You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
Ok, so you seem to be agreeing with me, Existence rocks....completely!Quote from Aapex:
Since existance is the "state or act of existing"
And Knowledge is "The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning"
The matter must rest based on ones owns presuppositions.
Existance is not reliant upon reason. The state of being is independant of perception.
Whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it. That is the nature of existence; that is, things exist whether or not someone knows it exists, let alone accurately describe its existence.
Furthermore, something that exists is not limited in existence by the inability of someone to accurately describe its existence. For example, there are galaxies and phenomenon within galaxies that have not yet been discovered. But this does not mean that they do not exist since we cannot describe knowledgeably, sufficiently, or accurately.
We know that things exist which are difficult to adequately describe.
Of course you may define God anyway you like, but you cannot define God into existence. It won't be your definitions which permit God to exist, as you have already confirmed. The only thing which will allow God-or anything else whatsoever for that matter, to exist, is Existence itself.Quote from Aapex:
As far as God is concerned. God can be described, though not perfectly. He can be sufficiently described so that we can gain an understanding of His nature, greatness, and differences from ourselves. Though we will always fall short when trying to describe an infinite being, we can still say enough about Him to convey who and what He is so that the concept of God can be communicated. We can say that He is infinite, gracious, loving, all knowing, all-powerful, all present, holy, pure, righteous, that he is not flesh and bones, the only uncaused and infinitely eternal being in existence, etc. Though we may not be able to perfectly describe Him we can describe Him by listing His attributes and qualities. Attributes and qualities reflect the nature of the thing described. Therefore, we can describe God and our insufficiency to adequately describe Him in certain areas does not diminish His existence nor mean that He does not exist. It simply means that He is great.
The problem for you as I see it is that, you appear to be trying to place God in front of Existence. You want to position God as the single most irreducible thing. But God isn't that. God relies on existence, just as everything else does, to exist.
It's Existence which is ultimate to God. Mention God and all you really do is confirm how Existence is something which God essentially utterly relies upon if "He" is to exist.
God relies on existence?
LOL...
"But God isn't that. God relies on existence, just as everything else does, to exist.
It's Existence which is ultimate to God. Mention God and all you really do is confirm how Existence is something which God essentially utterly relies upon if "He" is to exist."
As if you would have any way of knowing...
Another atheist who thinks they know all about God.
What a joke.
LOL...
"But God isn't that. God relies on existence, just as everything else does, to exist.
It's Existence which is ultimate to God. Mention God and all you really do is confirm how Existence is something which God essentially utterly relies upon if "He" is to exist."
As if you would have any way of knowing...
Another atheist who thinks they know all about God.
What a joke.
Quote from stu:
Ok, so you seem to be agreeing with me, Existence rocks....completely!Of course you may define God anyway you like, but you cannot define God into existence. It won't be your definitions which permit God to exist, as you have already confirmed. The only thing which will allow God-or anything else whatsoever for that matter, to exist, is Existence itself.
The problem for you as I see it is that, you appear to be trying to place God in front of Existence. You want to position God as the single most irreducible thing. But God isn't that. God relies on existence, just as everything else does, to exist.
It's Existence which is ultimate to God. Mention God and all you really do is confirm how Existence is something which God essentially utterly relies upon if "He" is to exist.
Quote from stu:
Ok, so you seem to be agreeing with me, Existence rocks....completely!Of course you may define God anyway you like, but you cannot define God into existence. It won't be your definitions which permit God to exist, as you have already confirmed. The only thing which will allow God-or anything else whatsoever for that matter, to exist, is Existence itself.
The problem for you as I see it is that, you appear to be trying to place God in front of Existence. You want to position God as the single most irreducible thing. But God isn't that. God relies on existence, just as everything else does, to exist.
It's Existence which is ultimate to God. Mention God and all you really do is confirm how Existence is something which God essentially utterly relies upon if "He" is to exist.
ZZZZZzzzzz, this is a retort to Aapex's concept of God. It's not as if Stu is declaring the above. He/she is simply working with the "givens" as stated by Aapex.
One mistake Aapex makes is saying that God is IN existence all the while saying that God is the first cause. That doesn't follow. That makes the domain called Existence greater than God. Therefore, Existence would be the first cause and probably be the cause of God.
What should be said is that if God is an infinite being, then God has no boundaries. God is the ultimate domain. All other domains are a subset of God. Existence is therefore contained within God's infinite and boundless being (domain). And if all other domains are a subset of God, there is no domain that doesn't contain God in it.
For instance, recall when David said that if I make my bed in Hell, there you are also. Renaissance imagery of hell (Dante's in particular) tries to paint hell as a place of eternal seperation from God with demons and pitchforks, etc. That conceptualization violates not only scripture but scriptural logic. Hell is not eternal. It exists up until the time it is to be cast into the lake of fire. A place that will be everlasting. Hell is also not a place that is devoid of the presence of God. If it were, then God could not be omnipresent. David's declaration affirms that God is Omnipresent.
Is God all-powerful (omnipotent)? No. Though God is most powerful in that he can do all things that are possible. As an example, God says that he cannot lie. A limit? A limit would suggest that he's not all-powerful wouldn't it? HE can't lie because his nature prohibits him from doing so. He has no power nor ability to override his nature. Therefore, he's not all powerful. But there appears to be no other entity that can create a universe and sustain it. That would be one of the things that make him the most powerful. There also appears to be no being in existence who can escape or thwart His will. Another thing that would garner Him with the label of most powerful.
Atheists do not claim to know God, they only examine and test the texts that are the basis of theology and the claims made thereof.
You are caught in human logic, based in human perceptions and human intellect.
Where from the perspective of human logic, which is dialectic, it is not possible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time, and God must be either in existence, or not in existence, but not both at the same time.
God is beyond the boundaries of human logic, human perception, time and space, etc.
God is both within and without existence simultaneously.
God is both the first cause, and absorbed in all effects simultaneously.
No, it won't make sense to a limited human mind, but what human mind in all sincerity thinks they are capable of reaching knowledge of something unlimited with a puny and limited human intellect?
Atheists set up their own conditions, and then demand that theist meet their conditions, and I am always amused at why anyone would think they need to try and meet their game?
The treadmill of the human mind is either something a person opts to live their life on the track of, or they seek a path to something greater....
<img src=http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif>
"The human mind that cannot imagine anything greater than the human mind is not fully human."
-----Unknown-----
Where from the perspective of human logic, which is dialectic, it is not possible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time, and God must be either in existence, or not in existence, but not both at the same time.
God is beyond the boundaries of human logic, human perception, time and space, etc.
God is both within and without existence simultaneously.
God is both the first cause, and absorbed in all effects simultaneously.
No, it won't make sense to a limited human mind, but what human mind in all sincerity thinks they are capable of reaching knowledge of something unlimited with a puny and limited human intellect?
Atheists set up their own conditions, and then demand that theist meet their conditions, and I am always amused at why anyone would think they need to try and meet their game?
The treadmill of the human mind is either something a person opts to live their life on the track of, or they seek a path to something greater....
<img src=http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif>
"The human mind that cannot imagine anything greater than the human mind is not fully human."
-----Unknown-----
Quote from ddunbar:
ZZZZZzzzzz, this is a retort to Aapex's concept of God. It's not as if Stu is declaring the above. He/she is simply working with the "givens" as stated by Aapex.
One mistake Aapex makes is saying that God is IN existence all the while saying that God is the first cause. That doesn't follow. That makes the domain called Existence greater than God. Therefore, Existence would be the first cause and probably be the cause of God.
What should be said is that if God is an infinite being, then God has no boundaries. God is the ultimate domain. All other domains are a subset of God. Existence is therefore contained within God's infinite and boundless being (domain). And if all other domains are a subset of God, there is no domain that doesn't contain God in it.
For instance, recall when David said that if I make my bed in Hell, there you are also. Renaissance imagery of hell (Dante's in particular) tries to paint hell as a place of eternal seperation from God with demons and pitchforks, etc. That conceptualization violates not only scripture but scriptural logic. Hell is not eternal. It exists up until the time it is to be cast into the lake of fire. A place that will be everlasting. Hell is also not a place that is devoid of the presence of God. If it were, then God could not be omnipresent. David's declaration affirms that God is Omnipresent.
Is God all-powerful (omnipotent)? No. Though God is most powerful in that he can do all things that are possible. As an example, God says that he cannot lie. A limit? A limit would suggest that he's not all-powerful wouldn't it? HE can't lie because his nature prohibits him from doing so. He has no power nor ability to override his nature. Therefore, he's not all powerful. But there appears to be no other entity that can create a universe and sustain it. That would be one of the things that make him the most powerful. There also appears to be no being in existence who can escape or thwart His will. Another thing that would garner Him with the label of most powerful.
Atheists do not claim to know God, they only examine and test the texts that are the basis of theology and the claims made thereof.
Quote from ddunbar:
As an example, God says that he cannot lie. A limit? A limit would suggest that he's not all-powerful wouldn't it? HE can't lie because his nature prohibits him from doing so.
god lies when he says he can not lie because he admits he will lie if he wants to.(if you believe the bible is gods word)
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
An actor on stage doesn't lie if he follows the script, but he is also not necessarily telling the truth.
The assumption is that man knows the Absolute Truth, of which they could catch God in a lie....
The assumption is that man knows the Absolute Truth, of which they could catch God in a lie....
Quote from vhehn:
god lies when he says he can not lie because he admits he will lie if he wants to.(if you believe the bible is gods word)
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You are caught in human logic, based in human perceptions and human intellect.
Where from the perspective of human logic, which is dialectic, it is not possible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time, and God must be either in existence, or not in existence, but not both at the same time.
God is beyond the boundaries of human logic, human perception, time and space, etc.
God is both within and without existence simultaneously.
You say absolutely nothing different that what I said except my use of logic is consistent. By saying that God is greater than existence (God is the ultimate domain), he can also exist in what we term, existence.
Existence is only known to use by the 5 senses. Yet there are those who believe in a domain (realm) that transcends existence. They improperly think that that is where God is when the bible tells you that he's omnipresent. There is no place you can point to and say, "see here, here is God."
God is both the first cause, and absorbed in all effects simultaneously.
No, it won't make sense to a limited human mind, but what human mind in all sincerity thinks they are capable of reaching knowledge of something unlimited with a puny and limited human intellect?
You can't have it both ways. Either God has some root in logic, or none at all. And if none at all, then you cannot comprehend a single aspect of his being. So you stop with what is logical and scriptural in that God is the first Cause. You need not go any further. And if He's the first Cause, then he's the ultimate domains in which all other domains are contained in. That makes all other domains a PART of him and hence, how he can claimn to be omnipresent. Why complicate something unprovable with illogical constucts?
Atheists set up their own conditions, and then demand that theist meet their conditions, and I am always amused at why anyone would think they need to try and meet their game?
No, they don't. Theist set up conditions which are often impossible and illogical. The only condition atheists request is for theists to support their claims. A very erudite theist will be able to keep the logic "tight" leaving the atheist with only one response. "Prove God exists."
Quote from vhehn:
god lies when he says he can not lie because he admits he will lie if he wants to.(if you believe the bible is gods word)
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
Context.Context.Context.
Again you keep quoting Scripture out of context.
Tell me what is the context of the above passage?
To whom was it written?
By whom was it written?
What was the author referring to?
Who is "them"?
What lie?
You obviously don't comprehend the Bible so stop misquoting it!
Quote from ddunbar:
You say absolutely nothing different that what I said except my use of logic is consistent. By saying that God is greater than existence (God is the ultimate domain), he can also exist in what we term, existence.
Existence is only known to use by the 5 senses. Yet there are those who believe in a domain (realm) that transcends existence. They improperly think that that is where God is when the bible tells you that he's omnipresent. There is no place you can point to and say, "see here, here is God."
You can't have it both ways. Either God has some root in logic, or none at all. And if none at all, then you cannot comprehend a single aspect of his being. So you stop with what is logical and scriptural in that God is the first Cause. You need not go any further. And if He's the first Cause, then he's the ultimate domains in which all other domains are contained in. That makes all other domains a PART of him and hence, how he can claimn to be omnipresent. Why complicate something unprovable with illogical constucts?
No, they don't. Theist set up conditions which are often impossible and illogical. The only condition atheists request is for theists to support their claims. A very erudite theist will be able to keep the logic "tight" leaving the atheist with only one response. "Prove God exists." [/B]
Again your trying to fit God into your tiny little box. God is beyond human wisdom or understanding. How can you pretend to know the mind of God? Where were you 10,000 years ago?
What good evidence do you have to support your claim that God does not exist? I have yet to see an Atheist support this claim.