Re-richie3622 (God is Repulsive)

Video Response to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRCEr2JlqPw&feature=related


Details on the Personhood of the first cause of the universe:

This is argued for two reasons. First, because of the nature of explanation a personal cause seems more likely. There are scientific explanations and personal explanations. The cause of the universe cannot be scientific since there is nothing for science to describe and therefore the cause cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. Second, the personhood is strongly suggested by the properties that were already mentioned. Now there are only two candidates that are immaterial, spaceless and timeless, namely: (1) abstract objects, and, (2) unembodied minds. However, abstract objects cannot stand in causal relation to anything (e.g. the number 7 cannot cause anything), and therefore an unembodied mind wins. Thus, we have an uncaused, beginingless, timeless, spaceless, powerful, personal, and immaterial mind. And as Thomas Aquinas stated, “this is what everybody means by ‘God.’”

What makes up God?

Let me quickly make two points. First, I would disagree with the definition that God is exclusive to those three aforementioned attributes. For example, necessity is lacking in his definition, and thus, God would be a contingent being. Rather, I would suggest by way of Anslem that God is the greatest conceivable being who in addition to those attributes listed contains necessity, benevolence, and eternality. Second, the definition given of omnipotence at (1:18), “Omnipotence: which means to be all-powerful,” is mistaken both theologically and philosophically. Theologically speaking omnipotence seems to entail some limitations (God cannot lie, God cannot cease to be God). Philosophically God’s omnipotence does not imply that he can do logical impossibilities (e.g. making a square circle). Rather, a more standard version of Omnipotence is:

S is omnipotent at a time t if and only if S can at t actualize any state of affairs that is not described by counterfactuals about the free acts of others and that is broadly logically possible for someone to actualize, given the same hard past at t and the same true counterfactuals about free acts of others.

*In other words, God is omnipotent if He can actualize the state of affairs not described by counterfactuals about free acts of others and is logically possible to actualize.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• God
• theism
• Intelligent
• Design
• creation
• fate
• free
• will
• determinism
• compantablism

[SotoBaggins]

Good video. You are much smarter and more philisophical than me ahah :P

Regardless of the whole "free will" debate however, I do think we should ask why God would even bother creating a being that he knew was unsavable via their free will. Sure they may have a "choice" but given Gods love for them it would seem illogical for him to create them given that he knew their free will would ultimately damn them to the worst suffering imaginable.

[telemantros]

A good question for sure, but one with a good answer (I think). As a Molinist, I believe that God has what is called Middle Knowledge (you are familiar with this I think). From free will, middle knowledge, and God's Omni-attributes, I think we can infer two things: (1) there is no possible world where all receive Christ, and, (2) God prefers a world where some reject Christ but the saved # is maximized over a world where a few believe and none are lost. Maybe we can dialogue sometime about this.

[SotoBaggins]

@telemantros right but from that perspective I guess I dont get why there is no possible world where all recieve Christ...thats puzzling to me. and even if there was no possible world, why wouldnt God just choose not to create at all if by some weird result some(most?) have to be damned. No matter what reason we give for that it ends up being the majority expended for the sake of the minorty, which doesnt speak to Gods omnibenevolence

[telemantros]

I don't think there could be a possible world wherein all receive Christ because as long as there is free people, there is no guarantee that everybody in such a word would be freely saved. As for point about God not creating and a minority damnation negating omnibenvolence, I guess I see it the opposite way. I would think it morally gastly to allow those who freely spurn God to preclude those who would embrace him ... IOW, you don't get to exist because I don't want anything to do with God. Hmmm

[SotoBaggins]

@telemantros but why do you think that? what about "free will" states that the majority illogically will choose to burn and suffer for all eternity in the face of all that good, love and truth? im sorry but that is not a well founded assumption, especially since phil 2:10-11 says that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess. To say this is a forced action is to just deny the "free will" you are defending.

as for your second point, Im still not sure what you mean

[telemantros]

@SotoBaggins I don't neccesarily think that the majority will choose to reject God, I feel more inclined that the balance between those who choose and reject will be actualized by God's middle knowledge. Why will some reject? Most likely because of human depravity, and while Philipians states that every knee shall bow, this would most likely be due to God's powerful pressence. It's a reaction, not a negation of free will. We should dialogue sometime via PM or video.

[SotoBaggins]

@telemantros Certainly

[SotoBaggins]

Good video. You are much smarter and more philisophical than me ahah :P

Regardless of the whole "free will" debate however, I do think we should ask why God would even bother creating a being that he knew was unsavable via their free will. Sure they may have a "choice" but given Gods love for them it would seem illogical for him to create them given that he knew their fr

[pbtrey]

well, im not a genius but i do know that God is a supernatural god and therefore His supernaturality (which isnt a word but u get it) would explain his supernatural existence.

[phoenixsong20]

Yes it is possible that jesus existed, but it is still a long leap from existance to Messiah.