The Riddle of Epicurus

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't profess to speak for the Chruch outside of quotes.

Enough said.

 

[Scott1]

Enough said.

No... not even close..... or did you really think I was the Pope?:areyoucra

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great post Scott. Now that you've given us your opinion of those who ask the questions, perhaps you'd like to answer them?

 

[Scott1]

Great post Scott. Now that you've given us your opinion of those who ask the questions, perhaps you'd like to answer them?

You're not sure about how I stand on theology? Hehe.... I'll play along.... which question in particular?

 

[Fluffy]

I'm sorry, I promise I'm not rying to be awkward, but how do you relate your answer with the definition of omnipotence?- If I'm missing the point, tell me.
Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is the power to do absolutely anything. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles

This is not proof that God is omnipotent. This is only proof, if you accept these actions, that God is able to do these few things. That does not mean he can do anything. My point is that I can only see one reason for wanting to believe that God is omnipotent and it is a fairly weak reason in my opinion. If you accept that God is omnipotent then you accept that he deliberately killed his own son to wipe out the sin of humanity rather than wipe out the sin of humanity in a way which would involve no bloodshed such as clicking his fingers. If you don't believe God could have wiped away the sin of humanity by clicking his fingers then you don't believe God is omnipotent. If you do then you are saying that God chose to deliberately spill blood when he could have chosen not to. Its a no win situation.

On the other hand accepting that God is not omnipotent brings up the possibility that this was the ONLY way in which God could wipe the sins of humanity away. It also gives him reasoning for many other actions described in the Bible which seem morally questionable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, Scott, for starters: Is God willing to prevent evil?

 

[Faust]

Things are heating up on this thread aren't they?
I call that a good thread, well done Duet.
The apophatic approach to theology places God on eternal base where he is safe as if in a cosmic game of tag. You can't question the motives of God because God exists beyond the capacity for human reasoning. But wasn't man the only being created in God's image? Would not this power of reason be an attribute of God? Futhermore if you define something by what it isn't you avoid assigning any positive attributes and therefore circumvent any need to verify. Thats too convenient.
I't was the standard "it's a mystery of faith" answer that I received in my earliest memories that put me on the path that lead me to atheism.
"Nature is not lacking in what is necessary" ( Aristotle, De Anima,III, 9 ).
Faust.

 

[No*s]

Funny how it works, isn't it? Assigning positive attributes to God is limited to simile and saying He said/did something. Actions most certainly are disputable (i.e. denying them), and that is an effective means of attack. Now, God would be incomprehensible by definition. He wouldn't be God otherwise, so while that line of thought may not sit well, it no more invalidates it, than simply objecting to the Problem of Evil invalidates it.

Now, even though man has been endowed with his type of reason, and that we are in the image of God, in what way does that make God comprehensible? I don't see a connection that neccessitates it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

God was willing.

God was able.

God did.



There's another controversey out the window!

 

[Jaymes]

The whole 'don't try to understand God, he's incomprehensible' line doesn't sit well with me. It sounds too much like a way to placate the masses. Same as "God has a plan for everyone" and "God works in mysterious ways."

 

[No*s]

That's all well and good, but let's take two common definitions of God:

1). God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is not contained by the universe, but He did create it.

Well, this God is incomprehensible by definition. As I said earlier, we have trouble understanding fellow humans and almost certainly do not understand the mind of other animals (I put the almost in simply to be generous.) How could we hope to comprehend the mind of God by that definition? He is incomprehensible simply by the definition.

2). The universe and God are one and the same. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but we don't know if this God could have a mind (short of Him revealing Himself), and even if He did, then we still cannot comprehend it. After all, we don't even understand the vast majority of the universe's components, much less understand it. God, here, is beyond comprehension.

Unless God lives in a mountain and hurls lightening, God is incomprehensible simply by His definition. The only way to escape this is atheism.

 

[Faust]

Funny how it works, isn't it? Assigning positive attributes to God is limited to simile and saying He said/did something. Actions most certainly are disputable (i.e. denying them), and that is an effective means of attack. Now, God would be incomprehensible by definition. He wouldn't be God otherwise, so while that line of thought may not sit well, it no more invalidates it, than simply objecting to the Problem of Evil invalidates it.

Now, even though man has been endowed with his type of reason, and that we are in the image of God, in what way does that make God comprehensible? I don't see a connection that neccessitates it.
Yes it is.
Your proposition of simile would suggest that God was created in mans image.
God is incomprehensable by definition? Just another evasion.
It's not a question of invalidation, It's a question of validation.
If you investigate the work of the early church fathers you will find the line of reasoning that man was endowed with the power of reason because the contemplation of God is the highest pursuit available to man.
Faust.

 

[Jaymes]

Unless God lives in a mountain and hurls lightening, God is incomprehensible simply by His definition. The only way to escape this is atheism.

Or by converting to a religion where the gods aren't all-powerful and incomprehensible.

 

[No*s]

Yes it is.
Your proposition of simile would suggest that God was created in mans image.
God is incomprehensable by definition? Just another evasion.
It's not a question of invalidation, It's a question of validation.
If you investigate the work of the early church fathers you will find the line of reasoning that man was endowed with the power of reason because the contemplation of God is the highest pursuit available to man.
Faust.

Now that's cherry-picking. These same Fathers would also teach the unknwability of God.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, taught that was the purpose of thougth. He also described the experience of God as one of first coming to blinding light...and after that absolute darkness. The blinding light was illumination of God, the awareness of His presence and activity in the world, and the shaping of the mind to be more like God. Ultimately, though, darkness came, because God is incomprehensible, and the mystic will see this.

Some of these Fathers indulged in speculation, but that almost invariably led to departing from the received understanding (like Arius' homogenization of Aristotelean thought with Christianity). The uknowableness of God is firmly entrenched in the Fathers, and for every quote you can come up with, I can come up with another counter-quote, and often from the same Father.

 

[No*s]

Or by converting to a religion where the gods aren't all-powerful and incomprehensible.

Yes, you could do that, but that leads to its own problems. Where, for instance, would we find knowledge of such gods? We could appeal to polytheism, but ancient polytheism is going to have some problems with the modern world, and why create a modern polytheism?

 

[Jaymes]

Yes, you could do that, but that leads to its own problems. Where, for instance, would we find knowledge of such gods? We could appeal to polytheism, but ancient polytheism is going to have some problems with the modern world, and why create a modern polytheism?

Well, Asatruar get knowledge of the gods from the Poetic Eddas. Since some of them were written down by Christians it got Christian influence in it (Loki being equated with Satan, for example), though you can get the basic ideas from the Eddas.

And how would polytheism have problems with the modern world? I'm sure Loki is very content creating havoc with technology... I can just see him causing unexpected power failures.

 

[No*s]

Well, Asatruar get knowledge of the gods from the Poetic Eddas. Since some of them were written down by Christians it got Christian influence in it (Loki being equated with Satan, for example), though you can get the basic ideas from the Eddas.

And how would polytheism have problems with the modern world? I'm sure Loki is very content creating havoc with technology... I can just see him causing unexpected power failures.

It's not polytheism, per se, that I was questioning, but the reinvention of it. What we create, can never be the same as what was, because we recreate everything with our assumptions, and without a living continuity to the past. The religion itself is lost. That, however, is another thread . Ancient paganism (and modern paganism like Hinduism and Zoroastrianism) may draw a lot of their authority from their longevity.

I could see perfectly well what you describe on power failures. It's just the preceding problem (unless you project they physically live somewhere, then there is a problem with the modern world lol). I hope that clears things up a bit .

 

[Scuba Pete]

Soooooooo... just because you can't comprehend the electronics in the computer you are typing on makes it simply false? Are you going to convert to a typewriter because you can get your mind around it's workings? Why limit God to your ability to understand him?

It is laughable for finite beings to pretend that they comprehend the infinite.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is laughable for finite beings to pretend that they comprehend the infinite.

I find it laughable that theists believe the argument 'God is incomprehensible' strengthens the case for God. Okay, so God is incomprehensible--so are invisible pink unicorns. Is there a way to distinguish between incomprehensible and nonsensicle? Perhaps that is the difference between invisible pink unicorns/gods and computers: gods are nonsensicle, computers are just difficult to understand.

Scott-- Care to answer the question? Is God willing to prevent evil?

 

[No*s]

I find it laughable that theists believe the argument 'God is incomprehensible' strengthens the case for God. Okay, so God is incomprehensible--so are invisible pink unicorns. Is there a way to distinguish between incomprehensible and nonsensicle? Perhaps that is the difference between invisible pink unicorns/gods and computers: gods are nonsensicle, computers are just difficult to understand.

Spinks,

I can see your point there, butthe problem with that is, is that it is impossible to define any god without making it incomprehensible. Even the pagan gods were to some degree incomprehensible. If we posited a God that you could comprehend, then you could rightly object, "That is not god, but just another animal/creature/plant/something." However, if we posit an incomprehensible God, then you may respond as you just have. It is a question that cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the skeptic.

As for the question of distinguishing nonsense from truth, we both agree about the difficulty of discerning truth to begin with . However, to disprove an invisible pink unicorn, I will point out that the unicorn, like everything else in the universe is subject to physical laws. It neither upholds the universe, nor exists outside of it. That is an attribute given to God, that He is not contained by the universe, fashioned it, and so on (most of this by revelation, so if the revelation goes, so do the arguments about what God has done). Now, with the unicorn being another creature, it is both pink and invisible, which is nonsensical for any creature.

Now when it comes to testing God, well there are very little ways that we can devise. If you trust a revelation, then it comes with rules in itself. If you don't (as you don't), then you have no hard way to distinguish. I'll admit that pretty freely .

As an aside, I do agree that the computer is rather extreme analogy (as are invisible pink unicorns). Personally, I don't find them at all mystical. I find them even a bit...comforting if that sounds odd .

As for is God willing to prevent disastors, He can, so why He doesn't, I appeal to "who can know the mind of God?" I know you don't like it, but it's still the way I look at it.

EDIT:

I don't think Scott has been on yet.