Featured Good versus Evil

The purpose is obvious. These type of people use the fact that we do not completely understand the nature of God, and never will, in this life, and use it to advance their unholy agenda.

They try and make the actions of the Lord to the same frame of mind that our mind works on a logical basis. God allows us to understand what He wants His creation to understand, no more or less.

People who manipulate the mysteries of the Lord and bring it down to a debate in logic, show they have no faith or respect for the Creator. It is a mockery of the worst type. It is probably a bad comparison, but it reminds me of Christ talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, that is, attributing the works of the Spirit to something evil.

 

Okay then. God can sin. God can lie. God can make things exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same sense. Nothing is beyond his power.

HAHAHAHA!

hilarious!

 

Its not about "rules". Its about ABILITY. God CANNOT- he does not have the ABILITY to exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same sense.

He CANNOT lie. It is not that he CHOOSES not to- he CANNOT...... BECAUSE of what he is.

This is Theology Proper 101. I should not have to explain this to you.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with it.

The point is that God is not weak because he can't do some things and me saying that he can't do somethings is not saying that he is weak.

But you already knew that.

God cannot make a being who exists and doesn't exist at the same time and in the same sense and at the same time.

That doesn't make him weak.

Also God cannot create a being who can conjure things from NOTHING. Created beings are contingent beings. They need things to do things.

We make choices based on inclinations that we have. Those inclinations are the results of a myriad of things like our physical make-up, our personal experiences, etc...

I choose a burger over a hot dog.

Why?

The most meaningless answer to that question is "I caused my own choice of the burger."

Based on what did I 'CAUSE' that choice (whatever that means)?

Based on nothing. Nothing influenced you to choose that. You created the choice ex nihilo.

So then there is NO REASON whatsoever for the choices I make.

I just think it is pretty clear that "I caused my own choice" is meaningless language.

 

Its not about "his rules" whatever that means. I suppose you mean his rules for us.

That's not what this is about. This is about his ability.

For example: God can create God. Its not that he has to obey some rule about it. Its that he CANNOT do it. He does not have the ability to do it. God cannot create beings with abilities that only God can have- abilities which DEFINE God, e. g. the ability to create things ex nihilo.

Because you keep regurgitating this stuff about me implying that God is weak because he cannot do some things.
I agree...It makes everyone confused, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Because they are contra-causal.

You can't ask, "Why did he choose what he chose?"

But the fact is that there are REASONS. Something CAUSED him to think about the choice. Something CAUSED him to desire what he desired.

He is a contingent being and everything about him is linked to something before him that brought him to pass.

Why does he not like onions? The right answer to that question is not "Because he CHOSE not to like them and he caused his own choice."

And it is akin to asking the question, "Can God create a being with all power?"

No.

He cannot create a being with attributes that only God can have.

To cause something to happen from NOTHING (in other words to choose without some purpose guiding your choice- some reason you choose what you choose) is an exclusively divine attribute.

You choose what you choose because you are what you are. You are what you are because you were made what you are. You did not make yourself. Therefore your choices cannot be self-caused.

 

I understand what you are saying. However, could you clarify this for me: if we follow this line of thinking to its plausible conclusion, doesn't that take the responsibility away from the person? How then can we blame a murderer or rapist for his actions? Please clarify. I don't think this is what you are saying, but this is what I am getting.

 

That's not the point.

This is about you saying that I am saying God is weak because he can't do some things ASIDE from those things he can't do because he has "chosen not to break his own rules".

There are things that God cannot do that have NOTHING to do with his "rules he has chosen not to break."

The point is that saying God is not able to do some things ASIDE from breaking his own "rules" is not saying that God is weak like you keep asserting that I am saying.

No sir. You are CLAIMING that he can create a creature that can create choices from nothing.

There is no biblical reason to conclude that God cannot create God, either. There is no VERSE that says that.

You could just as easily argue that God CAN create God and when I contend that he cannot because it is a logical impossibility you could respond by saying, "Then you are saying God is weak because you can't comprehend how he might be able to create God."

The point is that we conclude that God cannot do many things BECAUSE he is God. He would actually HAVE to BE weak if he COULD do them. It is EXACTLY BECAUSE of his "infiniteness" that he CANNOT do many things.

Acknowledging that he cannot do them BECAUSE he is so strong is not saying he is weak.

 

I don't suppose anybody in the history of the WORLD denies that.

That is like saying, "Stuff exists."

It is meaningless because it is so apparent and because nobody doubts it.

You are not ONLY saying that God makes people who can make choices.

You are saying that God makes people who make uncaused choices- or in other words there is no CAUSE for the choices they make- or yet again in other words there is no REASON why they choose what they choose.

That is what you are saying.

You are trying to stop people from asking the question "Why?"

"Why did you choose the hamburger over the hotdog?"

Because that is what I chose.

Do you see how meaningless that is?

Or, if you allow the query to go another step:

"Why did you choose the hamburger over the hotdog?"

Because I wanted the hamburger more than the hotdog.

"Why did you want the hamburger more than the hotdog?"

There are no reasons why I want what I want. That's determinism you jerk!!!

No one is suggesting that you are suggesting that.

I am suggesting that saying that things LIKE THAT are things that God cannot do is not saying God is weak.

God cannot create contingent beings who do anything outside the bounds of contingency.

Things cause them to be (to exist).

Things cause them to live and move.

Things cause them to have the appetites they have.

Things cause them to have the desires they have.

They make choices based on these things.

So these things cause them to choose what they choose.

To say that they are the sole CAUSE of their own choices is as meaningless as speaking of "dry water" or "bright darkness."

What I have said is NOTHING like this analogy.

Causes are contingent upon previous causes.

The only uncaused causer is God. This is an attribute that is as exclusive to the divine nature as his almightiness.

It depends on what you mean by "free creatures."

HOW free?

Free enough to will themselves to be eternal?

No, God cannot make such creatures.

Free enough to will themselves to do things without causes?

No, only God can do things without being caused to do them. That is ESSENTIAL to his "Godness."

I can just as much conclusively claim that God cannot make beings who make choices without causes as I can conclusively claim that God cannot make beings who are almighty or exhaustively sovereign.

All three of these things are tied to the incommunicable attributes of God.

 

Which is the same thing.

Which proves it is the same very thing.

 

I never said that. In fact my whole point is that only God CAN be the uncaused causer of anything.

Yes an attribute which is incommunicable. It is His independency, his self-sufficiency.

This is what he means when he says, "I am."

It is the most uniquely God attribute of them all by which he has revealed himself to us.

He is totally independent.

We are totally dependent. We depend on God for everything, for every ability, for every breath, etc...

Our choices, unlike God's, depend upon external factors, many of which existed before we were made- things that made us what we are.

We do not control these things. We do not control who our parents will be, who their parents will be, who their parents will be, etc...

Therefore all of our biological make-up which includes the size of our brains, the order of our tastebuds on our tongues, the kinds of pains and ailments we will inherit and a million other things all the way down to the molecular level (and beyond) are completely out of our control.

Where we would be born is out of our control.

What kind of environment we'd be raised in was completely out of our control.

The circumstances that caused us to hate certain foods and love others was out of our control.

The culture that largely shaped our tastes for music, sports, religion, politics, etc... was out of our control.

And yes, a kid raised among Democrats can become a Republican but the thing that convinced him that his raising was wrong was not something INTERNAL but something EXTERNAL that presented itself to him persuading him that the other is better. And even if it WAS INTERNAL- how did it get there? One thing is for sure, he did not MAKE it out of NOTHING.

You get the idea.