A question to theists . . . . . . .

[Flip McWho]

Is there any such thing as just evil? I think most people would read "just" and think "do no harm and have no harm inflicted on you in return". I think if you accept that God is just, then you must surely also believe that God is good.

Not necessarily. It can be considered just to kill another person to prevent that person from killing another.


Beingofone:

Just want to mention that I like your philosophy as I can get from your posts here. Lotsa thoughts obviously gone into it.

[Flip McWho]

Whaleboy, are you familiar with the creationist viewpoint of eternity? What is time then?

According to Hawking (I recently finished reading The History of Time, which is a bloody good book which I recommend to everyone) there is the the cosmological arrow of time, the thermodynamic arrow of time and the pyschological arrow of time.

The thermodynamic arrow is entropy, order going to disorder.
Pyschological is memory and present.
Cosmological is the expanding universe.

[Flip McWho]

Just had a thought.

1) Assume that God was the first-cause.

2) From 1 we can conclude that God must exist outside of our spacetime, God existed prior to the creation of our spacetime afterall.

3) From 2 we can conclude that God must be eternal.


But that's it. To conclude that God can intervene with the spacetime requires another assumption. The assumption that God intervenes, which I'm guessing either comes from Intelligent Design or Revelation.

[beingofone]

lord of the mark:

when y'all say creation, are you talking Bera, or Atziluth?

Holy Kabbalah Batman - I am a Christian so I can get away with that Lord

I knew you were a closet Kabbalist. No matter how hard you try you seem to be fascinated with Jewish mysticism.

Zohar, the Baal Shem Tov, Martin Buber, Rabbi Nachman, of Bratzlav, Abraham Abulafia, and Aryeh Kaplan.




Flip McWho,
I have enjoyed talking with you sir.

Hawking is brilliant; I do disagree that entropy is the end state however. I am sure he cares about my opinion - LOL.

1) Assume that God was the first-cause.

2) From 1 we can conclude that God must exist outside of our spacetime, God existed prior to the creation of our spacetime afterall.

3) From 2 we can conclude that God must be eternal.


But that's it. To conclude that God can intervene with the spacetime requires another assumption. The assumption that God intervenes, which I'm guessing either comes from Intelligent Design or Revelation.

If God transcends existence itself he therefore; becomes what is termed experience. Experience itself cannot be the unknowable, simply the undefined eternal momentum.

You cannot define your experience, you may only be it. Experience is in a state of infinite flux as the only constant is continuous change.

How much energy is required to experience infinite change?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow
IIUC, "bera" is putting created matter into a form. Living things reproduce "after their kind (bera)."

yes, bera is creation. Atziluth is emanation. The distinction, and their roles "in the beginning" are big deals in Kabbalah, apparently.

[Bill3000]

Is there any reason why you posted this in both CivFanatics and Apolyton?

[Ben Kenobi]

The assumption that God intervenes, which I'm guessing either comes from Intelligent Design or Revelation.

Deism implicitly assumes that God is a perfect watchmaker. One can be a perfect watchmaker, but if the substances by which you make the watch are flawed and weak, then that watch is not going to keep running.

Ergo, God must intervene in the world to keep things running.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Is there any reason why you posted this in both CivFanatics and Apolyton?

Yes . To get a variety of opinions .

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Deism implicitly assumes that God is a perfect watchmaker. One can be a perfect watchmaker, but if the substances by which you make the watch are flawed and weak, then that watch is not going to keep running.

Ergo, God must intervene in the world to keep things running.

1- Deism does not imply God is the perfect wathchmaker; it only implies that there is a God.

2- Intervention by God is quite common in the Old Testament. The New Testament is about God manifested on the planet. Therefore, interventionism is not an artifact of either Revelation or intelligent design. Wouldn't that have been a better answer?

[Flip McWho]

If God transcends existence itself he therefore; becomes what is termed experience. Experience itself cannot be the unknowable, simply the undefined eternal momentum.

You cannot define your experience, you may only be it. Experience is in a state of infinite flux as the only constant is continuous change.

How much energy is required to experience infinite change?

One thing that has always got me is that assuming God created the universe then God had to preexist existence which is contradictionary so God cannot be a Being.

A point about what I quoted above. We may not be able to define our experience but we do definitely label it. That is what our names are for.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Deism implicitly assumes that God is a perfect watchmaker. One can be a perfect watchmaker, but if the substances by which you make the watch are flawed and weak, then that watch is not going to keep running.

Ergo, God must intervene in the world to keep things running.

Firstly, how can a perfect God create something not perfect? Afterall the substances which the universe is made out of was created by God.

You're also assuming that the universe isn't perfect as is.

And you also assume that God didn't just wind the watch up to set it going so to speak.

Intervention by God is quite common in the Old Testament. The New Testament is about God manifested on the planet. Therefore, interventionism is not an artifact of either Revelation or intelligent design. Wouldn't that have been a better answer?

The old testament and the new testament are both Revelation. Revelation is everything about God given to us by humans, unless you wanna pull the whole Jesus is God thing.

The NT is also based off the OT, so the only thing that changes is the nature of the relationship between God and humanity/universe.

Therefore you still have to make the extra assumption that god intervenes as both these sources are revelation.

[Kuciwalker]

Firstly, how can a perfect God create something not perfect?

Why couldn't he?

[Flip McWho]

Well I suppose he could.

Just seems to be pointless if hes gonna go about interferring to make it all better again. Seems to contradict his perfection.

[beingofone]

Flip McWho:

One thing that has always got me is that assuming God created the universe then God had to preexist existence which is contradictionary so God cannot be a Being.

That is right on the money Flip.

The models of most of Theism is flawed because it argues for God`s existence. This is done(usually) to maintain the theological 'doctrine' of creating a distance from Pantheism.

It is maintaned to draw distinctions of how the Theistic model is superior. Never underestimate the pride of mankind to spindle God in their behest; kinda like the Santa Claus of the sky.

If God is infinite he cannot possibly exist as an individual entity or being. He must be the ground of all existence, essence, and being.

He is not made of the sum of his parts. Like the concept of zero which is a symbol of the infinit. Zero is not limited to what it cannot be, it is not made of parts, it transcends existence.

A point about what I quoted above. We may not be able to define our experience but we do definitely label it. That is what our names are for.

True; and we do this for the sake of communication and logic. We can identify the infinite according to the Law of Identity. We cannot define the eternal nor can we identify our experience as per definition. It may only be alluded to and compared, not defined.

[BeBMan]

I don't understand this thread. Why would a omnipotent being be bound by the rules of our logic? Why couldn't God contradict himself as long as he want if he is indeed omnipotent?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by beingofone
If God is infinite he cannot possibly exist as an individual entity or being. He must be the ground of all existence, essence, and being.

Being infinite is not at all the same thing as being all inclusive. For example, there are infinite integer numbers, but integers do not encompass real numbers. God is infinite and distinct from His creation.

Like the concept of zero which is a symbol of the infinit. Zero is not limited to what it cannot be, it is not made of parts, it transcends existence.

Um, no. Zero is not a symbol of the infinite, it is the opposite of the infinite. It is the symbol of nothing. The null set. Zip, zilch, nada.