God Debate

[pandamonk]

True.
Well, Jesus was the actual creator, but he did it under God's direction.
Not true. While it may not be perfect to your standards, it was exactly what was necessary to fulfill his wants (see previous post to find out what his wants are.) He coudn't have a "perfect" universe to do that, but "perfection" is rather subjective. It was perfect for what he wanted to accomplish.
Oops. I kind of explained that under #3.

How's that one? Any questions?

But it is not perfect to anyones standards, as perfection entails being the best, greater than anything that can be thought. But i can think of much better, a perfect being that only creates perfection.
His wants are his own lacking of perfection, as shown in the last post. If he is perfect, how can he have an imperfect want? How can he want anything but the greatest thinkable? Why would he want anything if he was perfect? Was he bored? Imperfection. Was he lonely? imperfection. Was he wanting beings to rule over? imperfection. Was he jealous of other gods? imperfection, and impossible in christian beliefs, yet God openly states in the bible that he is "a jealous god". The buck is with you to say why he wanted anything and to show that it is a perfect want (a want than which no greater can be thought, by me or anybody).

 

[pandamonk]

I don't even get this one. Are you saying that God can't do anything? So you for some reason think that we beleive that god must, for some reason, always have the exact same desires, from day to day, hour after hour, and it must be impossible for him to fulfill those? Am I misunderstanding, because that seems like a strange argument. I've never heard that one before, so am I interpreting it right?

Well immutable means unchanging. So If a being at one point wants something, and at another point does not want that anymore, would you agree that it has changed its want and therefore has changed in some way? So, if a man want to, lets say, build his own house which he will live in for the rest of his days, then he has a want to build that house. If he goes ahead with his want and builds the house, then after completion he has fulfilled his want and therefore does not have this want anymore. So he has changed from having a want to build the house, to having no want to build the house. He has changed. Lets step this up to god level. If a god wants to create a universe, then it has a want. If it creates the universe, then it has fulfilled its want and, therefore, does not have the want to create that universe anymore. It has changed from wanting something to not wanting something, so, you must agree, that it has changed in some way. But an immutable being is unchanging. So God being immutable could not have created the universe, or anything for a matter of fact. Seeing as one of a god's attributes is that he is creator of the universe(i know you say he is not and Jesus is, but Jesus is part of God. Also you cannot say Jesus created God, by creator of the universe, I mean creator of everything.)And with your questions. Yes you're right, "God must, for some reason," the reason being, that he is immutable(unchanging) "always have the exact same desires, from day to day, hour after hour, and it must be impossible for him to fulfill those". So this is an "immutable vs creation" argument, but also an "immutable vs omnipotent" argument, which i never realised before, until you showed me.

 

[pandamonk]

Here's one for you.

We are all imperfect beings living in an imperfect universe.

We therefore have imperfect views of life in general

Hence we cannot understand anything that is perfect and all our arguments against his existence would be skewed by our imperfection.

But if we are imperfect, so is our creator. I don't care how much you say my views are skewed, if my views are skewed then so are yours, as you are imperfect tooooooo. If a perfect being creates, then it can create nothing but perfection. Perfection entails, that which nothing greater can be thought. OK! We are using English, so what we say sticks to the rules of the English language. So, if you say "God is perfect" that means, he is the meaning of the word perfect, ie. "that which nothing greater can be thought". So your god is "that which nothing greater can be thought". So if i can think of anything greater than your god, then he is not "that which nothing greater can be thought" and therefore is not perfect and you have to make up some other word to describe him. Ok so if we are imperfect then our creator must of had an imperfection in his creating skills. It is imperfect, as I can think of a being that creates only perfection, which is greater than a being which creates imperfection. But a god is perfect, so this means that a god is "that which nothing greater can be thought" and I just thought of greater, so God cannot be perfect and cannot exist. And if you make up a new word to describe God, he still is not perfect so cannot be a god as known in the English language, so you have to make up a new word to describe your leader/deity. Why not just invent a new language while you're at it, lol. Awww I'm dead, dead tired. It's 1am and I had my first day of college today/yesterday and it tired me out a bit, so I'm finding it hard to stay awake. Sorry if my arguments did not make complete sense.

 

[pandamonk]

Okay, but to an extent. He is only immutable on a large scale. His purpose for us never changes, but he obviously can change things (giving the isrealites the mosaic law, for example.)
Sure.
God is not immutable in the sense that he never is affected. He is affected by lots of things, but look at it this way. Say you are a sinner. God still loves you. He is not "affected" by that event in that he will stop loving you. If you go around sinning all the time, however, and then one day you sit down and half-heartedly ask to have your sins forgiven, he won't do that. You have not truely repented. If a person who has truely repented of their sins sits down and does that same thing, you will be forgiven. (I'm not sure if that's even relevant...) That illustrates in a fashion that God is changed by what you do. Does that make any sense at all? I didn't really know where you were going with the argument, so I coudn't answer it all too well. Sorry, but ask more questions, and it will help me to get my points down.

K, i'll try and post a quick reply before i lapse into the place where anything can happen. Where unicorns, pixies, fairies, Gods etc exist. ie the dream world. But God to be considered a god must be immutable. If your deity is not wholly immutable then it cannot be considered a god, so it's up to you, like Hazel, to rename your deity and create a new language while you're at it. Nighty night

 

[Aqualung]

Sorry I've taken a while to reply. Haven't been on for a while.

No problem. I just posted them yesterday. I didn't mind

Hmm news to me, but i'll go along with it

Would you like to know how, or are you fine with just going with it?

 

[pandamonk]

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent
Not true.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being)
3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time

These are some other defenitions of transcendent. If you think that he is transcendent in that he can't do things in time, then you arguing things that I, as a christian, don't beleive.
Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception[/QUOTE]K, last post, lol. I'm talking about transcendence meaning, outside space and time, not that he cannot do things in space and time. Also if your deity is not transcendent it is up to you to rename it.

 

[Aqualung]

But if he is perfect then all his needs and wants would be fulfilled, without him ever needing to need or want them, they would just be. He is described as being wholly perfect, not perfect at a certain thing, but wholly perfect. Perfection is the best that one can be.
So he is, that which nothing greater can be thought.

He is perfect, but his surroundings aren't.

Ok, so now you may say, 'But we are what he wants "to grow and progress" so it is not his imperfection that makes him need or want, it is ours.' But, if he was perfect, the only beings/things he could create would also be perfect. If they weren't, then his creating skill was not perfect and therefore he is not perfect(can think of a being greater: one with a perfect creating ability).

Okay, if you think the ability for him to just have created gods, instead of just spirits, is imperfection, then God is not perfect. But he is the most perfect that is possible. It just isn't possible for God to have created us as advanced as he is. We need to get there on our own. He has rules he has to follow, too, and if that somehow makes him imperfect, then fine. But that in no way makes smaller his infinite love for us, and the fact that he has such great power and wisdom, and it doesn't make him not our God.

Obviously if he was perfect, then he would only create good. If not, i can think of greater being, one which only creates good.

You're looking at this the wrong way. What he created might be viewed as "bad" from your perspective, but he created things so it would be the best for us. He created a world with free will, with temptation and the like, yet he still created it so that we would never get tempted beyond our capacity to withstand. What he has created is the best possible world for us to live in, and that's not evil. You're just looking at it too close, so you can't see the big picture.

So you may say "He did not create evil, the devil did," but you would be forgetting that God created the devil. The devil was once an angel, who had a choice, and chose to become evil.

Definitely true. I don't have beef with that at all.

But if God was perfect, then there would(like said above)be no choice, the only possible would be good.

Not true. Choice is essential. It NEEDS to be our choice to go along with God. IT IS ESSENTIAL. The ONLY way we can become like God is by choosing that path, and enduring until the end.

Seeing as there is evil, God must of made evil possible and therefore, he created evil. I could round this off by saying, "God therefore is not perfect as he created evil, and i can think of being greater, one which did not create evil",

This being who did not create evil would not be greater than God. Since it is NECESSARY for our progression that we go through hardship, the one who did not create evil would have spirit children that were constantly in certain state, that is, inferior and without fleshy bodies. By allowing evil, and allowing for free will, God also allows for us to progress and to become like him. Let me tell you an illustration that might help to elaborate why progression is necessary, and why you need harships. I'll go back to the ever-present doctor analogy. Your father is a very successful doctor. You, as a child, ask him if you might be a doctor someday, too. He tells you that it's possible, but you have to go to school, get into a good college, take a bunch of tests to get into med school, and then do well in med school, intern, and all that good stuff. You, not knowing the entire picture, think, "wow. He must not be a very good doctor if I have to go to do all that. He should have just made it possible for me to become one without any work. And obviously he doesn't love me, because he is making me do all this stuff." That's just a rediculous way to think, and that comes from not knowing the whole picture. It comes from not knowing that your father loves you very much, and that he knows it will be better for you in the long run if you go to school. He knows that you can't just have people who haven't proven themselves becoming doctors all over the place. There are certain rules that he needs to follow. All of the same is true about God, too.

 

[Aqualung]

But it is not perfect to anyones standards, as perfection entails being the best, greater than anything that can be thought. But i can think of much better, a perfect being that only creates perfection.

Once again, the fact that you don't see the perfection means that you don't see the big picture. You can only focus on the negative that comes from anything, and not the positve. Also, you only see our life now, and not what is what before, or what it will become. And a perfect being that only creates perfection is just not possible. It is impossible for a god to just sit down one day and create gods, just as an adult cannot have an adult. They need to have children, first, which will grow into adults. God could not create gods, we have to work up to that.

 

[Aqualung]

Well immutable means unchanging. So If a being at one point wants something, and at another point does not want that anymore, would you agree that it has changed its want and therefore has changed in some way? So, if a man want to, lets say, build his own house which he will live in for the rest of his days, then he has a want to build that house. If he goes ahead with his want and builds the house, then after completion he has fulfilled his want and therefore does not have this want anymore. So he has changed from having a want to build the house, to having no want to build the house. He has changed. Lets step this up to god level. If a god wants to create a universe, then it has a want. If it creates the universe, then it has fulfilled its want and, therefore, does not have the want to create that universe anymore. It has changed from wanting something to not wanting something, so, you must agree, that it has changed in some way. But an immutable being is unchanging. So God being immutable could not have created the universe, or anything for a matter of fact. Seeing as one of a god's attributes is that he is creator of the universe(i know you say he is not and Jesus is, but Jesus is part of God. Also you cannot say Jesus created God, by creator of the universe, I mean creator of everything.)And with your questions. Yes you're right, "God must, for some reason," the reason being, that he is immutable(unchanging) "always have the exact same desires, from day to day, hour after hour, and it must be impossible for him to fulfill those". So this is an "immutable vs creation" argument, but also an "immutable vs omnipotent" argument, which i never realised before, until you showed me.

Then I say, gods wants are immutable. All he wants is for a place for his children to recieve bodies and progress. That never changed. If you're talking about such tiny, small, short wants, then no. God is not immutable. That is just a rediculous thing to think, and I don't even beleive it.

 

[Aqualung]

K, i'll try and post a quick reply before i lapse into the place where anything can happen. Where unicorns, pixies, fairies, Gods etc exist. ie the dream world. But God to be considered a god must be immutable. If your deity is not wholly immutable then it cannot be considered a god, so it's up to you, like Hazel, to rename your deity and create a new language while you're at it. Nighty night

Oh, yeah, you're in scotland. If you think that a god must be completely immutable, then fine. I guess I don't worship a god. But I worship the "being" that has the greates power, the greatest wisdom, the greates love for us as any other being in this entire world. If that's not a god, I don't know what is. And I'm not redefining him in any way. For some reason, you have these wholly unreasonable requirements that I, as a God-fearing christian, don't beleive. You are the one creating a language, not me.

 

[Aqualung]

K, last post, lol. I'm talking about transcendence meaning, outside space and time, not that he cannot do things in space and time. Also if your deity is not transcendent it is up to you to rename it.

Then if you mean it that way, no. He is not transcendent. But I never said that he was. You did. Once again, you're arguing things that I, as a God-fearing christian, don't even believe.

 

[pandamonk]

Not in the way you're thinking. He is not outside of space and time.
Only the holy Ghost in omnipresent. God isn't. That pretty much takes care of that one.

The holy ghost IS God. The father, the son, and the holy ghost, ie the trinity, the three parts of God.

"There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One," 1 John v.7. Here the Trinity of the Persons and the Unity of the Godhead are expressly declared. Hence the Apostles are commanded to baptize, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In the name, and not in the names, to show there is but one God; and "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," to show there are three Persons in God.

 

[pandamonk]

Not true. God is physical. He has a human body.

oooooo, where is he then? Most people argue that God is spiritural not physical.

 

[pandamonk]

Only the holy Ghost is.

Shown why the holy ghost IS God in another post

[QUTOE=pandamonk]2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being)[/QUTE]True. Both God the Father and Jesus are personal beings, with a physical body.

So where are they? In heaven? But heaven is spiritual

Well, then I guess it's a good thing you're talking about two completely different beings!

They are not different, they are all parts of the one god.

I posted something along those lines here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19100
Was that enough information, or do you still have questions about that one?

So you're saying your "God" is not omniscient, hmmm, well your "God" is not a god. And like last night's posts, you need to rename your god other than "God" as it is not a god, and that name leads to great confusion.

 

[pandamonk]

Depends what you mean
Depends what you mean
True.
True.
True. That's why it's good to have clearification on what all just and all merciful mean. He will judge each one of us justly. By that, he will take into account all the things we have seen, done, and been subjected to. But then he will sentence us mercifully.

Ok I see what you mean, although God is thought of as the all-just and all-merciful judge, i will accept your argument.

Untrue. A perfect being must change when surrounded by the imperfect.

Whom he created himself and need not have created. So he is not perfect because he created, and therefore became "Notgod"(This is a suggestion for the naming of your deity, lol)

Not true. God does not know everything. He could know everything if he hadn't given us free will, but he did. Therefore, he does not know the future. He doesn't know the choices we will actually make, though he knows the choices we will have and the possible outcomes of each descision.

Ok so in creating he again voided his godliness and became "Notgod"

I don't understant that. I also didn't get "god and the best possible world."

Ok if you know exactly what time it is then you know that it's, lets say, 1.20 pm(the time now, here). Ok so you know it is 1.20, but suddenly it changes to 1.21 pm and now you know it is 1.21 and not 1.20. So you no know something different to what you did before, ie. your knowledge has changed, ie. you have changed. This is the same with God, if he is omniscient(which most people believe he is) then he always knows the time, so his knowledge is constantly changing and he is constantly changing. But God is also said to be immutable, so cannot change. So God, who has to be both to be a god, cannot exist, as a god.
God and the best possible worlds: Ok, if God exists, he is perfect, a perfect creator cannot create anything but the best, ok? So if all he can create is "the best" and he created our world, then our world is "the best", ok? If this is "the best", then it must be possible that there are worse worlds, as to be "the best" there must be other worlds to compare it too that are not as good as, ok? A logically possible world is any world the existence of which is compatible with logical necessity: for the existence of these lesser worlds to be possible, they need to be necessary and also be logically sound(ie. possible through the rules of logic)ok? So if "God exists" is necessarily true(ie. the existence of a god is necessary for existence), then "The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is necessarily false, ie. that statement is false if God exists, and it is necessary for that statement to be false if it is necessary for God to exist. If "The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is necessarily false, then no world which is not the best of all possible worlds is a logically possible world, ie. No world can exist if it is not the best world, assuming that all things depend for their existence on God, because God is perfect and can only create the best. Given that this world is the one God chose to bring into existence, if no world worse than this one is logically possible, then it is not the case that this is the best of all possible worlds, ie. this world exists so it must be the best, but if no lesser world exists then there is nothing to compare it too, so this world can only be. Conclusion: If this world was created by a necessarily existing Perfect Creator, then it both is and is not the case that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, it is not possible that this world was created by a necessarily existing Perfect Creator.
To put the point another way, it is impossible for God to create any world less good than the best of all possible worlds, but since God is the only possible source of existence, worlds less good than the best of all possible worlds cannot possibly come into existence. Therefore, the world God created cannot possibly be better than other possible worlds. Understand? If not, I'm not going to explain anymore. That took me ages.

To an extent. There may be no one greater, but I think he probably has equals.

But in the Bible, God says that he is the only god.

The prophet Isaiah writes that there is only one God (Is. 44:8; Is. 46:9). The prophet Isaiah identifies this ONLY ONE God as the FATHER (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8). The prophet Malachi identifies the FATHER as the one God who CREATED us all (Mal. 2:10).
Jesus identified the FATHER as the ONLY true God (John 17:3,1) and apostle Paul taught that for them (Christians), there is ONLY ONE God, the Father.

I can live with that.
[QUTOE=pandamonk]3. Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous[/QUTE]That's a logical progression.
True.
True also.
No such being exists. God is not the way you are describing.

To be a god, God needs to be perfect, ie "a being than which no greater being can be thought". So, if greatness includes greatness of virtue, which it does, then "God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous". So God has had to overcome pains and dangers. But "A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought" "For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible". So God cannot be a god. And i agree no such being exists, and i disagree, God is how i describe him, and i have shown why, so it is up to you to show why not, enough to defeat my "why".Knockout

 

[pandamonk]

Then if you mean it that way, no. He is not transcendent. But I never said that he was. You did. Once again, you're arguing things that I, as a God-fearing christian, don't even believe.

So you don't believe in a god? So your a "God fearing" Christian Athiest, lol, nice one

 

[pandamonk]

We need tests because he doesn't know how we will test. It's like getting into college. You have to take tests to make sure you are smart enough.

Ok, so we need to be tested and that is why he created evil. So he created evil for us. Surely he would have known, through his omniscience, that in creating us he would have to create evil. So in creating us he was acting evilly, because he knew that in creating us he would need to create evil, and yet he still created us. A being who has acted in any way evil, cannot be considered in any way all-good.

 

[pandamonk]

Aww, i'm getting confused, which posts have i answered, and which have i not? I think i'll leave it for a bit, my heads in a spin!!ooooooooooo:help:

 

[Aqualung]

where is he then? Most people argue that God is spiritural not physical.

That's why I'm LDS, and not regular Christian . I'm not sure right off the top of my head what the name is, but it's a planet out there somewhere.

So where are they? In heaven? But heaven is spiritual

They're not in heaven. And heaven is not spiritual.

They are not different, they are all parts of the one god.

They are seperate. They are three seperate, distict, dare I say, different? beings that are all united in purpose.

So you're saying your "God" is not omniscient, hmmm, well your "God" is not a god. And like last night's posts, you need to rename your god other than "God" as it is not a god, and that name leads to great confusion.

I don't need to rename my God. There is no other being that can possibley be better than the one I am describing. There is no such thing as complete omnicience. My God is the very best being that is possible, so he is my God, and above all others.

 

[Aqualung]

QUOTE=pandamonk]Whom he created himself and need not have created. So he is not perfect because he created, and therefore became "Notgod"(This is a suggestion for the naming of your deity, lol)
Ok so in creating he again voided his godliness and became "Notgod[/QUOTE]The things you are explaining are just not possible. That's the bottom line. It is impossible to have a god that is perfect if you think perfection means "not changing his wants, not having wants, not creating spirits cabable of progression." There is no such possiblity. YOur God debate isn't even debating God. It's debating some nonsensical creature that you just invented in your mind, as a way to prove to yourself that "there is no such thing as God."

Ok if you know exactly what time it is then you know that it's, lets say, 1.20 pm(the time now, here). Ok so you know it is 1.20, but suddenly it changes to 1.21 pm and now you know it is 1.21 and not 1.20. So you no know something different to what you did before, ie. your knowledge has changed, ie. you have changed. This is the same with God, if he is omniscient(which most people believe he is) then he always knows the time, so his knowledge is constantly changing and he is constantly changing. But God is also said to be immutable, so cannot change. So God, who has to be both to be a god, cannot exist, as a god.

Well, I have already explained that that is not omnicience. That's some really distorted view. You're essentially just arguing verb tenses. You're saying that because I NOW know it's 1:20, and I NOW know that LATER it will be 1:21, and then I NOW know that it is 1:21, that that makes him not omnicient. That's really convoluted. I sill don't see how that can make him any less powerful or knowledgeable than he already is.

Ok, if God exists, he is perfect, a perfect creator cannot create anything but the best, ok?

Nope. Not true in the least. (did I already say why, or was that in a different thread?)