[Aquinasfan]

We know God from His effects, just as we know the existence of other human minds from their effects. We do not understand other human minds in themselves.

[jennyp]

We know God from His effects, just as we know the existence of other human minds from their effects. We do not understand other human minds in themselves.

A) How can God have any effects at all if He is metaphysically static?

B) We do understand other human minds enough to know that if you damage the physical brain in specific ways, the person's mind will also be damaged in specific ways.

Can you tell me how a mind - any mind - could exist apart from a physical brain of some kind to hold & generate those thoughts?

Similarly, can you tell me how a triangle could exist apart from three entities that make up its vertices? (And just in case AndrewC is lurking, an image of a triangle in one's mind is not the triangle itself, and anyway even the idea of a triangle needs a few neurons in which to hold it. :-)

[general_re]

Given the obvious similarity between this page you have pointed me to and your own arguments, I assume that this is argumentation that you find particularly compelling - or maybe you're even the author of that page, I don't know. But, your arguments and the arguments on that page are very similar. So let's consider one that I don't think you've made here:

Is God omnipotent or isn't He?

He is. But "omnipotence" means the power to do all that is possible, not absolutely all. Even God can't make a circle a square at the same time, make 2+2=5, or make me exist and not exist simultaneously. And He can't make a rock so big He couldn't lift it, because that is a self-defeating proposition for an all-powerful Being from the get-go. :-)

Seems okay, eh? Except that that is most definitely not what "omnipotence" means. As one can clearly see from the dictionary definition, "omnipotence" means "having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful." Nowhere is this notion that omnipotence only includes the "possible" present.

This is a basic fallacy of ambiguity, when we give words non-standard meanings in order to support a particular case we wish to make, and I think I am not going too far to suggest that it is a deliberate ambiguity in this case, designed to mislead the reader into accepting the conclusions of the author. Although, I must admit that the other possible alternative to malicious misrepresentation of the term is simple ignorance - I will leave it for the casual reader to decide for themselves whether this is ignorance or malice at work.

Another:

And I would say that if God is omnipotent, He also is not "bound" by the laws of logic.

Again, you are confused over definitions, as explained above. God can't break the law of non-contradiction because that is simply the way things are. If they weren't, we would have a chaotic universe. God can't make Himself not exist either, or go back and prevent Himself from being eternal, because He is pure Existence. And Jesus (who is God) is also the Logos, or Word, and this is the very Greek word from which we get the word "logic." So logic, like love is grounded in God - not above Him. I put "bound" in quotes for a very good reason.

Same problem as above - we're relying on some special definition of "omnipotence", which just so happens to be a very convenient definition for the purposes of the author. The author is quite clearly the one who is confused over definitions - too bad his interlocutor wasn't sharp enough to realize that.

A different one altogether:

I believe that sin is sin because it contradicts what God desires, but that if He desired that we all wear green hats, then to wear a purple one would be sinful. There is no Universal Law of Green Hats, but if God desired it so, morals would require it.

So He could change His mind tomorrow and assert that the Nazi Holocaust or the abortion Holocaust is moral and praiseworthy? This is blasphemous.

This is hardly a refutation of the point being made, really - it is simply an attempt to draw a boundary in such a way as to define the questioner's point as being off-limits. Again, very convenient - it certainly saves one the trouble of bothering to construct a refutation. In any case, charges of "blasphemy" carry little weight with someone who doesn't share the author's particular interpretation of God and the Bible. My response to the author, given this charge? "Blasphemy? Not my problem. Your book - you figure it out. I'll be waiting for a substantive argument rather than argument ad populam..."

And so forth...