Gods limitations

[Balthazzar]

No, Descartes was a devout Catholic and the doctrine of God's otherness is dogma (in the specific Christian sense of the term) in the creedal Churches, especially the RCC.

There were many church fathers with varying views. Was Descartes after Nicene era?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you prove that?

If he were unable to harm himself, then that would be something that your god does not have the power to do.

Out of curiosity, is your god unable to violate the rules of logic? I am asking about ability. Not willingness.

Why would I have to prove I'm not God? God doesn't need a computer to communicate.
Power is what? Energy. Energy can't be destroyed.
A being with unlimited energy cannot cease to exist.
God created the rules of logic. Therefore he's not bound by them, but being a being with purpose and order, why would he violate those?

 

[Balthazzar]

Why would I have to prove I'm not God? God doesn't need a computer to communicate.
Power is what? Energy. Energy can't be destroyed.
A being with unlimited energy cannot cease to exist.
God created the rules of logic. Therefore he's not bound by them, but being a being with purpose and order, why would he violate those?

Being all knowing, and benevolet alone would negate the validity of the posed question, not to mention Hosea 4:6 ...

 

[Notthedarkweb]

There were many church fathers with varying views. Was Descartes after Nicene era?

Well, yeah. He was the founding figure of early modern philosophy. I am not sure what Western Church Fathers support panentheism, frankly, though I don't have much understanding of the eastern ones. Afaik, the only western thinkers close to panentheism are maybe Duns Scotus and Meister Eckhart, though both support univocity of being, not straightforward panentheism.

 

[firedragon]

Dearest Firedragon,

If you are not going to read my post, then don't pretend you are replaying to it.

Thanks,
The Policy

Thanks for the ad hominem, but maybe you think others are like you. Maybe they are not.

 

[Link]

The question is like asking if a married man can be a bachelor. Directly.

Saying God can do anything does not mean he can do illogical things. That's why most atheist scholars don't make that kind of silly argument. They know that asking if a square can be a triangle if God wanted it to be is nonsensical.

Salam

Most don't but some argue God is irrational by definition. Some from viewpoint vengeance and mercy can't both be ultimate, while God is One, and needs to contain ultimate form of each. Others argue, God is timeless, and you need time to make decisions. Others argue, God does not have courage or other human virtues, because its invulnerable, and there is an argument I made that lead me to temporary atheism, that value has to be earned and God can't earn value because he would be absolute in it without room to earn it.

Not all atheist philosophers but some do. Very few now do the "paradox of omnipotence" that God cant kill himself, type thing though. You are right though most don't. But some still do.

 

[ppp]

Why would I have to prove I'm not God? God doesn't need a computer to communicate.

How would I know? You move in mysterious ways. Your ways are not our ways, @Wildswanderer.

Power is what? Energy. Energy can't be destroyed.

Only if you are talking about physics. What do you think that energy is in physics?

 

[Wildswanderer]

How would I know? You move in mysterious ways. Your ways are not our ways, @Wildswanderer.

Only if you are talking about physics. What do you think that energy is in physics?

That's just it, we don't know what energy is.
We only know what it does.
If God created the laws of physics, which we also don't really understand, then logically, he provides the energy.

 

[ppp]

That's just it, we don't know what energy is.

That is false.
For one thing, energy is not a substance.
In physics, energy is the capacity to do work.
That's all.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

Most don't but some argue God is irrational by definition. Some from viewpoint vengeance and mercy can't both be ultimate, while God is One, and needs to contain ultimate form of each. Others argue, God is timeless, and you need time to make decisions. Others argue, God does not have courage or other human virtues, because its invulnerable, and there is an argument I made that lead me to temporary atheism, that value has to be earned and God can't earn value because he would be absolute in it without room to earn it.

Not all atheist philosophers but some do. Very few now do the "paradox of omnipotence" that God cant kill himself, type thing though. You are right though most don't. But some still do.

Hmm. Well, at least you agree most atheist scholars don't make that kind of argument.

But when you say "some do", I would like to see an example of an atheist scholar who does that. Just to see what kind of source that is. So please quote the scholar you are referring to.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Link]

Hmm. Well, at least you agree most atheist scholars don't make that kind of argument.

But when you say "some do", I would like to see an example of an atheist scholar who does that. Just to see what kind of source that is. So please quote the scholar you are referring to.

Thanks in advance.

Salam

I forget which one. I will find the collection of readings we did in philosophy of religion class and get back to you on this.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

I forget which one. I will find the collection of readings we did in philosophy of religion class and get back to you on this.

Sure brother. I will really appreciate it. thank you so much.

 

[Link]

Sure brother. I will really appreciate it. thank you so much.

No problem. The collection is not my room, but somewhere in the basement in a box. I will try to find it today.

 

[Balthazzar]

Well, yeah. He was the founding figure of early modern philosophy. I am not sure what Western Church Fathers support panentheism, frankly, though I don't have much understanding of the eastern ones. Afaik, the only western thinkers close to panentheism are maybe Duns Scotus and Meister Eckhart, though both support univocity of being, not straightforward panentheism.

I'm fairly sure the view originates within some Jewush sects, but I'm uncertain if any Catholic orthoxy supports it. I do know that some early church fathers weren't far off from the concept if at all. The truinitarian view isn't at odds with it, nor would many other modern ways of teaching, but then hearer and teachers are often at odds in understanding.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I'm fairly sure the view originates within some Jewush sects, but I'm uncertain if any Catholic orthoxy supports it. I do know that some early church fathers weren't far off from the concept if at all. The truinitarian view isn't at odds with it, nor would many other modern ways of teaching, but then hearer and teachers are often at odds in understanding.

No, the RCC and the churches descended from the Magisterial Reformation explicitly reject panentheism. I am sure some Radical Reformation churches probably accepted the idea, though.

 

[firedragon]

No problem. The collection is not my room, but somewhere in the basement in a box. I will try to find it today.

No fuss my brother. Any time. We learn everyday.

 

[Balthazzar]

No, the RCC and the churches descended from the Magisterial Reformation explicitly reject panentheism. I am sure some Radical Reformation churches probably accepted the idea, though.

That's how I thought it went. Do you happen to know which early church fathers who supported it pre nicene era?

 

[Notthedarkweb]

That's how I thought it went. Do you happen to know which early church fathers who supported it pre nicene era?

Idk about the Latin Church Fathers (with whom I have relation, honestly), but you might look into the work of John Scottus Eriugena, who has a sort of panentheistic metaphysics. He is a medieval, though. I have heard Eastern Orthodoxy has panentheistic work, though I couldn't tell you about it, really. It's a real blind spot in my education.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is false.
For one thing, energy is not a substance.
In physics, energy is the capacity to do work.
That's all.

Where does it come from?

"To understand what we don’t know about energy, let’s start with what we do know. We know that energy may be transferred, stored, and transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. This means the total energy of an isolated system does not change. Now, let’s understand what we don’t know. It boils down to just two points:

1. We do not know how to define energy independent of context. For example, we can define and measure electrical energy in the context of an electrical system, like a light bulb. However, if we change context to a mechanical system, we need to redefine what we mean by energy and how we measure it. For example, a body in motion has kinetic energy. In physics, we define kinetic energy and we are able to measure it.
2. We do not know how to create or destroy energy. Arguably, the most sacred law in physics is the conservation of energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system."

"For example, it is widely accepted that the universe evolved from the big bang. That is to say, the universe started as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded to what we now observe as reality, the sun, planets, stars, etc. However, the most profound question in cosmology is: Where did the energy that started the big bang come from? Although, some physicists have forwarded theories to address the question, no theory has gained wide acceptance by the scientific community. It remains a profound mystery."

What We Don't Know About Energy | Science Technology Savvy Life Strategies

 

[Clear]

I'm curious, how do you deal with the problem of cherem in the Old Testament if this is your view?

Hi @Notthedarkweb

I cannot tell if you are referring specifically to the destruction of cities or something else (sacrifice?, etc). Can you give me a specific example of what you are referring to and the problem you feel it poses?

thanks so much

Clear