Board index ‹ God

[Same old same old]

> You're grasping at straws to argue what you have decided against before the conversation began.

I liked your comment and only had nitpicks with a few items that I mentioned.

> You'll have to be more specific. We can't have much of a meaningful conversation if we're just dancing with generalities. To what alleged broken promises are you referring?

Christian supersessionism in every form I've heard it necessitates the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity in order to remain in God's (new) covenant. God said in the Hebrew Bible that his covenant with Abraham's descendants would last forever, and that his commandments would not change. Yes I know Paul redefines "Abraham's seed" to refer to all people who are "in Christ" but it's a stretch for me. If God's commandments and promises don't change, it's impossible for a new commandment (believe in Jesus) to be added as a requirement for the Jewish people.

> Correct. If there is an equally powerful malevolent being, then God cannot be omnipotent because He would not, then, be necessarily able to do all things that are proper objects of His power.

Yeah I have no problem with this.

> As far as all our experience has shown, time on Earth is linear in one direction only. We would have to move forward to move backward in time, a contradiction. The ability to change the past would render all things unstable in consequence. Your point that God should be able to change the past is far from supported, let alone proven.

There's no fixed direction of causality at the fundamental level. The appearance that time flows from past to future comes from the fact that entropy was low in the early universe and is comparatively higher now. On a local level, all laws of physics are time-reversible and events in the future can affect the state of a system in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

[jimwalton]

> Christian supersessionism

My study of the Scriptures is that "Gentiles" are grafted inland the covenant promises that were for Israel now also apply to these new branches for eligibility. But the promises that were made to Israel still stand. God has not broken any promises that I'm aware.

> If God's commandments and promises don't change, it's impossible for a new commandment (believe in Jesus) to be added as a requirement for the Jewish people.

Even through the period from Adam to Jesus, God was adding requirements. His covenant with Noah added things He had not discussed with Adam. His covenant with Abraham added circumcision. His covenant at Sinai added the Sinaitic Law. His covenant with David added a king to sit on the David throne. I'm surprised to hear you object that God can't add things as a requirement for the Jewish people.

> There's no fixed direction of causality at the fundamental level.

I know that Einstein speculated that "the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." I know that in Wheeler and Feynman's work, as well as in David Eagleman's work about binding, time can be considered labyrinthine as well as potential weblike. Still, there is no evidence that the past can be changed, and that's where the challenge lies, beyond all the speculative theory, doesn't it.

[Parasailed]

Why can't God make square circles?

[jimwalton]

Because they're absurd. It's nonsense, not potentiality. It's self-contradictory illogic, and has nothing to do with power, potentiality, or reason.

Tell me, what is a square circle? Let's at least start with a definition and an example.

[Scape211]

Why can't God make square circles?

why cant tomorrow still be tomorrow when we get there? because it will be today. it makes no logical sense.

Simply put with this entire discussion: You cant expect something to be illogical then try to use logic to disprove it when it isn't logical. You have no grounds for your argument. I would say it's not even self-defeating. It just doesn't get to start.

[Parasailed]

And why does absurdity, nonsense, non potentiality, all those things, why do they exist in the universe that God made?

[jimwalton]

You're really reaching now. if you don't have a case, you don't have a case.

[Parasailed]

Didn’t answer my question, did you?

[jimwalton]

It's no problem answering your question. I'm quite entertained, however, that you have no case of your own.

The answer to your question is that they exist in the universe God made because of science and logic. Where there is light there is shadow. Where there is truth there is also falseness. Where there is matter there is anti-matter. Where there is reason there is also absurdity. For every thesis there is an antithesis. This is no argument against God.

There are a few questions of mine you haven't answered:

1. Please define "square circle" for me and give and example.

2. You must give me the compelling counter-argument that omnipotence should include the irrational in order to be rational.

If you can't answer those questions, I'm left to conclude you're just blowing smoke.

[Noffy]

I think he's just blowing smoke, or as another puts it, he's just following the "debate" script where one is obligated to disagree no matter what.

I'm just popping in to recognize the effort you've put into your replies in this thread. You've definitely gone above and beyond and it is appreciated.