TheGentleDomme
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/9/2006
From: South County, RI
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is going to be where I end my discussion in this field. Clearly reason is not a benefactor here. But I close with these notes:
1) You cannot say that something that is infinity is a separate being that is omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. That is a theological connection made by monotheists and doesn't actually follow any line of sturdy logic.
2) Asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for himself to lift is in itself less than a paradox. The 'god', or more respectfully, God, is not bound by the physical realm and therefore could not make a stone too heavy to lift (because he would never actually lift it because he's not bound by the physical realm...following the logic here?)
3) Only particular denominations of Christians actually believe god to be omnipotent. There are no solid theological sources which state [explicitly] Elohim or YHWH can do anything he pleases. They all tiptoe around the theory by speaking cryptically (the Alpha and Omega, God of kings, King of kings, the One who Is, the Creator, etc).
4) Yahweh is NOT Elohim. Elohim is the title of the One True God. Yahweh is the substance of God, very close to the personal Name of God.
5) The point in citing the Quantum Theory was to point out established scientific principles which support practical application of bringing the infinite into the finite, thus abolishing the claim against it.
6) Yahweh is NOT the same as Jesus. The modern translation of the hebrew Tetragrammaton is Jehova (though that is not an accurate transliteration). In the actual scribes, Jesus is usually referred to as Jehova-Jesus (as dstinguished from Jehova/YHWH and Jesus alone), which indicates the facet theory; that is, that Jesus is a manifestation of the true Almighty form, not the almighty form changing its full self.
The hostility I show is toward an individual who mocks men for their faith and doesn't apply significant thought to the philosophical underpinnings of theology. Philosophy major you may be, but Theology major you are not, nor have you yet established whether you are actually skilled in philosophical process.
I don't make the god arguments. I just refute them. I think those that believe in a god are, frankly, ignorant. Gods are simply archetypes of our own psyche. The sublime is often mistaken for a religious event when it is really an event in the brain. Some of us have found value in such books (the bible, the iliad, the epic of gilgamesh) without assigning them the previous value they had before. I only mock what I feel is beneath us at this point in our mental evolution. If you read myth as prose, you miss the poetry.
I absolutely agree that the idea of an infinite god produces all kinds of paradoxes. That is the point about the stone paradox. Most christians will defend their right to believe that which is absurd.... usually with nonsense like "god can do anything." My point of mentioning that is that many christians by those words are trying to make god infinite and a paradox.
You are correct. An infinite god is a logical impossibility and philosophers, even christian ones, *today* wouldn't support it. Kierkegaard isn't a recent philosopher. I just like the simplicity of kierkegaard.... and even more so, I like using a christian philosopher to refute christianity by his own words. Even if they are outdated. I do believe the head evangelical minister that heads my department said that god can only do what is logically possible (so no stone paradox, no square circles in the making, et cetera). But then he can't be omnipotent.... unless omnipotence doesn't include logical impossibilities? That's also subject for debate. Then there's the whole problem of evil too... but that is different thread all together.
I'm not really sure how you ended up with a pantheon but it's definitely not one accepted by most christian institutions nor by almost two thousand years of western philosophy. Excuse me for scratching my head on this one. I just couldn't imagine you would choose to refute monotheism. I can't think of one god argument that doesn't come down to one creator. Maybe if you change the definition of god enough you will be able to prove him. lol
No, I am definitely not a theology major. I look at biblical text two ways: one, as the surface prose that fundmentalists take literally and/or people who take it as "and the moral of the story is..." and two, as forementioned poetry of psychological imagery. The former may not reach the level of biblical scholar.... I really don't care to pursue it. So I retract any claims to be an expert.... maybe I should say learned amateur. However, I do know the myths and I know how they are understood by the lay people... and furthermore, how they effect society.
|
RE: NO...not the spiritual trip... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread