|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:43:28 GMT
Merry Christmas!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:44:25 GMT
Happy New Year!!!
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 24, 2020 14:55:49 GMT
Happy Christmas Eve!!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 24, 2020 20:12:22 GMT
Merry Kwanza!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 21:46:17 GMT
I didn't.. I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. I see the thread title ' IF god can do anything can he make a mistake'; then I see from you that "the premise is that anything can be done." which is simply not the same premise. One is conditional, one is not. You can see how it looks if you repeatedly ignore the difference.. premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." "God can do anything" is the statement assumed to be true, as indicated by the conditional clause (ie, 'if'). The question is not merely "can God make a mistake;" it's "can God make a mistake if he can do anything." Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 21:50:56 GMT
That Krauss guy someone mentioned earlier is on record as saying that if anything is possible, it isn't serious science. Science also says that, anything that can happen will happen, given enough time. Great. Then let's rephrase the question to suit: If God can do anything that can be done, can he make a mistake? Given that no one truly knows the mind of anyone (except perhaps their own), why should God be an exception and how is that not special pleading? Have a good weekend, FF.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 23:44:47 GMT
I see the thread title ' IF god can do anything can he make a mistake'; then I see from you that "the premise is that anything can be done." which is simply not the same premise. One is conditional, one is not. You can see how it looks if you repeatedly ignore the difference.. premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 23:58:46 GMT
Science also says that, anything that can happen will happen, given enough time. Great. Then let's rephrase the question to suit: If God can do anything that can be done, can he make a mistake? The answer is still the same since it does alter the logic of only being able to do that which is logically coherent: that is, God can only do that which can be done (although I have already made a distinction between being able to make a mistake, and it ever happening given a perfect being, if you remember.) Just because one asserts a contrary view it does not make it true, no matter how much one wants it so. Since now at least once you said you agree, along with me, with the common 'Stanford' view about the necessary limits to omnipotence, I really don't know why you are continuing. Looks like we are just back with psychology and emotion. Because special pleading is when the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view. I am not sure of your logic here, or how it is applicable. From what you say about minds in general, God is not even an exception that ignores other inconvenient examples! He is however an entity which was specifically mentioned by SciFive so the observation was pertinent. Since mine is a direct quote from scripture (1 Cor 2:11) any matters of special pleading, if relevant, really ought to be laid at its door, not mine. And you. Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 25, 2020 1:59:56 GMT
premise: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn There is no difference between "If God can do anything..." and "assuming God can do anything..." If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you. For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And you forgot the "can" between "If you" and "understand these differences." I would say try again, but I've lost interest. So I'm getting off your smug little merry-go-round now. Bye!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 26, 2020 13:00:33 GMT
If only you had included any such conditional in your version of the premise which was, you remember, just the bald "that anything can be done [by God]." Not at all the same. But if now you wish to revise it, I can see why you might want to. As already said, a shame you missed that 'if' out of your version and did not make it a question. That indeed is the original premise - but I know that already since I have thrice had to remind you of it. But its not your version. Here's another example: 'If you understand these differences, can you get things right?' is not the same as 'you can understand these differences'. Thank you. 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!
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|