Debate : 22639


Off-Topic / Debate / 22639	22638 \| 22640

Subject:	Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:37:35 GMT
Viewed:	929 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

Okay, then why, according to the bible, did God create man and, for that matter, the universe?

Fellowship. God wants to be in relationship with us.

Then you’re asserting that God is finite and imperfect?

I don’t think that follows from what I said.

Well, the chain works like this: To “want” something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates imperfection.

God is beyond logic and reasoning. I know that those are the only tools our finite brains have, but they are useless when it comes to matters of the infinite.

Let’s first stipulate that you’re witnessing in this passage rather than debating. That’s not wrong, but it’s different from actually presenting a case for something. Anyway, it would have been within God’s power, as an omnipotent being, to endow us with the ability to comprehend the infinite, yet for some reason He chose not do so so. Why would he force us to make a determination based on a relatively infinitessimal sampling? And how could a moral God punish those who refuse to be forced to use our God-given powers of reason to address that question?

We can never find or understand God-- it is only when God reveals Himself that we are able to catch a glimpse of Him.

This sends us back to the problem that you can’t assert with any confidence that God truly is good; you can only say that you deeply believe that he’s good based on that small portion of Him that you believe yourself to have perceived.

Asserting that God is finite and imperfect is the last thing I’d do...

I’m sure that you’d never deliberately do so, but your course of argument has generated that conclusion!

Dave!

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Did you think the usual proof was to trite? The Problem of Evil A good God would destroy evil. An all powerful God could destroy evil. Evil exists and is not destroyed. ~~~...~~~ Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and all powerful (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) God intentionally limits Himself by giving us free will (as far as we know). God desires us to have abundant life-- I don't see where this indicates that God is incomplete or imperfect. Perhaps you could say that God is limited, but it is by (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) I don't think that follows from what I said. Any attempts (even Biblical) to describe the infinite will fall woefully short, and attempts to describe God will inevitabley start sounding like anthropomorphizing. Using the third person musculine (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search