Right, I understand what mags is saying, but I've pointed out a couple of approaches to illustrating that "no sin" and "free will" can be compatible logically (human logic may or may not be the arbiter of what is and isn't theoretically possible, but it's all we've got), and therefore not really akin to "god making a rock so heavy god cannot lift it." In other words, I don't think I engaged in logical/semantic tricks. Mags has never really addressed either except to essentially say that it could not be done. You responded to one of those approaches (god choosing, ahead of time, the moral universe arc in which humans all just happen to make the "best" choices) with a response that I still think is strange: "Maybe you misunderstand the scope of god's 'omnipotence.'" (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so let me know if I got your response wrong.) I find it strange for a couple of reasons: 1. Anything "could" be and I've said a few times that if god is not omnipotent in the classical sense (truly all-powerful with no limits) then these constraints, like not being able to effect lack of sin and free will at the same time, can fit logically. You don't suggest a new scope to talk about, though, so the net effect seems to be to shut discussion down. 2. You've chastised others for diminishing god, something that you seem to feel must never be done, but suggesting that I essentially overstate the scope of god's omnipotence seems at odds with that. If you don't think god is actually omnipotent (by the literal definition), then I'm fine with constraints that it has to work with or imperfect universes. Anyone who believes god is literally omnipotent, I believe, is creating a lot of logical inconsistencies. Which may be fine for someone with faith, but isn't for people who don't have faith. I'm fine with accepting that people of faith have their faith. It doesn't bother me. But there's nothing to discuss in that. I feel that if people of faith want to engage people lacking faith on such matters, they do need to engage such people in the logical realm, because "You just need to have faith" clearly doesn't get us anywhere if we don't have any reason to have faith.
That was why I assumed that to be the case. Out of curiosity, how do you decide which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which you take symbolically?
At first (when I got saved) I took the entire Bible literally. Then I just didn't agree with a lot of what was preached to me. It didn't help that my pastor at the time, whom I looked up to, left his wife for another woman. So I started praying to God to give me enlightenment. I used my philosophical reasoning and the open minded approach to the entire bible. I feel confident that I was lead in the right direction. As for what I believe is true mainly are 3 things. 1.) Man has and will continue to sin 2.) Jesus is God and lived a sinless life that died to destroy the binding of sin once and for all. 3.) God loves me Everything else is just gravy
I apologize if I've come across at any time as chastising anyone; that was never my intention, and certainly not how I want to be perceived. My only desire when entering into these discussions is to try to introduce perspectives that might bridge the gap between what appear to be two diametrically opposed positions. That's where I'm coming from on the "scope of omnipotence" aspect; that perhaps it's our concept of omnipotence that is flawed, rather than God's omnipotence itself. But I'm certainly not trying to shut down discussion, any more that Socrates did when he questioned people's understanding of concepts like "love" and "truth"; rather, by asking the question or making the suggestion, I desire to expand the discussion to explore other ways of understanding the term. If I were to "suggest a new scope", as you say, then I feel I would be limiting the discussion to my suggestion only, and that's not what I'm looking to do. In any case, I'm sorry that my attempts to open avenues to reconcile logic, semantics, and scripture have come across poorly. I'll go ahead and bow out now.
I think you're interpreting my post a lot more harshly than I meant it, Platypus. I didn't mean to say you intended to shut discussion down, which is why I said that it ends up being the "net effect" (rather than "your intention seems to be"). Also, the chastising I also didn't mean as some kind of vicious attack, just that you seemed to have strong feelings on it. I was thinking of this post: I realize you were talking, there, about something a bit different...placing our standards on god's moral performance (if I recall correctly), but the second line seems to be chastisement of "most atheists." Again, I think you're misinterpreting my tone. I wasn't criticizing you, just explaining why I found your previous response to me odd. I've never had any problems with how you debate or discussing anything with you, and I've never minded the Socratic method of questioning. But the reason I was surprised that you didn't suggest a "new scope," is because I was left at a bit of a loss as to what "omnipotent" could/should mean if not unlimited in scope of power, since that's the traditional meaning. I was hoping you had something in mind for that.
Well wouldn't omnipotent mean "all powerful"? So in other words, having total control of everything that exists? And if you are considering the agnostic approach, that would mean the entire universe (matter, space and time). And let's say that decision to make a being "man" with its own free will, that would suggest that giving that up before the moment of the Big Bang? And you can still control of the universe, because you created it, but the spirit "of God" is now excluded from the universe "physical". In other words... Our self has two parts. The one of this universe "physical world" and the one of the spirit "God" which God cannot control.
Not at all a chastisement--just an observation. My thought about omnipotence is that it is "limited" (for lack of a better word) by inviolable absolutes. For instance, if God IS truth, then God cannot lie; that would be a violation of His very nature. To me, that doesn't make Him any less omnipotent; it's just an acknowledgement of an an absolute that cannot be violated. Based on that notion, I would then posit that one would have to identify and understand what those inviolable absolutes are in order to properly understand the scope of omnipotence. I don't know how one defines the concept of an inviolable absolute. Principles that exist outside of this dimension? I don't know. I just kind of view it like the old explanation of pornography: I know them when I see them. Except I can't even be that certain...
I think I understand what you're saying; you're saying (if I understand you correctly) that holding two directly contradictory concepts at the same time is an impossibility in an absolute sense (though even that we don't know--it certainly is by human logic, but we don't know that everything is constrained by human logic...there are scientific concepts that seem to violate our concepts of logic, like that even true vacuum is a "something" from which other things can emerge). But I'm fine with that sort of limit on god...I've never used "if god is omnipotent, it can both lie and tell the truth at the same time" or "...god can be a square circle" or "...god can create a stone so heavy even god cannot lift it" as arguments. However, I don't feel like "no sin" and "free will" are directly contradictory for reasons I've given before.
If we are to use "God" as an exhibit, then your reason is sound. Obviously if God doesn't sin, then it's entirely possible. I think this is what creates the parody with man. And mind you, this is only a philosophical concept. Man is flesh first, which is bound by the natural world. Basically, the natural world that has sin. God has the power to live without sin, even in the natural world, but could only create a second part of man "the spirit" to have God's moral compass pre-programmed in man. So even though life could be created without sin, using 100% of God's spirit, it is limited by the temptations of the flesh 100% in the natural world.
And that appears to be where you and Mags fundamentally disagree, based on the breakdown I have above.
