Gaudere
Non sequitur. Infinity minus one is infinity.
The Spirit that dwells in each of us might be cold or alive. Yours, for example, is alive. God, of course, is the Living God.
Lib:
I think this is the remark from teh other threead to which you refer.
This does not state that causality is absent from the current cosmological models. It states that causality is an artifact of the Universe and that, therefore, it is not an element which applies to questions of the origin of the Universe. This is quite correct. It is, in fact, the same reasoning which inspired me to this line of questions in teh first place. Note, I am free to use such a statement because causality is a part of the natural metaphysic.
Poly:
I am somewhat confused by your assertion of responsibility. I am quite willing to defend the idea that human perceptions of good and evil are subjective. In fact, I feel such an argument would border upon the trivial. If you wish to call Good an absolute and use that to defend an analogy then I would think the onus rests upon you.
In fact, though, I believe that you have misread my statement.
This does not, in fact, argue that good is subjective. It does not even argue that your perception of good is subjective (though as I say, I would be quite willing to make and defend that assertion). It argues that when you, as a human being, determine which ethical qualities are “positive” and which are “negative” you are using a subjective frame of reference to do so.
I think you may have misinterpreted me. I am talking about a specific Spirit belonging to an evil person, not all Spirit. Once this Spirit becomes evil, it is no longer God, right? Since I don’t think you are saying that God can be evil.
Spiritus
Okay. Then where does that leave us? We are back to there being a cause/effect (ordinal) attribute to the natural metaphysic and a set/element (cardinal) attribute to the spiritual metaphysic. In the former, a decision was made, is made, or will be made sequentially as time-space (event coordinates) unfolds; whereas, in the latter all decisions have been made, are being made, and will be made all at once and everywhere.
As I said, it would be cold (or dead). How can what is dead be God?
Actually, Lib, my point is that without sequence there can be no “decision”. Cardinal elements exist, but intent requires sequence. This is one, though not the only, reason why I did not find the ordinal/cardinal metaphor illuminative.
Another thing I find troubling about the cardinality metaphor is illustrated by Gaudere’s questions. It is true that the set of cardinals remains infinite after the element “3” is removed. However the set is no longer closed for such basic operations as addition and subtraction. If I try to model that back to a deity I come up with a God who is Infinite but not ubiquitous. I don’t think that is what you believe, though. Is it?
(BTW: I think it was a shame the discussion of epistemology ended up in an argumnet over definitions of reason. I think there were some interesting issues raised. “Intersting”, of course, being defined entirely by my own warped phenomenology. ;))
Ok. So we have an infinite God, who has given His Spirit to a finite number of humans while remaining infinite. Some of the Spirits choose not to love, and thus become evil, and are no longer God. The Spirits still exist, however, and I do not think you are saying that they are truly dead–the Spirit is eternal, right? So we have an infinte Spirit that is God, and a finite Spirit that is not. Is this correct?
Satan you said:
Guadere brought up the very response I would have had if I’d gotten there first ;). You literally seem to believe God can be anything … I do not. Yes, I definately limit God to being a good God.
And you are very mistaken about my “worshipping a book” Satan. My beliefs about God come from experiencing Him daily and are merely confirmed by His Holy Word. I know God is love because I regularly experience it.
pldennison said:
Well … yeah. That has nothing to do with the point though. To put my original statement in context, I’ve had friends over the years who were self-declared non Christians. They would not have claimed to be Christan. And yes God tried to reach them and I tried to reach them, of course. Tragically, as far as I know at least, they died without coming to Christ, unless it happened in a last minute kind of way and I was unaware of it.
When I say they I confess I am thinking of two people specifically, one of whom was an older man, a strong skeptic, who was convinced he was right. His daughter was a Christian and she and I both tried to reach him while he was alive. When he died in 1992 we tried to hope and believe that maybe in a last-second way he turned to Christ. And yeah I guess it is possible … but even the daughter admitted not very likely. My only point is … it’s a gut wrenching realization. It’s ten times worse than just hearing someone died. You know that, barring a last-second miracle, they’ve gone to eternal death because of their own stubbornness.
You also said:
As Poly said, he does clearly exist to many people. Just because it’s debated doesn’t mean it’s not true or clear. It can be clear to anyone who is willing to pursue knowing God.
Then … you shared with us your rather gut-wrenching story. Thank you so much for being honest and sharing it with us all. It helped me to see where you’re coming from.
As someone else said, it’s treading on thin ice to comment at all. The one thing I would like to carefully comment on is this paragraph, which broke my heart in particular:
I must say, gently, that if this is how you felt, then I am not surprised you concluded that God is bunk at all. I would be miserable if I was trying to make myself worthy too.
It seems … and please correct me if I’m wrong … that you were trying to earn God’s approval and you felt somehow that you didn’t have His approval. Oh that is such a miserable life. I’ve seen it many times in people, and I’ve had to be careful of slipping into it myself at times.
pld, of course this was miserable for you because you had set for yourself a goal you could never reach … making yourself worthy of God. No one is worthy of God, and never will be. The whole point is God loves you no matter what you do or don’t do for Him. He loves you no matter what gifts you do or don’t have. He doesn’t love you one ounce less if you sin, and doesn’t love you one ounce MORE if you do something great for Him. He just loves you, period. He has unconditional love for you, even now.
It seems from your description that you were “trying hard” to be a “good Christian”. This always results in burnout and despair, because no one can ever succeed at this approach. Usually in fact, the harder you try, the worse you get! “Trying hard” never ever works.
Works is the word for it. There was no grace there. It was all law.
pld, all I can tell you is this … you rejected a life of misery, no doubt, but I truly don’t believe that you rejected authentic Christianity. I’m not saying you weren’t Christian … just that what you were living out was not the Christian life God intends for us.
I want to leave you with these verses which I sincerely hope you will ponder in your heart:
I never thought I’d say this, but… I agree with FriendOfGod. Why do I say that? Well, because he’s a fundamentalist, and I’m a staunch anti-fundamentalist (but NOT anti-Christian.) I believe that fundamentalists spend more time worrying about how reading Harry Potter is going to send you to the devil than loving their fellow man as God intended. However, I can’t deny that this time, FoG is absolutely right. You can’t buy your way into heaven with works. You’ll be miserable if you strive for perfection and fail, but God is perfect, so you don’t have to be! But, hey, you don’t have to believe my opinion on religion! I’m the guy who, when he was baptized as a child, wondered where the nearest hair dryer was.
I apologize if that sounds like a personal insult. I have nothing against fundamentalist PEOPLE; I’m just not fond of fundamentalist BELIEF.
Spiritus
I think I see what you’re getting at. Without a third dimension (as for Mr. Flatlander), there can be no “up”. But in this case, the particular cardinality we’re talking about (God’s metaphysic) is Absolute, and so it is definitively not isomorphic.
Therefore, a decision to be made with respect to any arbitrary element, A, applies across the whole set, S. Thus, the need for God to purge evil is understandable.
Oh, yes, indeed it is! At least, in the sense I think you mean.
A central theme of our moral play is the purging of evil from God’s kingdom. I suspect you are applying ubiquity to the universe (i.e., Big Bang shrapnel). But the universe is like fast food. When consumed, the remains are thrown away or left to rot. God, on the other hand, is eternal.
He is ubiquitous throughout Goodness only. He is not to be found anywhere within evil.
I agree.
Personally, I find it interesting that I, who has taught logic in computer programming classes and workshops, have come to realize just how tenuous it is, failing by one of its own fallacies (begging the question). It was during my recent research of Pascal’s Wager that I came to my senses.
Gaudere
Well, they are eternally dead, dead being defined in this case as apart from God. There is no Life apart from Life.
Essentially, yes.
Nevertheless, God being God and all, he can save whoever he bloody well pleases. It is not up to you to decide what happened when they crossed the vale, as it were. It is up to him.
So what? It was not your job or his daughter’s to save him. It is God’s. And if God wants him saved or “in heaven” or whatever, he will do so, regardless of who turned to whom or what at what time in their life.
The reason I press the point is because of the presumptive nature of, well, people like you who go around belaboring the “tragic” stories of people who they just “know” are in hell. You don’t know who is in hell. None of us does. If there is a hell, the only people I’m banking on being there are John Wayne Gacy, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Everyone else, it’s a crapshoot. I don’t care what your Bible says–your Bible is not God, and God is going to save whoever he wants.
You don’t know any such thing.
As far as the rest of the stuff, I know that your intentions are good, but I will let you know that I am old enough and experienced enough to not need to be witnessed to, condescended to or preached at. You and Poly asked me a question, and I answered it as fully and honestly as I am able. As I said, anything is possible, but barring a whizz-bang Pauline experience or a revelation of Exodus-style proportions, I have reached an absolute certainty on this question.
Poly, you are correct that the ability of those in altered states to manifest glossolalia does not preclude other, supernatural explanations. My argument, however, was the converse: the existence of a relatively mundane explanation means one is not forced to assume a supernatural explanation. My personal theory is that religious glossolalia means the person is able to voluntarily enter an altered state of conciousness that I personally am unable to achieve, which allows them to speak phonemes in a language-like but meaningless pattern while short-cutting past some other parts of the brain. It doesn’t mean they’re schizophrenic or crazy. Hell, my wife can do it.
Why are they eternally dead? They can become good, right?
So what you are saying happened, is that God, an infinite, wholly Good Spirit, created the universe-of-atoms, with the intent that a creature with the capability for consciousness and perception of God would arise (aside: do you believe consciousness is in the Spirit, or the brain?). Once humans could perceive God, He imbued them with [a piece of] Spirit. Now, although the Spirit came from the wholly Good God, once it is controlling a human body is has a desire to do evil and will sometimes do so, is that correct? Or is the Spirit that does not control a human body also possibly shifting from evil to good and back again, it’s just that only the infinitely good Spirit can be called God?
As I understand it, God put Spirit in humans so that the Spirit could play out its morality in the world of atoms. When Spirit is not in the world of atoms, is it unchangingly good? Or just unchanging?
Lib:
If you believe that this is a characterisitic of logic rather than a characteristic of epistemologies, then I guess our discussion was not as fruitful as I had thought.
[qoute]
the particular cardinality we’re talking about (God’s metaphysic) is Absolute, and so it is definitively not isomorphic.
[/quote]
hmmm – it really seems that cardinality might not be a good model. The set you are proposing seems to have no closed operations, no perpetuity of membership, and is not isomorhpic to any other set. Again, I fail to see how appropriating the word “cardinality” to attach to this set explains/illuminates anything. In fact, it seems merely to muddy the picture by bringing with it certain porperties normally associated with the set of cardinal numbers which do not apply to the set Spirit.
This is actually an entirely new point, since my initial argument remains that without sequence the word “decision” cannot be meaningfully applied. A decision requires a change in state for a conscious entity. There must be a “before” and “after” state to this consciousness, with the division being the point of decision.
Now, as to the new point you raise: You have told Gaudere that Spirit separated from God becomes evil (in the sense of absent good, I assume). Now, if “a decision to be made with respect to any arbitrary element, A, applies across the whole set, S,” then would this not imply that the instant Spirit “decides” to abandone this particular spirit, all spirits become separated from Spirit?
Now, this time I really don’t think that’s what you are trying to say.
No. I am explicitely applying ubiquity to the realm of Spirit. You have argued that the set is not Closed and that membership can be “revoked”. This implies that in whatever hypothetical hyperdimensionality Spirit occupies, there are “places” which are not Spirit.
**
First of all, this is totally inconsistant with having an omnipotent God. Limiting God means He is not omnipotent. As long as you are fine with saying that God is not omnipotent, then you can certainly say this, but your other posts seem to indicate you think that He is.
Secondly, way YOU limit God to means nothing to God. Unless you can control Him to conform to your wishes and yours alone.
Thirdly, I happen to think that many things are “good” (or at worst are amoral, AKA “not bad”) that you for every fibre of your being would say ARE bad. I don’t find homosexuality “bad,” I don’t necessarily think it is “bad” to have premartial sex, I don’t think it’s “bad” to be pro-choice, and I don’t think it’s “bad” to drink or smoke in moderation. In fact, I don’t think it’s “bad” to NOT be a Christian.
Your God thinks these things, and will throw anyone who does these things into a firey pit for doing them according to you.
So, God is conforming to YOUR definitions of what is “good” and what is not.
Fact is, if God is the way you portray Him to be, as others have said here, I would reject Him to His face, because some of the things you (and your ilk) say about Him makes me think He HAS to be evil.
**
According to this, if God told you something which was against the Bible, you would reconcile this, how?
Answer this with “God wouldn’t to this,” and you’re limiting Him and NOT listening. Because God already went against the Bible - when Jesus came along and changed the rules - so why wouldn’t he do this again? And what if God came along and simply said, “your interpretation is wrong,” or “why did you take that literally? It was a metaphor,” are you prepared to listen?
No, because you’re a fundamentalist.
Ergo, you are limiting God.
You rationalize it by saying that God set His own limits, but God tells me otherwise…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, four days, 16 hours, 34 minutes and 32 seconds.
4667 cigarettes not smoked, saving $583.45.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 55 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!*[/sub]
Gaudere
What do you mean by “become” exactly? How does “become” make sense in an eternal reference frame?
The brain.
I believe that the universe exists as an infinite manifold of universes because that seems to eliminate unnecessary entities.
Losing nothing in the process, of course. It might be important, in the event of any preconceptions, to point out that a piece of infinity can itself be infinite.
Let me know if I got that secondary nominative right. I’ll answer based on the assumption that I did.
Well, the idea of “once it is controlling a human body” might start a red herring, so let’s just think of it as “once it is independent”. But there isn’t any sense in thinking of it chronologically at all, since it is only our brain that operates in this reference frame. So let’s just say “because it is independent”. (Notice, by the way, the ablative implication of independence!)
As an independent being with free-will, it may choose either good or evil. Just like God has that same free choice.
God has chosen (is choosing, and will choose) to be good.
Looks like we’re getting close to understanding each other, Gaudere!
Satan, I think you have just told nearly every single theist (besides you) on this MB that their God is not really omnipotent. 
Most theists have faith that God is Good, and God loves them; there may perhaps be some possibilty that this is incorrect, but they have faith that they’ve gotten it right. I doubt you would get Poly to refuse to say that God is good, or admit that his God is therefore not omnipotent. As well, most theists do not think omnipotentence negates logic, so if they believe God is wholly Good, they cannot also believe that God might be evil. Just because God is omnipotent, and could do anything logically possible, does not mean that He does; I do not think it limits God to describe Him. If He is in fact good, and you say so, you have not limited Him at all…you have simply described His attributes accurately.
Spiritus
Oh, I agree with you. Even empiricism itself presumes its own validity.
You could be right.
I wish I had Tris’s self-discipline to avoid these kinds of analogies, but I guess hope springs eternal. I keep hoping that we will meet somewhere and share a common frame of reference. Besides, sometimes analogies can get carried to extremes, leading to things like believing that a book is the Word of God. In this case, someone might conclude that God is infinity itself. I’ll hang with it a bit more and see whether we can make sense of it. Sometimes with analogies, it can be helpful to point out (as we are doing) where it might and might not apply.
Not if the decision is itself eternal. That’s what I meant about a decision applying across the whole set.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to raise a red herring. As stated above, I meant for it to address the previous discussion. But we can discuss this, too.
As implied above, we are talking about a Decision that is alive and is eternal. (Not alive in a biological sense, but rather in a real sense.)
Maybe, but I’m not sure the analogy breaks down with that.
Remember, a line segment, [0,1] has just as many cardinal points as a line segment, [0,3]. God is immeasurable. I think the Euclidean notion that the second line segment is three times longer than the first might be analogous to the natural metaphysic, where cardinality (Spirit) appears to have “size”.
Does any of this help at all? Or have I locked us into a hopeless quagmire? We can abandon the analogy if it isn’t helping us to find a meeting place.
Well, that’s kind of the problem. Some people start out nasty, and choose to do good; some start out good and become evil. Even though we’re in an eternal reference frame, the Spirit can apparently change and choose to be good or evil–that’s what free will is all about.
Why is it that Spirit, when it separates and becomes independent, sometimes chooses to be evil, but it does not when it is the one infinite God-spirit? And I didn’t think they were independent Spirits at all; I thought all good Spirits were God, and all non-good Spirits were not. Is “independent” perhaps the wrong word?
What seems to be missing here is the fact that we are contingent and He is not. This rather off-the-wall technical term from ontological theology means that He created everything – including our conceptions of what is good, just, omnipotent, and so on.
He is by definition good – not a definition limiting Him, but a definition of what “good” means. It is what He wants it to mean. Now, Gaudere, with her penchant for supposing theistic improbabilities to illustrate how we theists paint ourselves into a corner with our terminology, could suggest that it would be possible for God to decide incest, pederasty, the widespread dumping of toxic waste, genocide, or whatever your personal bugaboo is, is “good.” And of course, we would be properly horrified, and those of us who entertain a concept of what God is would take sides on what God’s will, and good, would mean in such a circumstance. The point is that He did not, in fact, decide that any one of these things is “good.” If He had, we would be of quite different mindsets as to what “goodness” implies, because we are contingent – His free-will-endowed creations. In such a hypothetical world where incest was a “good” thing, evangelists would be fulminating against those perverts who refuse to sleep with their mothers.
This is, I realize, another way of saying, “The question can’t arise,” as Satan suggested that FriendofGod would probably respond in response to an against-the-Bible commandment straight from God. But my point, that our ideas of goodness and so on, insofar as they are not culturally determined, derive from how he created us. If I have an inner a priori sense of good, and not just a hypertrophied extension of my parents’ “good little boys don’t do that,” turned into an overall concept of goodness, then it is from what God decreed as good in creation. (Look it up; it’s in that Bible chapter everybody argues about the literalness of, right in front.)