Truth and knowledge : Not relative and not plural

[BryanH]

Seriously Bryan? That's all you could come up with? Do you honestly think you just came up with an original argument that no Christian philosopher or apologist has ever contemplated?

I just thought it's funny... That's all

[Byblos]

Seriously Bryan? That's all you could come up with? Do you honestly think you just came up with an original argument that no Christian philosopher or apologist has ever contemplated?

I just thought it's funny... That's all

What was so funny about it, the fact that it made no sense?

[BryanH]

What was so funny about it, the fact that it made no sense?

No sense at all you say... That's harsh.

[Byblos]

What was so funny about it, the fact that it made no sense?

No sense at all you say... That's harsh.

Yes, truth does tend to hurt, especially the absolute kind.

Here's why it makes no sense (I know, there I go again with logic and reason ).

This is what you said:

Hey guys I will tell you one funny thing that is going through my mind right now: the fact that you believe in God and argue so much that there is absolute truth and knowledge...

Just saying...

Can God change every absolute truth in your life? Well, he is said to be almighty and could do virtually anything.

All people die at some point (this is one absolue truth, right). Could he make all people immortal? Yes...

IF there is someone who can change the value of truth for an absolute statement, is that statement relative or absolute?

To state that God can change absolute truth is a nonsensical statement. The same way God is existence, the same way God is pure goodness and love, so God IS absolute truth. To state God can change absolute truth is to state that God can change himself. In simplest terms, it is the same as saying absolute truth is not absolute truth, or even simpler, A is not A. Do you see how that violates the law of non-contradiction and therefore makes no sense?

[BryanH]

To state that God can change absolute truth is a nonsensical statement. The same way God is existence, the same way God is pure goodness and love, so God IS absolute truth. To state God can change absolute truth is to state that God can change himself. In simplest terms, it is the same as saying absolute truth is not absolute truth, or even simpler, A is not A. Do you see how that violates the law of non-contradiction and therefore makes no sense?

I think you are interpreting things and that is not logic.
The fact that you apply logic to God in the first place makes no sense... God is not subject to logic... Maybe you want to argue with me and tell me he is subject to human logic... That would be impressive.
The simple fact that you say that God can't change himself... Why wouldn't he be able to change himself? Just because it doesn't fit your human logic? Anyways, how do you know that God can't change himself?

Did God say that to you or anyone? You assume some things about God that you can't actually prove.

[Byblos]

To state that God can change absolute truth is a nonsensical statement. The same way God is existence, the same way God is pure goodness and love, so God IS absolute truth. To state God can change absolute truth is to state that God can change himself. In simplest terms, it is the same as saying absolute truth is not absolute truth, or even simpler, A is not A. Do you see how that violates the law of non-contradiction and therefore makes no sense?

I think you are interpreting things and that is not logic.
The fact that you apply logic to God in the first place makes no sense... God is not subject to logic... Maybe you want to argue with me and tell me he is subject to human logic... That would be impressive.
The simple fact that you say that God can't change himself... Why wouldn't he be able to change himself? Just because it doesn't fit your human logic? Anyways, how do you know that God can't change himself?

Did God say that to you or anyone? You assume some things about God that you can't actually prove.

Bryan, with every post you dig yourself deeper and deeper in the hole of irrationality. While you may be right in a sense that we do not know what God is, you are wrong in another sense because we can very reasonably and logically define what God ISN'T. And what He isn't is changeable. If you're that interested in the subject (I doubt you are but I could be wrong) then I would suggest that you start reviewing classical theism in general and God's simplicity in particular.

[BryanH]

Bryan, with every post you dig yourself deeper and deeper in the hole of irrationality. While you may be right in a sense that we do not know what God is, you are wrong in another sense because we can very reasonably and logically define what God ISN'T. And what He isn't is changeable. If you're that interested in the subject (I doubt you are but I could be wrong) then I would suggest that you start reviewing classical theism in general and God's simplicity in particular.

Actually you made me a little curious and I did a little of research online.
I think that the people who argue for God's simplicity make too many assumptions about God in the first place. Also they do apply logic as well for some of their statements. I am not saying that is wrong, but I don't think that God is subject to human logic.

[jlay]

I am not saying that is wrong, but I don't think that God is subject to human logic.

Please defend this statement. And while you are at it, please explain the source of human logic.
Also, do you agree with the law of non-contradiction? if not, explain in detail.

Divine simplicity is a complex and well developed philosophy.
I've been reading and studying on it for quite a while, and seriously doubt that you are able to refute it by 'googling' a LITTLE research overnight. If you have thoroughly been through Aquina's Five Ways, then we can talk about assumptions.

[BryanH]

Divine simplicity is a complex and well developed philosophy.
I've been reading and studying on it for quite a while, and seriously doubt that you are able to refute it by 'googling' a LITTLE research overnight.

Since you have been studying it for a while and you want to argue in such a serious manner than please tell me how those people who developed this complex philosophy managed to describe in theory the nature of God given that they can't observe and can't even understand God to begin with. It's like trying to describe the invisible man from my point of view.

I am not saying that is wrong, but I don't think that God is subject to human logic.

Defending the statement:

You are assuming again. You think that if God gave people logic, he should function the same as you. Maybe, needs to be proved.

I think that is what I was referring to when I said that people who created the "divine simplicity" philosphy are making many assumptions.

Also, do you agree with the law of non-contradiction? if not, explain in detail

Can you really apply this law to God? Is God subject to any law?
You give it a try and let's see if you are successful. You apply a law to God.

[jlay]

I want to first point out, that you did not answer any of the questions.

Can you really apply this law to God? Is God subject to any law?
You give it a try and let's see if you are successful. You apply a law to God.

You can attempt to dip and dive all you want. Although I'm curious what ground you are standing on when you ASSUME that God can't be understood through Logic. You are answering a question with a question. You are ASSUMING. Obviously, if there is a God (and there is) then we cannot fully comprehend such a being. However, we can apprehend. Particularly, if said God created human beings to do that very thing. And if God upholds the laws of nature, then He also upholds the laws of logic. That are an outflow of His being.

The question, 'is God subject to any law' presumes a source outside God, and you will certainly find that a dead end. In other words, if you ask the wrong question, you will always get the wrong answers. So as Byb has tried to explain, it is about the essence of God. His goodness, truth, etc.
It's like asking you to open your eyes and not see what's in front of you. Your vision, by its nature, will produce sight. You WILL see because you have sight. God's goodness, love, justice, truth etc., means He will be according to such. If God is goodness then to say He is not goodness is a logical contradiction. When God described Himself to Moses He said, "I am." A statement that is consistent with God being pure being. God completely knows Himself.

The simple fact that you say that God can't change himself... Why wouldn't he be able to change himself?

The issue of changing is addressed by Aquinas and has to do with contingency, and also with actuality versus potentiality. If God has potential then He has traits that have yet to come into actuality. It is a difficult issue I admit, and one that will not be answered with one night flipping through Google. Nor will googling objections to divine simplicity and trying to build your case from others arguments you don't understand.


If you desire to study immutability, aseity, etc. then this is covered in detail. Probably more in-depth than we could offer up in a thread. Jac is our resident philospoher and he'd probably make the same recomendation to you that He did to me. For starters you can read his thesis on divine simplicity. http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... licity.pdf And Edward Feser's Beginners Guide to Aquinas. Most importantly Feser is a contemporary philospher who deals with a lot of the objections and miconceptions about divine similicity.

Now, will you answer the questions?

[BryanH]

I have downloaded the thesis on my computer and will read it. It will probably take some time.

About the questions. You said that God upholds the law(s). I have no doubt about that, but "being subject to" is quite different.

You name a pshysical law and you will see that God is not subject to it.

I mean, let's take gravity for example. Is God subject to gravity. Maybe, but only by choice.

I think that one the best examples for this situation is actually the resurrection of Jesus. (please note that this is just an example that I don't actually support 100% in regard to Jesus actually being resurrected)

God sent his human son that had both human and divine nature to die for the sinful people. Also Jesus resurrected himself/was resurrected (hard to say).
BUT God created both death and life. He is in terms of human perception immortal and he can also control life and death.

So when Jesus actually died, him being God, is that a true statement? Jesus is God in terms of divine nature and God has complete control over life and death.
Was Jesus actually subject to being dead in the first place? God can't be dead or can he?

That is why I prefer looking at the resurrection story in a metaphorical way rather than a true story that actually happened. Don't get me wrong, I know that historical facts have proven that Jesus was a real person. But from there to resurrection and other more interesting stories I keep my skepticism as some here would say.

[jlay]

You still haven't answered the questions.

You name a pshysical law and you will see that God is not subject to it.

I mean, let's take gravity for example. Is God subject to gravity. Maybe, but only by choice.

I think the problem, again, is that you are asking the wrong question. You are conflating the physical and material laws of the universe with abstract, immaterial laws and or qualities of God. As Aquinas would say, God is not related as such to the universe, and thus not 'subject' to said laws. This is covered in Chris's (Jac) paper to some degree and more thoroughly by Aquinas.
Gravity is physical law of the universe. It is a product of the material universe. Is morality a product of the physical universe? Logic?
If so, show me the equations.

You see, you are using the word 'being subject to," which presumes something we aren't realy claiming. God is consistent with who He is. No one is claiming, nor does the Bible, that gravity is an essential quality of God's being. Nor is anyone saying that gravity helps us to apprehend God or His nature. God is, for lack of a better word, subject to His nature. And logic is a way that we can apprehend said nature. If God is good, true, just, etc. then it logically follows....
In the Bible God says, "Let us REASON together."

So when Jesus actually died, him being God, is that a true statement? Jesus is God in terms of divine nature and God has complete control over life and death.
Was Jesus actually subject to being dead in the first place? God can't be dead or can he?

Yes and no. That is really an issue of understanding the dual nature of Christ. And I will admit, this has always been a head scratcher for me. This is another area that Aquinas addresses, btw. I think that is why Jesus' own words are so important. He said He lays down His own life, and can take it up again. It also says "the lamb slain since the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) Since God took upon Himself human flesh, the divine nature was unchanged. Notice that as Christ was on the Earth, the Godhead was not rendered impotent or absent, or even diluted for that matter.

[domokunrox]

You guys are off topic. However, this is actually a good example for Bryan to show that Christians do have dissenting opinions.

I don't accept divine simplicity. Its not biblical and logical. My philosophical position is that God is not simple, but he can be understood. This is supported biblically.
God is not an actually infinite absurdity, but is best described as ETERNAL.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end

God made us in his image and likeness, therefore we understand Him as the basis of absolute truth and He gave us ability to reason. He did because he loves us.

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.
19 “If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
20 “But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword.”
Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

My philosophical objection to Divine simplicity is quite simple.
Omniscience is not identical to Omnipotence and so forth. To make this kind identity claim is an invalid. Quite simply, metaphysics being misrepresented.
There is absolutely a difference between identity and predication, and Divine simplicity fails there.

My last comment

Mainly demonstrative purposes here. So far, you guys brought up Divine simplicity here. However, its invalid to say his objections on what his plainly sees is invalid because you need him to read Jac's Thesis and because "Divine simplicity is well developed for X amount of years by good philosophers". I expect better answers from you guys other than telling people who disagree with just giving them an appeal to authority or "it stands the test of time". However, this isn't the thread to do it.

[BryanH]

Mainly demonstrative purposes here. So far, you guys brought up Divine simplicity here. However, its invalid to say his objections on what his plainly sees is invalid because you need him to read Jac's Thesis and because "Divine simplicity is well developed for X amount of years by good philosophers". I expect better answers from you guys other than telling people who disagree with just giving them an appeal to authority or "it stands the test of time". However, this isn't the thread to do it.

Dude he just offered me a source for me to get informed on divine simplicity. That's all. No need to be that harsh.

God made us in his image and likeness, therefore we understand Him as the basis of absolute truth and He gave us ability to reason. He did because he loves us.

Don't quote the Bible to support your statement. The Bible was written by MEN and you have no proof that this MEN were actually inspired by GOD.
From my point of view it could have been written by a guy who was struggling to understand divinity and the only way he could create a bridge between man and God was by saying that God made us in his image and likeness.

And even if he wasn't struggling, he was quite smart to formulate it like that in the first place: God is "everything". Of course we are a PART of his image and likeness. It's like a Barnum statement. It's obvious.

My philosophical objection to Divine simplicity is quite simple.
Omniscience is not identical to Omnipotence and so forth. To make this kind identity claim is an invalid. Quite simply, metaphysics being misrepresented.
There is absolutely a difference between identity and predication, and Divine simplicity fails there.

Unfortunately I can't agree or disagree with you. You can't actually understand the nature of God. Maybe you can actually tell me how you are able to do that. As the Bible presents things God says little about understanding him, but more like follow the rules and have faith. Period.

[domokunrox]

Dude he just offered me a source for me to get informed on divine simplicity. That's all. No need to be that harsh.

Bryan, theres nothing harsh about it. Fallacies are fallacious.

Don't quote the Bible to support your statement. The Bible was written by MEN and you have no proof that this MEN were actually inspired by GOD.
From my point of view it could have been written by a guy who was struggling to understand divinity and the only way he could create a bridge between man and God was by saying that God made us in his image and likeness.

Bryan, I'm in every position to quote the bible to support my statement. What God is and what his nature is, is a question of theology. Especially between others who believe the bible. You have no idea what you're talking about on how to interpret God. This discussion is best suited to theology since thats what the subject is.

You don't have a single shred of theology to even begin to attempt to understand God, so anything you have to say on the matter is bunk before you even say a single word.

And even if he wasn't struggling, he was quite smart to formulate it like that in the first place: God is "everything". Of course we are a PART of his image and likeness. It's like a Barnum statement. It's obvious.

God is "everything" is an infinite absurdity. The bible doesn't claim that anywhere. The bible clearly describes God in a very distinctive way thats unlike anything else. Its very exclusive. Not obvious.

Unfortunately I can't agree or disagree with you. You can't actually understand the nature of God. Maybe you can actually tell me how you are able to do that. As the Bible presents things God says little about understanding him, but more like follow the rules and have faith. Period.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you guys want to discuss theology, go to the theology section of the the message boards.