|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 14:17:36 GMT
And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! Is this “God can’t make a mistake” even in the Bible? Psalm 18:30 says “This God—His way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him.” Moses writes in Deuteronomy 32:4 that “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.” Jesus taught that God is perfect in the Sermon on the Mount—“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Since everything God does is perfect, then he won't presumably make a mistake. However that does not mean He is not capable of something which can be done, even though it won't ever conceivably happen - one reason being that not being in error is, arguably, part of His nature which cannot ever change. Or is it? There is some debate to be had though about when God is said to 'repent' at a few places in scripture (usually glossed as to change His mind), over whether or not that is because He can see something that could be done better, and so admits of a decision less than ideal in the first place. Finally pace Aquinas and others, if God can make a mistake it would necessarily be the greatest mistake ever, in fact the standard against which all mistakes ought to be measured, otherwise one can imagine a being which is greater than God - which is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 26, 2020 14:22:12 GMT
Is this “God can’t make a mistake” even in the Bible? Psalm 18:30 says “This God—His way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him.” Moses writes in Deuteronomy 32:4 that “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.” Jesus taught that God is perfect in the Sermon on the Mount—“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Since everything God does is perfect, then he won't presumably make a mistake. However that does not mean He is not capable of something which can be done, even though it won't ever conceivably happen - one reason being that not being in error is, arguably, part of His nature which cannot ever change. Having said that there is some debate to be had though over when God is said to 'repent' at a few places in scripture (usually glossed as to change His mind), over whether or not that is because He can see something that could be done better, and so admits of a decision less than ideal in the first place. Finally pace Aquinas and others, if God can make a mistake it would necessarily be the greatest mistake ever, in fact the standard against which all mistakes ought to be measured, otherwise one can imagine a being which is greater than God - which is impossible. Maybe some of his followers 2500 years ago claimed he is perfect, but the evidence is surely otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 14:27:49 GMT
Psalm 18:30 says “This God—His way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him.” Moses writes in Deuteronomy 32:4 that “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.” Jesus taught that God is perfect in the Sermon on the Mount—“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Since everything God does is perfect, then he won't presumably make a mistake. However that does not mean He is not capable of something which can be done, even though it won't ever conceivably happen - one reason being that not being in error is, arguably, part of His nature which cannot ever change. Having said that there is some debate to be had though over when God is said to 'repent' at a few places in scripture (usually glossed as to change His mind), over whether or not that is because He can see something that could be done better, and so admits of a decision less than ideal in the first place. Finally pace Aquinas and others, if God can make a mistake it would necessarily be the greatest mistake ever, in fact the standard against which all mistakes ought to be measured, otherwise one can imagine a being which is greater than God - which is impossible. Maybe some of his followers 2500 years ago claimed he is perfect, but the evidence is surely otherwise. Part of the problem is that 'perfect' is a subjective term and is often a matter of perspective. What might be perfect for the ancient Hebrews may not be for today; one which suits medieval scholars may not sit so comfortably with modern discoveries and thought, this while a totally perfect God would have to be perfect at absolutely everything, even being mad, unfair, making mistakes - or indeed at not being perfect, for instance!
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 15:49:38 GMT
Part of the problem is that 'perfect' is a subjective term and is often a matter of perspective.
———————
....which makes FlimFlam’s opinions on this unimportant.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 16:30:59 GMT
Part of the problem is that 'perfect' is a subjective term and is often a matter of perspective. ——————— ....which makes FlimFlam’s opinions on this unimportant. While most posts here are necessarily subjective, when I affirm what constitutes 'perfect' for sure, rather than describing the difficulties than can attend any absolutes when describing God, please be certain to raise this particular point again.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 16:37:30 GMT
It’s all subjective, FF says.
So his speculation is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 16:49:28 GMT
It’s all subjective, FF says. So his speculation is meaningless. Something can be subjective and yet meaningful.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 17:55:16 GMT
It’s all subjective, FF says. So his speculation is meaningless. Something can be subjective and yet meaningful. Yours is not. You’re on a hate-filled agenda against billions and billions of innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 18:05:36 GMT
Something can be subjective and yet meaningful. Yours is not. You’re on a hate-filled agenda against billions and billions of innocent people. If what I say has no meaning then why do you attribute it one?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 18:22:00 GMT
Yours is not. You’re on a hate-filled agenda against billions and billions of innocent people. If what I say has no meaning then why do you attribute it one? You’re on an agenda to slander billions and billions of innocent people. What you say is tainted by this. It can’t be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 18:25:10 GMT
If what I say has no meaning then why do you attribute it one? You’re on an agenda to slander billions and billions of innocent people. What you say is tainted by this. It can’t be taken seriously. LOL Exaggerate much? And again: if what I say can't be taken seriously, why then are you doing so? Alternatively, if you can't answer this then please quote where I have 'slandered billions of people'. Evasion will be noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 18:34:38 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF?  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 26, 2020 22:46:42 GMT
For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. I personally don't care, but it seems to be somewhat important to you. Any more loose ends you need me to tie up?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:01:58 GMT
And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. Well, yes; you have already said that "I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford" even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Yes: if you personally don't care and have already said goodbye, what are you doing back here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2020 0:06:46 GMT
I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. Well, yes; I have already said that you accepting the 'Stanford' view of the illogicality of total omnipotence a while back was the same as I said, even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Round and round you go! Because you care and I'm a considerate dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:19:20 GMT
Well, yes; I have already said that you accepting the 'Stanford' view of the illogicality of total omnipotence a while back was the same as I said, even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Round and round you go! Nope. As we both agree, except for helping SciFive, off I get. Not enough to play message ping pong any more, but thank you for coming back just to patronise, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 27, 2020 0:19:36 GMT
I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. Well, yes; you have already said that "I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford" even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Yes: if you personally don't care and have already said goodbye, what are doing back here? I guess Admin is still waiting to be understood and endorsed, with the exception being sci. That says a lot about the op’s ludicrous premise right off the bat. ***edit*** Snap response, right off the bat too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2020 0:22:47 GMT
Nope. As we both agree, except for helping SciFive, off I get. Not enough to play message ping pong any more, but thank you for coming back just to patronise, anyway. So, no more loose ends? That's good. I'm glad I could help.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:25:59 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF? Evasion noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 0:40:16 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF? Evasion noted. It took you 6 hours to write this. Discomfort noted. |
|
