Thursday, January 21, 2010

A.W. Tozer on the Justness and Goodness of God

“Knowledge of the Holy” By A.W. Tozer (excerpt page 61).


It is sometimes said, “Justice requires God to do this,” referring to some act we know He will perform. This is an error of thinking as well as of speaking, for it postulates a principle of justice outside of God which compels Him to act in a certain way. Of course there is no such principle. If there were it would be superior to God, for only a superior power can compel obedience.



The truth is that there is not and can never be anything outside of f the nature of God which can move Him in the least degree. All God’s reasons come from within His uncreated being. Nothing has entered the being of God from eternity, nothing has been removed, and nothing has been changed.


Justice, when used of God, is a name we give to the way God is, nothing more; and when God acts justly He is not doing so to conform to an independent criterion, but simply acting like Himself in a given situation. As gold is an element in itself and can never change nor compromise but is gold wherever it is found, so God is God, always, only, fully God, and can never be other than He is. Everything in the universe is good to the degree it conforms to the nature of God and evil as it fails to do so. God is His own self-existent principle of moral equity, and when He sentences evil men or rewards the righteous, He simply acts like Himself from within, uninfluenced by anything that is not Himself.


All this seems, but only seems, to destroy the hope of justification for the returning sinner. The Christian philosopher and saint, Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, sought a solution to the apparent contradiction between the justice and the mercy of God. “How dost Thou spare the wicked,” he inquired of God, “if Thou art all just and supremely just?” Then he looked straight at God for the answer, for he knew that it lies in what God is.

Anselm’s findings may be paraphrased this way: God’s being is unitary; it is not composed of a number of parts working harmoniously, but simply one. There is nothing in His justice which forbids the exercise of His mercy. To think of God as we sometimes think of a court where a kindly judge, compelled by law sentences a man to death with tears and apologies, is to think in a manner wholly unworthy of the true God.


God is never at cross-purposes with Himself. No attribute of God is in conflict with another. God’s compassion flows out of His goodness, and goodness without justice is not goodness. God spares us because He is good, but He could not be good if He were not just. When God punishes the wicked, Anselm concludes, it is just because it is consistent with their deserts; and when He spares the wicked it is just because it is compatible with His goodness; so God does what becomes Him as the supremely good God. This is reason seeking to understand, not that it may believe but because it already believes.


A simpler and more familiar solution for the problem of how God can be just and still justify the unjust is found in the Christian doctrine of redemption. It is that, through the work of Christ in atonement, justice is not violated but satisfied when God spares a sinner. Redemptive theology teaches that mercy does not become effective toward a man until justice has done its work. The just penalty for sin was exacted when Christ our Substitute died for us on the cross. However unpleasant this may sound to the ear of the natural man, it has ever been sweet to the ear of faith. Millions have been morally and spiritually transformed by this message, have lived lives of great moral power, and died at last peacefully trusting in it.

22 comments:

boomSLANG said...

Taken from the article...

"There is nothing in His justice which forbids the exercise of His mercy."

Perhaps there is nothing that "forbids" this "God"[biblegod], who is presumably a free agent, from exercising "His mercy" and "Perfect Justice", and an infinite list of things that we'd expect an omnipotent being with free will to act on(or not).

The problem, once again, is this being's alleged "omniscience", which, by definition, includes an Absolute knowledge of the future set of events, including its *own* choices.

Thus, this being cannot excercise its "mercy", that is, if it knows, in advance, that it's not going to excercise its "mercy"(and vice versa). It's a very basic philosophical contradiction that can only be overcome, if, either "omniscience", or "omnipotence", gets eliminated.

Karla said...

God's omnipotence doesn't mean that he can do every possible thing that is possible to do. What I mean is His power is always in alignment with His nature which is good, just, holy, love, righteous, truthful, honest, etc.

For instance, He cannot lie. For He is truth, and He is always Himself. He cannot do something that is not good, not because there is a limit on His power, but because His power is one with His goodness.

boomSLANG said...

Thank you for all of that. Perhaps repeating what you've said dozens and dozens of times will be instrumental in keeping you and your Christian constituents "convinced". Unfortunately, that whole spiel is entirely irrelevant in regards to overcoming the aforementioned philosophical dilemma, in which case, it is meaningless to the unconvinced.

boomSLANG said...

BTW,

"God's omnipotence doesn't mean that he can do every possible thing that is possible to do." ~ Karla

Then the "God" in question isn't "omnipotent", and this is a perfect example of something I've pointed out in the past...i.e..in order to overcome the blatant inconsistancies found in the Christian doctrine, believers must redefine the terms attributed to their "God".

Yes, "God" has no limits on its "free will", except when "God" has limits on its "free will".

Karla said...

Boom, not in the way you mean "omnipotence" He is fully powerful, but His power is in line with His nature. He cannot do what is not in His nature to do. He is by nature, Truth, and thus cannot lie.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Boom, not in the way you mean "omnipotence" He is fully powerful, but His power is in line with His nature. He cannot do what is not in His nature to do. He is by nature, Truth, and thus cannot lie.

::sigh::

Again, irrelevant conclusion. The above does not address/overcome the fact that if "God", while "fully powerful", is also "omniscient", then he/she/it knows the future, ABSOLUTELY, in which case, there are limits on its "power" - specifically, changing its mind - therefore, it cannot be "all powerful" as you claim.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Again, irrelevant conclusion. The above does not address/overcome the fact that if "God", while "fully powerful", is also "omniscient", then he/she/it knows the future, ABSOLUTELY, in which case, there are limits on its "power" - specifically, changing its mind - therefore, it cannot be "all powerful" as you claim.”

Like I said, there are things He cannot do which are not limiting, logically inconsistent with who He is. He can’t lie. That doesn’t mean He isn’t fully powerful, it just means His power is not used in ways that are wrong or illogical or to make a rock so big He can’t lift it or make a round square. All of His attributes work as one and none of them reign without the whole of the others. His omniscience and His power will flow the right way.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Like I said, there are things He cannot do which are not limiting, logically inconsistent with who He is. He can’t lie. That doesn’t mean He isn’t fully powerfu[SNIP]

Are you really, really this obtuse? I'd like to think not, but you hardly leave me any choice.

Okay, fine, Karla!..."He['God'] can't lie"! Outstanding! I'll happily grant you this, for sake of argument.

Now will you actually try to entertain what I'm saying to you???? Loosely assuming, "yes"---whether your biblegod can, or cannot, "lie", has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fact that if said biblegod is omniscience and knows the future, then said future, is....{drum roll, please}...fixed and immovable! Repeat: FIXED AND IMMOVABLE!!!!!!.

I reiterate--if said "God" knows the future, then said "God" knows all of its future choices, in which case, logic says that it cannot revise those choices, because if said "God" could revise those choices, then it NEVER KNEW ITS ULTIMATE CHOICES TO BEGIN WITH!

Additionally, if biblegod could "Prophesize" that there'd be doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers(just as he presumably did), then logic says that doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers are actually NECESSARY in the fulfillment of said "Prophecy". Otherwise, it's a FAILED "Prophecy".

I implore you to pop-off your Xian lenses for 45 seconds, and really think about the implications here, rather than spout-off more drearily irrelevant responses, like some sort of automaton. Geesh!

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Okay, fine, Karla!..."He['God'] can't lie"! Outstanding! I'll happily grant you this, for sake of argument.”

It was an example of my point that there are things He cannot do and still be omnipotent.


BoomSlang “Now will you actually try to entertain what I'm saying to you???? Loosely assuming, "yes"---whether your biblegod can, or cannot, "lie", has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fact that if said biblegod is omniscience and knows the future, then said future, is....{drum roll, please}...fixed and immovable! Repeat: FIXED AND IMMOVABLE!!!!!!.”

I think it is moveable. There are at least 3 references of God changing His mind in Scripture. Exodus 32:14, Jeremiah 26:19, and Amos 7:3. It is a mystery to me. I don’t know how it works. I’m not trying to frustrate you or be “obtuse.”

You need to understand that I didn’t come to Christ because of a philosophical argument and I’m not going to leave Him because of one either. My life in Christ is two fold; it’s a matter of the heart/spirit/experience (whatever you want to call that) and the mind. I also do not think everything can be neatly explained, if it could that would bring into question the greatness of God. If a finite mind can fully conceive all the mysteries of God perfectly than God isn’t all that awesome and great. This isn’t a cop out. I’m still thinking over your proposed philosophical contradiction and will continue to think it over well after this conversation comes to a close.


BoomSlang “Additionally, if biblegod could "Prophesize" that there'd be doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers(just as he presumably did), then logic says that doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers are actually NECESSARY in the fulfillment of said "Prophecy". Otherwise, it's a FAILED "Prophecy". “


Not so. Many times God tells us something SO THAT we can change it. He can give us knowledge of impending consequences upon a city so that we can help that city come to repentance as happened in Ninevah.


Boom “I implore you to pop-off your Xian lenses for 45 seconds, and really think about the implications here, rather than spout-off more drearily irrelevant responses, like some sort of automaton. Geesh!”

I work to see things through your eyes though I will always see that through my eyes seeing through yours if I ever master seeing through the eyes of an atheist. I don’t pretend to have mastered such a thing. Our worldviews are so very different.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: It was an example of my point that there are things He cannot do and still be omnipotent.

And guess what? I have NEVER SAID THAT "He" cannot "be omnipotent"!!! I'm saying(for the bazillioth time) that *IF* "He" *IS* "omnipotent", then "He" is NOT omniscient. Karla, it is philosophically/conceptually IMPOSSIBLE for "God", or any being, to be both.

Previously, me: “Now will you actually try to entertain what I'm saying to you???? Loosely assuming, 'yes'---whether your biblegod can, or cannot, 'lie', has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fact that if said biblegod is omniscience and knows the future, then said future, is....{drum roll, please}...fixed and immovable! Repeat: FIXED AND IMMOVABLE!!!!!!"

Karla: I think it is moveable.

I frankly don't care what you "think" at this point. That you disagree, is as immaterial to me as if you were telling me that you "think" square circles exist. I have no reason to take you seriously, and neither does any other Atheist visitor. Your dishonesty is appalling.

Continues....There are at least 3 references of God changing His mind in Scripture. Exodus 32:14, Jeremiah 26:19, and Amos 7:3. It is a mystery to me. I don’t know how it works.

Circular argument. Certain contents of the bible are demonstrably false, and you're trying to refute that by using the bible. I know you likely won't "get" this, but pointing out verses where "God" can change his mind only compounds and underscores the error; it does not overcome it.

Karla: I’m not trying to frustrate you or be “obtuse.”

I never suggested that you are "trying" to frustrate me. You are a victim, and I realize that. In other words, you can't help it. Having your beliefs is more important than ANYTHING, even intellectual honesty and compassion for your fellow humans beings. Again, 'sad.....but you're a victim. Notwithstanding, when I can't take it anymore, I'm free to leave, and I will do just that.

Karla: You need to understand that I didn’t come to Christ because of a philosophical argument and I’m not going to leave Him because of one either.

FINE. Then get honest and stop using the Christian philosophy as your "source" for analytical arguments, and concede that it's an issue of "faith" or something similar, like wish-thinking. As has been illustrated over and over and over---some of the cornerstone tenets of said "philosophy" are demonstrably illogical, in this case, biblegod's purported "omniscience" and "omnipotence".

Me, previously: "Additionally, if biblegod could 'Prophesize' that there'd be doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers(just as he presumably did), then logic says that doubters/skeptics/nonbelievers are actually NECESSARY in the fulfillment of said 'Prophecy'. Otherwise, it's a FAILED 'Prophecy'."

Karla: Not so. Many times God tells us something SO THAT we can change it.

Oh, good grief. Okay, let's say that you and your Xian constituents convinced every single person to be a "Christian". Fine; done.

To be clear--there are NO skeptics/backsliders/heathens/atheists, etc. NOT ONE.

Oops!!!! Failed "Prophecy"!!!!

Are you getting this?

Karla: I work to see things through your eyes though I will always see that through my eyes seeing through yours if I ever master seeing through the eyes of an atheist. I don’t pretend to have mastered such a thing. Our worldviews are so very different.

Erroneous, in that you don't have to "master" anything to get grade-school level logic, right.

Karla said...

Do you want to continue this conversation? We do not have to. I do not want to cause further irritation to you. I understand you see me as a victim of religion. And you would not understand my saying that I am very much free from religion. I see religion as rules and laws and not simply a term used to describe a particular faith culture. Though the latter meaning is accurate as well.

I have a high value of people and compassion for people, but I cannot prove that to you. You'd have to see my life to know if it were true.

I understand that you were not talking about God not being omnipotent, but rather not being able to also be omniscient. I was explaining how the two are compatible by talking about what is meant by Christians when we say "omnipotent." This is not a philosophical hang up for me, not because I'm intellectually honest, though I continue to get accused of that by atheists, but that's okay if that's how you see me. But because I have encountered God, so even if I don't know how one aspect of His nature works compared to the other aspect I still know He is real and that He is good.

I know He is real as much as I know my husband is real.

You are welcome to read here and comment here and of course you are free not to. I wish you well whatever you decide.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: Do you want to continue this conversation?

A "conversation" implies listening as well as speaking. You rarely show any indication that you are doing the former.

In any event, as frustrating as it may be, I feel it is important to get people who claim to know Ultimate "Truth" to support those claims(for instance, "Christ is the answer").

To date, you have not supported your claims, IMO. In fact, you have not demonstrated that you have any good reasons for holding your beliefs, aside from because you want to believe them.

I'm pretty sure that we all know what Karla believes. You've made that abundantly clear. So, again----'mission accomplished, right? If not---if you want me and other non-believing guests to believe that you have better reasons for believing than just wanting to believe, then I don't suppose it'd be a good idea for you to dissuade conversation.

Moreover, while, yes, dealing with your ocassional dishonesty can be frustrating, still, these discussions could be helpful to a Xian reader who may be struggling with doubt. If just one of the indoctrinated gets honest enough/brave enough to actually question what he or she believes and why, then, to me, the frustration's worth it.

continues...I understand you see me as a victim of religion. And you would not understand my saying that I am very much free from religion.

Trying to divorce what you believe to be a "personal relationship with God", from "religion", is also not honest. You see, the second that you take a "relationship" that is "personal", and try to make it Universal, you then have one of the cornerstone facets of, yes, "religion". Then again, I'm prepared for you to give me your own custom definition of "religion", too.

Karla: I have a high value of people and compassion for people...

No, not if you uphold the despicable, barbaric behaviors of the Christian biblegod, and how this "God" regards those who displease him.

continues.....but I cannot prove that to you.

Yes, actually, you can prove it to me. If, hypothetically, you denounced your biblegod, I'd consider that credible evidence that you hold your fellow human beings in a high regard. But since we all know that isn't going to happen, and instead, you'll go on defending a being who smites, drowns, and sends plagues to your fellow human beings if they displease him, the debate goes on.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: You'd have to see my life to know if it were true.

Perhaps it's true that you are very kind and compassionate. Fine. However, you will not, in your wildest dreams, convince me that you are this way because you are emmulating the deity of the bible, or following the "morality" laid out in your bible. That would be an presposterous assertion.

conitnues...I know He is real as much as I know my husband is real.

Bull'. And BTW, you've attempted this whole "He is real as much as I know my husband is real" rigamarole, before. FYI, the argument is still just as unsatisfactory this time, as it was the last time, and this is a perfect example of when I said that a "conversation" requires listening, too.

You don't listen, Karla. Don't you remember what I said the first time? If I, or anyone else, doubts that your "husband" is "real", you can produce the subject in the form of an actual, physical being, along with a marriage certificate, and you will have proven your case.

Until you can show me your biblegod, while I believe that you think said "God" is "as real" as your husband, you have not proven that you "know" any such thing. Per usual, your belief dead-ends at "I believe..."

Karla said...

BoomSlang “A "conversation" implies listening as well as speaking. You rarely show any indication that you are doing the former.”

I am sorry. I will try to be a better listener.

BoomSlang “In any event, as frustrating as it may be, I feel it is important to get people who claim to know Ultimate "Truth" to support those claims(for instance, "Christ is the answer").”

Me too.

BoomSlang “To date, you have not supported your claims, IMO. In fact, you have not demonstrated that you have any good reasons for holding your beliefs, aside from because you want to believe them.”

I’ll take the responsibility for that. You guys talking to me helps me to see where I need improvement.


BoomSlang “I'm pretty sure that we all know what Karla believes. You've made that abundantly clear. So, again----'mission accomplished, right? If not---if you want me and other non-believing guests to believe that you have better reasons for believing than just wanting to believe, then I don't suppose it'd be a good idea for you to dissuade conversation. “

My mission to provide a safe place for people of all worldviews to converse respectfully and come to know accurately what each other believes and why.

BoomSlang “Moreover, while, yes, dealing with your ocassional dishonesty can be frustrating, still, these discussions could be helpful to a Xian reader who may be struggling with doubt. If just one of the indoctrinated gets honest enough/brave enough to actually question what he or she believes and why, then, to me, the frustration's worth it.”

I often challenge Christians to think about why they believe as Christians and challenge them not to believe based on “feeling like it” “it’s what my parent’s always taught me” “it’s how I was raised”, “it’s my faith” etc. I challenge them to find out what is really true and believe that—to know for themselves why they believe and to be sure it is for the reason of truth and no other reason.


Boom “Trying to divorce what you believe to be a "personal relationship with God", from "religion", is also not honest. You see, the second that you take a "relationship" that is "personal", and try to make it Universal, you then have one of the cornerstone facets of, yes, "religion". Then again, I'm prepared for you to give me your own custom definition of "religion", too.”

I’ll accept your definition.

BoomSlang “Yes, actually, you can prove it to me. If, hypothetically, you denounced your biblegod, I'd consider that credible evidence that you hold your fellow human beings in a high regard. But since we all know that isn't going to happen, and instead, you'll go on defending a being who smites, drowns, and sends plagues to your fellow human beings if they displease him, the debate goes on. “

The alternative you offer me is to be believe there is no real good at all – that goodness is only what we want it to be – that which makes us happy. I don’t see that as 1) true or 2) a great alternative to an absolute good that does indeed respond severely when it is good to do so

boomSLANG said...

Me, previously: "A 'conversation' implies listening as well as speaking. You rarely show any indication that you are doing the former."

Karla: I am sorry. I will try to be a better listener.

Okay, start here...

"The alternative you offer me is to be believe there is no real good at all." ~ Karla

You are either, a) still not listening, or b) errecting a strawman and being deliberately vague when you say that what you're being offered is that there is, "no real good".

FYI, "no real good" could mean, "good" that isn't real. Or it could mean, "good" that isn't "Absolute".

If the latter, you seem to be saying that just because man-made ethics are "provisional" and based on our own needs/desires, that said ethics are devoid of "good", which is a non-sequitur.

Ryft Braeloch said...

Karla,

I wish your blog had a broader internet profile. I'm not sure if you wish such a thing yourself, but I happen to appreciate your honesty, thoughtfulness, and the quality of your posts, and wish it had a larger reach. I had no idea this blog even existed; wherever it might place in Google search results, it has never been on the first few pages (despite the fact that it seems quite relevant to searches I've performed). I only discovered this place because it was linked to from another blog. I am going to start following your blog personally, plus (if you're comfortable with a little bit more traffic) add you to my blogroll.

If I may, I wish to respond to BoomSlang's argument, which will now follow.

Ryft Braeloch said...

Karla,

Unfortunately for him, BoomSlang's argument does not even get off the ground. It's embarrassing not only for its weakness but also for its appalling popularity among atheists. He may add all the exclamation points and capital letters he likes, but it will take something far more substantive than 'shouting' to rescue his argument from intellectual bankruptcy. For all his talk about logic and reason, he certainly has an odd propensity to divorce his arguments from such things.

BoomSlang confidently asserts that God's attributes of omnipotence and omniscience contradict one another, such that God can be one or the other but it is logically impossible for God to be both. The reason for this, he tells us, is that either (a) God knows absolutely his future and therefore cannot change it, or (b) God can change his future and therefore cannot know it absolutely. What BoomSlang doesn't realize is that his argument is utterly defeated with one simple word: "omnipresence." If he had bothered to inform his thinking with relevant philosophical literature, he would have discovered this defeater long ago and avoided embarrassing himself needlessly.

Omnipresence is, of course, another of God's attributes (i.e., his attributes are not exhausted by omnipotence and omniscience) and it refers to the necessarily transcendent nature of his being, by definition of him being the Creator of our universe. From the equations and models of our best scientists, we are informed that the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension comprise a single manifold; that is, we know from meticulous observation that these four dimensions comprise an inseparable whole, a space-time manifold. Consequently, with God defined as the Creator thereof, it follows by sheer force of logic that he transcends (exists independent of) our space-time manifold. (It cannot be otherwise, because for a creator to be identified with his creation is a logical contradiction: he would have to pre-exist himself in order to create himself.)

Ergo, since God exists independent of this space-time manifold he created, his nature does not share in the spatio-temporal experience that our nature does; in other words, God does not experience time the way that we do, as a linear sequence of events. From his transcendent vantage point, he exists in an eternal 'now', taking in the entire scope and history of the universe comprehensively and at once. This is, after all, substantively why God is said to be omniscient, trustworthy in his prophecies and sovereign power. In the words of Aiden Tozer, "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same" (from that same work you recently cited). And Charles Spurgeon, "With God there is no past, and can be no future ... What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now."

What this means for BoomSlang's argument is just this: predicating an argument on a deity that experiences a past and future commits the Straw Man logical fallacy (since it was intended to address the biblical God), by which it therefore invalidates itself. He erects a straw man (probably built by someone else) by saying that God knows absolutely his future, since God does not experience time as a linear sequence. And as any rational person recognizes, a logically fallacious argument is a vacuous corpse, possessing neither merit nor relevance.

If BoomSlang wants to critically analyze a deity foreign to Christian orthodoxy (two thousand years of theology) he is free to do so, of course, but it would be exquisitely bizarre for him to suppose that you, a Christian, need to respond to it.

Karla said...

Ryft, thank you for your kind words about my blog. And welcome to my blog. I am always happy to see new comers.

As to your response to Boom, your argument is very good. However, it would be better to address Boom instead of talk about him to me and to address him kindly. We cannot assume he is intentionally asserting an errant argument. I fully believe that his arguments are sincere and that he stands by them as valid -- not to get one over on theists, but in an honest way.

Thank you for brining up about the omnipresence of God. All of God's attributes are one -- He doesn't use one and put it back in a box for another day. He is always himself all the time--which is always eternally now. I like having my mind stretched like that.

Ryft Braeloch said...

Karla,

I will take your advice to heart and address BoomSlang, or anyone else, directly or personally from now on. I have been deeply immersed in philosophical literature for a great many years; because it is commonplace for scholars to address other parties indirectly ("he asserts") rather than personally ("you assert"), I have subsequently absorbed that style in my writing. No disrespect was meant at all. My apologies if I have somehow caused an offense.

As for your suggestion to address him kindly, I hope you might forgive my confusion but I can't figure out where I addressed him unkindly, or where I addressed him at all. My comments and analysis addressed his argument, not him. Perhaps you are referring to my comment about him "embarrassing himself needlessly" with such a grossly invalid argument, where you suggest that he may not have done so intentionally. To that I can only say: both the argument he presented and why it fails is widely available all over the internet, so it seemed safe to infer that he never bothered with doing the homework; i.e., it was wilfull. His argument IS embarrassingly weak, and he COULD have avoided it.

But of far greater importance than him embarrassing himself is the fact that "a Christian reader who may be struggling with doubt" (as he indicated) might be visiting your site and observe his argument, and find themselves wondering if what he's saying has real merit. It is critically imperative, for the sake of any of God's children and His holy name, that atheistic nonsense be shown for what it is: bankrupt and lifeless, even under its own terms (i.e., invalid even by its own rules). They may not be familiar with philosophy; but you and I are, so we're called as instruments to help shepherd his family. Then such struggling Christians may come away edified in their faith and the truth of God, knowing that attacks against it are a lot of noise with zero force.

BoomSlang might be a nice enough fellow personally. I don't know, nor is that my concern. For me its about exposing his argument for what it is: a bridge to nowhere. If atheists want to bring down the fortress of Christianity, they will have to try launching something more formidable than Jell-O at its walls.

Karla said...

Rytf, I wasn't offended. I see everyone who comments or reads here as an honored guest. I am also not concerned about Christians being swayed out of the faith by an argument if their faith is based only on an intellectual argument and can be swayed by one maybe they need a little shaking of their foundation to deepen it. I question Christians who give reasons for belief in Jesus such as "it's just my faith" or "I believe it sincerely" or "my parents always raised me this way." I will challenge a Christian to believe something because it is soundly true just as I will anyone else.

I am happy to have you following my blog, reading it, and commenting, and you are welcome to add me to your blog role if you would like to.

My goal here is to provide as best as I can a safe place for people to ask the tough questions -- a place where the person and the question will be valued. I do tend to expect more from Christians in terms of giving honor and respect to the others who read and comment here then I do from those who are not Christians.

Maybe I spoke too soon regarding your post, my only intent was to make sure all the readers here were treated by all as honored guest as if each of you were invited into my home to dinner. Please continue to feel free to comment here, I value your perspective and I liked what you brought to the conversation.

boomSLANG said...

I did some back-tracking and just discovered the above. Wow!

So, "omnipresence" is the "one simple word" that "defeats" my argument, is it?

Okay, let's see...

"Ergo, since God exists independent of this space-time manifold he created [...]

Existing independently of this "space-time manifold" does not preclude "God" from existing in "space-time", itself. After all, if "God" is "omnipresent", then "He" exists in all places at all times - and of course, that would include *in* "space-time" - if we use the commonly accepted, colloquial meaning/definition of "omnipresent".

continues..."his nature does not share in the spatio-temporal experience that our nature does.."

Special pleading. "God" is either "omnipresent", or "God" isn't. Pick one.

continues.."in other words, God does not experience time the way that we do, as a linear sequence of events."

We're not talking about *how* "God" experiences whatever it experiences. I couldn't care less how "God" experiences time. I'm talking about what knowledge this alleged "God" has, specifically, the knowledge of the outcome of the future set of events, including its own choices. That "God" doesn't experience time as a "linear sequence of events" doesn't, and shouldn't, affect what "God" presumably knows at any given time, which, as we are told by theists, is "everything".

Karla said...

Ryft would have to answer those questions. I don't think he has visited here since those few post that day.