Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

It also illustrates that you can't prove a theory. It seems that people formulate an idea, and then look for as many things as they can to try to prove the idea is true. Each thing they find appears to add weight and credibility to the idea, but it never proves the idea is true. It's inductive reasoning. It takes the specific and points to the general. Deductive reasoning takes the general and leads to the specific. If the premises are true, then the deductive conclusion will always be true. Most people it seems, work ass backwards. I'd prefer to determine something is false, rather than try to prove it's true. At least that way, I know what amounts to BS and I can eliminate that from consideration.

 

Zip! Right over his head!

 

Seems you have just created your own contradiction. "always" vs "never".

 

Of course if you read it honestly, those two words don't contradict themselves at all in the context of the way they were used. They compliment each other.
But that would be if you approached it honestly.

 

No contradiction.
Never proves a theory, Always are exceptions. IE, nothing is 100%, except in mathematics.

 

Tsk Tsk. Not keeping things in context makes anything possible.

"The problem with Inductive reasoning is that it never proves a theory. There are always exceptions to the rule."

 

Now that you see the sentence and the words used in context, you can see how they compliment each other perfectly and how clearly dishonest your characterization is.
Well done!

 

No one personifies this better than you.

 

We don't have an honest broker here. I put this guy on ignore, since he refuses to keep anything real. There are things that are demonstrably false. Rules provide for no exceptions, which is why they always end up in contradictions. They can never account for every possibility. They're fallible since they're man made. A person that takes an absolutist position on some methodology can't account for unknown factors that put the methodology into conflict with itself. This guy actually tried to justify the idea that he can be objective about himself from a subjective point of view. I can deal with a lot of absurd comments on a forum, but I'm not going to waste time with a poster that embraces two contradictory positions. The principle of contradiction is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. You cannot maintain an objective and subjective view about the same thing at the same time. When a person doesn't recognize this, and then attempts to justify a nonsensical position, rather than recognize the error, there's no point in any further discussions. Any attempts at a "real" discussion are totally undermined, and it's time to move on.

 

First off let me start by saying, God is omnipotent. Continuing on, let me say a few things about the universe that God created.

The universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature.

If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).

The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—"ordinances of heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created.

The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.

So now to answer your question which is paradoxical in nature.

Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that He can do anything that's possible according to His nature.

The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; He cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than Himself because He is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in His actions to His nature.

The Bible supports this in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." He "cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13).

It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of "almighty"—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot!

I have already given the examples above that, it is "impossible for Got to lie.", and He "cannot deny Himself". The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these "cannots" mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!

There is no limit to the power of God. The NKJV revealed that God was referred to as "Almighty" 48 times in the Hebrew scriptures and 9 times in the Greek scriptures, a total of 57 mentions in the Holy Bible. This is a point that God wants humankind to clearly understand.

 

Good post Mitt Ryan. In reference to one of your statements below, I would also suggest that the 'logic' prepared by man is not the same logic that God uses. If it were, then man would have no problem understanding the full nature of God. Interesting scripture here:
"Isaiah 55:8-9
New International Version (NIV)

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Differing systems of logic have differing functions and operations. That is why I don't trust the system of logic devised by man.

 

I went down that road with him about the three classic rules of logic. Both Robini and Incorporeal insisted they are not subject to such arbitrary rules. Robini took offense when I suggested that such rules are the very most basic building blocks of rational thought and they would be a requirement for a freshman student in philosophy. He believes that logic has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or ideology. Incorporeal went so far as to state that he is PROUDLY both illogical and irrational. Not a smear, his own words!
I have been blessed by him by being put on ignore, so now I can point out the absurdity of many of his claims and not have to be abused for pages with even more extreme flights of illogical fancy. This has been a wonderful gift so far. I can point out the ridiculous nature of many of his posts so some easily influenced people will not be fooled by such unadulterated nonsense, and then gently let it go.
So far, so good!
He has promised I will never be taken off ignore. We will see if he is a man of his word.

 

I have often used this quote, one of my favorites.
To me it demonstrates that every time the pastor is up there telling you how it is with God, you can be pretty sure they really have no idea. The same goes for those who want to tell you the same on an internet forum.
Though you may not trust man's logic, you have no idea what God's is.
He just told you so right there.

 

Though some would suggest that any one person might have claimed that he/she knew or knows those thoughts of God which are so much loftier than that which man is capable of, does not mean the any one person is not capable of bits and pieces of the knowledge of God via the angels which are messengers of God and of course there is the operation of the Holy Spirit who acts as a counselor to man. Any person who denies that God is capable of providing necessary knowledge to man either directly or through the angels or the Holy Spirit is the one who denies the Power of God and that person would be one who is under the influence of Satan.

 

I subscribe to what is written in the Holy Bible for it is the Word of God. I am not into theories, such as the "evolution theory" and oh yes, "the divine command theory". Theories are derived from man, whereas the Holy Bible is derived from the divine Word of God.

I have absolute faith in God but not in man.

 

LOL!
Wonder who that is addressed to? Can't be me. I'm the only one on your permanent ignore list.
Must be a coincidence.
So now you like God telling us His thoughts are beyond us, but you think he's just kidding and He really just let's us know in other ways. By pointing out this collision of logic I am now one of Satan's minions.
Hilarious!

 

Then you have faith in Incorporeal, as he has specifically stated he is a lesser god, just like Jesus is a lesser god and separate from the Father. I'm not making this up. Those are his actual words.
I know that sounds crazy to you, but that is because you are an agnostic and Incorporeal is not. He thinks you can absolutely KNOW there is a god, and you know that is impossible. He thinks he has become one and you know that is, well, highly unlikely.

 

This is rich...here we have Mitt Ryan claiming that God is the author of logic, and now we have a couple of theists claiming that they aren't subject to such arbitrary rules. Arbitrary?? Logic is arbitrary?? If there's one thing about logic it's that it's consistent, not arbitrary. So these guys are denying the very logic that Mitt Ryan claims is part of Gods nature. I think they need to argue this among themselves. I doubt we'll get a coherent response on any subject from either one.

There is no philosophy course at any university that doesn't require the study of logic. So, if one is going to engage in a philosophical discussion, he better have some grasp of the basics.

There are people that live inside a bubble of irrationality, and are proud of it. They find logic and reason a threat to their beliefs.

I only have time for rational minds, and those that take pride in their irrationality, are a waste of time.

 

Well...that's one way to avoid the question. But it doesn't explain your posting your comments from authorities, or Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne. I'm pretty sure they are men. And their view that the omnipotence paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence, is itself a theory. You seem to have faith in their theories. After all, you used them as your source for your argument.

 

According to who? I mean, you haven't even proven the existence of God and you attribute a book to him? What do you base this on. I don't mean to dump on your beliefs. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. I just think that you may be missing the point here that trying to prove the existence of God is actually hypocritical. After all, faith is faith. It does not require proof. Personally, I don't care what people believe, as long as they don't attempt to legislate their beliefs. Then...I have a major problem. I'm actually interested in what is true and what is false. God is a metaphysical concept that can never be proven or disproven since there is no empirical way of testing it. But the concept is no more valid than any other justification for the universe such as a pink unicorn from Pluto creating everything. So, I tend to work from what we know as opposed to what people may believe. You can't demonstrate a belief as true. That's why it's called a belief.

 

Well, I would have to say that your choice of system of logic is faulty. You seem to have intentionally misquoted those scripture by altering the same word twice by ascribing a wrong first letter as indicated in the red letter text above. it certainly is not likely to be a typographical error because of it being the same word that you have incorrectly quoted. With all the praise that you throw on your choice of system of logic, it would seem likely that your choice of logic system would have allowed you to correct those errors; yet it did not provide that convenience, therefore your system of logic is either faulty else you have intentionally executed those misquotes for the purpose of obfuscation.

BTW: It is not "Logic" that I show a disdain toward. It is the human creation of a perverted system of logic that attempts to emulate that system of logic used by God. The human attempt to live up to the scripture where it says "is it not written in your law that I have said ye are gods."

 

A typical avoidance of the argument that was made. Not even mentioned. Shows the fear you have of the actual issue.
You have said that you are proud of being illogical. Now you are logical, but dedicated to a logic you have admitted before to not being privy to, the logic of God.
I have watched you change horses when drowning so many times you are responsible for more equine deaths than Moses when he closed the Red Sea on Pharaoh's army.

 

As a side note: Some people may even be tempted to use my past postings as an evidence of being contradictory in the things that I have stated. If someone thinks that I have ever claimed to be not associated with the logic used by God, then they are fabricating untruthful comments, as I have stated in the past that through the Holy Spirit, I have been made to understand and comprehend various scripture from the Bible. That would make me privileged to some portions of the logic used by God. Admittedly, the portions would amount to a single atom found in the composition of the entire Himalayan mountain range. So, for those that would like to use those past writings of mine in an attempt to undermine what I am saying, be prepared also to show irrevocable "PROOF" of your claims.

 

So your understanding of god is equivalent to an atom in the Himalayans?
I agree.
How's that permanent ignore of me going?
Integrity is always on display, for better or worse.
"Proof" is a construct of human logic which you have stated you have no connection to or respect for, so your request for it is disingenuous.
The rest of us already get it.