Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
(10) - (12), (6), (13) : What you're missing in this whole thing is the difference between "can" - have power to; and "can" - to be likely to (both defs are in Webster's dictionary).

Otherwise described as "can" and "will". I assure you I am aware of the difference.

More:
God is physically able to lie, of course;

I must take issue with this statement. Are you examining God temporarily without attributes? If so, what is the usefulness of such an examination, and why is anything obvious?

If not, it seems that you are examining God without a complete definition (which can be useful at times), but the fact that it is the "holy character" or perhaps "moral" part of God's nature that you specify as the reason for God's lack of lying (i.e. absolute unlikelihood of a state of affairs in which God lies, not inability to lie) leads me to investigate this further.

J.A. Mchugh, contributor to the Catholic Encyclopedia, quotes Aquinas who asserts it is omnipotence itself that is incompatible with sinning.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Omnipotence

(a) It is impossible for God to sin

Man's power of preferring evil to good is a sign not of strength, but of infirmity, since it involves the liability to be overcome by unworthy motives; not the exercise but the restraint of that power adds to the freedom and vigour of the will. "To sin," says St. Thomas, "is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).

Aquinas, in The Summa Theologica:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Whether God is omnipotent?

Objection 2. Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.

*snip*

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence.

I've addressed the one issue, but there is another.

More:
however, because of his holy character, He CANNOT lie (i.e., He is absolutely not likely to).

You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by attributing one meaning to the word "can" (can) in one statement, and in the next "can" takes on the meaning of "will".

It is, in my opinion, more correct to say that God can lie, but he will not.

I have read time and again that God is unchanging in his nature. Would you agree that God's "holy character" is part of his nature? If you do, then it is actually impossible for God to lie, if he is immutable. If God is unchanging in his "holy character", then there will never be an opportunity for God to lie. Put another way, if God's "holy character" has always been the same, and always will be the same, then the necessary requirements for a state of affairs in which God can lie can never be met, thus God can never lie.

On the other hand, if you don't think that God is immutable in this regard, then you have no good reason to think that God is "absolutely not likely to" (or "absolutely will not") lie, since this depends on the assumption that his "holy character" absolutely is not likely to, or absolutely will not (i.e. will never), change.

More:
There is NO incompatibility in these statements; therefore, your (12) is not a valid conclusion.

Actually, it is contradictory to propose both that God can and cannot lie. Had you not equivocated, then your statements would be contradictory. You did equivocate, however, so the Law of Non-contradiction is irrelevant in this case.

More:
Let me give a real-life example. I don't know if you have a sister or not in real life. Let's pretend that you do, if you don't, and what's more, that you love her more than anyone else in the entire world. Can you torture, rape and murder her? Yes, you are physically able to (unless you are paralyzed or stopped by some physical disability, which I assume you're not). BUT - can (in the other since(sic) of 'are you likely to') you torture, rape and murder her? Of course not - it is COMPLETELY against your character and desire! It is absolutely NO diminution of God's omnipotence to say that He CANNOT do something against His character!

More equivocation. Why not use "will"? It fits -- look:

Can I rape my hypothetical sister? Yes.
Will I rape my hypothetical sister? No.

I see no reason for you to use "can" in place of "will", in the sense of "am I likely to".

[Rían]

Andúril - a quick comment and a quick question -

comment - take your time finishing your post - I understand about being interrupted by 'real life' - I think these are important things to discuss, so take as long as you need to finish up and put up a note when you're done, please.

question - would you please define the tilde symbol you use in your S-equation example? To me, the tilde means "approximately" (mathmatical use). I doubt if you mean it that way

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No one can be good enough to earn their way into heaven; ALL have sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God. Don't you think it grieves God to see His children reject him, and choose damnation instead? There could nothing more heart-wrenching than that. And about the black-hearted thing: no one who was truly evil would truly choose the way of God; it's more than repeating a prayer, it's your heart attitude that matters. But God will accept ANYONE who is willing to receive his gift of eternal life. It is there; all people have to do is accept it. Unfortunately, many of them don't, which is a very sad thing indeed. God would not have ANY perish. But, to use Lewis example, he couldn't give people free will and then force them to choose him, could he?

Lucifer did not question God; pride was his downfall. He conspired in his heart against his heart, planning to rise above God, and overthrow him.

Actually, circumcision is still practiced today, and not just by Jews; it has to be with something concerning health, I believe.

Concerning the next paragraph, let me restate: God couldn't give people free will, and then take it away from them. If God were to be always intervening, that would basically be taking away Free Will.

And now, I gotta run quick a get to work: see you all later!

[Coney]

Lucifer did not question God; pride was his downfall. He conspired in his heart against his heart, planning to rise above God, and overthrow him.

I always thought the fall of Lucifer came about something like this-

"Lucifer questioned God’s laws. Why couldn’t the angels all decide for themselves what was love? Why should there be "laws" in the Universe? Lucifer wondered...he questioned. Lucifer became proud of his beauty. He became proud of his own ideas and opinions. Lucifer wanted to be "like the Most High" [God]! Lucifer claimed that he had new ideas which would bring a new type of liberty and freedom to the angels and to the Universe.

All heaven was upset. Was this true? Lucifer began to say that not only was there a better way, but that God was unfair. Finally Lucifer accused God of being a tyrant (wicked, selfish leader)! Many angels listened to Lucifer and also began to question God."

Don't you think it grieves God to see His children reject him, and choose damnation instead?

Hmm not particularly......if a being is capable of creating Heaven, Hell and all that lies between then He should certainly be capable of other after-life options.

Unfortunately, many of them don't, which is a very sad thing indeed. God would not have ANY perish.

Yet He destroyed untold millions........and contunue's to codemn billions to Hell.

Actually, circumcision is still practiced today, and not just by Jews; it has to be with something concerning health, I believe.

I certainly have nothing against circumcision for health reasons.....but as part of a religious tradition I think it is barbaric.

Concerning the next paragraph, let me restate: God couldn't give people free will, and then take it away from them. If God were to be always intervening, that would basically be taking away Free Will.

But can you define a choice between heaven and hell as Free Will?.........I think that there are plenty of occurances in the Bible where God has intervened to impose his will......He seems to encourage Blind Faith more than Free Will.........in fact if you look at Genesis (Garden of Eden) He seems more concerned with keeping mankind in an ignorant state

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well, the way I read that, there is no logical way there can be a God.

Now Lizra, you naughty thing, you just ruined God's day!

Are you referring to Andúril's post, BTW? If so, which part? If not, what are you referring to (if you don't mind elaborating) - I always enjoy hearing from you, you have a great way with words and a good head on your shoulders! (and you're funny, too!)

[Andúril]

More:
This logic also kills (6) and (13).

No, it does not kill anything. It is merely an example of equivocation, a distractive fallacy in argumentation.

More (refering to the Lewis quote):
And frankly, I think that really deals with the rest of your post, so I won't bother to refer to the remaining numbers.

I disagree, but that doesn't seem to suprise me much!

More:
I see nothing in your post that I haven't logically refuted between the two discussions I presented. If you disagree, then feel free to let me know what you think.

I disagree, and have explained why .

More:
And actually, I think I'll close with a comment on your (14) by saying: I'm sure glad that neither 'weak omnipotence' nor 'strong omnipotence' are helping ME out - but REAL omnipotence!

REAL omnipotence, eh?

Appendix

I will use this area to give brief descriptions of the argumentative jargon, just in case you're feeling a tad unsure.

• Equivocation

van den Berg, Dr M E S. Critical Reasoning. University of South Africa, 2001.

2.2.2.4 Equivocation

Words can mean different things in different contexts. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or an expression shifts meaning from one premise to another. In other words, when a word is used first in one sense in one part of an argument and then in a different sense in another part of the same argument, the fallacy of equivocation is committed.

For example: "Insane people should not be punished. Anyone who murders must be insane. Thus murderers should not be punished, but treated in mental institutions." There is an equivocation in the use of the word "insane" in this example. The sense of "insane" that is used in the first premise refers to a person's capacity to know right from wrong. The sense of "insane" used in the second premise refers to abnormal cruelty in a person (but it still could allow that the person knows that cruelty is wrong).

Let's take another example where the fallacy of equivocation is committed:

The average family has 2,5 children. Jones has an average family, so Jones's family has 2,5 children.

The term "average" in the first sentence has the sense of the mathematical or statistical average, while in the second sentence "average" has the sense of normal or usual.

Additional resources:

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/equivoqu.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm
http://www.drury.edu/ess/values/Logic1.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...uivocation.htm

• Law of Non-contradiction

http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/phenom/old/lawnon.html

Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.

Additional resources:

http://www.deepscience.com/logic.html
http://www.you-god-loves.org/proofforGod.htm
http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/groothuis/logic.htm
http://www.thebiblepage.org/biblesay...creation.shtml

RÃ*an:
question - would you please define the tilde symbol you use in your S-equation example? To me, the tilde means "approximately" (mathmatical use). I doubt if you mean it that way

I have used the tilde symbol as a negative operator. I could have used the exclamation mark.

Therefore:

S = S
S = not not S
not S = not S

[Andúril]

RÃ*an, it is complete.

[Rían]

Andúril - Roger that, good buddy! I'll get to it as soon as I can - I'm a bit behind in the laundry, tho!

Anyone else care to comment whilst I'm sorting whites and colors?

[Rían]

*reads Coney's last couple of posts*
*sigh*
*hands Coney a new bottle of SuperGlue for his clogs*
*sends Coney an affectionate, sisterly kiss from over the pond*

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Andúril - Roger that, good buddy! I'll get to it as soon as I can - I'm a bit behind in the laundry, tho!

Lol! I'm a bit behind in my work, and sleep...

And to think that we haven't even touched on atheism yet!

[Rían]

Your post is a few pages further back, Eärniel, but I haven't forgotten it yet - it's in the queue

Could you please send me a few industrial-strength Belgian chocolate bars to give me some more energy? My poor little fingertips are worn down to nubbins from typing so much

*sends Eärniel some clogs, glue, and an affectionate kiss, too, but in a slightly more easterly direction than Coney's*

*hey, that first part rhymed!*

*if you guys don't want the kisses, mark them 'return to sender' and I'm sure my husband will take them I save all the best ones for him, though, and he doesn't mind if I give a few friendly ones away*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
And to think that we haven't even touched on atheism yet!

I know - pretty funny, isn't it

BTW, it's been so long, I forget - did we have a disagreement on that subject??

[Coney]

*Mwa! x *

*super-glues clogs on*

*wishes he'd trimmed his toe nails first*

*pops chocolate in the post*

Rian 'tis time ya got your hubby on the laundry duties (j/k)

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now Lizra, you naughty thing, you just ruined God's day!

Are you referring to Andúril's post, BTW? If so, which part? If not, what are you referring to (if you don't mind elaborating) - I always enjoy hearing from you, you have a great way with words and a good head on your shoulders! (and you're funny, too!)

Thank you for the compliments! I was referring to his post.

God can tell lies, but he is perfect and cannot sin, so it's not in his nature to tell lies, so he can't tell lies, but he can do everything, so he can tell lies, but....(brain explodes)

God created everything and has the ability to do anything. This would mean he could do things that are logically impossible (like lie when he doesn't lie ), so the God that can do "everything" can not exist, because he can not tell lies, because he is perfect, and can not sin. ( brain explodes)


God knows everything, so he can't learn anything, because he already knows it all, but since God can do anything, he can learn, even though he can't learn, because he knows everything! So a God who knows everything can't do everything...(brain explodes)

After a cup of coffee, I came to the conclusion that an Omnipotant God is impossible. Thank you very much!

[Rían]

Lizra - do you have 3 separate brains, or does your one brain re-assemble after exploding?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

OK, atheists, I have a request for you.

Stop your whirring brains from their whirring for a moment, and put aside your atheistic predeterminations. Pause for a moment, and relax. Then, think about it: what if there is a God? What if there is an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient Being without beginning or end; a Being which created the heavens and the earth, and everything in or on them, including Man. Take a moment to ponder the incredible nature of such a Being. Imagine how powerful, how great, how vast such a Being would be. Now, can you honestly say that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there would be nothing about such a Being, which you, as his tiny creation, a speck upon the Earth, might be unable to understand? That there is no way there might be different rules of logic? which would apply to such a Being? Or even that your own understanding of logic might not completely accurate and infallible?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Allow me to introduce an extremely radical concept, not pertaining to this disccusion directly, but in a manner:

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

Think on that for a while.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

aha! i new it

[Rían]

Hey, Gwaimir, I have a question for you - are you a Christian? I just need to get an "official" answer for reasons of my own (MWAHAHA - uh, never mind - I'm in a rather silly mood today) I would be pretty surprised if your answer was anything but 'yes', but I would like to hear an official statement from you (don't worry, this isn't a trick).

ps - good question, Gwaimir; athiests?? (except I would reword "different rules of logic" to "superior reasoning processes", or something like that). But I like your last sentence, too - good point.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

******knew*****