Calling all Christians!

Quote:

---

even God himself had trouble when Abraham asked him who he was and he simply replied "I Am"

---

"I Am" means that he exists naturally. where is the trouble in understanding this.Its a requirement for existence in general.

As I said previously

Quote:

---

a god is not necessary for existence. the proof is in god not calling himself into existence.

---

you said god was not called into existence, correct? so we agree. Natural forms are not "called into existence".

I then said

Quote:

---

As a natural form, whose existence was not created

---

this is regarding god, mind you. So the question is, why are you telling me "god wasn't called into existence?" I did not say he was, in fact, I was saying that was not the case.
So , if there is a god, it is not called into existence. Not being tied to the end result of a function, the god's existence simply "is".

or as you said he told Abraham: "I am."

so, as near as I can tell, and someone else can add in information that says otherwise, me and god would agree , with respect to the explanation of his existence.

god said that he existed naturally,so to say there is no "natural state", to a being that defines his existence as natural, is odd.I would like you to point out to me how god's existence wouldn't be natural.

if we understand, that a god's existence would be natural,so then would this be true:

Quote:

---

a god is not necessary for existence.

---

for a god's existence to be "caused" is not natural. Likewise, if a god exists naturally, then a god is not a requirement for existence.
his existence is the proof of this.

likewise, if a god(natural form) is not created,how then could he create natural forms? They exist seperate of his whims.which is to say, god did not create himself, but still exists.

existing naturally, you do not have the ability to define yourself.

divine principles? given how you're defining god, wouldn't there only be one principle? Wouldn't it be just as plausible, given that principle, that god in fact, has no power, does not have the ability to function, does not have the ability to perform godly functions, and would still be able to anything that is godly? what principles are you referring to? mine is the "do the impossible" one, which I believe to be a false principle to apply to anything.

OK i think i misunderstood you.

let me try to see where your going with this i think you cleared it up better that time

1 God has always existed, he was never created.

2 because God himself was never created, then a God is not necessary for creation.

before i go on, is that the gist of it ? i want to try to understand exactly what you're saying here.

yeah, working from there is fine.

Gongos, short basic reply first:

1. god, in your "before creation" would be natural.

2. "creations" would not be natural. I'm going to look for a very old topic that was likely on an older rev of the board for my definition of natural. so I don't need to retype it. and. . . the search was unsuccessful.

so, I do not mean natural as in "trees and nature and such are natural", or what have you.

" . . . "

ok

a cell. a cell is not natural. a cell is constructed. it can be "created"(built) or "destroyed"(seperated). usually I give multiple examples, but that'll serve. So, a natural form would be self-dependent. it, is composed of itself. constructs of natural forms can be created or destroyed, but the actual natural forms cannot be created(they are self-dependent. in order to create with them, they must already exist, whereas a cell only exists when natural forms are combined in a proper manner, and can be created when no cells are present)

given that a self-dependent form cannot be created, it must exist naturally, and existence is based on their manipulation or . . . machinations(?), but not on their creation. I think such a form is required for existence, but if you have other ideas, please let me know, and remember that by existing naturally, god would meet the requirement of a "natural form".

gah, that should hopefully be enough. So, if there is a god, it would be either

A. A natural form.

B. A construct of natural forms.

I believe that if there is a god, it would be B. but that isn't important , and I'll the argument related to that out for now. though, in my first reply quoting CV, I mentioned part of that argument.

but as it is, my view does not say

Quote:

---

that all things come into existence, exist, and cease to exist.

---

there is nothing that can call a natural form into existence, or remove them from existence. they are existence.

you ask for examples of other uncreated things.I say all that exists is the interactions of natural forms. there are dependent forms, that are created, but what their creation is dependent on, is independent(dependent on the self=independent, yes?) forms.

you also speak of god existing "before time". I consider "time" to be a measure of changes in the state of existence, and this can be seen from when I mentioned "initial states" and "natural states"(odd that I say both, they ought to represent the same thing), anyways. another explanation is in order.

Lets assume there is a harmonic time(is that the right term? but anyways, a constant independent value).
now, lets assume that we have two . . . adjacent. . .states. A and B. ok. A, is directly followed by B. now, lets assume that A exists for 1 harmonic unit. then lets assume it exists for 10. then lets assume it exists for 100. in each case, given the harmonic time measurements, A would remain the same, and lead into B. What then, is the use of the harmonic time? There is none, no matter what harmonic value is assumed for A's existence, it has no effect on A, or A's transition to B. I'll stop there, as

Quote:

---

My problem with that is that i dont assume time to have always existed, not to be uniformly foreward marching

---

you don't believe in harmonic time. I just had to make what I understand it to be clear. likewise, if we understand time as a change in states(as I do), then god would not be able to function outside of its measurement. god's "time in a vacuum" or whatever you would like to call it, would be what I refer to as "the initial state". Which represents one single point in set of time's states.

now. existence has goes through several states. god performs, we perform, what have you. whenever there is a deviation, it is a new state, call the measurements of these deviations in the states time. nothing can exist outside of its measurement.

likewise, when measuring states, there is no "speeding up/slowing down" of time. the space between each state would be equal, or at least, I don't see how there could be deviations between the speed of one set of states, and the speed of another set. I hope that is clear. x_X

Quote:

---

To overcome this you would have to prove to me that any part of creation shares substance with the intrinsic composition of God. But to do this you would have to have a concept of the substance of God, which would not only require beleif in god(otherwise, what are you looking for) and even physical evidence of God's existence to compare with soem created substance(and skin/bones.etc of Jesus would not count because he was fully human and fully God, thus you woudl have to be able to prove that the substance was part of the latter and not of the former

---

good,so you understand it well enough. my response is, given that natural forms cannot be created, and that existence is dependent on them(is them), I would say that by merely existing, something is actually composed entirely of natural forms. Now , if we assume there is a god involved:

given that natural forms cannot be created, if there is a god, he would be limited to building creations out of natural forms. As a god is not responsible for the creation of natural forms(with respect to those that he is composed of being the "proof" that I'm using, once again), so to is it unreasonable to assume that he can define them(they are not dependent on him). not defining them, nor responsible for their creation, he must work within their limits to do his work. limited to manipulating natural forms, so too would his creations be constructs of the forms he manipulated.

the parts in bold in the last two paragraphs are "the connection", regarding the response to you.





I think I did a bit more explaining then responding here, but I'm certain we were working with different ideas of natural, so hopefully my explanations served the same role as a direct response.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleEric
about the predestination/free will debate.

i have to dissagree with you Cap'n. i think that just because an organized religion mandates something doesn't necessarily mean its true. want proof ? look at all the other times something has been church doctrine and the chuch has then turned around and flip flopped its position.

the Bible is open to interpretation by anyone, and even the verse you quoted about God calling from the womb, is open to interpretation.

i believe in free will, not predestination. during conception God breathes life into a person, if he had already decided ahead of time that he was going to damn said person to eternal hell-fire, why would he have even bothered in the first place ?

i think predestination is bad theology.

look what it did to the pilgrims.

---

I'm not the predestinationist I'm being made out to be here.

I also understand that not everyone interprets the Bible the way I do.

And I don't believe in predestination to the extent that I do because of half-baked doctrine or phalacious dogmatic inclination. I believe the way I do because I've prayed about it, and sought God's counsel on the issue, and He satisfied me with an answer. And just because He led me in this direction, doesn't mean He will lead others in that same direction. But that doesn't mean I should back down, as He may be using me to convince others of that possibility.

And all of this isn't important anyway. I've already admitted that free will is given. I never detracted from it at all, eventhough I'm discussing predetermination. And, as such, we all have the choice to accept Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of our beliefs, no matter where or how they differ.

One thing I must say about Rezo's argument, however, is that the opposite of "predestination" is "not predestination," not "free will." Simply because free will exists doesn't negate predestination. And vise-versa. Predestination cannot coexist with "not predestination." The value of free will is "free will," not "not predestination." Thus free will and predestination can exist at the same time in the same situation.

They are independant functions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rezo
given that natural forms cannot be created, if there is a god, he would be limited to building creations out of natural forms. As a god is not responsible for the creation of natural forms(with respect to those that he is composed of being the "proof" that I'm using, once again), so to is it unreasonable to assume that he can define them(they are not dependent on him). not defining them, nor responsible for their creation, he must work within their limits to do his work. limited to manipulating natural forms, so too would his creations be constructs of the forms he manipulated.

---

The way the reverse of this argument would go is:

A.) God can create anything.
B.) Natural Forms cannot be created, nor destroyed, they simply exist.

:. Since God can create anything(A), God can create Naturl Forms, thus there is no such thing as a Natural Form by the aforementioned definition (B).

Where I say A is always true, you say B is always true.

You're debating a two way street. But instead of placing the priority on God, you place it on Natural Forms.

Ultimatly, you get nowhere, as you can prove nothing...the same as I can prove nothing about God's existence.

P.S. Rezo, God can do anything. He is is all powerful, all knowing, and all present.

However your concepts of these ideas are a bit warped.

God is limited by what defines Him. Since He is all powerful, He cannot make a mountain He cannot move. This is explisitly implied in the definition of "omnipotent." Because He is omnipotent, there are certain things He cannot do, as it goes against His nature which is omnipotent. However, this doesn't mean He is limited, as He defines what "omnipotent" is.

He defines what omnipotent is, while the concept of omnipotent governs Him. The relationship between God and the idea of omnipotence is not linear, as you would have it, but circular. And as such, He most defiatly can do anything, however, He would never choose to do something against His nature. And that choice in no way flaws His omnipotence.

Likewise, He is perfect, and because He is perfect, there are certain things He cannot do. He cannot murder, as His character is that of perfection, and murdering is an imperfect act. And just like with omnipotence, God defines Perfect. God and prefection have a circular relationship, not linear. God governs what perfection is, and at the same time perfection governs what God can and cannot do. But this in no way limits Him, as he has the power of choice, and He would never choose to do something that would mar His perfect nature.

You see things as linear. You view God as either being perfect, and so no matter what He does, even if it isn't perfect, is perfect, or that Perfect governs what God is and as such is limited, negating His claim to everything being possible through Him. This way of thinking is phalacious, as the relationship God shares with perfection and omnipotence is circular.

Even the way I explain it is flawed, as no human language can capture in an intellegable manner the entire concept set out here.

The best I can do is this:

The concept of God and the concepts of perfection and omnipotence are the same exact thing. They do not exist independantly of one another. God is not perfect, but rather He is perfection. God is not omnipotent, but rather He is omnipotence. And they are He.

And even this doesn't make sence in terms we can understand. There is no language to describe God, His existence, His abilities, and His magnitude. And as such, all of your efforts will fail, on a logical level, because logic is based on terms definable and understandable by man.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable


Your reply, Nikorasu, is being mentioned specifically because it did the most for me.

I was in the crapper like you wouldn't believe last night, questioning my methods and my beliefs.

I spent some time with my fiancee and prayed. I felt much better afterwards.

But your post brought a smile to my face. I'm talking ear to ear, showing teeth, nearly cracking smile.

Thanks, bro. And God bless you too! :D

---

Why thanks Captain. Reading your posts I can see I have a lot to learn still.

I must say I wish I had a fiancee for a bit of support sometimes.

At the risk of sounding like a nutter to the rest of the forum - I'll remember you in my prayers, and perhaps you could 'put in a word' for a nice christian laydee for me!

'Till we argue about games again.

Captain Vegetable, "free will" defined as the ability to choose, and be concious of your decisions, cannot exist in the exact same moment as pre-destination, defined as your conclusions being chosen for you cannot co-exist in the exact same moment. Granted, someone may not be able to know whether their act was a decision or chosen for them, but that is not the question.Anyways, that is to say, "not predestination" is the absence of pre-destination, however, there are properties in free-will that negate predestination as well. I was not casting one as automatic in the absense of another, however, I was saying one will not be represented when another is. you could, in fact, find a situation where there is no free will/no predestination. But you agree that predestination is related only to god choosing someone for his works,as Nick said near the end of the old topic, as opposed to god choosing everything as you were saying in the other topic(unless I misunderstood). And if I actually did anything of the things I said I did not do(intend to do) in this statement, consider them mistakes on my part.

Quote:

---

Since God can create anything(A), God can create Naturl Forms, thus there is no such thing as a Natural Form by the aforementioned definition (B).

---

As I said earlier, god, existing naturally, would validate the existence of natural forms. Meanwhile, with nothing natural existing, there would be no god. natural forms not being dependent on god for existence, would not be subject to his whims, as his whims were not necessary for his existence. With god, you cannot say there are no natural forms. so B should win out by that very connection.

Quote:

---

He cannot make a mountain He cannot move.

---

1.He cannot make a lake that cannot be swam through

2.He cannot make an ice cream that cannot be eaten

3.He cannot create something that exists without creation

4. He cannot make an X that isn't an X

and with his existence, or existence in general(by no means would it be tied to a god, but for the sake of this conversation, understand), the forms that cannot be created are there.



+

Quote:

---

God is limited by what defines Him. Since He is all powerful, He cannot make a mountain He cannot move. This is explisitly implied in the definition of "omnipotent."

---

this means you must remove the definition of "can do anything" and replace it with "perfect and omnipotent" which you have attached limits to. I would call these limits impossibility. having omnipotence, or , being omnipotent does not excuse something from being limited by impossibility. It would mean that, within what is possible, they would be capable of everything. So, if you're working with a god, it would be "god can do anything that is possible.", and not "god can do anything."

perfect? And I'm still not sure with what stipulation you're working with, so I'll throw out this "Zinger" and let it sit.

everything perfectly represents itself.



Likewise, Captain Vegetable, were you not previously attaching god's perfection to his intentions?

Quote:

---

Likewise, He is perfect, and because He is perfect, there are certain things He cannot do. He cannot murder, as His character is that of perfection, and murdering is an imperfect act.

---

+

Quote:

---

God defines Perfect.

---

=

he could change the definition of perfect to include murder and deceit in general. And I will repeat again,I don't know what definition of perfect you fellows are using. I'm still with the old "unflawed representation of a standard or practice", to be general.

given this, couldn't he intend to murder, and do so perfectly?

also

lets say god defines his "perfect standard in two ways: first A, and then B".

lets say some of the criteria for B is contradictory to what was required of A. then god, adhering to standard B of perfection, would be a flawed representation of standard A. thats all really. it doesn't escape my definition of perfect, and since A and B are different, you cannot say they are the same standard.

do you want to say "everything is possible through god?" "Everything" is the . . . culmination(?) . . . of existence. He would be limited to all possibilities in existence, which includes no impossibilities.

god, in his omnipotence, would have an . . .absolute . . . capability . . . for performance. In his perfection, His functions would play out as they should every single time.

That is to say, if something can be done, it can be done by him(omnipotence) and if he is doing so, he will do so perfectly.(perfection)

none of this allows for the impossible.

Quote:

---

Even the way I explain it is flawed, as no human language can capture in an intellegable manner the entire concept set out here.

---

we gotta create some new languages :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gongos
Veggie, i love ya man, but dont help me here, i will post my reply to rezo later, but let me handle him myself, ok? My debunking of his logic kind of requires that i keep him on the definitions he has right now, so dont get him changing, please.

---

Surely, Gongos. I didn't realize I was interfering. I was simply offering an explanation to those points I told him I "wasn't going to argue with him on."

I in no way was offering any kind of suplumentation to your argument, and would ask that you excuse my naievitae. I hadn't thought that what I had to say could have interfered.

Go for it, he's all yours. ;)