position is extremely inflexible, they aren't interested in finding out what is true, or listening if their position is shown to be incorrect; in fact one person commented to me recently "I don't care if you show me conclusively that God doesn't exist, I'll still believe in him".
We are forming questions "in that logical system", which must be meaningful "in that logical system". How statements in this system relate to the real world is another question!
Does it follow from your statement that in your opinion is the world removed from logic?
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
I think this covers many points. I do not believe the world is removed from logic, what I think we, or scientifically minded people like myself, do is create logical systems to create models which fit the world around us. These models aren't the real world, but the are useful to understand it. These are what the laws of physics, and every other scientific theory are: models which make sense of the world around us. So our models and the world aren't the same, but they would appear to have a connection, exactly what it is I'm not too sure I can describe. (Maybe someone else who studied HPS might be able to help?)
When you talk say things like contradictory and illogical you do have to make sure you have described the system you are working in.
So if there is a clear contradiction your answer is what exactly? One might wonder if there is anything you could be shown that would end your belief.
You can end my belief by showing me a view of the world which covers the variety of different areas of life that Christianity does; makes more sense of the things which are hard to understand in Christianity; and contains a better hope than that which I have in Christ crucified. If you have found one: do tell me!
Some Christians (presumably including yourself) would say that they experience God's presence internally, or that they have a personal relationship with God - unfortunately people have these kinds of experiences in other religions as well, so that's hardly a reliable source of evidence!
I would say the Christian experience is an internal confirmation (by the Holy Spirit) of the external evidence in the bible. So can be both subjective and objective at once!
Oh, on a side note, may I suggest it worthwhile investigating if historians find primary or secondary sources to be more accurate. And what exactly are good criteria to decide if someone existed, etc..
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION