Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Exactly. Either God has limitations, or it is an open possibility that Junior is right, and morals exist apart from God. We don't know for certain that he's right yet, but we sure can't prove him wrong at this point, given this argument.
Great! I forgot all about those examples. So not only do we have my logical deduction, there's historical precedent for God changing his mind also.
Of course, one wonders why a God that is ostensibly omniscient didn't just foresee the wickedness of Noah's people, and the arguments of Abraham, and just cut to the chase, but we'll take one assertion about God at a time ;)
God is eternal. Outside time. Never changing. Perfect. To be perfect God must be a simple substance. Pure act. No potency. God cannot change in any way because change necessarily implies motion (in the philosophical, Aristotelian sense) . Since God lacks potency, He cannot logically change.
To ascribe "Changing his mind" to God is simply an anthropomorphization of God and a category error.
I think I can make a cogent case to defend either a "yes" or a "no" answer to this question, so why don't you assign me whichever answer you prefer, and then proceed to make your case from there? :^)
Shhhh, just go and lie down for a bit, dear. The obvious solution is that you're not supposed to ask questions like this in the first place, even if it seems a bit unsatisfying to do so - no peeking behind the curtain of the great and powerful Oz, thankyouverymuch ;)
Yes. As a matter of fact He does so in Genesis in the Flood story and in his decision to destroy Sodom and Gemorrah (Abraham bargained God down on that one).
Then again, God created Lot and sustained him in his being. From all eternity God knew how Lot would "bargain" with Him. This biblically recorded event, like all other events, fits within God's Providence.
The description in the Bible is a recounting of events, not an example of systematic theology.
IOW, you've discovered something else God cannot do, and he's therefore still not omnipotent. Besides, Him changing His actions is hardly the same as Him changing His substance, or the lack thereof. Additionally, I am reminded by others that God appears to have changed His mind about the people of Noah, and in His dealings with Sodom and Gommorah - how do you account for that, then?
That's what I've been doing. It's not incumbent upon me to also provide you with a refutation - if you want to take issue with my arguments, it's up to you to do so ;)
Logic can be a real b**** like that sometimes
But in setting up this syllogism you've committed some logical errors of your own. For instance:
First, you're assuming that gore3000's statements about God's laws are those of God Himself. You've said nothing about God here, only about gore3000's opinion about God.
Second, you're excluding a possibility: that God might choose not to change His laws.
Third, the syllogism makes some a priori assumptions about God's purposes, nature, and methods of action. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, the syllogism (while still logically consistent) is invalid.
Fourth, the syllogism requires that God's laws as revealed to us are equivalent to God's laws overall -- which isn't necessarily true.
I'm sure you get the idea....
Yes I am. I don't see a contradiction. Perhaps you could pont it out...
Plato would say no. Once the square becomes round, it loses its "squareness" and is no longer a square. It's an absurd question. Clearly, the idea of a square is 4 sides - change it to perfectly round and it becomes a circle. Next question.
Well, that's sort of my point. I've been attacking gore3000's assertion that God's law is immutable and unchangeable. If he's right, then it implies certain other things about God which seem to be rather unpopular around here. If he's wrong...then, he's wrong, and God's law is changeable and "mutable". IOW, even if it comes from gore3000, and not God directly, we can still make inferences about God, given either answer to the question of whether God's law is immutable. Either gore3000 is right or he's wrong, but either way, there are implications that follow from it.
I'm just the messenger here. Blame gore3000 for putting you in this position, not me ;)
Second, you're excluding a possibility: that God might choose not to change His laws.
Not at all - I don't discount the possibility that God can choose not to change His law. But that necessarily implies that he could also choose to change His law, if He so desired. Nowhere do I say that God must change his mind, only that He can.
Third, the syllogism makes some a priori assumptions about God's purposes, nature, and methods of action. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, the syllogism (while still logically consistent) is invalid.
Like what? Which unstated assumptions am I basing this on?
Fourth, the syllogism requires that God's laws as revealed to us are equivalent to God's laws overall -- which isn't necessarily true.
Not at all - it requires no such thing. It only seeks to demonstrate the possibility that God can change His own law if He so desires. Either He can or He can't - if He can't, it implies that He is not omnipotent, by the very definition of omnipotence. If He can, then Junior's suggestion that morals are apart from God somehow remains an open possibility.
I know why you guys are fighting so hard on this, but really, the simplest way to end all this is just to accept that God can change His own laws if He wants to...
His changing His actions would be a change (or motion). Since God is pure act he cannot necessarily change (or be moved) in a logical sense.
You don't seem to understand that what is impossible in a logical sense (i.e. a "square circle") is simply nonsense and meaningless, evidence of nothing.
Again, this so-called "deficiency" is really a perfection and an example of His immeasurable, limitless power.
Additionally, I am reminded by others that God appears to have changed His mind about the people of Noah, and in His dealings with Sodom and Gommorah - how do you account for that, then?
Quite simply. The account given in the Bible is an historical account by a primitive nomadic people. They describe God's actions as they see them. They tend to anthropomorphize God, just as you do when you speak of Him "changing His mind."
God created Lot and sustained Lot in his being. God gave Lot the power to "bargain" with him. From all eternity the beginning, middle and end of His "negotiations" with Lot were present to Him, as are all events, since He is outside time (eternal).
Of course, the biblical writers were neither systematic theologians nor philosophers and simply recounted events as they were witnessed or passed on to them.
Come on - you're dancing awfully close to sophistry here. Call it what you will, but the simple fact is that by asserting that God cannot change, you are asserting that there is something God cannot do. This belies the assertion that he is omnipotent. If you wish to assert that God is omnipotent, you must necessarily accept that God can do anything, no matter how illogical you find it to be.
Again, this so-called "deficiency" is really a perfection and an example of His immeasurable, limitless power.
That's rather convenient, but regardless, I never said it was a deficiency at all. Really, why not just accept that omnipotence means that He can truly do anything He wants, no matter what your particular opinion of its cogency is? Surely an omnipotent God is not bound by Aquinasfan's ideas of what "omnipotent" and "impossible" mean...
Of course, the biblical writers were neither systematic theologians nor philosophers and simply recounted events as they were witnessed or passed on to them.
Okay, I'll accept that. So we're back to the logical implications of gore3000's assertion about God, then.
But choice implies the ability to do so. Therefore God can change His laws; He simply chooses not to. If God cannot change His own laws, choice will never enter into the equation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.