God and his free will

[PolyHedral]

You don't parse it 'before," you parse it "now."

Now is all that exists.

...What? You've totally lost me.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

How do you know this?

That's silly. It's just like asking "How do you know God created the universe?" It's what I believe, not something that I have irrefutable proof of. The Bible states that God created everything, and with that I group together time and space.

I don't see how being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience goes beyond our logic. Whatever you mean by "our logic".

To be everywhere at once. To be Jesus on earth yet still be God in heaven. To die on the cross yet still be in control as God. It is beyond our logic. To know everything we will do in later life and yet still say we have "free will". To be three in one. To be one in three. We can only guess at these things, when in reality the truth is beyond our comprehension.

Think about what you just said. Go on, parse what "before time" actually implies. You can't, because the phrase is totally nonsensical and meaningless.

That's the point. You assume with your flawed logic. Yet it is beyond our logic, it doesn't matter if it is deemed by us as being nonsensical and meaningless, because it is beyond what the human mind is capable of comprehending.

 

[Skwim]

That's silly. It's just like asking "How do you know God created the universe?" It's what I believe, not something that I have irrefutable proof of.

Perhaps if you didn't state your beliefs in the language of knowledge but instead at least preface them with "I believe . . . . " It would certainly eliminate a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding.

To be everywhere at once. To be Jesus on earth yet still be God in heaven. To die on the cross yet still be in control as God. It is beyond our logic. To know everything we will do in later life and yet still say we have "free will". To be three in one. To be one in three. We can only guess at these things, when in reality the truth is beyond our comprehension.

That's the point. You assume with your flawed logic. Yet it is beyond our logic, it doesn't matter if it is deemed by us as being nonsensical and meaningless, because it is beyond what the human mind is capable of comprehending.

The thing is, the words we use have agreed upon meanings, and where there is more than one possible meaning we denote---hopefully--- which meaning we're using. Now, when you use words in an uncommon manner and fail to define them, you can't get away with saying, "Yeah the words apply, but not in a way we can understand them." That's simply ludicrous. Saying "To be one in three. . . is beyond our comprehension." Is saying nothing at all. Your use of "one in three" has no more meaning or substance than "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe." If you don't know what you mean by the term why would you use it?

 

[Willamena]

...What? You've totally lost me.

Don't mind me.

 

[Koldo]

That's silly. It's just like asking "How do you know God created the universe?" It's what I believe, not something that I have irrefutable proof of. The Bible states that God created everything, and with that I group together time and space.

YOU group together time and space.
Albeit it makes no sense at all for God to have created time. Ok.

To be everywhere at once. To be Jesus on earth yet still be God in heaven. To die on the cross yet still be in control as God. It is beyond our logic. To know everything we will do in later life and yet still say we have "free will". To be three in one. To be one in three. We can only guess at these things, when in reality the truth is beyond our comprehension.

That's the point. You assume with your flawed logic. Yet it is beyond our logic, it doesn't matter if it is deemed by us as being nonsensical and meaningless, because it is beyond what the human mind is capable of comprehending.

In other words, you believe in something that makes no sense to you. Ok.
I have to go now. I am going to pet my unicorn, and have a nice conversation with a leprechaun...

 

[atanu]

In other words, you believe in something that makes no sense to you. Ok.
I have to go now. I am going to pet my unicorn, and have a nice conversation with a leprechaun...

That is an invalid comparison that I see coming up again and again.

Why it is illogical to say that "I am aware that I exist. But knowing the I is beyond the logical structures of mind, since the structures are emergent due to existence of the I"?

 

[Koldo]

That is an invalid comparison that I see coming up again and again.

Why it is illogical to say that "I am aware that I exist. But knowing the I is beyond the logical structures of mind, since the structures are emergent due to existence of the I"?

Depends on what you mean by 'I is beyond the logical structures of the mind'.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Perhaps if you didn't state your beliefs in the language of knowledge but instead at least preface them with "I believe . . . . " It would certainly eliminate a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding.

True. I apologise.

The thing is, the words we use have agreed upon meanings, and where there is more than one possible meaning we denote---hopefully--- which meaning we're using. Now, when you use words in an uncommon manner and fail to define them, you can't get away with saying, "Yeah the words apply, but not in a way we can understand them." That's simply ludicrous. Saying "To be one in three. . . is beyond our comprehension." Is saying nothing at all. Your use of "one in three" has no more meaning or substance than "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe." If you don't know what you mean by the term why would you use it?

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I'm not merely twisting words around. I was trying to express how One God is present in all Three parts, and yet these Three parts are all present in One God. Clearer, or am I still in the wrong?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

YOU group together time and space.
Albeit it makes no sense at all for God to have created time. Ok.

Why does it make no sense for God to have created time?

In other words, you believe in something that makes no sense to you. Ok.
I have to go now. I am going to pet my unicorn, and have a nice conversation with a leprechaun...

You see, what does make sense for me affirms my belief, and gives me the faith to believe in the things which don't make sense, and are beyond the comprehension of my human mind.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I'm not merely twisting words around. I was trying to express how One God is present in all Three parts, and yet these Three parts are all present in One God. Clearer, or am I still in the wrong?

Doesn't this mean that the "One God" is part of itself? (Since it's a component of the each of three parts, and the three parts are components of it.) That doesn't seem coherent.

Why does it make no sense for God to have created time?

The act of someone creating something logically implies there was a point where the thing being created didn't exist. You could define the direction of time by saying that the thing existing is "later" than the thing not existing. (i.e. [thing not existing] -> *poof* -> [thing existing]) However, if time itself is the thing, then what we've done is define the direction of time before time exists. This is obviously paradoxical.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I'm not merely twisting words around. I was trying to express how One God is present in all Three parts, and yet these Three parts are all present in One God. Clearer, or am I still in the wrong?

Well, the Trinity problem commonly revolves around the following assertions.

(1) There is exactly one God

(2) The Father is God

(3) The Son is God

(4) The Holy Spirit is God

(5) The Father is not the Son

(6) The Father is not the Holy Spirit

(7) The Son is not the Holy Spirit
​

Or put another way,

(1a) There is exactly one God

(2a) The Father is identical with God

(3a) The Son is identical with God

(4a) The Holy Spirit is identical with God

(5a) The Father is not identical with the Son

(6a) The Father is not identical with the Holy Spirit

(7a) The Son is not identical with the Holy Spirit.

​

So, just taking two relationships, that between God and the Son, and God and the Father, how is it possible that:

The Son is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Son)
and
The Father is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Father)
but
the Son isn't identical with the Father?
​

Put more simply:

If
2 + 2 = 4 (4 = 2 + 2)
and
3 + 1 = 4 (4 = 3 + 1)
then why doesn't 2 + 2 = 3 + 1
​

 

[PolyHedral]

Put more simply:

If
2 + 2 = 4 (4 = 2 + 2)
and
3 + 1 = 4 (4 = 3 + 1)
then why doesn't 2 + 2 = 3 + 1
​

Bad example, because 2+2=3+1.

 

[Skwim]

Bad example, because 2+2=3+1.

Yes it does, but the trinitarians say it doesn't. If one substitutes

God for 4
the Son for 2 + 2
the Father for 3 + 1
​

then the claim of the trinitarian is that

(1) Son ≡ God (God ≡ Son) [2 + 2 = 4 (4 = 2 + 2)]

(2) Father ≡ God (God ≡ Father) [3 + 1 = 4 (4 = 3 + 1)]

(3) but Son not ≡ the Father [ 2 + 2 ≠ 3 + 1].
​

SO, why isn't the Son ≡ to the father if 2 + 2 = 3 + 1?

You can't have it both ways without being illogical.

 

[Thief]

Well, the Trinity problem commonly revolves around the following assertions.

(1) There is exactly one God

(2) The Father is God

(3) The Son is God

(4) The Holy Spirit is God

(5) The Father is not the Son

(6) The Father is not the Holy Spirit

(7) The Son is not the Holy Spirit
​

Or put another way,

(1a) There is exactly one God

(2a) The Father is identical with God

(3a) The Son is identical with God

(4a) The Holy Spirit is identical with God

(5a) The Father is not identical with the Son

(6a) The Father is not identical with the Holy Spirit

(7a) The Son is not identical with the Holy Spirit.

​

So, just taking two relationships, that between God and the Son, and God and the Father, how is it possible that:

The Son is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Son)
and
The Father is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Father)
but
the Son isn't identical with the Father?
​

Put more simply:

If
2 + 2 = 4 (4 = 2 + 2)
and
3 + 1 = 4 (4 = 3 + 1)
then why doesn't 2 + 2 = 3 + 1
​

You left out.....Creator.

 

[Skwim]

You left out.....Creator.

So, you're looking to make a quadral?

 

[Thief]

So, you're looking to make a quadral?

Nay.
But when it comes down to 'will'.....
To say...'let there be light'...and it is so....

 

[Skwim]

Nay.
But when it comes down to 'will'.....
To say...'let there be light'...and it is so....

Not following. I don't know to which form of god, if any, one would attribute the creation of universe, but I assume the act would remain that of god no matter which one it was.

 

[Thief]

Not following. I don't know to which form of god, if any, one would attribute the creation of universe, but I assume the act would remain that of god no matter which one it was.

Consider extreme reduction.

Scientists try when they speak of the singularity.
Only recently did I see one on tv, confess to 'problems' in the concept.

From a theological stance....
do you regard spirit first?...or substance?

If substance...
then chemistry begets spirit, and you are the sum of your chemistry.
You fail, altogether, when your chemistry fails.
Back to the ground you will go.

If Spirit first...
Then there is a Creator.
Some One, with the ability to say...I Am....in spite of the 'apparent' void.

This places the First, in a position of advantage.
You are not your own handiwork.
And the next life must be 'dealt'.

 

[Skwim]

Consider extreme reduction.

Scientists try when they speak of the singularity.
Only recently did I see one on tv, confess to 'problems' in the concept.

From a theological stance....
do you regard spirit first?...or substance?

If substance...
then chemistry begets spirit, and you are the sum of your chemistry.
You fail, altogether, when your chemistry fails.
Back to the ground you will go.

If Spirit first...
Then there is a Creator.
Some One, with the ability to say...I Am....in spite of the 'apparent' void.

This places the First, in a position of advantage.
You are not your own handiwork.
And the next life must be 'dealt'.

The context of the trinity problem is that of Christian theology, and as I understand it it would be the spirit that came first. And in as much as this spirit is identical to god (as I assume the Christian would claim) then, as I said, " I don't know to which form of god, if any, one would attribute the creation of universe, but I assume the act would remain that of god no matter which one it was."

 

[Thief]

The context of the trinity problem is that of Christian theology, and as I understand it it would be the spirit that came first. And in as much as this spirit is identical to god (as I assume the Christian would claim) then, as I said, " I don't know to which form of god, if any, one would attribute the creation of universe, but I assume the act would remain that of god no matter which one it was."

Agreed....frubals...(soon as this machine lets me.)