Board index ‹ God

[Foxy]

You present a false dichotomy. You say that either the Christian God is the only god or no gods exist. This does not allow for the possibility of Christian God being wrong which is another option- that the word of God cannot be trusted in full because he is not an omniscient, omnipotent being (though he may still be omnibenevolent)

[jimwalton]

> You present a false dichotomy. You say that either the Christian God is the only god or no gods exist.

I think you have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that "either the Christian God is the only god or no gods exist," but rather "either YHWH is the only God or [he, meaning YHWH] doesn't exist." Possibly the insert of the pronoun makes it more clear.

[Walrus]

So is it possible for him to communicate imperfectly or be imperfectly understood?

From even a layman understanding of these concepts, that's not logically possible. Therefore everyone must necessarily know exactly the message being communicated, yet that isn't the case. Seems like this alone makes the above concepts self-refuting.

[jimwalton]

God accommodates human culture, science, language, and understanding to be able to communicate with us. He doesn't speak a void, but always within a context, as each of us also does. Any effective communication must accommodate to the culture and nature of the audience.

Communication theory tells us that every communication has at least three elements: the source, the means, and the audience. As we know, despite the purity of the source, sometimes the means can jeopardize the understanding of the message, and most certainly the interpretive framework and the circumsatnces of the receiver can. There can be no question that accommodation is essential in God's communicating with humans. In addition to general communication theory, we also know that the infinite God is communicating to a finite (and theologically fallen) audience.

The authority of the communication, therefore, is at the source. The communicator uses locutions (words, sentences, rhetorical structures, genres, etc.) to embody an illocution (what the words mean: blessing, promise, instruction, assertion, etc.) with a perlocution that anticipates a certain response from the audience (obedience, belief, avoidance, acceptance, etc.).

Accommodation on God's part resides primarily in the locutions, but he doesn't accommodate an erroneous illocution on the part of the human communicator. The authority of the Bible is linked to the illocution.

Therefore the concept of "communicate perfectly" is a misleading notion. I may dumb things down when I talk to a child, using different terminology, illustrations, and concepts than when I speak with you, for instance. So have I communicated imperfectly? That's just not a helpful term to analyze what I have done.

Therefore the concepts of which I spoke are not inherently self-refuting, but only if they are put into a box into which they were never meant to be housed ("imperfectly communicate").

In addition, by what flow of logic did you go from:

1. God is both transcendent and immanent.
2. God is perfect.
3. Therefore it is possible for him to communicate imperfectly or be imperfectly understood.

It seems like a non sequitur to me.

[Foxy]

Ah- yes. I see the distinction. I still hold that the Christian God could be incorrect about things, but perhaps you are meaning YHVH as in "The All"

[jimwalton]

But you have not explained why the Christian God could be incorrect about things, particularly if He is "The All."

[Foxy]

I'm not concerned with a conception of God as "the all". I don't believe such a being is able to make statements, however- not without becoming manifest and therefore no longer the all (first division, frankly).

The Christian God is incorrect about things all the time. He even admits to mistakes he's made within the context of the Bible. The flood for example. Job for another.

[jimwalton]

> I don't believe such a being is able to make statements, however- not without becoming manifest and therefore no longer the all (first division, frankly).

It's necessary that God be able to communicate and still be "the all." There is no other choice. If God is "the all" but with no ability to make statements, then there is no subject-object relationships and no particularity—only a blank unity. In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Without an absolute personality ("The all" + able to make statements), there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. But since God is necessarily a "person," a personal being, he is capable of subject-object relationships, and communication is not only possible but necessary. We cannot be expected to know a God who is incapable of revealing Himself, and such revelation requires the ability to make statements.

It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. God can only be "the all" if He is able to make statements and manifesting himself.

> He even admits to mistakes he's made within the context of the Bible. The flood for example.

Genesis 6.6 doesn't say that God admitting to making a mistake. He said he was grieved. There are 3 ways to take this.

- Oh, dude, I didn't know this was going to happen. I made a mistake and I'm bummed.
- Human attributes are being attributed to God so that we can understand his suffering.
- It's making an analogy from accounting terms where the books are out of balance and must be adjusted.

The 3rd one is the right choice. Humans had contorted the cosmos out of balance with their corruption. In a sense, he is auditing the books, and the "ledgers" need to be brought back into balance. God is enforcing a system of checks and balances as part of the equilibrium He is maintaining in the world. We see a similar kind of thought in Daniel 5.27.

The majority of times this term is used of God ("The Lord was grieved") it has to do with a change of will concerning a future plan of action. There's no concept of "I made a mistake" here.

> He even admits to mistakes he's made within the context of the Bible. ... Job for another.

I'm looking in Job for what you're talking about. You'll have to tell me.

[Walrus]

> God accommodates human culture, science, language, and understanding to be able to communicate with us.

Perfect implies unable to act imperfectly. Therefore god would know exactly how to communicate with each individual and would be incapable of being misunderstood. This strange way of wrangling god into being less capable of doing something humans can do rather easily - discuss and exchange ideas. We can dilute 'perfect' but then we're not talking about perfect communication anymore.

> It seems like a non sequitur to me.

Only if you don't think about it. Let's consider how god supposedly communicates: scripture and divine revelation. Scripture is a very human way of communication for a being which can communicate in whichever way it wants. I mean, it's all powerful, that's in its definition. Then it uses divine revelation, which is necessarily first person, but only with some people and indirectly in a way which can't be proven.

If god is all powerful, I could simply be born with all of this knowledge pre-baked. Communication isn't necessarily verbal or written if you contain omni properties.

> I may dumb things down when I talk to a child, using different terminology, illustrations, and concepts than when I speak with you, for instance. So have I communicated imperfectly? That's just not a helpful term to analyze what I have done.

Really bad analogy. You're not a perfect communicator or being. This also assumes the child can't understand you, not that you have something difficult for a developed brain to understand. If god wanted to say, communicate his existence, there should be no question of it because clearly SOME people believe he exists, so he convinced them. God, as a perfect and all-knowing being, necessarily has to know how to convince everyone.

> Therefore the concept of "communicate perfectly" is a misleading notion.

Or perhaps perfection is an absurdity and you're just trying to justify it by throwing words at the concept.

[jimwalton]

> Perfect implies unable to act imperfectly.

This is true, but communication is a different event. It is always, by definition and nature, an interpretive event. "Perfect" is the wrong term to try to capture the dynamics of communication.

> Therefore god would know exactly how to communicate with each individual and would be incapable of being misunderstood.

You don't seem to be allowing for the place of reason in human being or the dynamic of free will. We are not robots for God to dump content into, but free will agents who are able to consider, weigh, and interpret. Without such ability there would be no reasoning capabilities, and certainly nothing like science. A dynamic environment, over against a static one, is not only beneficial but also necessary for life and humanity.

> Scripture is a very human way of communication for a being which can communicate in whichever way it wants.

God can communicate however he wants, but if he's communicating with us, the "audience" is always human. Always and unavoidably.

> I could simply be born with all of this knowledge pre-baked. Communication isn't necessarily verbal or written if you contain omni properties.

You are stealing away free will and reason. It sounds like you want to be born omniscient. But if you protest and say, "No, we'd still be able to learn," then you are contradicting yourself, for we are not, then, born with all of this knowledge pre-baked.

> You're not a perfect communicator or being.

I still think "perfect" is an inadequate term to use in this situation, because communication necessarily involves the source, the means, and the target. All 3 would have to be perfect for there to be "perfect" communication, but since in this case the target is always a human, the equation is damaged from the get go, and there is no such thing as "perfect" communication, regardless of the purity and perfection of the source.

> Or perhaps perfection is an absurdity and you're just trying to justify it by throwing words at the concept.

Now, now. I'm trying to reason with you. If you don't want to discuss, why did you enter the discussion?