Religous Paradox question
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
we're talking about the God who *wrote* the laws of physics.....including quantum physics. God can be fully human and fully divine, or three-in-one, just as easily as an electron can exist as both a wave and a particle.Where did you get the idea that God is logical (as humans define it) all the time? You can't be talking about the Christian God, because paradox, or mystery, has been part of the conception of God since the Incarnation. How can a god be fully human and fully divine at once? How can there be three persons but one God? Paradox is nothing shocking to most Christians.
this is also one of the best summaries of the Trinity I have ever heard. The trinity isn't a belief in three god's, its a belief in a triune God, a God who is one in essence but who exhibits the properties of the Father, and the properties of the Son, and the properties of the Holy Ghost.In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all matter and energy exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties.
he could make a rock infinitely large, and infinitely dense if he so chose, but by the same measure anything he creates, he is capable of moving.Lets pretend for a second that Im an atheist.
I come up to you, and ask you, is God allpowerful, able to do anything, omnipotent. You say yes. I ask "if God can do anything, can God make a rock that he can't lift?????"
What would your answer be?????
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
I believe the answer to the question is no.
God has all power. That doesn't mean 'all power I, as a human, can comprehend and imagine that I think should be possible', it means everything that is possible in the Eternal sphere.
I don't believe that "All things are possible" includes paradoxes and absurdities, and things that would defy Eternal Law. Nor do I think believing such limits God in any way.
God has all power. That doesn't mean 'all power I, as a human, can comprehend and imagine that I think should be possible', it means everything that is possible in the Eternal sphere.
I don't believe that "All things are possible" includes paradoxes and absurdities, and things that would defy Eternal Law. Nor do I think believing such limits God in any way.
Well. Though I dont believe this in the slightest, i wanted to point out a paradox.
If Gods omnipotent he sees all, the past, the future, so he knows what hes going to do right? Therefore, is he doing everything he does because he wants to, or because he sees he does it. Therefore, following what his future self does, and not really having the free will to choose what he does. He wouldnt have free will because hes not making choices on what to do, hed be following actions, that he assumes he wants to do, since his future self did it.
If Gods omnipotent he sees all, the past, the future, so he knows what hes going to do right? Therefore, is he doing everything he does because he wants to, or because he sees he does it. Therefore, following what his future self does, and not really having the free will to choose what he does. He wouldnt have free will because hes not making choices on what to do, hed be following actions, that he assumes he wants to do, since his future self did it.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
![Image](http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l232/leningradlovesyou/PenBan/Tired2.gif)
![Image](http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l232/leningradlovesyou/PenBan/Tired2.gif)
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
I believe that God exists outside of time and that trying to talk about free will in that context is going to be difficult simply because we don't have the vocabulary to explain it or the necessary comprehension of what it means to REALLY exist outside of time.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
the way I understand it, omniscience isn't as much a 'magical time traveling power' as He sees His actions in the future in much the way you visualize yourself doing something in the future, except for the fact that He takes all things, all variables of actions and ways to work around the agency and decisions of others into consideration, and has all power to act, and not to be acted upon - nothing gets in God's way. It's kind of like the "if you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything", but to the Nth degree.Well. Though I dont believe this in the slightest, i wanted to point out a paradox.
If Gods omnipotent he sees all, the past, the future, so he knows what hes going to do right? Therefore, is he doing everything he does because he wants to, or because he sees he does it.
He puts His mind to do something, and develops a plan far more intricate and branched out with compensation for variables than our minds can comprehend at this point.
Personally, I think that's pretty cool that my Father can do that
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
no, I know what it means, leastways, I think do, I'm saying the English language (and languages in general) doesn't have the right vocabulary to easily discuss concepts related to timelessness.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
we is plural, referring to people in general, as evidenced by ideas like this which only follow from a belief in a God who is bound by the flow of time.
I is referring to myself, who believes in the God who can truthfully and logically say "before Abraham was, I am"If Gods omnipotent he sees all, the past, the future, so he knows what hes going to do right? Therefore, is he doing everything he does because he wants to, or because he sees he does it. Therefore, following what his future self does, and not really having the free will to choose what he does. He wouldnt have free will because hes not making choices on what to do, he'd be following actions, that he assumes he wants to do, since his future self did it.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
I don't understand what you're saying. It looks to me like your argument is that humans exist, and your evidence for this claim is the idea of God?we is plural, referring to people in general, as evidenced by ideas like this which only follow from a belief in a God who is bound by the flow of time.
...
I is referring to myself, who believes in the God who can truthfully and logically say "before Abraham was, I am"
I'm trying to reconcile your statements that
andwe [humans] don't have... the necessary comprehension
Assuming you are human, these are in direct contradiction.I know what it means
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
I'm trying to reconcile your statements.....Assuming you are human, these are in direct contradiction.
I'm not saying that no one gets it, i'm saying people in general tend not to get it. The idea that events aren't necessarily dictated by a strict flow of causality, or the idea of an entity existing outside the flow of time altogether is utterly foreign to most people, and as such trying to discuss it leads no where fast. Not that I would ever claim to have a perfect understanding of such a thing, but that's different than not understanding the idea of it. For that matter, I don't believe anyone can have a perfect understanding of any part of God's nature, but if you know how and where to look you can piece together a good enough picture to believewe is plural, referring to people in general, I is referring to myself specifically
I'm not even sure where you're getting that from, but no. Though I can understand why that sentence wouldn't make sense to you. It's a direct quote from the Bible, and God is speaking of himself in the present tense (as if the events are still happening) while taking about something (the life of Abraham) that happened thousands of years in the past. It doesn't make sense (grammatically or logically), unless He exists outside time and can see all of history at once.I don't understand what you're saying. It looks to me like your argument is that humans exist, and your evidence for this claim is the idea of God?the God who can truthfully and logically say "before Abraham was, I am"
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- lyons24000
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
- Title: Darn Red Shells!
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
the God who can truthfully and logically say "before Abraham was, I am"
You said, "It doesn't make sense grammatically" and here is why. I have done lots of research on John 8:58. The original Greek for "I am" is ego eimi which literally means "I am". However, depending on the sentence it can and should be translated many other ways.God is speaking of himself in the present tense (as if the events are still happening) while taking about something (the life of Abraham) that happened thousands of years in the past. It doesn't make sense (grammatically or logically), unless He exists outside time and can see all of history at once.
For example, in the New American Standard Bible at Luke 15:29, a man says, "'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends."
The original Greek says, "I am" there.
In John 8:58, Jesus is speaking about his existence before Abraham. That verse could also just as likely say, "before Abraham was, I have been." But then another problem arises. In many cases in Greek, the statements "I am" or "I have been" are put at the end of the sentence whereas in English they are at the first. Therefore, "before Abraham was, I have been (I am)" should be "I have been (I am) before Abraham was". Christ was not trying to take the term "I AM" and apply it to himself.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained
- lyons24000
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
- Title: Darn Red Shells!
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
the God who can truthfully and logically say "before Abraham was, I am"
You said, "It doesn't make sense grammatically" and here is why. I have done lots of research on John 8:58. The original Greek for "I am" is ego eimi which literally means "I am". However, depending on the sentence it can and should be translated many other ways.God is speaking of himself in the present tense (as if the events are still happening) while taking about something (the life of Abraham) that happened thousands of years in the past. It doesn't make sense (grammatically or logically), unless He exists outside time and can see all of history at once.
For example, in the New American Standard Bible at Luke 15:29, a man says, "'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends."
The original Greek says, "I am" there.
In John 8:58, Jesus is speaking about his existence before Abraham. That verse could also just as likely say, "before Abraham was, I have been." But then another problem arises. In many cases in Greek, the statements "I am" or "I have been" are put at the end of the sentence whereas in English they are at the first. Therefore, "before Abraham was, I have been (I am)" should be "I have been (I am) before Abraham was". Christ was not trying to take the term "I AM" and apply it to himself. It isn't really a paradox question!
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
Link Removed . Yes. He was. But regardless of whether or not he was, I was talking about it as it applies to God (which I'm assuming you were too since you said Jesus wasn't talking about himself in this case), since I believe that Jesus was God incarnate, nor was I offering it as an example of a paradox, but using it as an answer to someone else's paradox question. It makes perfect sense grammatically, but only once you realize that God is a timeless God.You said, "It doesn't make sense grammatically" and here is why. I have done lots of research on John 8:58. The original Greek for "I am" is ego eimi which literally means "I am". However, depending on the sentence it can and should be translated many other ways.
...
Christ was not trying to take the term "I AM" and apply it to himself. It isn't really a paradox question!
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- lyons24000
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
- Title: Darn Red Shells!
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
While I agree that in general, stating your opinion yourself is good, why shouldn't linking to those things be allowed? That's suppressing free speech.For the record for all watching, posting links to websites that attack another's beliefs as a substitute for expressing one's own's views is VERY POOR TASTE, and shouldn't be permitted here.
Why? I've noticed that in many places, PWeb included, religious beliefs get special protection from criticism. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny as anything else?Anti-anyone's religion website links do not belong in this forum.
What if one of the tenets of my religion is that your religion is wrong? Why should your religion take precedence over mine?
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
That was hardly an attack (though if it was interpreted as such, I apologize)....it was friendly guidance meant to steer someone in the right direction. an attack takes the form "your beliefs are bad because of this, this and this" whereas friendly discussion takes the form "I believe your beliefs are wrong because of this, this and this, and you should consider changing those beliefs in light of this new evidence/reasoning"For the record for all watching, posting links to websites that attack another's beliefs as a substitute for expressing one's own's views is VERY POOR TASTE, and shouldn't be permitted here.
Anti-anyone's religion website links do not belong in this forum.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
Because you agreed to it when you posted here. http://www.philoticweb.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=35
I know what the rules are, I am asking why.Because you agreed to it when you posted here. http://www.philoticweb.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=35
- lyons24000
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
- Title: Darn Red Shells!
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Because this is not the place to proselytize.I know what the rules are, I am asking why.Because you agreed to it when you posted here. http://www.philoticweb.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=35
Sending links to websites that attempt to belittle someone else's beliefs can be offensive.
People can get upset.
It does not contribute to calm, peaceful learning about "what drives our members".
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 4 guests