I had an interesting discussion on the Secular Outpost Blog. The atheists were reacting to the concept That , "God is beyond human comprehension". They argue that this means we can;t know anything about God thus we can't make a rational belief. This was part of a larger argument, Bradley Bowen; argument against Christian apologist Kreft, part 87 or something. Poster Susan Humphreys in the comment section starts thinking down a tributary of that discussion
I was watching the news one evening, only half listening and a Cardinal was being interviewed (possibly Dolan). The interviewer asked a question that I don't think the Cardinal wanted to answer because he said, in an attempt to stop the questions I think, "God is beyond human comprehension". This is taken from several places in the Bible. At the time I thought does the Cardinal realize what he just said? If God is beyond human comprehension than anything a person says about God--his characteristics, purposes, plans, what he can or can't do, what he wants us to do or not to do, even if he is a he and not a she or an it, or even if he/she/it exists--is nothing more than the figment of human imagination.[2]
Metacrock: Of course that kind of statement comes with an implicit qualification which should be self evident, that while we can't ascertain God by our own intellectual powers, that does not preclude God's own willful revelation to us about himself.We cannot even know what good is in an ultimate sense even assuming a naturalistic world. I have never been able to get an atheist to give me a valid justification form moral motions, but given my own limited experience I can say I know what good is relative to my own milieu. Thus while I cannot say my parents were the absolute good I can say they were good to me,
Brad Bowen:
Brad Bowen:
"If some being is beyond human comprehension, then that being is beyond human evaluation and beyond human understanding. We cannot evaluate a being as "morally good" if that being is beyond our comprehension. We also cannot KNOW (or even make reasonable probability estimates about) what such a being will do or not do. "[3]Metacrock:I think that is a rather fallacious argument, of course God is beyond human evaluation in an ultimate sense, in order to understand God exhaustively you would have to create your own universe. That does not mean we can't understand aspects of God as they pertain to our own lives.
Analogy: I don't know very much about quantum gravity but I do know it requires highly specialized education to understand,Now If we take statements literally like you want us to take statement about God I can't say that. Perhaps Quantum gravity is stupid. perhaps it's a game for mentally challenged people. I can't say because It's beyond my understanding.
There are natural qualification to those concepts that should be understood I don't think it's fair for us to have to spell them out every time we talk about it.
Brad:
We cannot see God perform any actions, nor can we photograph or video God. We cannot hear God, smell God, touch God, or taste God. God leaves no physical evidence of his activity. The only hope we have of identifying God as the CAUSE of a particular event is to KNOW the PLANS or PURPOSES of God, and to determine that God, if God exists, would be likely to CHOOSE to cause that particular event.Metacrock:We don't have to understand the plans and purposes of God to know that God caused the universe, in fact that is irrelevant. We can understand God as cause through logic. We can understand it through self disclosure of God to us. But there is a problem with just understanding God as a cause,I write a essay on this for my blog recently[4]
We don't have to understand the plans and purposes of God to know that God caused the universe, in fact that is irrelevant.
RESPONSE:
Brad:
Brad:
I have argued for the opposite conclusion, and you have not shown there to be ANY PROBLEM with my argument.
Metacrock:
I disagree with your arguments Brad.
Brad:
QUESTION: Do you think that ANY of Swinburne's arguments for God or ANY of Kreeft's arguments for God can be successful WITHOUT making some assumptions about the PLANS or PURPOSES of God?
Metacrock:
I said we don't need to know that for certain arguments such as the CA or OA. But I think we can reasonably assert that God's plans and purposes are benevolent based upon what logical and and experiential evidence we do have, We don't need that much intellectual comprehension to understand love.
Brad:
If so, please point me to at least ONE such argument by Swinburne or Kreeft.
[end dialogue]
The irony in that last comment is that I debated him on the existence of God he totally ignored my comments and acted shamefully.[5] He made no effort to understand my countless explanations and in depth attempts to clarify what everyone agrees was crystal clear he kept whining it was so unclear. Total debate version of boxing strategy called "rope-a-dope."[6]
The phrase "beyond our understanding" does not mean that we can't understand anything about God at all. We can understand somethings. But God is infinite we are finite so we cannot understand God as a whole. WE can understand the fact that God loves us,we not understand why but we can know it as a fact, We can experience God's love in our hearts, that is all we need to understand. The creator of the universe loves me what else do I need to know?
The irony in that last comment is that I debated him on the existence of God he totally ignored my comments and acted shamefully.[5] He made no effort to understand my countless explanations and in depth attempts to clarify what everyone agrees was crystal clear he kept whining it was so unclear. Total debate version of boxing strategy called "rope-a-dope."[6]
The phrase "beyond our understanding" does not mean that we can't understand anything about God at all. We can understand somethings. But God is infinite we are finite so we cannot understand God as a whole. WE can understand the fact that God loves us,we not understand why but we can know it as a fact, We can experience God's love in our hearts, that is all we need to understand. The creator of the universe loves me what else do I need to know?
We have a gap in knowledge where the mass of what we don't know about God resides,that gap is bridged by faith. This is where faith plays it's role. So of course this is bothersome to skeptics who have trouble with faith anyway.
Notes
[2] Ibid, comments
[3] Ibid
[4] J.L. Hinman, "How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong" Metacrock's Blog (WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2018)
[5] "Debate, Hinman s Bowen" Religious A Priori
https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2018/12/debate-hinman-v-bowen-belief-rationally.html
O think this is the whole debate it;s in several posts.
Essentially I kicked his ass he pretended it was nothing.
[6]https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=SBcyXK3BIMXktQXwlbrgDQ&q=what+is+%22rope+a+dope%3F%22&btnK=Google+Search&oq=what+is+%22rope+a+dope%3F%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l3j0i22i10i30j0i22i30l2.801752.808005..808817...1.0..0.267.2776.5j16j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0i131.EdaxSuyc8-8
a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
17 comments:
"God is Beyond our understanding" is a deepity. It is something you say to make your own inability to answer questions about God sound like it is based on something profound, when in fact it is a simple admission that you don't have the answers. It is worth bearing in mind that you profess to know all kinds of things about God with absolute certainty. You say God is love, God is goodness, God is perfection, God is being itself - as if you really understand what you claim. There are whole books about these things, explaining them in detail, as if the author really knows what he's talking about. But then ask a simple question about any contradictory aspect of these claims, and what kind of answer do we get? "God is beyond our understanding." What's really beyond our understanding is how to make sense of something that is a logical contradiction.
"God is Beyond our understanding" is a deepity. It is something you say to make your own inability to answer questions about God sound like it is based on something profound, when in fact it is a simple admission that you don't have the answers.
Hey the old Skepster, hope you had a nice holidays man,
Your statement is a stupidity. That is how avoid having to deal with ideas that are too profound for you to grasp. it's also a good example of atheist brain washing, you can't be honest or allows others to be honest about thought one must always parrot the party line.
It is worth bearing in mind that you profess to know all kinds of things about God with absolute certainty. You say God is love, God is goodness, God is perfection, God is being itself - as if you really understand what you claim.
One can experience love, That is not beyond our understanding. We may not grasp a lot about God's love of us but we can know we are loved. From that simple fact those other things follow logically.
There are whole books about these things, explaining them in detail, as if the author really knows what he's talking about. But then ask a simple question about any contradictory aspect of these claims, and what kind of answer do we get? "God is beyond our understanding." What's really beyond our understanding is how to make sense of something that is a logical contradiction.
You are right about one thing Skepster,One must employ God's transcendence carefully and surgically. Now since you made the accusation it's your burden to show that Ido what just said,
You know old Skepster you accuse me of being a know all then assert that I repair to the old saw "God is beyond our understanding." O think it';s extremely dishonest of atheoids not to allow that card. How can I be both a know all and repair to the transcendence of understanding?
this means you must assert that you are all knowing, what a laugh.
You know old Skepster you accuse me of being a know all then assert that I repair to the old saw "God is beyond our understanding." O think it';s extremely dishonest of atheoids not to allow that card. How can I be both a know all and repair to the transcendence of understanding?
- Once again, you fail to understand my point. I would never accuse you of knowing all. What I accuse you of is PRETENDING to know all. Get it. You pretend to know all these things about God. Things that nobody could possibly know IF God actually existed. But since God doesn't actually exist, you simply make it up. The problem with your making up all these qualities of God is that they are mutually contradictory. That brings up logical issues that you can't possibly answer. And when you get pinned down on these contradictions, you fall back to the old "God is Beyond our understanding" canard.
Meta you know old Skepster you accuse me of being a know all then assert that I repair to the old saw "God is beyond our understanding." O think it';s extremely dishonest of atheoids not to allow that card. How can I be both a know all and repair to the transcendence of understanding?
Skepster - Once again, you fail to understand my point. I would never accuse you of knowing all. What I accuse you of is PRETENDING to know all.
Meta Really? O I'm crushed!I really thought you revered me as a source oh omniscience.I was going to nominate you as president of my fan club.
SkepsterGet it. You pretend to know all these things about God. Things that nobody could possibly know IF God actually existed.
Meta O right when I said we know when we are loved and that's all we need to know the rest follows logically, yes that takes real omniscience to know that,you have to know what logic means,I guess to you that seems like mysticism.
Skepster But since God doesn't actually exist, you simply make it up.
Meta So you think I'm consciously saying to myself "I know God is BS but since I want to fool atheists I better make something up?" Then of course I laugh insanely, Bwaahahahahahahhaah Bwaahahahahahhah!
Sorry to break it to you, I really do believe the things I say. Moreover, I have had experiences I have not told you about. You need to find another excuse for your adolescent rebellion.
SkepsterThe problem with your making up all these qualities of God is that they are mutually contradictory.
Meta If I made the yup why would let them contradict? I can just make up more stuff that doesn't contract. why would I bother to defend it? But that deeds upon what we are talking about. Get specific.
SkepsterThat brings up logical issues that you can't possibly answer. And when you get pinned down on these contradictions, you fall back to the old "God is Beyond our understanding" canard.
Meta That's real brave to assert you have stuff I can't answer, but it's meaningless until we know what it is. You are going to have to show specific examples. I am careful not to use that phrase in that way because I was an atheist so I am conscious of that issue.
10:02 AM
If I made the yup why would let them contradict? I can just make up more stuff that doesn't contract. why would I bother to defend it? But that deeds upon what we are talking about. Get specific.
- Double-speak, anyone? Your article is about how atheists are too stupid to get the profundity of "God is Beyond our understanding". Now you're denying that you say this? But you say it precisely because you can't answer questions about God that seem to defy ration explanation. Take for example, your claims about the omni-properties of God. Many philosophers have pointed out that they can't all exist at once without a contradiction. And you have no rational answer for it. (You once wrote an article about this problem, but it did not provide a coherent answer, as I explained here.)
That's real brave to assert you have stuff I can't answer, but it's meaningless until we know what it is. You are going to have to show specific examples
- I have often written about your failure to answer questions. Go to my blog and search for "Hinman".
I am careful not to use that phrase in that way because I was an atheist so I am conscious of that issue
- Yes, and you were a communist, and who knows what else. I think every time you read a philosophy book, you adopted that philosophy for a while. None of this means you understood it with any real depth. You keep saying that you were an atheist, but you always believed in core aspects of religion, such as an immaterial seat of mind. See my article on "the ex-atheist".
If I made them up why would let them contradict? I can just make up more stuff that doesn't contract. why would I bother to defend it? But that deeds upon what we are talking about. Get specific.
- Double-speak, anyone? Your article is about how atheists are too stupid to get the profundity of "God is Beyond our understanding". Now you're denying that you say this?
No I would say that you misconstrue the point.
But you say it precisely because you can't answer questions about God that seem to defy ration explanation. Take for example, your claims about the omni-properties of God. Many philosophers have pointed out that they can't all exist at once without a contradiction. And you have no rational answer for it. (You once wrote an article about this problem, but it did not provide a coherent answer, as I explained here.)
You are merely asserting that their arguments must be right because they make them. You want them to be true. I have answered such arguments many many times, you have to actually make the argument to show them you have to answer my rebuttals You don't get a free pass.
That's real brave to assert you have stuff I can't answer, but it's meaningless until we know what it is. You are going to have to show specific examples
- I have often written about your failure to answer questions. Go to my blog and search for "Hinman".
BS make an argument.
I am careful not to use that phrase in that way because I was an atheist so I am conscious of that issue
- Yes, and you were a communist, and who knows what else. I think every time you read a philosophy book, you adopted that philosophy for a while.
you know nothing about my life, You have no basis for that claim, you are portentous pompous twit,most what passes for thinking in your head is prejudice.
None of this means you understood it with any real depth. You keep saying that you were an atheist, but you always believed in core aspects of religion, such as an immaterial seat of mind. See my article on "the ex-atheist".
Pretension and bigotry, this stupidity you are trying pass off as thought prejudice about various kinds of people
No I would say that you misconstrue the point.
- Right. It's the title of your post. So are you misconstruing your own point?
You are merely asserting that their arguments must be right because they make them. You want them to be true. I have answered such arguments many many times, you have to actually make the argument to show them you have to answer my rebuttals You don't get a free pass.
- I implored you to read the arguments I have made. Go to my blog and search under "Hinman". You will find no less than thirty articles where I have eviscerated your faulty arguments and shed light on your poor understanding of numerous issues. YOU don't get a free pass by ignoring all of that an pretending that I have never addressed your claims.
BS make an argument.
- I provided links. Read what I have said.
you know nothing about my life, You have no basis for that claim, you are portentous pompous twit,most what passes for thinking in your head is prejudice.
- I know what you have said. I don't make this stuff up.
Pretension and bigotry, this stupidity you are trying pass off as thought prejudice about various kinds of people
- Your response shows a total inability to answer the issues I raise. Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
m-skeptical said...
No I would say that you misconstrue the point.
- Right. It's the title of your post. So are you misconstruing your own point?
no you are, try to follow. you said "Your article is about how atheists are too stupid to get the profundity of "God is Beyond our understanding".That is not the title, i never said: "atheists are too stupid to get the profundity" that is your idea.
MeYou are merely asserting that their arguments must be right because they make them. You want them to be true. I have answered such arguments many many times, you have to actually make the argument to show them you have to answer my rebuttals You don't get a free pass.
you- I implored you to read the arguments I have made. Go to my blog and search under "Hinman". You will find no less than thirty articles where I have eviscerated your faulty arguments and shed light on your poor understanding of numerous issues. YOU don't get a free pass by ignoring all of that an pretending that I have never addressed your claims.
Of course you are pretending that i Have answered many of them Non of them are not challenging. Based upon the on's I have answered it's not worth my time to mess with the rest of your fantasy world.
BS make an argument.
- I provided links. Read what I have said.
Just as I thought You don't have an argument, just more bs bravado. Like in debate the up and says:I have the evidence to beat this case in one of the 17 file boxes so it's a done deal but I just don't have time to look for it in this debate.
you know nothing about my life, You have no basis for that claim, you are portentous pompous twit,most what passes for thinking in your head is prejudice.
- I know what you have said. I don't make this stuff up.
hey if you want to look through y file box Is a done deal. I've won I just don't have time to show it now.
Pretension and bigotry, this stupidity you are trying pass off as thought prejudice about various kinds of people
- Your response shows a total inability to answer the issues I raise. Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
Arguments you have not made? This is a debate, you are judged by how you argue in this debate not what you think went on in previous one;s.
Nothing you said before counts here until you enter it here,
10:15 AM Delete
Arguments you have not made? This is a debate, you are judged by how you argue in this debate not what you think went on in previous one;s. ... Nothing you said before counts here until you enter it here
- OK. I will REPEAT the argument I already made in thei thread, which you haven't answered at all.
1. "God is Beyond our understanding" is a deepity. It is something you say to make your own inability to answer questions about God sound like it is based on something profound, when in fact it is a simple admission that you don't have the answers. Your only reply was to claim the this statement was stupid. Since you cannot actually provide a counter-argument (as in explaining why it is not a deepity), you concede that point.
2. It is worth bearing in mind that you profess to know all kinds of things about God with absolute certainty. You say God is love, God is goodness, God is perfection, God is being itself - as if you really understand what you claim. There are whole books about these things, explaining them in detail, as if the author really knows what he's talking about. Your answer is merely an assertion that all of your claims follow logically from the "experience of God's love". But that's not true at all. First, your experience of love does not equate to knowledge of God's properties. At best, it would give you a feeling about ONE of God's properties. Second, there is in fact no logical extension from a feeling of love to all the other properties you claim, unless of course, you explain how this logical connection is achieved - but you haven't done that. Third, if your claim is true, that doesn't explain the unknowable aspect of God, which is a result of the logical incongruities of the other properties. So in essence, you are contradicting yourself. You can't draw a valid logical conclusion from contradictory premises.
3. But then ask a simple question about any contradictory aspect of these claims, and what kind of answer do we get? "God is beyond our understanding." What's really beyond our understanding is how to make sense of something that is a logical contradiction. Your reply to that is "One must employ God's transcendence carefully and surgically". But this is just word salad. It is meaningless. How do you "employ" transcendence? You have provided no explanation of any kind of what you are trying to say, and I can only conclude that you can't explain it, but you are trying to sound profound by using obscure language in the hopes that others are too stupid to notice that you are really saying nothing at all.
Joe:Arguments you have not made? This is a debate, you are judged by how you argue in this debate not what you think went on in previous one;s. ... Nothing you said before counts here until you enter it here
Skepster:- OK. I will REPEAT the argument I already made in thei thread, which you haven't answered at all.
1. "God is Beyond our understanding" is a deepity.
There is no such thing as a "deepity." That is a dumbass idea put forward by idiots who can;t reason about great ideas,I said as much in the other thread.That argument is a Stupidty
It is something you say to make your own inability to answer questions about God sound like it is based on something profound, when in fact it is a simple admission that you don't have the answers. Your only reply was to claim the this statement was stupid. Since you cannot actually provide a counter-argument (as in explaining why it is not a deepity), you concede that point.
I said it's an invalid concept so it's meaningless, you have no argument. you think that was my only reply because you are too stupid to read the whole argument. I have included enough here to indicate why it's a dumb idea but you need it spelled out clearly. God is infinite we are finite. God created everything we do not know everything so therefore there must be lots things we don't know. God must know lots of things we don't know. Obviously then by definition God is beyond our understanding.I think U lined to my debate with Bowen you didn't read it of course that counts against you because you did not read the argument I linked to,
2. It is worth bearing in mind that you profess to know all kinds of things about God with absolute certainty. You say God is love, God is goodness, God is perfection, God is being itself - as if you really understand what you claim.
Those are all just axiomatic. They are basic Christian theology and are rooted in the concept of God as it is believed in Christianity. But we can established God;s love through our experiences of God's presence then all the other aspects flow out of that. Love is the basis of the good. It's really logical. He;s omnipotent because he's being itself and that must mean omnipotent to create all that is and omnipresent for the same reason present for the same reason.
There are whole books about these things, explaining them in detail, as if the author really knows what he's talking about. Your answer is merely an assertion that all of your claims follow logically from the "experience of God's love". But that's not true at all.
you need to actually make an argument not merely assert your opinion
Skep:First, your experience of love does not equate to knowledge of God's properties. At best, it would give you a feeling about ONE of God's properties.
Obviously good is an aspect of character that flows out of love, so knowing God's love means we know God is good. I never talked his properties, you don't know what a property is. Good is not a property,
Second, there is in fact no logical extension from a feeling of love to all the other properties you claim, unless of course, you explain how this logical connection is achieved - but you haven't done that.
You still have not defined property, I have talked things related to character you have no basic argument against that,You have no basis for disproving God's love.
I just based omnipotence and omnipresence upon God's creatorship, not on his love, Those are property-like concepts not character issues but you have not given a reason why those are not logical assumptions are you denying that for God to create he would have to contain certain aspects?
Third, if your claim is true, that doesn't explain the unknowable aspect of God, which is a result of the logical incongruities of the other properties. So in essence, you are contradicting yourself. You can't draw a valid logical conclusion from contradictory premises.
I dispute that. God's transcendence does not stem from contradiction in other things,it stems fro our lack of knowledge our lack of vantage point our lack of power to approach God.our finite nature makes us unable to grasp the divine.
3. But then ask a simple question about any contradictory aspect of these claims, and what kind of answer do we get? "God is beyond our understanding."
Obviously nit true,since I just got through making arguments about aspects of God's character and properties,
What's really beyond our understanding is how to make sense of something that is a logical contradiction.
You have not yet presented a logical contradiction
Your reply to that is "One must employ God's transcendence carefully and surgically". But this is just word salad. It is meaningless.
Obviously it has a meaning I'm sorry you are too stupid to graps it.
How do you "employ" transcendence? You have provided no explanation of any kind of what you are trying to say and I can only conclude that you can't explain it, but you are trying to sound profound by using obscure language in the hopes that others are too stupid to notice that you are really saying nothing at all.
9:16 AM Delete
Skepster! focus the old brain box.You want to appear intellectual but can't understand big words so then you don't want to or you are too lazy to look them up so you want to pretend like using big words is a sign o being stupid rather than being well educated or perhaps you will assert it's dishonesty when it's obviously just the habit of someone who deals with academies and thinkers a lot.
U said you have to use the argument God is beyond our understanding sparingly and be mindful of when it is used so you wont be taken for just using it as an excuse not to deal with logical issues you can't argue with,
you have not demonstrated a single time I've misused it in that way,
There is no such thing as a "deepity."
- "Deepity" is defined as "an idea or statement that seems to be profound but actually isn't". It is generally regarded as a statement that is trivially true, but false if taken in the more profound sense. Even if you don't accept that it is a legitimate word, you can't deny that there are things that fit the definition. An example would be “Evolution is only a theory.” Trivially true, but profoundly false. Call it stupid if you like, but your deepity fits the definition.
Those are all just axiomatic. They are basic Christian theology and are rooted in the concept of God as it is believed in Christianity.
- They are properties of God that most Christians accept and believe. There is nothing axiomatic about them.
But we can established God;s love through our experiences of God's presence then all the other aspects flow out of that. Love is the basis of the good. It's really logical. ...
- It isn't logical. Good is not a logical consequence of love. A man might love a woman and then kill her to avoid losing her.
you need to actually make an argument not merely assert your opinion
- I made an objection to your argument. If you have any answer, then answer it.
You still have not defined property ... You have no basis for disproving God's love.
- I am not attempting to disprove God's love. My claim is that you pretend to know all kinds of things about God, when in fact you don't.
God's transcendence does not stem from contradiction in other things,it stems fro our lack of knowledge our lack of vantage point our lack of power to approach God.our finite nature makes us unable to grasp the divine.
- If you are unable to grasp the divine, then why do you make so many claims about God as if you DO know?
You have not yet presented a logical contradiction
- Yes, I have. I cited it. Read it here. You still haven't responded.
Obviously it has a meaning I'm sorry you are too stupid to graps it.
- Then for the sake of the stupid, please tell us what it means. Explain how you "employ God's transcendence carefully and surgically" with something that is beyond our grasp. I'd just like to know, Joe. Your making statements like that only tells me that you have no idea how to back up your claims.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
There is no such thing as a "deepity."
- "Deepity" is defined as "an idea or statement that seems to be profound but actually isn't". It is generally regarded as a statement that is trivially true, but false if taken in the more profound sense.
Webster's on line dictionary
"deepity”
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."
despite
decrepity
despited
deedily
despites
deeping
deep fat
deepish
Even if you don't accept that it is a legitimate word, you can't deny that there are things that fit the definition. An example would be “Evolution is only a theory.” Trivially true, but profoundly false. Call it stupid if you like, but your deepity fits the definition.
There is a word for people who use the term "deepity" that word is "pretentious"
pretentious adjective
pre·ten·tious | \pri-ˈten(t)-shəs \
Definition of pretentious
1 : characterized by pretension: such as
a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing)
the pretentious fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him
— Richard Watts
b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature
pretentious language
pretentious houses
2 : making demands on one's skill, ability, or means : AMBITIOUS
the pretentious daring of the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake
— Amer. Guide Series: Vt.
Atheism is the Provence of shallow people. They have no basis to argue against real ideas so they have to presort to silly words like deepity it's just another chance to mock and ridicule ideas they can't understand.
Look at your argument here. All you are doing is attaching a label then expecting the mere use of the label to prove something.
JoeThose are all just axiomatic. They are basic Christian theology and are rooted in the concept of God as it is believed in Christianity.
Skep- They are properties of God that most Christians accept and believe. There is nothing axiomatic about them.
that is axiomatic! websters:
Definition of axiomatic
1 : taken for granted : SELF-EVIDENT
an axiomatic truth
2 : based on or involving an axiom or system of axioms
axiomatic set theory
JoeBut we can established God;s love through our experiences of God's presence then all the other aspects flow out of that. Love is the basis of the good. It's really logical. ...
Skep- It isn't logical. Good is not a logical consequence of love. A man might love a woman and then kill her to avoid losing her.
certainly it is. Love is positive, giving, supportive, works for the best conditions under which the other might flourish that's what the good is,.
See how atheism is shallow it just accepts good at face value without even analysis why it;s good, But God teaches us took look for the hidden deeper truth of why is good good,?
Joeyou need to actually make an argument not merely assert your opinion
Skep- I made an objection to your argument. If you have any answer, then answer it.
that;'s not an argument, you are just saying 'I don;t like it: give me a reason.
JoeYou still have not defined property ... You have no basis for disproving God's love.
Skep- I am not attempting to disprove God's love. My claim is that you pretend to know all kinds of things about God, when in fact you don't.
Do you not even read the words? I said I deduce the ideas about God from the basic fact we know about God,his love. So what's wrong with that method?It's the same method Descartes used
JoeGod's transcendence does not stem from contradiction in other things,it stems fro our lack of knowledge our lack of vantage point our lack of power to approach God.our finite nature makes us unable to grasp the divine.
Skep- If you are unable to grasp the divine, then why do you make so many claims about God as if you DO know?
What did I just say about that? two lines up, deals with Descartes
JoeYou have not yet presented a logical contradiction
Skep- Yes, I have. I cited it. Read it here. You still haven't responded.
Joe Your links are not obviousness I have been too quick to copy the whole into the text box where I write my answers,so i don;t see the link. I'll look at it after posting this. My apologies on that.
Obviously it has a meaning I'm sorry you are too stupid to grasp it.
I am sorry I made that statement, It is my fault, break down in civility
Skep- Then for the sake of the stupid, please tell us what it means. Explain how you "employ God's transcendence carefully and surgically" with something that is beyond our grasp. I'd just like to know, Joe. Your making statements like that only tells me that you have no idea how to back up your claims.
It means I don;t use that idea just to get out of logical problems . I only use it when it's really important theologically to do so
2:46 PM
this thread is closed
Post a Comment