[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew Skegg. Andrew Skegg said: "Eruv, what's that?" -> http://bit.ly/bE3a2F (via @godlessbiz) [...]

If the gun toting loonies who worship their guns wanted to use the main street for target practice, it'd be religious discrimination to oppose them, wouldn't it? So don't oppose this eruv or you're a racist, according to the orthodox cretins that believe this nonsense.

I'm reminded of a quote from 'Religulous' when Maher is interviewing the guy that modifies things so they can be used of the Sabbath without breaking their god's laws. I think it was when Maher pushed him on their motivations for seeking these loopholes out and the guy responded with something along the lines:

'Well if the perfect creator of the universe gives you a law. The law is perfectly as intended and thus any loophole is perfectly intended. So the perfect creator God wants people to try and work around these rules'

Can't fault that kind of logic now can we? ROFL

By that reasoning, it is also valid to say that totally ignoring a god given law is valid because god must have intended for you to be able to ignore it when you want. I just think ignoring it is the ultimate work around.

If Yahweh is OK with make believe walls of wire on poles (no one was struck by lightning yet, I hope), why not dispense with the physical symbols and mark the make believe walls on a map. It would be more cost effective, and have zero impact on the landscape and non-Jewish society. (not to mention reducing the chances of anyone being struck by lightning arced from a six-meter high wire carrying pole)

You guys got it all wrong. An eruv does not skirt any G-d given law. An eruv only covers rabbinical proscriptions. So it was the rabbis that prohibited and it was the rabbis who allowed carrying with an eruv.

Really? And why would the Rabbis invent such rules? Would it be to prevent "work" on the Sabbath?

They invented the rules just so they'd get a day off :P

No. The rules of not carrying and of eruvin were established regarding certain domains by the rabbis in order that one should not mistakenly carry into an area that is Biblically proscribed. For a Biblically proscribed area an eruv would not suffice. For that matter you would be hard pressed to find even one reference to a proscription against carrying in the Bible at all.

Sorry, still does not address the root reason these laws were enacted and are only valid on the sabbath. Please, actually think about it.

Yes, the Biblical law was enacted because this category of work (carrying in a Biblically mandated domain) should not be done on the Shabbat. However, my point is the rabbis were not playing with G-ds laws; they were only adding a layer of protection which they have a right to remove through any method they choose. They selected the method of erecting an eruv, which resembles doorways of a private domain. Consequentially, this post was totally off mark. I reiterate, you would be hard pressed to find any proscription against carrying on the Shabbat in the Bible. There were some early sects of Jews that maintained that carrying is always allowed on the Shabbat.

Your explanation only makes things more bizarre. Firstly Rabbis "add a layer of protection" onto God's law, then (rather than simply removing them) slap on more weirdness to keep in line with the rules they created!

Did I SAY rules against carrying were in the Bible? No – I stated the commandment "thou shall not work". It is the ridiculous Rabbis who decided carrying a set of car keys or pushing a pram was considered "work", but only outside your own house. Who makes these idiotic rules anyway?

One might say that that's a fairly accurate paraphrase of what Jesus had to say to these guys (see Matt 12)! :D

'I desire mercy, not sacrifice, – Jesus, Matthew 12:7'

Then goes on the sacrifice himself. Go figure.

The problem with people like you is that you talk as if you actually know your history. My original argument was that this post is simply incorrect. Now that I have proven this, you have to steer the conversation to different arguments. I reiterate, the Rabbis did not play with G-d’s laws they only added safeguards. Only regarding these safeguards did they have a right to modify them as they pleased. Regarding your next issue, you also do not know what you are talking about. You are conflating work with carrying. In any case, most Jewish sects were much more stringent regarding carrying than were the Pharisees. So it was the Rabbis who were the most lenient not the other way around.

Only regarding these safeguards did they have a right to modify them as they pleased.

Or get rid of them altogether, but no. Rather than say "these rules are silly, let's get rid of them" they decide that a symbolic communal house will satisfy the additional safe guards to ensure they are abiding by God's law. It's outrageous.

Regarding your next issue, you also do not know what you are talking about. You are conflating work with carrying.

No, the Rabbis are conflating work with carrying car keys, or pushing a pram. Take it up with them, not me.

Only regarding these safeguards did they have a right to modify them as they pleased.

Or get rid of them altogether, but no. Rather than say "these rules are silly, let's get rid of them" they decide that a symbolic communal house will satisfy the additional safe guards to ensure they are abiding by God's law. It's outrageous.

Regarding your next issue, you also do not know what you are talking about. You are conflating work with carrying.

No, the Rabbis are conflating work with carrying car keys, or pushing a pram. Take it up with them, not me.

You’re not worth my time. Educate yourself prior to shooting your mouth off.

Perhaps we don't understand the history and don't feel the need to delve too deeply into it because this stuff is nonsensical. Why should your god care whether somebody does work on the sabbath and why do you need artefacts like the Eruv to either allow you to do something you weren't otherwise allowed to do or help you to know the difference?

Saying that Rabbis invented the Eruv or we don't understand why or that carrying is not equal to work is just begging the question. Jews have a swath of laws restricting behaviour from eating pork to lifts which stop at all floors on the sabbath, to not being allowed to drive cars (with the effect that a jew can drive a pregnant woman to hospital but must ask a gentile to park the car and drive back). What is the rational reason for any of this?

Small point, why does a god need to rest? Also universe not created in 6 days.

Maybe his omnipotence wore off?

Hey, I'm still wondering why it took an omnipotent being 6 days in the first place. Sure any omnipotent being worth his salt can do it instantaneously.

Theists have a bad habit of limiting the capacity and powers of their deity when trying to justify the accounts of how the deity has performed. Think back everytime a theist has said 'but god can't do that or he'd break free will' or other similar statements, even though there are other criticisms of free will this claim has just limited god's power and/or knowledge. The whole activity involves thinking about the being in small pieces and not considering it as a whole, the few who have but remain believers do so by appealing to the mystery of it.

They like the gravitas conveyed by words like omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence but don't want to look to hard at the implications of these attributes lest their preferred mythology comes off looking immature and infantile or simply impossible.

It seems rather silly to make a claim of ultimate power, but then immediately have to concede that the being is not ultimately powerful and have to place constraints upon that being's power. It smells to me like bullsh*t.

Yes, yes it does :)

It's a theological concept – see Hebrews.. it's not about being physically tired.

Omnipotence doesn't mean the ability to do the logically impossible (the old too-heavy-rock idea for example). As CS Lewis put it:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

So OMNIpotence does not mean ALL powerful. God cannot break the rules of logic, so he is confined in his abilities. This is not omnipotent.

Not being able to do the logically and intrinsically impossible is not a confinement of abilities. As Lewis says: nonsense is still nonsense! You can't get a four sided triangle. You can't do something that is not there to be done. Again: "Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible". To suggest that this is somehow confinement is just nonsense.

Another meaningless reply which completely misses the point being raised.

Where did the "laws of logic" come from to which your god must adhere? Why must he be confined by them?

Not being able to do something IS a limitation – no matter which way to try to wiggle out of it.

Not being able to do something IS a limitation

.. unless that something isn't there to be done in the first place (which is basically to say that such illogical nonsense as you suggest is not actually some thing at all).

As soon as you tell me how it's possible to have a four-sided triangle or a square circle, you will have a point. Until such time, Lewis answered your objection decades ago by showing that the too-heavy-rock kind of objection is meaningless.

Why can an omnipotent being not change the laws of logic to permit what he wishes to do? Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal? Why must an omnipotent being be confined by logical laws at all?

It seems to me that you are just altering the nature of omnipotence and providing limits, with no reasoning as to why an omnipotent being must be constrained by them. Why can an omnipotent being not defy logic?

Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal?

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place. An agent cannot bring about an impossible state of affairs, as that is incoherent (or 'nonsense' as Lewis put it). Asking if an omnipotent agent can alter logic is just restating the too-heavy-rock question a different way. Ultimate power is power to do all that is possible to be done.

It seems to me that you are just altering the nature of omnipotence and providing limits

No, it's not imposing a limit at all. Let's say you have the power to go anywhere – it's not imposing a limit to recognise that you can't go somewhere that doesn't exist as that's not actually a 'somewhere'.
If we say that Johnny has the power to make any shape he wishes, he still cannot make a square circle – for a shape with 90o corners is in no way a circle. A square circle doesn't exist to be made. That is no limit on Johnny's power to make any shape he wishes.

It's not altering the nature of omnipotence to say that one can't do what is not there to be done. Rather, it would be altering it to say that it does mean one can do what is not there to be done. (That's more than simply 'laws of logic' it's about, as Lewis puts it, intrinsic possibility.

I mean, if you want to take a definition of 'omnipotence' that is different to the one that is normally meant when speaking of God, fine, but just don't be surprised when God doesn't fit that definition! ;)

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place.

Why can it not be done? What prevents it?

If we say that Johnny has the power to make any shape he wishes, he still cannot make a square circle – for a shape with 90o corners is in no way a circle. A square circle doesn't exist to be made. That is no limit on Johnny's power to make any shape he wishes.

I consider that to be a bad analogy. It would first be necessary to define what a square circle is before it could be made as a shape. There is no such thing as a square circle because how would one define one, how, in 2 dimensions, or even 3, could it be made.

My understanding of "omnipotence" is that of ultimate, unlimited power. Anything less is not really omnipotence.

I'm never surprised when "God" doesn't fit a definition. I do not believe in God, and I have come to expect theists to morph the definition to suit their needs, whilst providing no evidence either for the existence of God, or of the true nature of their God.

Why can it not be done? What prevents it?

*sigh*.. because it's not there to be done – you can't do what is not there to be done. Omnipotence speaks of power to do all that it is possible to do, not about creating impossible states of affair.

It would first be necessary to define what a square circle is before it could be made as a shape. There is no such thing as a square circle because how would one define one, how, in 2 dimensions, or even 3, could it be made.

A square circle would be a shape that is both a circle and a square, which is of course nonsensically impossible. It cannot be both a square and a circle – it's not do-able. It's intrinsically impossible. Either it is round, or is has 4 corners. Thus, a square circle is not there to be made. The analogy thus stands as does Lewis' comment that putting 'God can' in front of a nonsensical collection of words doesn't make them any less nonsensical.

My understanding of "omnipotence" is that of ultimate, unlimited power. Anything less is not really omnipotence.

Yes, but power to do what is there to be done. Ominpotence says nothing of what is not there to be done.

I have come to expect theists to morph the definition to suit their needs

In this case, it is you who is morphing the (historical) understanding of the term as applied to God into something else in order to suit your needs.

*sigh*.. because it's not there to be done – you can't do what is not there to be done. Omnipotence speaks of power to do all that it is possible to do, not about creating impossible states of affair.

*sigh*… why can it not be done? Why is it not there to be done? What about it makes it impossible to do? What about it makes it "not there to be done"?

Hmm.. interesting definition. To me it implies that I am omnipotent in the sense that I can do all that it is possible for me to do, and not do all that it is impossible for me to do.

A square circle would be a shape that is both a circle and a square, which is of course nonsensically impossible. It cannot be both a square and a circle – it's not do-able. It's intrinsically impossible. Either it is round, or is has 4 corners. Thus, a square circle is not there to be made. The analogy thus stands as does Lewis' comment that putting 'God can' in front of a nonsensical collection of words doesn't make them any less nonsensical.

Quantum physics would seem to disagree with you. Something can be in every possible state simultaneously until it is seen. But besides that, yes, you have found that a square circle cannot be created except by setting up a suitable definition which allows for it to exist. However, for this one case you have given reason, but for the lack of omnipotence of an omnipotent God, you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws, to suit his own ends. You provide no reason for why it cannot be done.

In this case, it is you who is morphing the (historical) understanding of the term as applied to God into something else in order to suit your needs.

What needs would those be? I have not changed my definition of "omnipotent"; I use the same definition that I have always used, that of ultimate power. I see no reason why ultimate power should be limited.

Hmm.. interesting definition. To me it implies that I am omnipotent in the sense that I can do all that it is possible for me to do, and not do all that it is impossible for me to do.

I think you're confusing the reasons why something is impossible.
It is impossible for me to lift a five ton rock, not because a five ton rock cannot be lifted, but because I don't have the strength. That is a very different kind of impossibility to having a shape that is both spherical and cornered at the same time. So omnipotence is not just what is possible for said agent, but what is intrinsically possible – what is there to be done. It's not about being impossible for you, but simply being intrinsically impossible (like a cornered sphere), no matter who you are or how much power you might have.
Lifting said rock is impossible for me because of my lack of ability, but drawing a square circle is impossible regardless of my drawing ability.

you have found that a square circle cannot be created except by setting up a suitable definition which allows for it to exist.

We might very well come up with a new shape and label it a square circle, but that simply avoids the point of the analogy, that a shape cannot be what we currently label a circle and what we currently label a square at the same time. A shape cannot be spherical and have corners at the same time.

However, for this one case you have given reason, but for the lack of omnipotence of an omnipotent God

I'm not arguing that an omnipotent God is not omnipotent (question begging?) I'm arguing that your understanding of the concept of omnipotent is faulty. If I've given reason why a square circle cannot possible exist, then that is a reason why omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the intrinsically impossible (such as create a square circle).

you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws, to suit his own ends. You provide no reason for why it cannot be done.

Because it's intrinsically impossible. It's not really even about 'laws' – again, the reason is quite simply that it cannot be done if it's not there to be done! If we ask 'why isn't it there to be done?' we might as well be asking why isn't there unicorn meat for me to have on my sandwich. When you ask "What about it makes it "not there to be done"?" the answer is in your question – not being there to be done; you can't reduce it any further. Why is a unicorn not there to be killed?

I have not changed my definition of "omnipotent"; I use the same definition that I have always used, that of ultimate power. I see no reason why ultimate power should be limited.

Ok, fine.. you haven't changed your definition – let me rephrase it: you're definition is not the one normally & historically used when speaking of God's omnipotence, which is bordering of equivocation.
And as I pointed out, recognising that one can't do what isn't there to be done is not putting a limit on power any more than not being able to go where there isn't somewhere, is putting a limit on mobility.
Unlimited power says nothing about being able to do that which is not there to be done.

I'm not arguing that an omnipotent God is not omnipotent (question begging?) I'm arguing that your understanding of the concept of omnipotent is faulty. If I've given reason why a square circle cannot possible exist, then that is a reason why omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the intrinsically impossible (such as create a square circle).

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote, perhaps it would have been more clearly written as: "However, for this one case you have given reason, but you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws, to suit his own ends."

Because it's intrinsically impossible.

Why?

When you ask "What about it makes it "not there to be done"?" the answer is in your question – not being there to be done; you can't reduce it any further.

The answer is most definitely not in my question. You claim that it cannot be done, now provide the evidence and reasoning.

Why is a unicorn not there to be killed?

Because evolution did not produce unicorns. Simple.

but you have yet to explain why God cannot change laws of logic, or just break all logical laws

logical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive, for starters. How does one break the law that says an empty glass has no liquid? It really is still, as Lewis writes, nonsense – it doesn't make sense. And if we say that perhaps God changes the nature of reality so that empty and 200mls go together, that's hardly any different from changing the definition of empty! No.. the intrinsically impossible is not there to be done any more than the ability to travel to somewhere that doesn't exist is possible.

Because it's intrinsically impossible.

Why?

Because that's the way it is. Look, if you have a glass that is empty, it has, by definition, no liquid. If it has 200mls of water, it is intrinsically impossible, by definition, to be empty. Therefore, the reason it is empty is because it doesn't have liquid in it – which is essentially a tautology – it's empty because it's empty. Now we're talking definitions – there are myriad causal reasons why this particular glass may be empty (e.g. I drank the water), but that's not what we're talking about – when we ask 'why is it empty' we are asking what is the nature of the glass that causes us to remark that it's empty (or 'why do we say the glass is empty = because it is empty).
To keep asking why something intrinsically impossible is intrinsically impossible just gets us into a tautological circle.

The answer is most definitely not in my question. You claim that it cannot be done, now provide the evidence and reasoning.

Oh, the answer is there, because the question is a tautology: It's not there to be done because it's not there to be done!
If you think it's possible to do something that's not there to be done, please show us – the burden is not on me, but on you. I've shown the reasoning. If you think the intrinsically impossible is possible, then the onus is on you to show that. As soon as you can show me how a glass can have 200mls of water in it and still be empty, then we can continue.

Further, if something is not there to be done, the power to do that is not there either – the power to do the intrinsically impossible is non-existent and thus cannot be a part of the 'all' in all-powerful.

Because evolution did not produce unicorns. Simple.

And why didn't evolution not produce unicorns? Because those mutations didn't happen. Why didn't they happen?… do you see where that is going – eventually we get to a point where we must simply say 'because it didn't. Even so, as I pointed out – our question is no about causality but ontology / nature: why do I remark that there is no unicorn for me to eat? Because there isn't one.

Essentially you're arguing for an absolutist view, while I'm arguing for the Scholastic View which says that:

God is able to do whatever is not "intrinsically impossible." "Intrinsically impossible" things are of two kinds: 1) things which would not be in accord with God's nature (e.g., sinning or lying); and 2) things which would be logically impossible, connoting mutually repellent elements simultaneously (e.g., a square circle).

and until you come to grips with intrinsic impossibility or show why it's not a problem, we're both going to be just repeating ourselves I think.

Yeah, we get it. Your god is omnipotent but only within the confines of logic. Nathan and I are asking why an omnipotent being should be confined by anything at all (given that something is either all powerful or it is not). A limitation (such as not being able to alter or ignore the laws of logic) negates omnipotence. You are trying to apply a scope in order to cling onto your definition of god. It is failing badly.

No, you don't get it – I've already explained that if a power is non-existent (such as the power to do the intrinsically impossible) then it cannot be a part of the 'all'. All power refers to power that is, not power that isn't (If a power station produces 1mil MW of power, then all power in that instance is 1mil MW, not the 2mil that is not there to be had because it didn't produce it. That is not a confinement or limitation. The only failure here is your failure to realise that a nonsense sentence remains so even if 'God can..' is added to the front of it.
And further, as I said, even if we suggest that God changes the 'laws' (which are descriptive as I noted, not proscriptive) and basically, the nature of reality, so that a glass with 200mls can also be empty (something that it essentially incomprehensible to our minds which are subject to these laws.. part of the problem in thinking about it), it is virtually the same as changing the definition of empty, which gets us nowhere. Nonsense remains nonsense. Indeed, if God can alter the laws of logic, then the dilemmas such as the too-heavy-rock become meaningless, because the dilemma is based on our logical laws. Even if we were to grant that God can change the laws of logic, that doesn't mean he would, especially if it is in his nature to be logical. (logic is, after all, about reason, not power)

Not being able to do what isn't there to be done is not a negation of omnipotence as omnipotence is about having all the power to do whatever is there to actually be done.

To suggest that saying 'you can go anywhere, except places that don't exist' is an application of 'scope' which means you don't have absolute freedom of travel is a nonsense idea, as much as it is nonsense to say that non being able to create a full-empty glass (which is not there to be made) is a limitation of power.

Despite what you think, there is no failure, nor is there any 'clinging on' to a failing definition. It is the Absolutist definition you are forcing that fails to understand the Scholastic view. Asking meaningless questions does not equate to rebutting the classic understanding of omnipotence.

It seems to me that this is just another case of trying to force a different understanding onto something which has historically understood to be defined differently (not unlike the oft spouted definitions of 'faith'). If we are talking about the Christian God, then it is the historical, classical understanding of what omnipotence means in this context that should not just be forced out by whatever understanding or meaning of a word we might bring to the table. (You don't like it when people assert a meaning of, say, 'atheist' that isn't what you mean by it, do you?)
To assert that your Absolutist definition is the only one, ignoring the view of classical theology is akin to equivocation.

Where did the "laws of logic" come from…

His nature.

And anyway.. why do you even care what omnipotent means in the context of a God you lack belief in?

No, you don't get it – I've already explained that if a power is non-existent (such as the power to do the intrinsically impossible) then it cannot be a part of the 'all'.

What prevents an omnipotent being from changing what is intrinsically impossible to be possible? Why can omnipotence not include this power?

Even if we were to grant that God can change the laws of logic, that doesn't mean he would, especially if it is in his nature to be logical. (logic is, after all, about reason, not power)

Would it not be logical for an omniscient and omnipotent being to change the laws of logic to suit his own needs? Why could he not have both the power to do this, and the will to?

His nature.

So he defines the laws of logic and yet is limited by them?

And anyway.. why do you even care what omnipotent means in the context of a God you lack belief in?

Well, I speak only for myself, but I'm trying to find out how ridiculous your claim is.

Why can omnipotence not include this power?

Because that power doesn't, indeed, cannot, exist – it's not there to be included in the first place.
And in any case, I've shown that even if it could, it would nonsensical.

Would it not be logical for an omniscient and omnipotent being to change the laws of logic to suit his own needs?

But then of course, an empty glass full of water would be the logical point (and we might then be asking how an empty-full glass can be full without being empty!) which is virtually the same as changing the definition of empty. It's meaningless to wonder about how things might be if logic were different, because we're restricted to thinking with the logic we do have.

In any case, what reason is there to think that the way it is currently is not suitable for his 'needs'?

Why could he not have both the power to do this, and the will to?

Why could I not be a unicorn? Because I'm not!
Even if we grant the power, it's meaningless to ask 'what if God's nature were different' when we're restricted to thinking via the processes that currently are, and which I'm suggesting are grounded in his nature as it is.

So he defines the laws of logic and yet is limited by them?

Well I think it's misleading to use the term 'limited' – it implies that there's something there to be done that he can't do due to lack of power, but that is not the case here, as I've been trying to show. And further, it seems to ignore the grounding in his nature of logic. I mean – God cannot lie, either.. just to throw in another aspect of the Scholastic view.

I'm trying to find out how ridiculous your claim is.

It may be difficult to grasp, but it's logically consistent and doesn't resort to expecting the word 'God can' to change the nonsense of any given collection of words. To my mind, suggesting that not being able to do what isn't there to be done is somehow imposing a limit is the ridiculous claim.

Because that power doesn't, indeed, cannot, exist – it's not there to be included in the first place.

Why is it not there? Because you say it is? You claim that the power is not there, but you are yet to demonstrate that it is not, and you have neglected to reason why it supposedly cannot exist.

Why could I not be a unicorn? Because I'm not!
Even if we grant the power, it's meaningless to ask 'what if God's nature were different' when we're restricted to thinking via the processes that currently are, and which I'm suggesting are grounded in his nature as it is.

You could be a unicorn; I have no way of telling. Hell, you could even be invisible and pink.

Do you make the claim of knowing God's nature? I can't find evidence for the existence of God, but you can know his nature?

Well I think it's misleading to use the term 'limited' – it implies that there's something there to be done that he can't do due to lack of power, but that is not the case here, as I've been trying to show. And further, it seems to ignore the grounding in his nature of logic. I mean – God cannot lie, either.. just to throw in another aspect of the Scholastic view.

Yet again, you have not demonstrated why it is not there, merely stated that it isn't. Of course it is limited; you claim that he lacks the power to do something which can be conceived of (even if our minds cannot grasp the result of the change). Your omnipotent God, by your own definition, is limiting his own power.

Why is it not there?

I've already pointed out how this is a tautoligous question.

you are yet to demonstrate that it is not

That sounds very much like those who would ask you to show that God isn't there!! No, if you think it's possible to do the intrinsically impossible, please demonstrate as much

you have neglected to reason why it supposedly cannot exist.

No I haven't – I've shown many times that it cannot exist because it is intrinsically impossible. Or, that if it could, it would be meaningless to speculate about it anyway.

I can't find evidence for the existence of God, but you can know his nature?

I realise that you don't find the evidence and reasons for God to be persuasive.. that's pretty much irrelevant at this point.
I don't expect you to suddenly accept the concept of revelation either. Never-the-less, if you're going to engage in philosophising about God, you have to allow certain assumptions for the sake of the discussion.

Of course it is limited; you claim that he lacks the power to do something which can be conceived of (even if our minds cannot grasp the result of the change). Your omnipotent God, by your own definition, is limiting his own power.

No, I'm arguing that it can't be conceived (or grasped as you also put it, contradicting yourself) – though it has obviously been suggested – a square circle, and a full empty glass are inconceivable (nonsense) and thus the power is simply not there to be had. As I said earlier – it is no limit to mobility to say that you can't go to a non-existent place.

You cannot lack something that is not there to be had!
God is omnipotent in that he has power to do 'all' that he pleases (which innately means anything that can be done – again, it says nothing about a non-existent ability to do that which is not there to be done).

Really.. unless you're actually going to offer anything new, you can ask tautologous questions till the cows come home, you'll only end up going round in circles.. and I'm getting motion sickness! Thank-you for an interesting, and indeed, challenging discussion (and polite!) but I think you'll probably agree that we're at an impasse, right?

That sounds very much like those who would ask you to show that God isn't there!! No, if you think it's possible to do the intrinsically impossible, please demonstrate as much

I'm not saying that it is possible to do the intrinsically impossible, however, what I am asking of you is to explain why it is intrinsically impossible as you so claim. You claim that God cannot change the laws of logic, you claim that it is intrinsically impossible, and yet you do not show that it is intrinsically impossible; you provide neither evidence nor reasoning, you just claim that it is so because it is so.

No I haven't – I've shown many times that it cannot exist because it is intrinsically impossible. Or, that if it could, it would be meaningless to speculate about it anyway.

I am yet to find these "many times" in any of these comments, either I am missing them, or you are not providing them as you may think.

Does it being meaningless really negate the reality that it could be done? Superconducting lightbulbs would be meaningless, but they could still be made (although they wouldn't emit light).

I realise that you don't find the evidence and reasons for God to be persuasive.. that's pretty much irrelevant at this point.
I don't expect you to suddenly accept the concept of revelation either. Never-the-less, if you're going to engage in philosophising about God, you have to allow certain assumptions for the sake of the discussion.

I was merely asking how you could possibly know God's nature; that doesn't really hinge on my beliefs. I was pointing out that I find no evidence even for the existence of a God, whilst you (unless you believe by blind faith alone) must have evidence of God's existence, of your God's existence, and of the nature of God before you can actually make any such claims of knowledge of the nature of God.

No, I'm arguing that it can't be conceived (or grasped as you also put it, contradicting yourself)

I don't think that I am contradicting myself at all there. I can conceive of walking out into the street and punching the first person that I meet, what I do not however know, is what would happen after that. I can conceive of the action, but not of the consequences.

Really.. unless you're actually going to offer anything new, you can ask tautologous questions till the cows come home, you'll only end up going round in circles.. and I'm getting motion sickness! Thank-you for an interesting, and indeed, challenging discussion (and polite!) but I think you'll probably agree that we're at an impasse, right?

I do not believe my questions to have been tautologous, but rather that your answers have just been unsubstantiated claims.

We are not necessarily at an impasse, but until you can answer the questions that I asked without resorting to "because it is"-type responses, we can go no further.

what I am asking of you is to explain why it is intrinsically impossible as you so claim. You claim that God cannot change the laws of logic, you claim that it is intrinsically impossible, and yet you do not show that it is intrinsically impossible; you provide neither evidence nor reasoning, you just claim that it is so because it is so.

It's what the word intrinsic means: "belonging to a thing by its very nature" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic?...

What you keep asking me is why something is it's very nature – and there is no other answer than 'it just is' – it's tautologous. And I have shown that a square circle and a full-empty glass are intrinsically impossible. Empty is intrinsically lacking liquid, and thus it cannot both have and not have liquid at the same time – it is intrinsically impossible. So it remains, that if you will not accept that, you must demonstrate why.

Does it being meaningless really negate the reality that it could be done?

a) It can't be done, because it's not there to be done, as I've said. and b) even if it could, the result makes it meaningless for us to think about it – just like the objection to the anthropic argument that it's meaningless to wonder about what if the universe weren't like it is, because we wouldn't be here to ask that question – well, if God altered the nature of logic, we wouldn't be asking about full-empty glasses!

you (unless you believe by blind faith alone) must have evidence of God's existence, of your God's existence, and of the nature of God before you can actually make any such claims of knowledge of the nature of God.

I see what you're saying. And while I do have evidence and reason for my beliefs (even though I assume you would not find it persuasive), in doing such philosophy we don't need to first prove something, we must simply make certain assumptions for the point of the discussion – you see it all hangs on a great big 'IF': "if God….". In discussing the nature of God, you are of course doing so hypothetically, as you don't have a belief in any such God's existence.

I can conceive of walking out into the street and punching the first person that I meet

I can't conceive of a square circle, or a full – empty glass, can you?

(I can conceive of the consequences of punching a stranger though)

I do not believe my questions to have been tautologous

It is though – it's like asking why a rock is a rock – you might get through any number of steps describing chemistry and so on, but at some point you have to just say that it is what it is. Why can't we have a square circle? Because a circle can't have corners. Why not? Because then it wouldn't be a circle? Why not? Because it can't have corners… round and round.

until you can answer the questions that I asked without resorting to "because it is"-type responses, we can go no further.

But your question cannot be answered any other way. How else can you answer the question "why doesn't x exist?" then to say 'because it doesn't'? (remembering that we're talking ontologically, not causally – though one can't really talk about causality of non-existence anyway)

It a shame that all the examples you give are within the confines of logic and you have yet to demonstrate why your god is confined by these rules. It is not a sufficient argument to say these things are intrinsic without justification.

Moreover, many people believe reality was created by god – surely this would include the laws of logic? If reality (and the descriptive laws of logic) exist without a god in some reality, then it really just begs the question. Where did this reality come from? You are essentially admitting that god did not author them, which makes him rather irrelevant.

God cannot lie, either..

Really? So Jesus said he would return within the current generation he was telling the truth?

…it has obviously been suggested – a square circle, and a full empty glass are inconceivable (nonsense)…

Only within the confines of logic, which your god (being all powerful) does not need to abide by.

It a shame that all the examples you give are within the confines of logic and you have yet to demonstrate why your god is confined by these rules. It is not a sufficient argument to say these things are intrinsic without justification.

How exactly can any of us give an example outside the realm of logic in which we think?
I have not argued that God is confined by rules – that completely misunderstands my argument. I have said that logic flows from his nature, and further, that if he were to alter logic, it would be meaningless for us to even speculate on that, because an empty-full glass would be logical in such a situation.
I do think I have demonstrated the intrinsic impossibility of empty-full glasses – if you think that is not intrinsically impossible, please show us how so.

many people believe reality was created by god – surely this would include the laws of logic?

As I said, speculating what reality might be like were it different is a fruitless task.

If reality (and the descriptive laws of logic) exist without a god in some reality, then it really just begs the question. Where did this reality come from? You are essentially admitting that god did not author them, which makes him rather irrelevant.

What? When did I make that 'if' statement?

Again, how is not having a power that is not there to be had mean you lack or are confined in having all the power that is there to be had?
All power does not included nonsense that you make up that doesn't and cannot exist.

And my point remains – if logic were different, and we could conceive of an empty-full glass, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway – it's meaningless.

If by generation he meant 'age' or 'race' as the term (and the aramaic the greek is probably based on – there is some ambiguity in sharbeta and genea ) was often used in that era , then yes.

But I'm guessing you're going to do that normal anti-theist thing (not dissimilar to fundamentalists) and assume that your interpretation cannot be wrong… right?

It's what the word intrinsic means: "belonging to a thing by its very nature"

Allow me to ask a shortened question: why is it intrinsic?

why is it intrinsic?

It is intrinsic because the impossibility belongs to the nature of the thing.

A square circle is intrinsically impossible, not because someone lacks the power to do (as if that power is there to be had) but because within the idea of a square circle it cannot be done – it would either cease to be a square or a circle, thus, it is intrinsic to the shape that it is impossible.

So allow me to give the shortened answer: because it is.

It's like asking why I say I am inside: because I'm not outside, therefore I'm inside. I'm inside because that's where I am, and we call that inside. The only way I can be outside and inside at the same time is to change the definition, which doesn't actually change the ontological reality.

No. You cannot simply say that it is it's nature without saying why it is it's nature. You are making a claim with no evidence or reasoning.

Why is it's it's nature? (and don't just say "because it is".)

I could say that you losing this argument is intrinsic to the argument. Without reasoning, it is meaningless. But if you questioned it, I could just retort: "because it is". I doubt that you would accept that as an answer, so why should I?

No. You cannot simply say that it is it's nature without saying why it is it's nature. You are making a claim with no evidence or reasoning.

Either you don't understand the term 'intrinsic' or you're confusing ontology and causality.
At some point you have to just accept that something's ontological nature simply is what it is. Asking what the cause of that ontological nature is, is essentially meaningless. I mean, why is there something rather than nothing in the universe? That's the kind of question you're asking (which I suspect you would normally say is a meaningless question).
Far from having no evidence or reasoning – it is self-evident that a square circle is intrinsically impossible. Suggesting it could be any different is incomprehensible nonsense.

I could say that you losing this argument is intrinsic to the argument. Without reasoning, it is meaningless. But if you questioned it, I could just retort: "because it is". I doubt that you would accept that as an answer, so why should I?

Well you just show here that you don't understand the term intrinsic.
For me losing an argument (even if I were losing this one, which I'm not.. your meaningless question doesn't get any better by simply repeating it!) is not intrinsic to the argument – I could just as possibly win this argument as lose it and the argument would still be possible. You cannot, however, possibly have a circle with corners, not in any situation – thus, it is intrinsicaly impossible to have a square circle, not because I can't do it (like that I can't lift a semi-trailer), but because by very nature that thing cannot be done; it's not there to do. You've yet to show me this is not the case, and until you do, your question remains, as ever, tautologous and thus meaningless.

Hmm… it would seem that I have not been entirely clear about the subject of my question.

Why is it intrinsically impossible for God to change the laws of logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrin...

"An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. For example, mass is a physical intrinsic property of any physical object.
…
A sentence or statement or proposition that ascribes intrinsic properties to something is entirely about that thing.
…
A thing has its intrinsic properties in virtue of the way that thing itself, and nothing else, is.
…
The intrinsic properties of something depend only on that thing
…
If something has an intrinsic property, then so does any perfect duplicate of that thing;"

That's the long philosophical way of saying "because it is" ;)

I still do not accept that as any kind of answer. Why is it intrinsic? By what reasoning are you attaining the conclusion that the impossibility is intrinsic? You are yet to show that it is intrinsic.

Why is it intrinsically impossible for God to change the laws of logic?

I'm not sure I said it was. I was talking about the intrinsic impossibility of certain things (e.g. square circles) which means they're not there to be done, and one cannot lack power to do that which doesn't exist and cannot exist.

However, I did say that even if we concede that God might change logic, it's meaningless because we can't conceive outside the logic we do operate in. As I said before, if God changes logic, then we wouldn't be here asking about these issues because they wouldn't be issues anymore! It's virtually no different from changing the definition of circle so that a square circle is no longer what we originally meant by the term.

I used to find this narrowing comment system annoying.. but perhaps it's a useful sign that we've been rabitting on for too long! :D

Well you know what they say about stupid questions ;p

If you're unwilling to accept a philosophical concept like intrinsic properties, there's not much I can do about that.

I have shown numerous times why a square-circle or a full-empty glass is intrinsically – by nature and definition – impossible. If you dispute that, then please demonstrate how they do have some intrinsic possibility.

Perhaps. It would seem that we have been talking about two differing things though, you about intrinsic impossibility as something which cannot be done, and me trying to get you to explain why, as I believe you claimed, it was intrinsically impossible for the laws of logic to be changed by God.

You claimed it to be intrinsically impossible 2 days ago:

Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal?

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place.

I'll respond as a new comment…

I am not claiming that nothing can have intrinsic properties, in fact I very much agree that square circles cannot exist in our current understanding.

The post I just made on another of these ridiculously narrow comments should clear this up a little.

@nathan_parsons:

You claimed it to be intrinsically impossible 2 days ago:

Is it illogical to be able to change the laws of logic with ultimate power at your disposal?

Yes, it's illogical because no matter how much power one has, they can't do what's not there to be done in the first place.

Well… yes and no. I did say that the logic was grounded in God's nature, so in that sense, as with lying for example, it's impossible (that would be the second part of a definition I gave much earlier of the Scholastic view). But I have been quite clear that even if we ignore that and suppose this power, it is entirely meaningless anyway and is virtually just shifting definitions. If you agree that square circles are intrinsically impossible, as we currently understand it, then you must agree that it is simply a change in definitions to understand it in any other way, must you not?

But then, what makes you think that logic could be any different to the way it is? How many other versions of logic have you compared it to?

I can see we are all going round in circles with this concept of intrinsic, so let me ask another question

How do you know which powers are available and which are not?

You seem to be saying (and I do not want to put words in your mouth) that logic is a intrinsic property of "god" – how do you know this? Simply asserting this as fact is not a proof, you need to supply more.

Of course he could have meant that, but it makes sentences like Mark 9:1 difficult to interpret:

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Some standing here WILL NOT TASTE DEATH? Are there some of these people still roaming the Earth waiting for the second coming? It would make a great movie, but I do not think it's true.

Another question – does god have the power to change his nature? How do you determine the answer to this question?

well if he's all powerful he does, and since we're supposed to be made in his image, it would seem inconsistent to think that we would have free will and he would not. if he doesn't have the power to change then he is nothing more than a tool.

Hey askegg, I love that monkey…it humours me every time i see it! great picture! A couple of answers straight from your favorite book hehe…Titius 1:2 – in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie…Hebrews 6:13 – For when God made promise to Abraham because he could swear by no greater, He swore by Himself.

Gods nature is absolute perfection and to the finite human mind it is unfathomable in it's fullest sense till we get to the other side. Being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent to change nature if he could would be to step down from those characteristics…then he would not be God. With love xx

Or did Jesus usher in the Kingdom already? ;)

Who says the Kingdom is ushered in at the second coming? Rather, it seems to me that it was inaugurated at his death – inaugurated but not consummated. Indeed he uses a lot of marriage symbolism in regards to it, and in the C1st Jewish understanding there is such a gap between inauguration and consummation.

How do you know which powers are available and which are not?

Well, if something is not there to be done, then how can the power to do it exist?

You seem to be saying (and I do not want to put words in your mouth) that logic is a intrinsic property of "god" – how do you know this? Simply asserting this as fact is not a proof, you need to supply more.

I'm not so much asserting fact, as holding certain assumptions, and as we're doing philosophy, such assumptions – which allow the discussion to actually take place – don't need to be proved: they are the 'if' parts of the equation. Indeed, the very issue – God's omnipotence – is also such an assumption. Where does it come from? From revelation. If we're going to talk about the Christian God then we need accept (for the sake of the discussion) all that goes with that, including the idea of a self-revelatory God.

If you're going to object that I can't use the concept of intrinsic logic of God, then why bother worrying about the concept of God's omnipotence? If you're going to reject the idea of revelation, at least be consistent about it. Otherwise it's just like your reneging on an assumption you previously allowed.

Again, that's just restating the too-heavy-rock nonsense question a different way: If God is eternal, can he cease to exist? It's a self-contradictory statement, and as Lewis notes, putting 'God can..' in front of it doesn't change that. If God could change his nature from being eternal, then it was never eternal in the first place – just like if you add corners to a circle it cannot be a circle.

Omnipotence means the power to do all that he pleases – that is an absolutely free will (and as a side note, while I hold to the concept of human free agency and responsibility, I don't hold to human free will in the theological sense it is most often meant). One cannot have power to do something that doesn't exist, and not having a non-existent power is no lack of all the power that does exist. If God's intrinsic nature is of 'unchanging' then it cannot logically be unchanging and changeable at the same time. Not having a non-existent power – to do what is logically inconsistent with his nature – doesn't make him a tool.

Why does God changing his own nature necessitate the change of that specific part of it?

Well, if something is not there to be done, then how can the power to do it exist?

And who are you to say which properties and powers can or cannot exist?

If you're going to object that I can't use the concept of intrinsic logic of God, then why bother worrying about the concept of God's omnipotence?

I am going to object because you have assumed an entity you have labelled "god" then proceeded to attribute all manner of properties to it without any evidence whatsoever.

Wow – so no matter what happens it was true. Ever hear of falsifiability?

Gods nature is absolute perfection and to the finite human mind it is unfathomable….

Yet you are claiming to know god's attributes, properties, mind, and desires.

It doesn't, but what as he throws another curve ball to avoid the issue.

Yes all this is fine, however it is really a fancy way to shift the goal posts whenever you please. No matter what the reality of the matter (and you have yet to demonstrate how you actually know any of this) you can simply claim "that is the nature of things". How could you ever be wrong with such a view?

Can you define what you mean by "absolute perfection"?

How can he be said to be able to change his nature, if there's an aspect of it he cannot change?

So now all of a sudden, not being able to do part doesn't matter, but before it did?

And who are you to say which properties and powers can or cannot exist?

Logic says that a square circle cannot exist, and that if it cannot exist, the power to do it cannot exist.
So again I ask you (as you've avoided answering it): if something is not there to be done, then how can the power to do it exist? And if that power doesn't and cannot exist, how can it be had or lacking?

I am going to object because you have assumed an entity you have labelled "god" then proceeded to attribute all manner of properties to it without any evidence whatsoever.

You're simply reneging because it's not going how you like! If you suppose an entity for the sake of the discussion, you must allow the assumptions that come with it, otherwise it's pointless. You don't have to prove 'if' statements in philosophy before you think about them, otherwise they wouldn't exactly be 'if' statements!
As I said before – if you're going to discuss God, and in particular the idea of his omnipotence, you have to take the whole package – you can't cherry pick. Now – you've yet to tell me how many other versions of logic you've seen, to know that logic can be any different to the way it is..

What?

If Jesus hadn't ushered in the Kingdom then, no, it would have been false. The point is that you tried to say that Jesus had lied – and I pointed out that your understanding of the Kingdom was wrong.

In other words, you're saying that my argument is logically sound, and to avoid that, you're going to renege on the assumptions you previously allowed?
Ignoring your irrelevant point about demonstration, I cannot simply claim 'that is the nature of things' because we are talking about God and how he has revealed himself. That is to say, the discussion began on the premise that God however hypothetical it might be for each of us – has revealed to us certain attributes, namely omnipotence, and from there looking at how that might work. So any other suggestion of attributes must come from the same place. I don't think you could argue that anything I've suggested in terms of such is foreign to classical theology, could you?

Hey askegg, it's in God's best seller, God's love letter, God's rescue plan to humanity…cheers mate xx

Need he be able to change all of his nature to be able to change a part? If so, prove it.

This seems like a role reversal here.

I'm not sure I understand what you're after here…
The issue is whether God can change his nature, and I've posited an aspect of that which he cannot logically change. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean he cannot then change other aspects, but we only need one example to satisfy the question from above: "does god have the power to change his nature? " – Not necessarily.
Besides, the point is that if God is unchangeable, then the power to change is as non-existent as the power to create a too-heavy rock.. (and you know the rest…)

"This seems like a role reversal here. "

Well, I am using one of @askegg 's lines of argument against you in asking you how many other versions of logic you've seen, which I note neither of you have ventured to answer.. ;)

Well, I was after an answer to my question, which you actually provided in a round-about kind of way.

Humanity has many such books. Did you have on in particular in mind?

Of course all this assumes god is logical, which you have still yet to show. Again, simply asserting is as fact does not make it so.

I do not sit by the keyboard waiting for your response. I have a life.

Here is a summary: You state that god can claim all the powers available, yet have been unable to demonstrate what they might be (although you have been philosophising over the question).

A central question Nathan and I seem to have is "could god create new powers, or create powers which are illogical?" to which you have answered "no" but not provided any real justification for.

How many systems of logic have I seen? One, but this is not really the right question. The question is, could a god create another system of logic that works just as well, yet is illogical to this system. This is not really a question anyone can answer, yet you have claimed to know. I want to know how.

In other words, you're saying that my argument is logically sound …

No – there is a massive problem right at the heart of your argument. You are claiming your god can only have the powers that are available. He cannot create new ones, or illogical ones (because logic is said to be "in his character"). Please show god is logical, or IS logic.

I cannot simply claim 'that is the nature of things' because we are talking about God and how he has revealed himself.

Then on what basis do you make any of these claims? In any case, no matter what the ultimate answers, you can STILL claim they are god's innate nature. You can never BE wrong.

…has revealed to us certain attributes, namely omnipotence, and from there looking at how that might work.

We are told god has many attributes, omnipotence being one of them. We are also told god is logic (or logical). But combining all of these things simply does not work. You cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or omniscient and free. Theologians have had 2,000 years to reconcile these issues and so far – zilch.

Rather, it all assumes that God is omnipotent – and assumption you allowed for the sake of the discussion. It is a bit rich to then disallow other assumptions that go along with it. As I said, if you're not going to allow the assumptions about the God you are asking about, what's the point in even asking about it?

I do not sit by the keyboard waiting for your response. I have a life.

Oh, but you had replied several times – you just failed to answer that question until now ;)

You state that god can claim all the powers available, yet have been unable to demonstrate what they might be (although you have been philosophising over the question).

I don't have to demonstrate what each of those powers might be – I simply need to show logically what kind they may be, and what I've shown is that this is the power to do things that can logically be done. You have yet to show that the power to do that which is not there to be done can exist.

A central question Nathan and I seem to have is "could god create new powers, or create powers which are illogical?" to which you have answered "no" but not provided any real justification for.

I don't think you have asked if God could create 'new' powers – but in any case, if all possible powers are already there, how can one logically create more? In regards to the question of doing the illogical – the answer 'no' is because of God's nature (which you proceeded to then fallaciously renege on allowing assumptions about) and I would say because of the nature of the logical reality we're in.

How many systems of logic have I seen? One, but this is not really the right question.

It is a valid question – and it is your own reasoning: that in order to suppose and propose another reality, one must be able to demonstrate or observe it. Your question supposes that logic could possibly be different, and I'm asking you to show how you know that.

The question is, could a god create another system of logic that works just as well, yet is illogical to this system. This is not really a question anyone can answer, yet you have claimed to know. I want to know how.

No, I didn't claim to know, I too pointed out that it's a meaningless question because, as you put it, we cannot know. We are forced to think within this system of logic, a system which would tell us that any other way is illogical – you're asking if something can be illogical in one reality and logical in another, which is just a nonsense question. I answered several times that even if God could change logical reality, it's meaningless to think about it, and it would be essentially non different from simply changing the definitions. A square-circle in a different logical reality would still be illogical in ours, and would thus, by definition, be something different – a change in definition of what a square and what a circle is. And, as I said, if logic were different we wouldn't be having this discussion, so how is that different from say asking 'what if the universe were different (which you point out is a meaningless question, and that we haven't seen that it can be different)

So positing an ability to change the reality of logic is meaningless, and so it remains that the logically impossible is not there to be done, nor then is the power to do it existent. Thus, a non-existent power cannot be said to be lacking from or be a limit to 'all'. To suggest that not being able to make a square-circle means God is not omnipotent is thus logically faulty.

No – there is a massive problem right at the heart of your argument. You are claiming your god can only have the powers that are available. He cannot create new ones, or illogical ones (because logic is said to be "in his character").

One can only ever have what is there or what is possible to be there. If all possibilities of something are already all there, then it's logically impossible to create more or a new one.

Please show god is logical, or IS logic.

I've already called your reneging like this.

Then on what basis do you make any of these claims?

As I just said – on his self-revelation!

<blockqote>In any case, no matter what the ultimate answers, you can STILL claim they are god's innate nature. You can never BE wrong.

How is it that I can answer your objection, and you completely ignore that and make the very same objection in the next sentence?
I already explained that I cannot just claim whatever I like as God's nature…

We are told god has many attributes, omnipotence being one of them. We are also told god is logic (or logical). But combining all of these things simply does not work. You cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or omniscient and free. Theologians have had 2,000 years to reconcile these issues and so far – zilch.

Clearly you just haven't read very widely! ;)

How is there any contradiction in being free to do whatever you will, love whoever you will and know all knowledge? You've yet to show that there is any contradiction in doing all this logically.
But at the very least – you've acknowledged some of the assumptions that come with the territory, and even if you think they are in conflict, you must, for the sake of the argument, allow them, and have no grounds to demand they be first demonstrated.

Hey, sorry for snail pace reply…the Oxford dictionary defines the word "absolute" – complete, utter, perfect, unrestricted, independent, despotic…and "perfection" – making or being perfect, faultlessness, perfect person or thing or manifestation. "Absolute perfection" belongs in the eternal spiritual context…hence omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On this side of eternity the finite human mind is unable to conceive/grasp it's entirety. At this stage we don't have all the answers but one day when we are with the Lord we will understand in it's fullness. Cheers xx

"At this stage we don't have all the answers but one day when we are with the Lord we will understand in it's fullness"

So you don't have a clue so force our current knowledge into your god framework, then hope it all works out in the future. This is not a good start.

Hello my lovely, I've got to give you, Nathan and Andrew A+ for tenaciousness ha! ;) Saying "so you don't have a clue" is of your assertion/opinion alone :) You are "choosing" to trivialize/minimize what i say. When you claim "so you don't have a clue" you are also incurring to know my mind, heart and the totality of my life experiences. There are very good reasons which motivate me to "choose" to lay hold of faith. You are "choosing" to force our current knowledge into your Godless framework, then hope it all works out in the future. Concluding with a finite mind there is no God is in my opinion not a good end (said with respect/care x).

Think of your "choice" in terms of probabilities – 50% there is a God and 50% there is no God. I would not feel secure gambling with those odds.

Have you considered that the scientific method is still unable to detect spirit yet, and in the future it's a possibility?? Centuries ago we could not see microbes, split the adom and fly air crafts etc hey! My dad loves the advancements in avionics being a pilot.

I have an analogy for you that you are just going to adore hehe ;) Jesus point of reference in life – Being lost in the woods can be a failure of the mind…It starts with denial, we are not lost everything is ok. Then the sobering reality setts in as you walk around tied, hungry, bewildered and at the mercy of the elements. You have come to your senses that indeed you are lost. You need a compass so you can find true north. What can happen in the woods also happens in life. You need a point of reference on how to navigate life. Jesus is that point of reference, a great place to start to find yourself again. Said in love, kind regards xx

It's not a 50/50 chance if there is ZERO evidence for the existence of your deity. So chalk up one failure there.

Sure it's possible that modern science cannot yet detect a "spirit", but is also cannot detect leprechauns and gremlins. Perhaps I should leave the door open for them too? (taking scepticism to the extreme, I should).

Why should Jesus be the reference point? Why not choose Xenu or Thor?

What possible reason does an absolutely perfect being have for creating the universe? Such a being should be free of any flaw or shortcomings. I can think of no reason why it would create anything. Was God bored? Lonely? Did God create the universe out of some obligation?

Just because there are two choices, it does not mean that there is an equal probability between the two choices.

Besides, if you want to start talking about probabilities, you also have to pick the "correct" god. And if you don't pick the "correct" god, your fate is just as bad as picking no god at all.

So by your faulty logic, you say that choice between god and no god is 50%. Well, after you pick the god option, you have, lets say a 5% chance of picking the correct god after that. (I'm being very generous, there's so many religions it would be much lower.

So lets see the math…

No god – 0.5 = 50%

God – 0.5 x 0.05 = 2.5 %

Geez, the god option doesn't look so good now.

"there is ZERO evidence for the existence of your deity"

You're either making the mistake of thinking that finding evidence unpersuasive = no evidence, or that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence… perhaps you're doing both? In any case, the more correct thing is to say that there is zero evidence that you find persuasive.

The evidence is certainly unpersuasive. Horrendously so.

I take it you have another way to know things other than the scientific method? I would be interested to hear what it is, how it works, and how I can verify the finding it generates.

how I can verify the finding it generates.

You mean – how can you verify scientifically those things? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I take it you have another way to know things other than the scientific method?

Don't get me wrong – science is great: it does what it does (explored the natural realm) very well. But that does not mean it can answer any question we might wish to ask.

Philosophy, history, art, literature.. and, I would say, religion, are all valid explorations of knowledge.

Such a being should be free of any flaw or shortcomings

Why should creating a universe indicate a shortcoming? Is self-expression a shortcoming?

Self-expression is not a reason to do something. Self-expression is a way to fulfill a need or desire. Why does God need to express himself? People do so for a variety of reasons.

They do so for attention. Is God insecure?

They do so for self-satisfaction. Why does God need to do anything to feel more satisfied? Was he more satisfied AFTER creating the universe? Does the continued existence of the universe help him maintain a level of satisfaction that would he would otherwise lack?

They do so to connect with other people because they are social beings. They seek others with similar interests and values. Did God have a need to connect with other minds? Was he lonely?

They do so because they have repressed emotions, and expressing themselves is an effective way to vent or work through their problems. Is God repressed? Frustrated? Is the atemporal void keeping him down?

Before I reply in more detail, can I just ask – are you an artist?

Not professionally, but I do play guitar and piano.

Do you play because you need to – will you be lacking if you don't? Or is it because you enjoy doing and it reflects something of your personality?

We need to clear up what we mean by 'need' – is it a lack or is it and urge / desire? I don't see that a desire to express oneself is necessarily an indicator of a need to fill something that is lacking.

Do people have children because they feel lonely (a bad idea!) or because expressing love and care is a part of their nature? Would they not be just as loving and caring even if they didn't have children to lavish it on?

Yeah, I know what science is (and I do not necessarily subscribe to scientism), but what I was asking was "what is your other way to work out what is real and what is not."

History, art, and literature can all be explored scientifically. Religion makes many predictions which turn out to either be false, and unverifiable.

Well I would go as far as to say that i think the scientific process is the only reliable way to know what is true, we all use it everyday whether we think of it or not. When I'm working on someone else's code that I have no idea how it works, I follow the scientific process. Construct a hypothesis from what I observe, set some breakpoints in the code, run the code, did the code do what I thought it did when I started, no? Observe, change hypothesis. Rise and Repeat.

"Don't get me wrong – science is great: it does what it does (explored the natural realm) very well."

You first have to prove that there is something other then the natural realm, and how would you do that?

"Philosophy, history, art, literature.. and, I would say, religion, are all valid explorations of knowledge."

I would say they are great expressions of knowledge, but they don't hold any weight in validating the truth.

Tell me, how do you tell the truth from the bullshit in religion? What is the process you follow?

I will just sit by and watch as science closes every gap that religion has; Earth is flat, Nope sorry science got that one right; Sun moves around the earth, nope sorry science wins again. Your argument that science is not the only way to truth is just a God of the gaps style argument, move God into the corner that science hasn't explained yet and claim "oh science isn't the only way to truth", the science comes into that corner and we find out what is there so you just move again.

I play for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I play for fun. I also play because learning new songs and techniques gives me a sense of accomplishment. I play because it gives me greater appreciation for the artists I listen to. I play to express my emotions in a nonverbal medium. There is no one reason, but my life would be worse off if I did not play.

"Need" can mean a couple of things, and it depends on the context. Above, I meant it as a lack of something. I never said that self expression was solely for the fulfillment of needs, but also desire fulfillment. People can express themselves for reasons other than the ones I gave, but I personally can't think of a reason that would not leave the person better off in some way. Maybe they meet like-minded individuals who share their passions. Maybe expressing themselves in private makes them happier. Maybe they learn something new and fulfill a desire for personal growth and maturity. An absolutely perfect being would already be at the apex of whatever criteria you examined, or at least that's how I see it. There is nothing that could make such a being any happier, more content, more knowledgeable, etc. I might be shortsighted on this, so if you can think of a way I might be wrong, please let me know.

I think people have kids to fulfill their own needs and desires. It's usually a biological imperative telling them to reproduce, but people find all kinds of ways to justify it psychologically. They may think it'll save their relationship. They may do it because their friends are having kids, and they should too just to fit in (I know some people like this). They have them because they want to share their love with another person. There are exceptions to every rule, but I think the rule is that people choose to have children for selfish reasons. Perhaps someone would be just as loving and caring without children, but when asked, I bet many people would say that having children gives their lives purpose and meaning. It teaches them to be selfless and put the needs of their children first. It forces them to mature and take responsibility for their actions and try to change their community for the better. Their lives can be enriched by having children, which means they were not as happy or mature (or whatever) as they were before.

Hey, God is a relational being just like us. God would have managed just find without having created us as he is independent of needs…I think he did it more for our benefit that we would experience everlasting love, joy and life adundant in his presence…ta! xx

Do you have free will in Heaven?

Well I would go as far as to say that i think the scientific process is the only reliable way to know what is true, we all use it everyday whether we think of it or not.

Yes, of course we use it all the time – it is very good at what it does! But it is not the only way. Professor John Lennox (professor of Maths and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford) points this out via his 'Aunt Matilda's Cake' analogy: no matter how much you find out about the chemicals and physics of the cake, you can only find out it's purpose (should it have one) if Aunt Matilda tells you why she made it. I'm sure you can think of other examples in daily life when we must rely on revelation as a means to discerning knowledge. Sometimes you can scientifically verify that, other times you can't.

When I'm working on someone else's code that I have no idea how it works, I follow the scientific process.

Computer coding is essentially mathematics, is it not? It's not surprising that you use science when doing a natural science!

You first have to prove that there is something other then the natural realm, and how would you do that?

No, that's a statement of Scientism – you're begging the question. When you ask for 'proof' you are, it would seem, asking for empirical, scientific proof – but the problem is that science's scope is the natural realm – you can't prove the existence of a realm external to that via a method limited to that any more than you can x-rays with a machine that detects radio-waves. Further – to demand that proof is required is itself an unproven statement, and thus, self-refuting.

I would say they are great expressions of knowledge, but they don't hold any weight in validating the truth.

I would say that philosophy, for example, is not merely an expression of knowledge – but it is a means of discerning and exploring knowledge – yes, it's not science, but that doesn't make it any less valid, even if the results are perhaps less certain.

I will just sit by and watch as science closes every gap that religion has;

That erroneously assumes that science and religion are trying to answer the same questions. (perhaps in certain cases they are – I can only speak from the point of Christianity, recognising that certain groups within that would – erroneously – think that too). Science cannot answer questions such as that of purpose, and it is these questions that I think religion seeks to try and answer (or at least, explore)

Sun moves around the earth, nope sorry science wins again

come on.. you ought to know well enough that geo-centrisms was the prevailing scientific view for centuries – the Galileo affair was primarily a scientific quarrel.

Your argument that science is not the only way to truth is just a God of the gaps style argument, move God into the corner that science hasn't explained yet and claim "oh science isn't the only way to truth", the science comes into that corner and we find out what is there so you just move again.

No, not at all – because, as I said, they don't seek to answer the same questions. It's quite obvious that science has its limits – that is not to say that there are things it doesn't yet know, but rather, that there are certain questions which it is not equipped to answer, questions of meaning and purpose. Indeed, science makes certain assumptions about the universe to even be able to operate – assumptions of intelligibility, order and so on. In fact, as Lennox puts it, religion explains why science can explain. So it's not a matter of saying 'sciences doesn't know yet.. so God did it', not at all. It's a matter of fundamentally different questions.
Rather than go on about it, I'll simply reccomend Lennox's book to you – as a professor of Maths and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford, I'm sure you'll agree that he's well qualified to speak on the subject – not that you must, of course, agree with everything he says, but that he at least is someone who an open minded person would do well to read and consider, don't you think?

As a professional 'artist' I know there's different reason people do creative things, but I'm not sure that self-expression indicates a lack or 'need' in that sense.
You asked, was God lonely – no, he has always had eternal perfect fellowship within the trinity – one of the wonders of Christian doctrine is that he brings us into that fellowship, but not because he 'needed' to, but as expression of his nature and character.
The other thing to remember is that God is outside of time, and that creation (and indeed, New Creation) was always in his plan, so it's not like 'one day' he realised he 'needed' something.

I would say a creative person 'needs' to create, because they are creative.. (as an artist, and someone who works with artists, I don't agree that expression is necessarily about 'repressed' emotions – though as it's usually exploratory, discoveries about oneself can often be made) I don't see how that is an imperfection, or a lack of something, though, certainly not in an ontological sense.

Sorry, I don't buy it. We did not exist prior to billions of years after the big bang. I doubt you think that God had billions and billions of souls and nothing to do with them prior to the universe beginning.

I do not accept that an absolutely perfect being, such as you describe, would create all of these sentient beings, knowing full well that they were imperfect, finite beings, the vast majority of which would reject him, fall short of his plan of salvation, and then suffer for all of eternity.

Maybe you do not believe in hell, but instead think that people who fail to believe in and worship God cease to exist, meaning that their existence on this world was pointless for them. I think of the response I often heard after the tsunami in Indonesia or the earthquake in Haiti, that acts like that happen in order to teach others compassion. Excuse me, but that does nothing for the people who died in utter agony. Billions of people struggled to get by, dealing with evil perpetrated by other people, natural disasters, birth defects, childhood cancer, etc.

People who died days after being crushed by fallen buildings in Haiti in constant agony, screaming for help, wondering if their loved ones survived or met with similar fates, gained nothing by what some theists said was a lesson to be more giving and compassionate in the face of such a disaster. That is a seriously fucked up way to teach something. According to Pat Robertson, Haiti deserved the earthquake because of a deal some Haitians made with the devil to gain their freedom, and this was God's punishment. Again, that's seriously fucked up, and shows a lack of compassion and empathy that any normal person would have.

To then say that he created us so that a select few could experience everlasting love and joy is not only absurd, but insulting to all those who will either suffer eternally or whose suffering in this life was meaningless to them.

The suffering that we face in this life (and into the afterlife, if there is a heaven and hell) needlessly cruel, and I cannot imagine an absolutely perfect being allowing such a horrible system. If he has a good reason for doing so, he has so far done a horrible job communicating his message to his creation. I have yet to see a halfway decent theodicy or defense. He would deserve not my love and worship, but my hatred and scorn.

An absolutely perfect God creating the universe for OUR benefit makes no sense to me. If there is a God, I don't think he is absolutely perfect. The idea of an omnimax deity is little more than a way for believers to "one-up" other deities.

I didn't mean to imply that expression is always about repressed emotions. It was the example that I used, but perhaps I should have been more clear that there are a number of other reasons why people express themselves. In your own example, expression can be used to discover things about yourself. I think that is an excellent example of why people should express themselves. Perhaps the artist may not have been lacking something before the process of self expression leading to a new personal insight, but there was somewhere for that person to go, to improve upon. We are finite, imperfect beings. There's always room for improvement.

What I am curious about is what is the purpose of an absolute perfect being creating the universe. I don't accept the proposition that he created the universe for our benefit the least bit convincing. See my reply to Jaime above.

It is in the nature of a creative person to create, as you said. To me, that implies that the person has at the very least an urge to take action to fulfill their own needs or desires to create that is not theirs by choice. I'm not sure I'd say that it's a compulsion, except in the most extreme circumstances, but perhaps an impulse to create. Not being able to create and express themselves would make a creative person unhappy. The act of creation and expression gives them a sense of purpose that they otherwise would not have. They need to create in order to be fulfilled.

So why do you think that an absolutely perfect being create the universe? If such a being exists, comparing it to ourselves would be pointless. I don't know if we could ever claim to understand anything about such a being.

I agree, that creation was not specifically for our benefit, though we undoubtedly do benefit from it, and from God's redemptive plan – but ultimately, and I think this is the classical reformed perspective, it was for God's own glory. John Piper is perhaps one of the most voracious contemporary advocates of this position (which he provocatively calls Christian Hedonism) see here, and here, where he answers the question which inevitably is raised: How is God's passion for his own glory not selfishness.

Whatever you think about that, I don't see how you can suggest that it is a lack of 'perfection' in his being. The 'impulse', if you will, is an outpouring, and expression of his nature – not a means to filling a hole-need.

"…no matter how much you find out about the chemicals and physics of the cake, you can only find out it's purpose (should it have one) if Aunt Matilda tells you why she made it…"

You are bumping into the problem of induction again. Some things we can determine the purpose for by asking the individual why they made an item. Other times we use the term "purpose" to describe function, which has nothing to do with intention. You are conflating one with the other.

"No, that's a statement of Scientism – you're begging the question. When you ask for 'proof' you are, it would seem, asking for empirical, scientific proof…"

Not quite. Science deals with what is real and measurable, for if you cannot measure something how could you say it's real? Scientism suggests that the natural world is all there is – this is not a view I necessarily hold, but if entities outside of nature have no effect, then why worry about them?

"…as I said, they don't seek to answer the same questions…"

Revisionist garbage. Gods were invented to explain why we are here and how the Earth seems to be "designed for our purpose". There are many passages in the Bible which do not seek to answer the question "why" (such as the Genesis account of how god created). You cannot simply backflip on centuries of theology to land on the "it answers different questions" square.

Hey Andrew, thanks…yes it's for God's glory!! for which we greatly benefit. This scripture comes to mind Luke 19: 37-40. ta mate xx

Typical. Hold up your beliefs in a story with more excepts from the story.

What you have there is (at best) the recordings of someone who witnessed an event. While this could be considered evidence, is it not sufficient for me to believe in virginity born, disease healing, dead raising, miracle men of desert nomads centuries past.

Hello my cheeky monkey ha! have you tried this approach to finding answers…it involves laying down the pride. Have you tried praying/talking to God ?? Have you asked him if he is real to show you ??. If you sincerely seek God you will find Him as he makes a promise of this in His Word. God honours diligent seekers and not so much casual inquiries Hebrews 11:6 & Matthew 7:7 Think of it as an experiment…can I encourage you to keep inquiring of Him until you receive a break through :). If you have not tried this it means you are "choosing" your atheism and it is not really that genuine…you don't want the good news of the Gospel to be true. Said with respect & kindness…xx…

You are bumping into the problem of induction again.

How so?

Some things we can determine the purpose for by asking the individual why they made an item. Other times we use the term "purpose" to describe function, which has nothing to do with intention. You are conflating one with the other.

No, I'm not conflating them at all. Lennox whole point is that while you might be able to determine function(e.g. that it's edible, will taste sweet etc.) via analysis of the physics and chemistry, you cannot determine the purpose – i.e. intention: why she made the cake (e.g. for her nephew). You are right – for that we must rely on revelation: we have to ask her (or more strictly speaking, she must tell us!). Lennox thus demonstrates that there are questions for which science is ill equipped and to which we must turn to other means.

Science deals with what is real and measurable, for if you cannot measure something how could you say it's real?

I'm confused. On the one hand you say that, and then you say:

Scientism suggests that the natural world is all there is – this is not a view I necessarily hold

By saying that only what is measurable is real (or all that we can say is real) you seem very much to be saying that the natural world is all there is. Saying "Science deals with what is real and measurable" seems to me to be very much a statement of Scientism. Yes, science deals with what is measurable (by science), that's simply acknowledging that science does what it is equipped to do. A less loaded / misleading way would be to say that science deals with the physical.

but if entities outside of nature have no effect, then why worry about them?

I wouldn't say they can have no effect – but it's not binary: it's not a case of either no effect or repeatable effects. Science deals with repeatable events, right? So a unique event (and the resurrection, for example is surely one of those) is more in the realms of history than science.

Revisionist garbage.

Is revisionist supposed to be a pejorative term? Are theologians banned from changing their minds?

Gods were invented to explain why we are here and how the Earth seems to be "designed for our purpose".

Well that's exactly the kind of 'purpose' questions that science is unequipped to answer. Science might be able to tell use the process by which we evolved and came to be, but it can say nothing about any possible purpose there may happen to be behind that. Who's doing the conflating now? (You're also begging the question with you 'invented' bit, but I'll let that slide for now). In any case, there is a great difference between say the kind of "Thunder is Thor getting angry" kind of thing and what one reads in the bible. It does not go about, in the manner of, say, Dreamtime myths, saying "this is why this natural phenomena happens etc" The bible, in speaking of the Judeo-Christian God, rather, is about relationship and the meta-narrative and overarching themes are about Kingdom-people and redemption.
I realise that some Christians in the last 50years have not realised this point and go about writing childrens' books which are barely different from Dreamtime kind of thing.. but I think that is erroneous, and missing the point of the texts themselves.

There are many passages in the Bible which do not seek to answer the question "why" (such as the Genesis account of how god created).

I didn't say only 'why' questions – there are numerous kinds of questions that are not 'how' questions.
The Genesis account seems to be an attempt to subvert contemporary creation myths, not an attempt to give a scientific-historical blow-by-blow account (as Ken Ham insists – indeed, one wonders which of the two he thinks is the blow-by-blow one?). In that sense it is very much a 'who' question, not a 'how' question. But if you think poetic prose is supposed to be trying to answer a 'how' question.. be my guest. It's not uncommon for anti-theists to share the same faulty (& dogmatic) hermeneutic with fundamentalists.

You cannot simply backflip on centuries of theology to land on the "it answers different questions" square.

Firstly – it's not a backflip (ever heard of Augustine?) and secondly, who says theology cannot change in understanding anyway?

Typical. Hold up your beliefs in a story with more excepts from the story.

Hey.. I call foul. The discussion is about a theological / doctrinal issue relating to the Christian God – why cannot Jamie reference the text that such theology and doctrine is drawn from? You're switching, as if we were talking historical issues. Not fair at all.

And what if someone who was so desperate for God to reveal himself, that after years of reading scripture and begging God to reveal himself, they became severely depressed and suicidal because they thought that they were despicable and unworthy of God's attention, unlike all of their peers who they knew for a fact were far more sinful than them?

Since I was such a person, and only ended my depression after a very long process of doubt, deconversion, and self-reliance, I find this attitude naive and insulting. I was most certainly diligent, and not a casual seeker. Do you honestly think that I did not really want the Gospel to be true? Of course I did. I never experienced God. As I began to look for reasons to believe outside of personal experience, I found the philosophical arguments and historical evidence sorely lacking.

Surely your absolutely perfect God would have known what would have happened in my life to make me who I am. He would know that there was a long period of time when I was not only open to a personal experience, but desperate for it in a way I think most people never are. He would know that I would get involved in the skeptic community, and learn how unreliable personal experience is, and how MANY faiths rely on a similar personal experience to "know" that their faith is true. Are Christians' personal experiences the real thing, but Mormons and Muslims are either deceived by Satan or just experiencing a psychological phenomenon?

People do not "choose" what to believe in. People are products of their genes and environment. Their beliefs are based on what they are convinced to be true.

I read both links you provided, and I have to say that as an outsider, I still see a flaw.

Consider this quote from the first link, "Instead what Isaiah 43:7 means is that he created us to display his glory, that is, that his glory might be known and praised."

To me, he appears vain. It sounds like he created the universe not to become more perfect, but to show off. Have you ever seen MTV Cribs? I'm not sure if they have MTV Cribs outside of the US. It's a show where celebrities get to show off their homes, and all the fancy stuff they have and how awesome their life is. That's kind of the picture I get of your God after reading the two links.

Other sections of the links you provided also paint him as a very jealous being, such as the discussion on Abraham and the tower of Babel. I think jealousy is a flaw in humans. I certainly think it is a flaw in a being worthy of being called God.

I understand how, as an insider, you don't see these things as flaws and imperfections. To outsiders, I don't think any case to make God appear perfect in this regard to the creation of the universe will hold much water (much like other arguments for and against the existence of a god).

I appreciate the links, though. They were interesting.

"it involves laying down the pride."

I take it by “pride” you actually mean that pesky stuff called “evidence” which seem to elude the faithful?

"Have you tried praying/talking to God ??"

Oh yes, many times. I considered myself a Christian for 30 years. Haven’t you seen my introductory video?

"Have you asked him if he is real to show you ??"

Yep. Nothing happened. Guess he doesn’t exist.

"can I encourage you to keep inquiring of Him until you receive a break through :)"

In other words keep telling myself God is real until I convince myself it’s the truth. Self deception and delusion.

"If you have not tried this it means you are "choosing" your atheism and it is not really that genuine…"

Likewise you do not accept Islam because you have not sufficiently investigated it and your “choice” of Christianity is not really genuine.

"To me, he appears vain."

Have you ever been to a game, or a concert where the crowd cheered for the player or performer and the player took in that praise? Is that vain?

The difference to your MTV show is they show off to put others down. When a player or performer displays their prowess, we enjoy it, and we enjoy praising the for it.

As Piper points out, it is only showing off when we don't deserve it, that we don't like. Deserved praise is not an ego trip. Likewise with jealousy – there is a difference between jealousy of not wanting to anyone else to have somthing (or that some else has what you don't have) and being jealous for someone – that they might have the very best for them.

If God's glory is the most precious, wonderful thing there is, then God's displaying it is for our enjoyment and benefit. But unlike visiting an art gallery or museum and seeing precious artefacts, this is one is interactive.

In any case, I still don't see how expression as an outpouring of character / nature is a lack of perfection.

"If God's glory is the most precious, wonderful thing there is, then God's displaying it is for our enjoyment and benefit."

You mean like the time he destroyed a city with fire and brimstone, or when he sent numerous plagues to Egypt to free his chosen people? Maybe when he drowned an opposing army, sent bear to maul some kids, or turned people into salt?

I find it hard to see any glory in god's actions. I also don't find it entertaining or beneficial.

I see that you wish to change the subject to God's judgement, which is indeed a terrible thing…

Dear @WatcherMastema, firstly can i hold out the hand of friendship even throw we agree to disagree. I am so sorry that you went through that and i do care how you feel. I do want to point out that you say you have had years of scripture reading – then you will know how much you are presious in God sight…think of what Jesus went through for you because you are worth it just as you are. God desires you and me above everything else. God love you with an everlasting and agape love Jeremiah 31:3 & 1 John 4:8. Being familiar with the scriptures, how can you feel despicable and unworthy of God's attention when He loves the unlovable and the unlovely (us!). We are the undeserving recipients upon whom He lavishes that love. God is for you not against you.

Please don't compare your self to others as we are all in the same boat – we have all fallen short.

You say historical evidence is sorely lacking – You are "choosing " to take this view as it is not. Saying sorely lacking is also "choosing" to trivialise/minimise it.

You say people do not "choose" what to believe in (I did). I reject that claim as people do "chose" exercising their God given free will. Saying people are the product of their genes, environment (whilst i agree there is an influence) and beliefs are based on what they are convinced to be true is a way to negate responsibility for "choice". Someone can commit a heinous crime and claim it's because of my genes, environment and belief system i did it…do you find that to be satisfactory?? with love xx

"You say people do not "choose" what to believe in (I did). I reject that claim as people do "chose" exercising their God given free will. "

Can you simply choose to believe in the great Ju Ju at the bottom of the ocean? If not, then in what sense can you simply choose what you do and do not believe in?

I don't think anyone really believes anything in a vacuum – in that sense, no we don't choose what to believe in the same way might chooses which flavour of ice-cream to have. We believe what we think is true, what we think is the reality of the case – but, of course, what we think is the reality may be based on other suppositions, which may in turn be based on other suppositions..
N.T. Wright comments that after showing his tome on the resurrection to his old Oxford tutor, the guy remarked that it was a really good argument but that his 'simply chooses to believe that there must be another explanation, even though he doesn't know what that is".
But he doesn't, of course, "simply" choose – there's presuppositions about naturalism at play – it conflicts with what he understands to be true about the nature of reality.

I do not accept the libertarian/contra-causal free will that is required to support your position. At best, it's an incoherent concept that is supported by intuition pumps and appeals to consequences, such as moral responsibility. The consequences are false, and I can show how determinism is actually necessary for moral responsibility, while libertarian free will destroys it. It is libertarian free will that I find unsatisfactory.

I love discussing free will vs determinism, but it is a very big discussion that I think would be better held elsewhere. I think askegg is planning on making future posts about his worldview, and no doubt this discussion will come up. For now, I will say that I am a compatibilist (or soft determinist), which I will fully admit is determinism with a redefinition of free will. I look forward to our discussion when there is a proper venue for it.

I think askegg brings up a good point.

In reference to your above remark about the crowd cheering a good performance, if some people in the audience aren't impressed, the performers don't have their kneecaps broken. If 2/3's of the audience isn't giving a standing ovation, the performers should reconsider their performance.

God gives us a universe currently 93 billion light years across, hundred of billions of galaxies, trillions upon trillions of stars, and we had better worship him or suffer for all eternity. He is not saying, "Here's this cool thing I did. I hope you like it. Be cool to each other." It's, "Here's this cool thing I did. Now worship me or you will fucking pay!"

It's a package deal, and I don't see your God acting like a humble performer. You can say that he created it for our enjoyment and benefit. But when his wish for us to be subservient and worship him and love him more than anything else, I can't accept that as anything but a huge character flaw. I know people who have gotten over jealousy. I know people who are not the attention whores that your God is. I know people who do not wish others harm when others do not appreciate their works.

If your God gets nothing out of his worship, he should have had a different plan for humanity.

If 2/3's of the audience isn't giving a standing ovation, the performers should reconsider their performance.

Or maybe the audience is ignorant? KISS fans are not going to give Gerald Finley a standing ovation at wigmore hall…

He is not saying, "Here's this cool thing I did. I hope you like it. Be cool to each other." It's, "Here's this cool thing I did. Now worship me or you will fucking pay!"

Hmm.. more like, come into my gig.. if you don't, you're stuck out in the cold with no free beer. But that analogy is insufficient. It's not simply not admiring his handiwork – it's rebelling against him personally and against his authority, cosmic treason. It's like going up to the ruler and despite their amazing works, telling them to sod off, and that your not going to obey their rules.

But when his wish for us to be subservient and worship him and love him more than anything else, I can't accept that as anything but a huge character flaw.

The great paradox is by submitting to his self-sacrificial leadership, we actually gain freedom and all the good that he has to give us. If you want to call that a character flaw.. that's your choice. But if we continue to beat our chests in defiance, refusing to accept his leadership & authority, then we remain in rebellion, and get treated as such.

I reject your caricature of worship and judgement.. but I doubt you'll agree that it is such.

Does that make you a 5-point 'tulip' atheist? ;P

I suppose I would say I'm a compatibilist as well.. for what it's worth.

Hey Andrew, not to change the subject at hand here but I'm curious to know yourself being a Christian if you have had spiritual experiences/encounters?? If it's ok please reply in the post a new comment section instead of this reply section. It's getting to narrow here…thanks! xx

Well, by definition, all Christians have – so it's hard to know what you're actually asking – are you talking about charismatic experiences? Even so, I'm not sure that it's really the time or place for that kind of discussion, of that's ok.

@WatcherMastema Hey! you say I know people who do not wish others harm when they do not appreciate their works. God does not and has not wished you harm (that's the enemies malevolent intent), in fact the direct opposite. Being the doting Father He is, He's trying to pull you out of harms way. There is the justice side of God that He wants to deliver His cherished offspring from. At this point he is extending amnesty to the world (Jesus get out of ramifications free card) until the curtain comes down on the show. Then God will deal with the myriad of problems and justice with be executed perfectly. The Lord is keeping the night light on for all his precious prodigals and it smashes His heart!…He would weep if someone were to turn away. I find this issue very disturbing as it smashes my heart as well…xx

Hey askegg! I can simply choose to dismiss the great Ju Ju at the bottom of the ocean (what ever the hex that is??) because it does not have the credentials that Jesus has! But hey you never know what is residing in some ominous abyss on the ocean floor ;)

A friendly reminder: don't forget to click the thumbs down button hehe ;D much love mate xx

This of course is a leading comment – exactly what credentials for Jesus are you talking about? I hope it's not that horrible mess of a book called "the holy bible".

BTW – comments can be voted up or down by anyone.

You've obviously never heard of the Great Old Ones, or Cthulhu then?

They have books on them too.

If you don't know about the Great Old Ones or Cthulhu, you're in luck, here's a Cthulhu tract for you:

Hey askegg! you know the credentials ;)…been through it with Nathan on your Julia blog and Andrew and yourself have slogged it out in more detail…you have a mammoth task in explaining the life, death and resurrection of Jesus away or passing it off as fairy tale (a minimizing maneuver) The root issue is either you genuinely don't find it persuasive or you choose not to find it persuasive.

Askegg your photograghic work is awesome! ta xx

Luckily for me the burden of proof falls on those making the claims. I do not need to disprove the resurrection of Jesus (etc) – you need to demonstrate it is true.

I know this seems unfair and cowardly of me, but anyone can make any number of fanciful claims. It is not up to those hearing them to disprove them all, and in many cases such claims simply cannot be disproved because they are unfalsifiable. This is why the default position is disbelief until evidence supports a proposition. It's also why no notions are ever absolutely disproved, but they merely lack supporting evidence (ignoring logical impossibilities for the moment).

We are running out of room again (damn comment system).

Dear LuminousMonkey, thanks for the link…although i appreciate the artistic skill & comedic value, i find glorifying suicide, a man off to massacre his family and blaspheming God to be vile in the upmost. I'm pretty disgusted..

Oh – and thanks for the nice comments about my photography. I must drag the camera out more often.

You find that disgusting?

Interesting, Have you read the bible?

It is interesting to note that you immediately recognise the similarities between the events of the your religious text and the events of a simple comic strip, and then note your apparent disgust.

Why should your religious claims be treated any differently to this comic strip? Should the Bible not be considered more disgusting considering the sheer number of such events?

Hey Nathan, Where in the Bible does it glorify suicide, a man off to massacre his family and blaspheming God?? Please provide chapter and verse/s. What sheer number of such events are you making reference and a comparison too?? An accurate decernment of response is to use covert manipulation to twist, distort and take out of context. ta xx

I'll give it to you that they don't advocate blasphemy in the Bible: Leviticus 24:10-16.

Leviticus 20:13 – Killing homosexuals.

Leviticus 20:27 – Killing foretune tellers and psychic mediums.

Exodus 21:15 – Killed for hitting your father.

Leviticus 20:9 – Killed for cursing your parents.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 – Killing of non-believers.

Exodus 31:12-15 (15 is pretty clear) – Killed for working on the Sabbath.

Ezekiel 9:5-7 – Killing anyone that wasn't bothered by some stuff that was happening in the city (Ezekiel 9:4).

Isaiah 13:15-18 – Rape and general killing.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 – Mass murder of pretty much anything alive.

Need I continue?

Actually its more like saying "I'm holding a concert, nobody has ever seen me play, nor will they ever see me play, but honest, its MY music… no, really.. it IS !!

and if you don't believe in me, and not only that, but say nobody else can possibly create good music, then you're not only out in the cold, but you'll have to listen to nothing but enya for the rest of eternity.

No worries!

Hey Nathan, thanks for acknowledging that the Bible does not glorify blaspheming God. You have failed to point out where it does glorify suicide and a man off to massacre his family…God does not glorify or advocate such things therefore it is an ineligible comparison. In what way do you suppose the events you have highlighted in the OT are to be considered similar to the comic stripe?? ta xx

Jephthah sacrificed his daughter since God helped him slaughter the opposition in war (Judges 11:29-35). I would call this massacre of his own family.

Don't forget the "moral" story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But it's very interesting how your complaint about the tract being "disgusting" is only directly relating to suicide and the man killing his family.

I have to ask, do you not find all those things that Nathan pointed out just as disgusting, even more so?

From your reply, are we to believe that you don't find, for example, Isaiah 13:15-18 disgusting?

Is the rape and killing of a society not a disgusting act when ordered by your god?

Hello askegg + fellas ;)…Did God ask Jephthah to make a vow?? Did God ask Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter?? Did God glorify or advocate Jephthah's actions?? – (this question is in comparison with comic strip…is it the same context?) What you have here is the recording of a tragic event giving an account of a rash vow and a holocaust…not a justification of it. God forbade human sacrifice as it's an abomination in His sight. Deut 18:10 & Levit 18:21. Personally I find this disturbing and sad that a young life was untimely and cut off in this horrific manner. Jephthah life raises some very hard questions for all of us, but we have a very big God and there are many unanswered questions that perplex us in life as to why?? It has gotten ridiculously squishy here!! ;) xx

Did God ask Jephthah to make a vow?? Did God ask Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter?? Did God glorify or advocate Jephthah's actions??

So you question your own scripture? Perhaps they are not explicit about these things in the Bible, but by virtue of them having been included in the Bible, do you not agree that these must be important, and that they may inspire some people to do the same?

If God forbade human sacrifice, what do you like to call it when he commands his followers to kill people?

Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I think that that is a pretty clear piece of scripture. So, if not sacrifice, what do you wish to call this kind of killing in the name of God?

by virtue of them having been included in the Bible, do you not agree that these must be important, and that they may inspire some people to do the same?

No. That's a huge imposition on the text, and fails to account for the genre and purpose of writing. It's quite mistaken to think that it's just a collection of moral examples!

(These kinds of discussions are inevitably hindered by and oft found anti-theist attitude that their hermenuetic and interpretation is infallible, and any attempt to do real exegesis is some kind of cop out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNa6tLWrqk

I find it incredible that exegesis of deeply religious people can conclude "stone them to death" to actually mean the exact opposite. If God really wanted is message to be fully understood, why didn't he make his book clear, unambiguous, and noncontradictory?

Time to break out a new thread. No room left here.

@findo The video you linked to <a href="http://(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNa6tLWrqk)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNa6tLWrqk) is emotionally charged and powerful, but I feel slippery and dishonest. Are to to believe none of the stories in the Bible ever happened, or they did but Jesus is *always* the good guy? The approach still does not seem to resolve the the problem of evil – it seems to be a deceptive way to sneak past the idea that no matter what the book says, the central character is always the feel good component.

Seriously, so you think the original authors (whoever they were) did not actually think these things happened? Do you think the people whose ears received these words understood this, or did they think they are historically accurate accounts as many fundamentalists today still do? How did we end up in the fallen sinful world if the stories of Adam, Eve, and the talking snake are pure mythology designed to illustrate the divine character of Jesus?

I could go on, but to my mind this slippery eel Biblical interpretation only raises even more questions than straight readings, or cherry picking symbology and allegory to suit your peculiar theology.

You're missing the point – and making assumptions.
Proper exegesis takes into account who things were written for, and for what purpose etc. If I was still under the law, you might have a valid point – but proper exegesis shows this not to be the case and thus is in fact bad exegesis (eisegesis really) to insist that every single word was written specifically to me and specific instruction.

I'll try and pick through this..

The point is that the bible, as a collection of documents, is an unfolding, progressive revelation of a redemption. The OT is redemptive history. It uses 'types' – that's not to say that the passover never actually happened (let's leave for the moment the huge tangent of which parts of the OT are historical – indeed it would be wrong to assume that it all is. Job, eg, is wisdom literature). There's no reason, indeed, very good reason, for God, in a redemptive plan to use an historical event to create a model of further spiritual event. In saying that Jesus is the true passover lamb doesn't mean the passover never actually happened.

Further, please note that this Biblical Theology is a meta-narrative – an overarching plot, if you like. Of course, the individual texts can (indeed should) be exegeted more closely, but this over arching context should not be ignored.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not resolving' the problem of evil, as I see that Jesus both identifies with us in suffering and is the solution to it and evil.

So I really don't see how this is 'slippery eel' kind of stuff – rather, it's 'big picture' stuff. http://beginningwithmoses.org/about/what-is-bibli...

And moreover, it's from Jesus and the apostles – Jesus is the one who said that the law and prophets all pointed to him and were fulfilled in him, and it is the apostles who point out that Jesus is the true high priest and the true sacrifice and passover lamb and the true law keeper, and the true vine etc. etc. (as per the video)

And what do you mean by 'straight' reading? one which is hyper-literal in taking words exactly at face value, ignoring any possible literary devices and the wider context? I'm sure I've expressed my amusement that anti-theists often share a faulty hermeneutic with fundamentalists! To then offer the alternative as allegorising and cherry picking is simply a false dichotomy. Rather, we should seek to understand the texts in their historical and theological contexts – with the unfolding meta-narrative in view, and seek as best we can to understand what the writer intended his audience (some-times cultural removed from us) to understand.

Then Andrew the whole thing was not written for us, if you can say that about some parts you are just cheery picking because it doesn't fit within todays morals. How do you tell which parts are for you or not?

Hey askegg! do you know of believers who conclude "stone them to death" to actually mean the exact opposite?? Don't you think that is really pushing the envelope?? Your making the God fearing out to be dishonest!. Stone them to death means exactly that. As you know in the ancient world during OT times, Israel was subject to the law. Transgressions warranted judgement and penalties (very scary stuff!). If there were no protective boundaries given to people then humanity by nature would only sink deeper and deeper into depravity…eg account of Noah and the great flood. ta xx

Ok, so if "stone them to death" means "stone them to death", why do you not stone people to death? Surely to follow the commands of the Bible, you should stone homosexuals, adulterers, etc. to death.

If you exclude those who did claim to see you play (as seems to be the fashion here!) And also if you ignore the bit about the comeback tour that's being advertised.
You're probably right about Enya though. That seems a rather fitting punishment for cosmic rebellion.

I'm guessing that Jamie Michelle is not, in fact, theocratic, ethnic, pre-Christ Israel. Just a hunch..

(by your 'surely' comment, it's obvious you 'surely' didn't read my comment above)

Actually I did read your comment, but I can't tell which bits of the bible are supposed to be adhered to and which bits are just stories. How exactly do you manage this?

I don't see how you can be asking that question if you read my comment. I not only answered that question (or showed the hermeneutic for answering it yourself) and pointed out the false assumption that your comment seems to make (that it's like a road-rules book).

Tax returns and plays both have very clear explicit instructions; the Bible doesn't seem to come with a list that says whether or not it applies to me.

Let us take an example, Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

If you don't need to carry this out, why not? How can you tell?

Hey Nathan, we are now in the era of grace since Christs sacrifice…Romans 5:20 but where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. Though the death and resurrection of Jesus he has atoned for all sin and ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity. We now have in effect – Matthew 22:37-40 Love God and love your neighbor – on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. We are all living on grace as we have all fallen short Romans 3:23 thanks mate xx

Wow – I am so glad god made the Bible so easy to understand. I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,0000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text.

I do have a few nagging questions however; Your god still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own son in order to lift the curse he himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand. I am also concerned that the creator of the entire universe has changed his mind and created a "new covenant" with with humanity.

I am also concerned that we had no say in what the conditions of this arrangement are and am deeply worried that your all loving god will not care if I suffer an eternity in the absence of his ultimate love. If you can satisfactorily address these points, I might just convert to Christianity. Again.

Hey Andrew (AF that is), good to see you back. I'm not completely sure what you mean…I have read through your comment above :) kind regards x

Hello lovely askegg & crew, I'm a young person and have only been a Christian for nearly six years. I have not found it to difficult to understand. Sure there are things i don't comprehend fully…example the book of Rev! I find the story of Jesus to be straightforward enough.
I do take into account 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text" – that seems to be argument by ridicule.

There may be or not be 34000 denominations but there is only one Jesus and He is all you need. I don't need all the T's crossed and all the I's dotted so to speck to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior do I?? Or to believe Jesus when He said John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life or Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Will get to the other queries soon ;) xx

Presumably God has a higher estimation of our cognitive abilities than the ATO.
(yes, I do acknowledge that something like a tax return or a play very clearly indicates such – I already acknoweldged the ananlogy wasn't a perfect comparison, but none-the-less, it suffices to demonstrate the point I was making, which is that recognising which parts of a given text are "applicable" to you is not the same as choosing which bits you'll take. I hope you can at least see that much.)

How can I tell? It's Leviticus – i.e. Levitical (the Levites were the tribe of priests) law for the pre-messianic nation of Israel. Remember the big picture and where it fits in the progressive revelation which has Jesus right at the centre fulfilling the OT law. I thought I'd already explained this process of exegesis above. You also seem to be continuing the false assumption that the bible is all 'application' (like a rule book – how does one 'apply' a poem in the same sense?).

I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,0000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text.

Firstly, you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of mainline protestant denominations hold the vast majority of core doctrines in common. Different denomination does not necessarily mean different doctrine. Generally the differences lie in organisational structure, ecclesiastic style or in secondary issues. Pretending that there's 34,000 different versions of Christianity is highly misleading.
Secondly, I am not claiming I have found the 'one true interpretation'. I am quite willing to be corrected in my interpretation – good exegesis requires such a willingness. But everyone who reads a text and thinks they know what it is saying / what it means in interpreting – so, Nathan, above, implying that I should stone adulterers is making an interpretation. Everyone makes interpretations – it's just that some are more correct than others. Exegesis is the process by which we seek to find the correct one: that is, what the author intended us to understand, and who the author intended it apply to (if it's instructive). And good exegesis means we must be open to correction.

Your god still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own son in order to lift the curse he himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand.

>
When, technically he requires payment for our sin – he didn't 'require' that Jesus be killed, but he graciously allowed his Son to take the punishment we deserved. It's a nice little slip of logic you've done there too in suggesting that we deserve punishment because of God's actions.
We (humanity) were under the curse of sin (rebellion) because we chose to indulge in it. That is the step you gloss over. Creating a possibility is not the same as causing the action. To ignore the willing participation you are using bad logic (Post hoc ergo propter hoc).

I am also concerned that the creator of the entire universe has changed his mind and created a "new covenant" with with humanity.

God didn't change his mind, he just started a new covenant, as he always planned to. And why should it be a concern when the new covenant is the one that says Jesus' will pay our debt?

I am also concerned that we had no say in what the conditions of this arrangement

It's a bit of a tangent, so I suffice to link you to an explanation of Federal Headship.

and am deeply worried that your all loving god will not care if I suffer an eternity in the absence of his ultimate love.

Who said he doesn't care? Indeed, he cared enough to send his own Son so that you needn't suffer. If a just magistrate can care and be sorrowful that he must punish wrong doing, why cannot God? Indeed, Ezekial 18:23 & 32 say that is the case.

Hi Jamie,

have a look at this website: http://beginningwithmoses.org/about/what-is-bibli...
and I would highly recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's excellent lay-level book on the subject According to Plan.

"Different denomination does not necessarily mean different doctrine."

Come on, you know this crap. There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have different doctrines: JWs still believe in your Jesus but have twisted how;when;who gets into heaven, and how you should live your life; Mormons are the same, same basic story but change all the major details of how;when;who. Example, my mothers church doesn't believe in eating red meat on good Friday, where as my Fathers (the one you and I were part of) don't care about it. Now is it just me of isn't whether you eat the host on the day he was sacrificed an important detail. Cause I would be pissed if I told people not to and they still did.

We are not talking about a piece of art here where it is fine to have different interpretations of the same work because no body dies when thinking something different to what the artist intended. People get killed, everyday, over there different ideas about the bible.

You would think that if it God had half a brain he would have made it easy for people to understand and not mix rules with non rules. If i go into a class room most of the time I will find a nice dotted list of dosand don'ts, simple not much room for interpretation. I don't expect to see a big story and the kids are told figure out what the dos and the don't are from that.

"he didn't 'require' that Jesus be killed, but he graciously allowed his Son to take the punishment we deserved."

Riiiiiiigghht this makes perfect sense..so he sent his (only)son down to earth, then lets him get killed for shit we did that He(God) had full knowledge of us doing in the first place and caused the problem to begin with. Yep perfectly logical…not.

"And why should it be a concern when the new covenant is the one that says Jesus' will pay our debt? " Because human sacrifice is wrong, and they all say that. So which one is right?

"Who said he doesn't care? Indeed, he cared enough to send his own Son so that you needn't suffer."

If he cared he wouldn't need to do that in the first place, and isn't it funny how he sends his son to forgive us of all the sins and yet He(god) and his son are still quite happen to send us to burn in hell forever for not following is crappy written book, and people still suffer.

I started this response by questioning all sorts of implications of your preferred approach to hermeneutics and exegesis (don't pretend there isn't division and debate over these processes) but all I felt was…

So what?

I mean as you conceded, people like me don't believe your god (let alone any god) exists, I doubt Jesus even lived, at least as described by the gospels, so the whole book is irrelevant to me. Hermeneutics and exegesis will get you no where with the billions of people who don't believe in the Christian god, either as atheists or as believers of some other faith.

So as always AndrewFinden, so what? So you have a post-hoc way of maintaining some usefulness for the bible (which certainly involves an awful lot of waste) beyond a 'story' of a life lived by a man with a message of salvation. So what?

So much of the discussions here all stem from everybody (including myself) ignoring the biggest question: whether god exists or not. It is as if no ones wants to tap it, no one wants to push the limits on that question and I see no reason why, especially here. To me everything else follows on from there, it is like debating over the score of a game without knowing what sport is being played. You may be defending Christian thinking around maintaining the bible or its relevance to Christians which is fine, you're on point and I fully accept it is often easy for the faithless and free to deride and mock believers. So it is fine to defend Christianity and Christian thought, it would be very simplistic and dishonest to claim a total lack of complexity and nuance to Christian thought. In fact, I freely admit the nuance to Christian thought has provided the first discussions on arguments for God's existence and the development of logical tools such as Occam's Razor.

My issue is I don't recall (and I haven't read everything you've said on this site) you actually laying out an argument, with evidence, to even suggest the god and theology of Christianity is true. Do you have one? Is the most convincing argument, to you, for the truth of Christianity really why you believe? Is the argument actually supported with demonstrable evidence? Is it valid and sound? I'm sure if you wanted you could arrange something with Askegg to have it posted or linked or discussed on the podcast or something, anything!

You've demonstrated a wide range of knowledge and passion for your religion and its history but I haven't seen a demonstration of the truth of its, and your, claims about the universe and concepts of the divine.

I'm just getting tired of saying 'so what?' to myself, and you, whenever I read your posts.

Come on, you know this crap. There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have different doctrines

Nathan, if you read more carefully you will note the word 'necessarily' in my sentence. I did not say that there are no differences, I just made the point that different denominations are not necessarily holding different doctrines. Some do, yes, but not necessarily, and for the most part, the mainline protestant denominations (I think it's questionable to say that Mormonism and Jehovah' Witnesses are just 'denominations' of protestant Christianity, but that's actually quite irrelevant at this point) all hold the same core doctrines. You could walk into a Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian or Pentecostal church (and many more) and they would most likely all affirm the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Indeed, according to the source for this oft-cited statistic, over half of these 34000 are simply independent churches with no greater denominational affiliation. The figure is also a world-wide figure which take into account cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries (that means, for example, the Anglican church in Australia is counted separately to the Anglican church in Kenya). The same stats show only 1200 denominations in North America, and remembering that this is including independent, unaffiliated churches who may very well believe the same things as one another, the figure starts to lose it's impact! Thus, it is highly misleading to suggest that there are 34000 different version of Christianity.

People get killed, everyday, over there different ideas about the bible.

Not quite. Sure, people are killed for faith – the average number of Christians martyred each year is around 171 000. And sure, there is sectarian conflict, but I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that it's purely about interpretation. In general is is much deeper and is cultural. Take the conflict in Northern Ireland – it would be foolish to say it was about transubstantiation or something like that – not only was it heavily political, the religious aspect was primarily a cultural. I think you would have a very difficult time showing that Christians are killing each other everyday over interpretation disputes!

he would have made it easy for people to understand and not mix rules with non rules

I think it's pretty clear when law and instruction is being given.

If i go into a class room most of the time I will find a nice dotted list of dosand don'ts, simple not much room for interpretation. I don't expect to see a big story and the kids are told figure out what the dos and the don't are from that.

Again, I think you're still making the false assumption that it's all about me and what I should and shouldn't do. And in any case, plenty of teachers use stories and narratives to teach children and allow children to learn about issues.

Riiiiiiigghht this makes perfect sense..so he sent his (only)son down to earth, then lets him get killed for shit we did that He(God) had full knowledge of us doing in the first place and caused the problem to begin with. Yep perfectly logical…not.

You're correct – your summary here is logically flawed. You seem to have made the same kind of Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I pointed out to Andrew above. It's logically flawed to assert that God caused the problem. No, humanity is wholly responsible for it's actions.

Because human sacrifice is wrong, and they all say that. So which one is right?

Just so I can be clear who you're referring to here – who is 'they'?

If he cared he wouldn't need to do that in the first place

How so?

isn't it funny how he sends his son to forgive us of all the sins and yet He(god) and his son are still quite happen to send us to burn in hell forever for not following is crappy written book, and people still suffer.

If someone continues to rebel against him and his authority, and continues to reject his payment, that's on them. God is just, and so sin must be punished – if one chooses to reject the offer of Jesus to take that punishment, then they'll have to bear that themselves.

Hey Andrew, I stuffed up…your comment was to Nathan not to me…total misunderstanding on my part. I'm making reference to the (by your 'surely comment, it's obvious you 'surely' didn't read my comment above) post. Apology for that! although I appreciate the links. xx

"If you're not the kind of atheist who goes around telling Christians which bits of the bible they should be applying or that you think they're ignoring, then good, nothing to see here."

No, this only slips out when someone starts quoting scripture to me, very few have ready and nuanced responses as to why they ascribe to some scripture and not others. Usually it doesn't take long to reveal they are selectively reading the bible, if at all, to justify and lend support to their own personal opinions in which they feel insecure about holding.

"(regarding your doubt regarding the historical Jesus, without going off on that tangent, please have a look at http://vimeo.com/1763513 – just in case you share those arguments.) "

I have seen the video some time ago but watched it again. The arguments weren't particularly relevant to my own position and I'm not the kind of person who holds any of the 'new atheist' (not a term I particularly identify with) authors to be 100% accurate, I actually don't care they made mistakes on historical culture because it says nothing about the metaphysical claims made by the religion.

However, the only real criticism (as opposed to corrections) in that video was an argument from authority ("no respectable historian claims there was no such man as Jesus" to paraphrase), while I am aware of a historical case for the existence of someone called Jesus who lived at that time in that region none was actually presented in that clip.

I have not heard an argument or evidence-based case made for the existence of a historical God-man who has given humanity the gift of salvation (for a *small* price). That is what I'm interested in, otherwise any argument for a historical Jesus merely explains the beginnings of a cult which became Christianity and says nothing on the metaphysical claims at the heart of the religion which are what make it relevant or not to reality.

I'd be interested to here your argument(s) for your belief(s) and hope you can find the time to synthesise them into a space of some sort.

very few have ready and nuanced responses as to why they ascribe to some scripture and not others

It is unfortunately true that many Christians don't have, and generally haven't thought about, good exegesis and hermeneutics (Is it little wonder than that so many ex-Christian anti-theists also have such a lack?).

that video was an argument from authority… while I am aware of a historical case for the existence of someone called Jesus who lived at that time in that region none was actually presented in that clip.

Not quite. Pointing to the scholarly consensus to rebut an a claim about the current state of historical scholarship is perfectly valid. The point was not so much about making arguments for or against Jesus' historical existence, but that the writings of Dawkins and Co. are basically misleading in their portrayal of the state of scholarship, or at the very least, and perhaps more likely, ignorant of it. I recall him mentioning that other videos from CPX deal with the evidence in more depth. I'm sure you realise that there wasn't enough scope in that video. Dickson certainly has other videos which deal with the arguments for the historical Jesus and the historicity of the resurrection.