Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

Dades · 09-01-2009 01:58PM

PDN wrote: »

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Do you really believe that the above is a reasonable assertion?!

What instructions did we get exactly?

rockbeer · 09-01-2009 02:05PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

Perhaps PDN is joining the young earth creationists

Fanny Cradock · 09-01-2009 02:13PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)

Well, I gather that God was in direct contact before that. Anyway, while I agree with PDN in his overall definition of perfection, I'm not sure that the notion that a harmonised world before the fall makes sense. For instance, surely somebody would be caught on the hop by a falling coconut cracking open their head or an asteroid smashing into the planet.

09-01-2009 02:15PM

PDN wrote: »

Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies. I thought you would of known that that is one of the basic mistakes with an argument? If it applies to the teacher, it doesn't mean it'll apply to God.

rockbeer · 09-01-2009 02:31PM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies.

Flawed analogies at that:

PDN wrote:

Let's go back to our perfect teacher and her scribbled diagram. I think it is wrong to say that the teacher, by producing a diagram that is less than perfect (in the sense that we can conceive of a more refined diagram) has therefore failed to achieve perfection in all that she does.

It is not wrong to say she has failed to achieve perfection in all that she does. On the contrary, it's quite correct. She has achieved her purpose perfectly, but she has failed to draw a perfect diagram. In this she has merely attained adequacy, not perfection. It doesn't necessarily matter to the teacher (although it matters greatly in the case of god), but it is manifestly not total perfection.

PDN · 09-01-2009 05:45PM

rockbeer wrote: »

Flawed analogies at that:

It is not wrong to say she has failed to achieve perfection in all that she does. On the contrary, it's quite correct. She has achieved her purpose perfectly, but she has failed to draw a perfect diagram. In this she has merely attained adequacy, not perfection. It doesn't necessarily matter to the teacher (although it matters greatly in the case of god), but it is manifestly not total perfection.

No, that is untue.

The teacher did not try to draw a perfect drawing. She tried to teach the concept of Pythagoras' Theorem - somrthing that she perfectly achieved.

If a perfect God attempted to make something else that was perfect, but failed, then that would indeed render Him imperfect. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, keep going round in circles if you wish.

kelly1 · 09-01-2009 05:47PM

I'm deliberately staying out of this. You just know it's going to go round and round long after the cows have come home. :pac:

PDN · 09-01-2009 05:54PM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies. I thought you would of known that that is one of the basic mistakes with an argument? If it applies to the teacher, it doesn't mean it'll apply to God.

And would you like to explain, without condemning yourself for hypocrisy, why you suddenly object to me using analogies in this thread yet you raise no objection to the numerous atheist posters (including your good self in post #117) who have used analogies to make arguments?

If it applies to me then it does mean that it applies to you as well.

PDN · 09-01-2009 06:01PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

You are confusing God's instructions long after the Fall with the instructions given to humanity before the Fall.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)

That's rather irrelevant since I wasn't talking about the Bible.

Dades wrote:

Do you really believe that the above is a reasonable assertion?!

Absolutely.

Dades wrote:

What instructions did we get exactly?

Unfortunately, due to the Fall, we don't know what those instructions were, or would have been if they had continued uninterrupted by man's disobedience.

09-01-2009 06:02PM

PDN wrote: »

No, that is untue.

The teacher did not try to draw a perfect drawing. She tried to teach the concept of Pythagoras' Theorem - somrthing that she perfectly achieved.

If a perfect God attempted to make something else that was perfect, but failed, then that would indeed render Him imperfect. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, keep going round in circles if you wish.

Are you deliberatly missing the point? Using analogies is pointless in an argument, so I won't. If God created something that's imperfect, willingly or not, then he isn't perfect in every possible way. If you're just looking at the level of perfection of his productions, and one of them isn't perfect, that means in that one single respect he isn't perfect; as all of his productions aren't perfect. It doesn't matter about adequacy, it matters about perfection. This is the most cyclical debate ever, time to let the perfection argument go?

09-01-2009 06:06PM

PDN wrote: »

And would you like to explain, without condemning yourself for hypocrisy, why you suddenly object to me using analogies in this thread yet you raise no objection to the numerous atheist posters (including your good self in post #117) who have used analogies to make arguments?

If it applies to me then it does mean that it applies to you as well.

Yes, you're right. I did use one, but I used it before I realised how pedantic this argument would get. Basing an argument totally on an analogy is pointless, using an analogy to reiterate your point is, relatively, ok.

santing · 09-01-2009 09:57PM

I know I am going way back to post #125 here, but I think this post shows the impasse JammyDodger's God is in...

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I can't see myself getting anywhere with the absolute perfection must lead to perfection argument. So I'm going to persue another, related line of argument with regards to perfection.

You claim that God is absolutely perfect, in all respects. Yes? I don’t think we’ll have any argument whatsoever about that. You must also concede that absolute perfection entails entirety, wholeness, completeness in all possible senses, at all times. A perfect entity is free of deprivation whatsoever, and therefore lacks nothing, ergo, wants and needs nothing.

A perfect entity cannot have any needs to satisfy, if it does, it surely cannot be perfect. It is a contradiction to say a perfect being has needs or desires. If it has needs or desires, how can it be perfect, as it lacks entirety, completeness, totality. So, I argue, by definition, a perfect being cannot have needs or desires, without a need or desire there can be no purpose (dictionary.com’s definition of purpose: “an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.”; it follows that if a being has no needs or desires, it cannot have an aim, or a goal).

How can you reconcile this with your constant allegations that God has purpose for us all? Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect.

With the conclusion "Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect" I think this definition of the perfection of God is finished.

If God has no purpose, and a perfect act has no purpose than the term perfection becomes nonsense, as we must measure the perfection against the purpose, if their is no purpose, there is no perfection.

It is part of the Christian "Mysteries" that God who was perfect and complete in eternity, created time and this universe in which He longs to have fellowship with human-beings, in which He would produce the Church, which is Christ's body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23 ESV). This is all "according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11 ESV)

=====================================
But oh, that God would speak and open his lips to you, and that he would tell you the secrets of wisdom! For he is manifold in understanding. Know then that God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves. "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven--what can you do? Deeper than Sheol--what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.
(Job 11:5-9 ESV)

Zombrex · 09-01-2009 11:16PM

PDN wrote: »

You are confusing God's instructions long after the Fall with the instructions given to humanity before the Fall.

Possibly. Could you explain what God's instructions before the Fall were, and who "humanity" was before the Fall? And when and where did the Fall take place?

Zombrex · 09-01-2009 11:22PM

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm deliberately staying out of this. You just know it's going to go round and round long after the cows have come home. :pac:

It isn't going "round and round" The Christian side don't have an answer (none that has been put forward yet), nor do they apparently have a way to attack the arguments being put forward, so they are trying to argue something else. PDN's padded cell analogy is an example. Every time the argument is brought back to what the atheists are actually pointing out, it flies off again on some other tangent.

There are more straw men in this thread than a field in Idaho. I would have far more respect if someone just said I don't have an answer to that, yes it is certainly a problem and is troubling, I certainly understand why it would lead someone to conclude atheism is correct, but I continue to believe for reasons unconnected to this particular discussion

What is frustrating is when people try and twist it into not being a problem, through straw men and nonsense and the suggestion that the atheists are just being argumentative with no real substance behind what they are saying.

Zombrex · 09-01-2009 11:29PM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This is the most cyclical debate ever, time to let the perfection argument go?

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

09-01-2009 11:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

I totally agree with that post. I agree we can draw no conclusions about gods perfection, nor are we fit to measure perfection itself.

But, I can't see the Christians agreeing to what you've said. They'll just dismiss it with some, what we judge to be, nonsensical statement.

Mal-Adjusted · 09-01-2009 11:49PM

This thread is going nowhere. FAIL!

Zombrex · 09-01-2009 11:58PM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

This thread is going nowhere. FAIL!

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

Mal-Adjusted · 10-01-2009 12:32AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

there's a shocker...:rolleyes:

Zombrex · 10-01-2009 12:49AM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

there's a shocker...:rolleyes:

lol :cool:

Biro · 10-01-2009 03:41AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

I'd call it for you in relation to the perfection arguement, but jammy's posts keep undoing any good your posts are doing!

10-01-2009 03:47AM

Biro wrote: »

I'd call it for you in relation to the perfection arguement, but jammy's posts keep undoing any good your posts are doing!

Oh do they? I guess I'll have to refrain from posting about anything, lest I undo the good work of other posters.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-01-2009 04:38AM

put them claws away ladies!

PDN · 10-01-2009 11:18AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

In that case, Wicknight, you have just admitted defeat and the moderator calls it for the Christians. :P

Let me explain. And hopefully my explanation will help us to understand why so often philosophersw suck at science and scientists suck at philosophy.

Arguments will go on forever between atheists and theists where one group, in order to be argumentative, will attack the beliefs of the other. As we know from previous threads the issue of measurability and scientific proof etc comes up often. Such arguments are inconclusive as many things turn out to be demonstrably true which could not, at some previous stage in history, be measured or proved (eg black holes), and also because there is a huge difference between something not being proven as true and it being proven to be false (not proven /= not guilty).

The whole point of the benevolent yet omnipotent God that permits evil in the world debate is that it tries a different tack. It involves leaving aside the issues of proof and measurability while atheists attempt to demonstrate, as an a priori argument, that the belief system of Christianity is inherently self-contradictory.

This is why this is one of the classic philosophical arguments against faith. If it can genuinely be demonstrated that the Christian God is a logical contradiction, indeed a logical impossibility, then the entire case for Christianity is seriously weakened. Therefore the purpose of theodicy (justification of God) is to counter this attack. If Christians can demonstrate that other areas of their belief system provide a plausible explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God then the a priori argument falls flat on its face. However, if the atheists then start attacking those other aspects of Christian belief on the basis that they cannot be proved or measured then that is, in itself, an admission that they cannot win this argument on a priori grounds alone. Again, in that case, the a priori argument falls flat on its face.

Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

In fact, you have disqualified yourself from any meaningful participation in this debate. The very arguments you use to dismiss the concept of perfection (It cannot be defined in a measurable fashion. It is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless) can equally be applied to the concepts of omnipotence and to being all-loving. Therefore, it would be the rankest hypocrisy to mount an a priori challenge to Christian belief with an argument alleging contradiction between two divine attributes which you yourself admit as "empty" as "worthless" and as "incapable of being defined".

In fact, your behaviour in this debate is uncannily similar to that of another poster in another thread on this board:
1. The Argument in that thread is that the Genesis account of Creation is entirely consistent with the physical phenomena we can see in the earth. Therefore, leaving aside issues of faith, it is claimed to be possible to say that we can argue, by scientific means alone, for Young earth Creationism.
2. When faced with with challenges a certain poster abandons the grounds of the original argument (scientific grounds alone) and responds by quoting Scripture.
3. That same poster then pronounces himself the winner of the debate and claims to have confounded all his opponents.

Dades · 10-01-2009 12:29PM

I never put much truck in the whole perfection debate tbh. Too much semantics.

Can we get back to natural disasters now?

*

* Actually no, it's the weekend and we all have better things to do!

toiletduck · 10-01-2009 12:41PM

Dades wrote: »

* Actually no, it's the weekend and we all have better things to do!

What? Am I the only one house bound (i.e. internet day) by manflu?!

Biro · 10-01-2009 06:24PM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Oh do they? I guess I'll have to refrain from posting about anything, lest I undo the good work of other posters.

Only in the last few posts on this thread!

10-01-2009 06:51PM

Biro wrote: »

Only in the last few posts on this thread!

Well, sure whatever your opinion is, you're entitled to it. I don't think I've damaged the argument, I can't see how I have.

Zombrex · 10-01-2009 07:23PM

PDN wrote: »

As we know from previous threads the issue of measurability and scientific proof etc comes up often. Such arguments are inconclusive as many things turn out to be demonstrably true which could not, at some previous stage in history, be measured or proved (eg black holes)

I wish I was a moderator, I would ban anyone putting "science" and "prove" together in the same sentence. :pac:

Arguments about scientific theories are always inconclusive because, as you are no doubt aware, science doesn't prove things.

Nothing has ever turned out to be demonstrably true. That is a misrepresentation of science, something which, again, I'm sure you are aware of, or at the very least should be aware of considering the vast amount of times this has been explained on this forum.

PDN wrote: »

It involves leaving aside the issues of proof and measurability while atheists attempt to demonstrate, as an a priori argument, that the belief system of Christianity is inherently self-contradictory.

No, actually that isn't it at all.

The a prior assertion is that God is perfect and good (something you can't determine through experience), God created the universe (something you can't determine through experience), God must have created the universe for a righteous purpose (something you can't determine through experience)

The atheist position is that these a prior assertions are contradicted by experience. The atheists are making a call to experience, rather than a prior assertion.

PDN wrote: »

Therefore the purpose of theodicy (justification of God) is to counter this attack.

No, you have it the wrong way around.

You guys put forward assertions that a) you can't know to begin with and b) are contradicted by evidence. You then introduce convoluted answers to get around objections to this.

PDN wrote: »

If Christians can demonstrate that other areas of their belief system provide a plausible explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God then the a priori argument falls flat on its face.

Not in the slightest. I'm surprised at such an assertion from you PDN

Christians can provide any explanation to any problem that an atheist comes up with their assertions. They can provide this because anyone can provide any explanation to anything. It is limited only by their imagination.

The fact that you can come up with an explanation is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can demonstrate these as actually having any bearing on explaining stuff.

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

I'm not trying to make a priori case against God. I'm saying the a priori case for Gods existence falls down.

PDN · 10-01-2009 07:45PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not trying to make a priori case against God. I'm saying the a priori case for Gods existence falls down.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread is all about Mr Pudding's citing of the a priori argument of the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God, and the Christian defence of free will.

No-one, as far as I am aware, has tried to make an a priori case for God's existence in this thread at all.

Now stop wasting all of our time. :mad:

Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

Comments