Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:32 pm**

ageofknowledge wrote:sorry cslewislover. the phrase triggered memories is all.

It's OK - you didn't need to delete it. I just wondered.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:46 am**

Jac,

Sorry for making you so upset and emotional but one must test the spirits behind such logic you suggest. I know you do not deny the Trinity and hold dear to the doctrines Grace etc… sorry for offending but it had to be done. I did make you mad on purpose to bring you to this point: Humility. Reason listens and produces a response — Logic denies emotion. For some reason your logic cannot take criticism very well and is proven way off balanced. Let me explain simply...

Logic trees are a product of human ingenuity.

1-God is all Powerful
2-Being All powerful includes emotions
3-Without emotions how can all powerful be really truly all powerful if it denies one's own emotions?
4-Is God afraid of emotions?
5-Then he is not all powerful

We can make logic trees all day long. Fact is, God is a living supreme being with his own brand and type of pure emotions. This is recorded within the bible and stated so by himself. Jesus proved this as well as we'll soon see.

Having emotions would not make God less all powerful, not eternal, not everywhere because he is who he is: God. The argument posed state:

1-God's ways are unsearchable / past finding out
2-Jac's argument proved that God's ways are logically searchable found out
3-Therefore God's ways are not unsearchable / nor past finding out
4-logic is greater than God

Thank you for using your logic argument to prove beyond all doubt that God's ways are not unsearchable / not past finding out - because such argument found them out and understand all mysteries of God. This was Job's sin and pride. God corrected him.

1-Logic proves that God has limits that are not self imposed
2-Non-self imposed limits on an all powerful being makes one not all powerful
3-God is not all powerful because he has imposed limits

Yes, we can use logic trees all day long but what you suggest, Jac, is basically God cannot be God because to be God sets impossible limits on a limitless God.

Why cannot you just accept that God is a supreme being way beyond our full mortal comprehension? Being a living being, God has emotions according to his own nature and character as Jesus himself points out...

Now back to the point on the Trinity I was making (but needed to be sure you, Jac, did not deny this):

1-Jesus was God come in human flesh
2-Jesus wept
3-Jesus had compassion
4-Jesus loved
5-Jesus became angry

6-John 5:19, "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.” ESV

7-Therefore God has emotions because if not then Jesus could not of wept, had compassion, loved, become angry for he could only do what he see's his Father doing and do likewise.

Deny this Jac???

Next: The bible reveals who can have no emotions — feelings…

Eph 4:18-19, “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." KJV

It is not God… it is human beings

Reason listens and produces a response — Logic denies emotion...
-
-
-

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:41 pm**

Gman wrote:No... This is where we disagree. God can be loving toward us, but still hate the sin in us.. God can still love us but also have jealously toward us.. Love is an array of emotions. That is the problem, God perhaps doesn't change who He is even though he expresses himself to us in different ways. We cannot spot-weld emotions into one single meaning just as we can't spot-weld others... Especially when we are dealing with God's emotions. God is love 1 John 4:16 and that love is expressed in ALL the emotions..

I don't see what this has to do with my comment you were responding to, G. I said that responses, by definition, are temporal. And then you replied that love is an array of emotions. Would you care to clarify yourself for me here?

Exactly my point, the conclusion is false... Or the argument "every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white." This observation is solely by the observer.. Obviously he can not have seen all swans.

Let's look at your conclusion again...

3. God cannot have emotions.

Is this scriptural? According to scripture it isn't.. We must use the Bible as our source for truth.. Not what man says. Let's see then what the Bible says about God's emotions..
.
.
.
John 11:35 Jesus wept.

And yet we have a passage that Jesus wept.... So if you are saying that Jesus didn't cry, what exactly did he do??

1) Can you quote me where I said that all valid arguments are true? I don't believe I've ever asserted that. If, however, a valid argument is false, it is because one of the premises are false, not because the conclusion is false. In the examples I suggested (no blond women existing), my first premise was false. In the example you suggested (God not existing), the first premise, likewise, was false. False premises lead to bad conclusions; true premises lead to true conclusions (in a logical argument). So you have to deal with the premises, not the conclusions of my arguments.

2) I've demonstrated my position is Scriptural. It flows directly from God's Creatorship.

3) All the verses you cite are anthropomorphisms, on the same level as those that say God has wings or doesn't know the future.

4) Regarding Jesus, I have no doubt that He had human emotions as He was (is) human!. He was also temporal, composite, and passible. We are talking about God's divine nature, not His human nature.

Again I have clearly shown that emotions do not change God's character... Your premises and conclusions are not sound, just like the guy states the argument "every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white." That is according to one's perception... As you can see one can make a logical argument and still be biased in his premises and conclusions. They maybe logical, but logical to oneself..

My arguments are not based on God's character, Gman. Would you care to quote me where I've asserted that they are? I've argued that God's essence does not change, that He is simple (that is, He is not a composite being), and that He is not temporal. All three of these, by themselves, rule out the idea of emotions in God. Where did you ever get the idea I was talking about character? If you would quote me, I would be glad to clarify what I meant.

We've already addressed this. God can be all knowing and still have emotions..

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the comment to which you've responded. I stated that I had provided a total of five arguments: those deriving from God's simplicity, immutability, timelessness, perfection, and necessity. I don't see how whether or not God's omniscience is compatible with emotions answers that.

No... As I've stated before.... I may know that someone may die someday. But does that actually take away the sting when I finally witness the event? I don't think so.. I've still witnessed police officers crying at a car accident even though they are going to happen. It's called being human..

I still don't see what this has to do with my question. I asked you if GOD MUST DISCOVER THINGS. What does that have to do with if you will die or what YOUR reaction to that would be? It's a simple yes or no question, Gman. Does God learn?

Because I want to be consistent with scripture and sound logical arguments.. I believe our relationship is a personal relationship with Him. This involves everything about God whether it is emotional or even unemotional. It's everything about God, the whole enchilada..

Also this argument has nothing to do with the Trinity. The Trinity IS scriptural, this argument is unscriptural..

First off, I've never argued that God is not a person nor that our relationship with God is not personal. I affirm both. Second, I can't help but notice your denial of God's simplicity again (that is, your attribution to Him of composition) when you say that God has emotional and unemotional parts. This is a serious issue that you need to address. Tell me, Gman, have you ever looked into the doctrine of simplicity? What is your understanding of it? I asked B.W. the same question, and he didn't bother responding. Would you be more forthright and tell me how you understand it? Fourthly, the Trinity is not a Scriptural position. It is a logical position rooted in Scriptural premises. Likewise, the position I'm advocating here is a logical position rooted in Scriptural premises. Fifthly, your comments, again, are not relevant to my words to which you were responding, so let me ask you again:

If we are not allowed to use logic to understand God (as you keep insisting), why do you consistently appeal to logic to understand Him? Or, I could ask the question this way: can you demonstrate for me that you cannot use logic when trying to understand God?

We don't have all the answers, it's ok to admit that we cannot grasp all the things of God. We simply have to be truthful about it...

I still don't see what this has to do with me being worried? And where did I say that I can grasp all things about God? Have I been dishonest anywhere?

So? If we take a survey is it always right? So was the Roman empire, but it eventually fell too.. I would say it's very close to deism where God is separated from His flock. An emotionless tree stump.. I say that God is a PERSONAL God. We can understand Him and that comes through various emotions...

With all due respect, if you believe that the Church Fathers were deists, you just don't understand what you are talking about. That would rank up there with people saying that the Founding Fathers of the USA were communists. Would you take someone seriously who made such a claim?

The survey isn't what is important. What is important, Gman, is you arguing that my position entails a certain conclusion--a thing you can only say if you think you understand it well enough to follow it to a conclusion--and thus, by necessity, would be forced to argue that all of those who hold to my position must come to the same conclusion. Yet it is clearly absurd to argue that the early Church Fathers were deists.

Here is a possibility: what are the chances that, if your understanding of classical theism causes you to interpret it as deism, your understanding of the position is simply wrong? If you are forced to call the Church Father's deists, can you be "truthful about it" to admit that perhaps you have misunderstood the position, or do you think you understand it better than the people who formulated it?

Not exactly... In your own words, "It is very fair to describe God as being angry or sad or happy or whatever. But those words are based on our emotions, and our emotions are analogous to God in that way." So we can attribute to God as being angry or sad or happy but those words are based on our emotions. In other words, it is MAN who is basing the emotion, not God. It's man's belief not God's.. God, it seems, does not care which get's back to deism.. Please see my above scriptures.. Because I believe this not to be based on the Bible..

I notice that you had to change a word is my assertion to make your point. I've bolded it for you above. There is a difference in describing someone as something and attributing to someone something.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Suppose a person from deep in the Brazilian jungle--a person who has never seen another civilization--encounters a truck driving through the woods. He is amazed, and even moreso when a man steps out of it. He asks this person how he survived being eaten by the beast, to which, the man laughs and explains to him everything. Our hero then goes back and tells his tribesmen what he has seen. These people have never seen cars or metal, so he describes the truck as a great, roaring beast, that carries people in its belly from place to place.

Now, clearly, such a description doesn't do justice to the reality. You may even argue such a description is a lie, but if these people had never experienced a machine, how else could the truth have been communicated? He is not attributing to the truck those properties, but only describing it metaphorically as such.

I'm sure you could think of less extreme examples. Any time we use metaphors we do this: "He knocked the cover off the ball!" "It's raining cats and dogs outside!" "He's one can shy of a six-pack!" These are descriptions, not attributes. In the case of God, I'm saying that God has something that corresponds--by analogy--to our emotions, and thus we describe Him in emotional terms. But what He has is not the same as our emotions from the perspective of substance or essence of nature. But even more subtly, it is not so much that God's nature is described by our emotions, so much as it is that our emotions are in some way reflective of His nature. Just as, philosophically, it is inappropriate to say "God is good" (for that would imply that there was a goodness outside of God by which we could measure Him)--indeed, we must actually say "Good is what God is"--so likewise, our emotions are derivative of His nature, not the other way around.

Thus, I completely and utterly fail to see how I've at all said that we control God's emotions. That would deny God's impassibility, which is a central tenant of classical theism. Perhaps if you understood my position better, you would not have read me in that way?

Likewise Jac.. Are you going to negate what the Bible says??

I didn't ask you if you would negate what the Bible says. Obviously, I think that you believe you are following Scripture. I'm assuming you think the same of me (that I think I'm following it). The issue is whether or not the emotional language the Biblical uses to describe God is literal or anthropomorphic. In the meantime, this line continued your habit of responding a way that has nothing to do with my statement. I asked if you were going to read my words or if you were going to attribute to me positions I don't hold. I still wonder about that. I'm not sure what either one of our reading of Scripture has to do with whether or not you are going to look at my actual arguments or if you are going to make up things that I've never said and change my words as you did above.

But you've already agreed with me that not all valid arguments are true.. They maybe valid, but not always true..

Of course I've admitted that not all valid arguments are always true, but that doesn't mean that NO valid argument is true. Nor does it mean that it is arbitrary which valid arguments are true and which ones are not. The ones that are true are the ones that are valid AND sound. You've conceded the validity of my arguments. You now have to show which of the premises is false (deal with their soundness). You've not done that.

Ok that is going too far Jac... You cannot say that my logic denies the creator.. And, I'm not totally saying that you are wrong either.. I've already told you that your case is a possibility. I can't say that I know God through and through, so I can't dismiss what you are saying entirely. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments, and closing conversations. That is not what this forum is about..

Thank you..

Why can't I? You said that my logic leads to deism. Why can you say my position entails a conclusion and I can't say that your position does?

Now, obviously, as I already said, "I know that YOU, personally, do not deny that God is the Creator." But your position is not you. What I think about YOU is that YOU have not thought your position through, because a composite, temporal, passible, contingent, mutable God cannot be the Creator; but any God that has emotions must be composite, temporal, passible, contingent, and mutable. Thus, an emotional God cannot be the Creator.

I'm not angry, Gman. I'm not upset. I'm not even irritated. I only want you to deal with my arguments rather than attributing to me position I don't hold. I want you to deal with my arguments rather than those you make up but that I've never stated. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest and either discuss my positions or to let it go. It's wrong of you to challenge me based on positions I do not advocate. Likewise, it is wrong of you to to challenge me without considering what I actually have said.

Here's to a more constructive conversation in the future.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:27 pm**

Jac,

Sorry for making you so upset and emotional but one must test the spirits behind such logic you suggest. I know you do not deny the Trinity and hold dear to the doctrines Grace etc… sorry for offending but it had to be done. I did make you mad on purpose to bring you to this point: Humility. Reason listens and produces a response — Logic denies emotion. For some reason your logic cannot take criticism very well and is proven way off balanced. Let me explain simply...

First of all, B.W., you didn't make me mad, emotional, or upset. What you made me do is question your participation in this thread as per the board rules. You made me question your character in stooping so low as to offer nothing more than an ad hominem by assaulting my orthodoxy and commitment to the Scriptures rather than dealing with my arguments. I consider your last response unjust and unfair, but it's hardly anything worth getting upset over. It is certainly something that needs to be dealt with at the level of moderation, because I hardly think that such behavior should be tolerated if we are going to have a constructive atmosphere to discuss anything; and that, of course, is the reason we have forum guidelines.

Second, I appreciate the concern, but it is hardly your position to teach me humility anymore than it is mine to teach it to you. I seem to recall Jesus telling us not to judge one another until we have removed the log from our own eyes. If you believe you are so clean and so mature that you are capable of judging another believer's heart over an internet message board by accusing me of being proud, then perhaps you should reconsider that log. Again, I appreciate the concern, but it is unnecessary in this area, just as it would be from me to you as well. God will deal with each of us as He so chooses.

Third, I do not understand the distinction between "reason" and "logic." Reason is that faculty that allows a person to think logically.

Logic trees are a product of human ingenuity.

No, they are an outworking of the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is rooted in God's own Being.

1-God is all Powerful
2-Being All powerful includes emotions
3-Without emotions how can all powerful be really truly all powerful if it denies one's own emotions?
4-Is God afraid of emotions?
5-Then he is not all powerful

I don't know what this is supposed to be, but I am going to treat it as a logical argument. If that is what you intended, it is both invalid and unsound (again).

(1) is obviously true. (2) is the entire issue we are debating. You cannot assume it in your premises without committing the petitio principii fallacy, also called circular reasoning or begging the question. The phrase literally means "assuming the initial point". Thus, your argument fails immediately as being logically fallacious. (3) isn't neither a conclusion nor a premise. It is a question. Perhaps we can take it as supportive of (2), but even then, it still begs the question (circular reasoning) because it assumes that it must deny its emotions. But you can't assume it has emotions, because that's the issue we are debating! Further, it clearly doesn't follow from (1) and (2), and thus is just an old fashioned non-sequitur. (4) is unrelated to the discussion. Who ever mentioned fear of any kind, much less in God? Anyway, it's also neither a conclusion nor premise being only a question, and thus invalid. And finally, (5) is a conclusion, but it doesn't follow from (1)-(4).

Basically, all you have here are five unrelated questions and or statements. There's nothing logical or rational about that.

We can make logic trees all day long. Fact is, God is a living supreme being with his own brand and type of pure emotions. This is recorded within the bible and stated so by himself. Jesus proved this as well as we'll soon see.

I suppose by "logic tree" you mean syllogism. I'm still waiting on you to produce a valid one. I don't think you've done so yet. Second, you can say "fact is . . ." all you want, and that doesn't make it true. That's just asserting your premise again, which is the thing I'm contesting (with logically valid arguments). Third, I've already given my view on the Scriptural statements regarding God's emotions. If you disagree, you'll need to show me why they cannot be anthropomorphisms.

Having emotions would not make God less all powerful, not eternal, not everywhere because he is who he is: God.

On the contrary, having emotions would make God no longer God, as I demonstrated to Gman. Observe:

1. A mutable, composite, contingent, or temporal being cannot be the Creator of the universe;
2. To have emotions, a being must be mutable, composite, contingent, or temporal.
3. Therefore, no being with emotions can be the creator of the universe.
4. But God is the Creator of the universe.
5. Therefore, God cannot be a being with emotions.

The argument posed state:

1-God's ways are unsearchable / past finding out
2-Jac's argument proved that God's ways are logically searchable found out
3-Therefore God's ways are not unsearchable / nor past finding out
4-logic is greater than God

Thank you for using your logic argument to prove beyond all doubt that God's ways are not unsearchable / not past finding out - because such argument found them out and understand all mysteries of God. This was Job's sin and pride. God corrected him.

I'm not going to keep showing you why your arguments are invalid. In all seriousness, and I mean this really and truly with respect, you should read a few website on how to construct a syllogism, because everything you've offered is very far off base. Now, that doesn't make you WRONG. It just means that you don't know what you are doing as of now when it comes to presenting an argument according to formal logic. Perhaps Gman can help you with that as he does a pretty good job with it. In any case, what I will do is recast your argument so that it is, at least, valid. What you apparently meant was:

1. God's ways are inscrutable;
2. Jac's arguments render God scrutable;
3. Therefore, Jac's arguments are wrong.

Now, that would be a fair argument on one hand, and unfair on the other. It's unfair because, even if it is true, then you are still forced to explain where my arguments are wrong. The reason is simple: if your argument is true, but if my argument is also true, and yet the arguments contradict each other, then we are asserting that two contrary statements are both true, which is absurd. Now, I appreciate your offering up an argument of your own. This is the FIRST put up by ANYONE in this thread who disagrees with me. It is, as I've cast it, logically valid. It does not, however, relieve you from answer my own objections unless you are willing to argue that Truth does not exist.

It is, however, a fair argument, so in recognition of the fact that valid arguments need to be dealt with, I'm going to give you the courtesy of responding to it. I can do it two ways:

1. The argument is directed at a straw man. I'm not interested in God's ways, which speaks of His methodology. I'm interested in His essence, which is what He fundamentally is (not how He behaves). To that end, (2) would be false because my arguments have not been directed as His behavior but at His essence.

2. I could point out that (2) is simply false on its face. It is a basic tenant of classical theism that God is unknowable. Allow me to quote from Thomas Aquinas on this:

When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.

That is from Summa Theologica, question three, available here. My point in quoting him is to offer evidence for my claim that classical theism, to which I hold, believes that God's essence cannot be known. What we can know is what God is not (i.e., He is not a liar). Now, this leads to two conclusions about your argument.

First, your (2) above must be false, because I am, by definition, upholding God's inscrutability, and second, if my denial of God's emotions means I can have positive knowledge of what God is, and thereby violate Scripture's teaching on God's inscrutability, then, likewise, your denial of God non-emotions (or anything else you deny of Him, i.e., lying, deceiving, murder, evil, ignorance, weakness, etc) must also, by the same standard, violate Scripture in the same manner.

Now, having responded to your arguments, you can, of course, offer a rejoinder. In the meantime, I look forward to you responding to my arguments and questions.

1-Logic proves that God has limits that are not self imposed
2-Non-self imposed limits on an all powerful being makes one not all powerful
3-God is not all powerful because he has imposed limits

Yes, we can use logic trees all day long but what you suggest, Jac, is basically God cannot be God because to be God sets impossible limits on a limitless God.

I'm setting no more limits on God than you are when you deny of Him ignorance, the capacity to do evil, impotence, etc.

Why cannot you just accept that God is a supreme being way beyond our full mortal comprehension? Being a living being, God has emotions according to his own nature and character as Jesus himself points out...

It seems to me, B.W., that you are the one denying this. For you keep asserting that you KNOW (that is, comprehend) something about God's essence, namely, that He has emotions. I'm denying something that we KNOW about God. I'm asserting that the thing God has, whatever it is (see the incomprehensibility that I am upholding there?), is at best understood as analogous to our emotions. Further, as usual, since you didn't respond to my argument, I'll have to point out that I've ALREADY dealt with this statement. Let me just quote myself:

Since everything in the world is created, then everything in the world is contingent (on God); thus, everything that we know is contingent. But if everything we know is contingent, meaning it may or may not exist; if it does exist, it only does so contingently. But since whatever God is in essence, He must exist necessarily (nothing of which in creation can match this description), it follows that any essence, quality or action that we truly understand or apprehend is not an intrinsic feature of God's essence. Again, if we understand something, then it is contingent, but nothing in God is contingent; thus, nothing we grasp can be a part of God's necessary existence. Thus, God declares truthfully "so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth" (Exo 9:14), and again, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." (Isa 46:9)

(Emphasis original) Notice, B.W., that my entire argument is based completely and totally on the unsearchability of God. It seems to me that your position is the one that denies Scripture on this, for you are the one who is making God searchable.

Now back to the point on the Trinity I was making (but needed to be sure you, Jac, did not deny this):

1-Jesus was God come in human flesh
2-Jesus wept
3-Jesus had compassion
4-Jesus loved
5-Jesus became angry

6-John 5:19, "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.” ESV

7-Therefore God has emotions because if not then Jesus could not of wept, had compassion, loved, become angry for he could only do what he see's his Father doing and do likewise.

Deny this Jac???

Of course I don't deny this. I talked about this very early in the thread. The issue of God's emotions for this discussion is focused on God's divine nature, not the human nature of Christ.

At this point, let me, then ask you a question that I asked Gman--and please, do me the favor of actually answering this one, since you have refused to answer all my others:

If your interpretation of my position would be that it denies the Trinity, and if the position that I am holding is the position of the very people who formulated the Trinity, then isn't it possible that you simply don't understand my position?

Next: The bible reveals who can have no emotions — feelings…

Eph 4:18-19, “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." KJV

It is not God… it is human beings

Reason listens and produces a response — Logic denies emotion...
-
-
-

B.W. - do you really think that this verse--the Bible--teaches that humans have no emotions? Really?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:54 pm**

Jac3510 wrote:I don't see what this has to do with my comment you were responding to, G. I said that responses, by definition, are temporal. And then you replied that love is an array of emotions. Would you care to clarify yourself for me here?

Sure.. What I'm saying here is that not all emotions are temporal.. They can be part of the same emotions of love.. As we have seen love has a jealous side to it.. They cannot be separated. Take these scriptures for instance.

2 Corinthians 11:2 "am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

In a similar way, God expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24).

The Song of Solomon 8:6 is further proof that love and jealousy are not always opposed to each other. To her beloved, the Shulamite said: “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol;

God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (see Exodus 20:3-6; Joshua 24:14-16,19-20).

Now the emotion hate.. Because God loves, He also hates. There can be no love unless there is the antithesis of love, which is hate. Those two emotions are inseparable. As an example Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that God hates.. So as we can see clearly from scripture there is a righteous hate from God, and it DOESN'T change who he is. It's not temporal.. That is what I mean.. It's all part of the same..

Jac3510 wrote:1) Can you quote me where I said that all valid arguments are true? I don't believe I've ever asserted that.

Then why are you using Modus Tollens in your argument?

Jac3510 wrote:If, however, a valid argument is false, it is because one of the premises are false, not because the conclusion is false. In the examples I suggested (no blond women existing), my first premise was false. In the example you suggested (God not existing), the first premise, likewise, was false. False premises lead to bad conclusions; true premises lead to true conclusions (in a logical argument). So you have to deal with the premises, not the conclusions of my arguments.

No.. You don't have a sound argument. A sound argument is a valid argument with in fact true premises and a true conclusion. You don't have either based on scripture as shown..

Jac3510 wrote:2) I've demonstrated my position is Scriptural. It flows directly from God's Creatorship.

I have not seen any scriptural evidence for your arguments..

Jac3510 wrote:3) All the verses you cite are anthropomorphisms, on the same level as those that say God has wings or doesn't know the future.

And I've replied that anthropomorphisms are the visual qualities of God believed by man, not issues of the heart..

Jac3510 wrote:4) Regarding Jesus, I have no doubt that He had human emotions as He was (is) human!. He was also temporal, composite, and passible. We are talking about God's divine nature, not His human nature.

And yet we have scripture from the OT that talks about God's anger Numbers 12:9.

Jac3510 wrote:My arguments are not based on God's character, Gman. Would you care to quote me where I've asserted that they are? I've argued that God's essence does not change, that He is simple (that is, He is not a composite being), and that He is not temporal. All three of these, by themselves, rule out the idea of emotions in God. Where did you ever get the idea I was talking about character? If you would quote me, I would be glad to clarify what I meant.

I would say that God doesn't change either.. You stated that God cannot have any emotions.. He is always the same and part of that make up of His character or behavior or personality is His emotions..

Ok, then why did God create us with feelings? Are we not created in the image of God?

Jac3510 wrote:Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the comment to which you've responded. I stated that I had provided a total of five arguments: those deriving from God's simplicity, immutability, timelessness, perfection, and necessity. I don't see how whether or not God's omniscience is compatible with emotions answers that.

Because emotions are not temporal with God..

Jac3510 wrote:I still don't see what this has to do with my question. I asked you if GOD MUST DISCOVER THINGS. What does that have to do with if you will die or what YOUR reaction to that would be? It's a simple yes or no question, Gman. Does God learn?

I have already responded to that.. No, God doesn't have to discover things.. Knowing what may happen in the future doesn't negate you from having an emotion towards it. Like knowing the person you love will die someday.. People can still cry at funerals even if they knew it was going to happen..

Jac3510 wrote:First off, I've never argued that God is not a person nor that our relationship with God is not personal. I affirm both. Second, I can't help but notice your denial of God's simplicity again (that is, your attribution to Him of composition) when you say that God has emotional and unemotional parts. This is a serious issue that you need to address. Tell me, Gman, have you ever looked into the doctrine of simplicity? What is your understanding of it? I asked B.W. the same question, and he didn't bother responding. Would you be more forthright and tell me how you understand it?

My understanding of simplicity is that you are complicating the persona of God saying that he cannot be understood via his emotions.. Again, relationship with God is a PERSONAL relationship.. It's a way in which we connect with Him. I don't agree that we can never know Him.. We can know Him by knowing His behavior and emotions..

Jac3510 wrote:Fourthly, the Trinity is not a Scriptural position. It is a logical position rooted in Scriptural premises. Likewise, the position I'm advocating here is a logical position rooted in Scriptural premises.

Here we go again with the Trinity.. I beg to differ, I say that the Trinity HAS a scriptural position..

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/spiritgod.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html

Jac3510 wrote:Fifthly, your comments, again, are not relevant to my words to which you were responding, so let me ask you again:

If we are not allowed to use logic to understand God (as you keep insisting), why do you consistently appeal to logic to understand Him? Or, I could ask the question this way: can you demonstrate for me that you cannot use logic when trying to understand God?

Of course we can use logic to understand God.. Where did I ever say we couldn't?? I said we need sound arguments... Not shoddy ones.

Jac3510 wrote:I still don't see what this has to do with me being worried? And where did I say that I can grasp all things about God? Have I been dishonest anywhere?

You claimed that you had a logical victory.. It seems you have a prideful walk. Which I'm asking you, do you ever claim that you were wrong? It seems you are getting emotional over this topic and taking it personal. If you are I'm sorry if I hurt any of your feelings..

Jac3510 wrote:With all due respect, if you believe that the Church Fathers were deists, you just don't understand what you are talking about. That would rank up there with people saying that the Founding Fathers of the USA were communists. Would you take someone seriously who made such a claim?

No I wouldn't, but not everyone is sold on doctrines like predestination, purgatory and the likes either... It doesn't matter if the majority agrees with it, it doesn't make it right.. I would say that this doctrine resembles deism.

Jac3510 wrote:The survey isn't what is important. What is important, Gman, is you arguing that my position entails a certain conclusion--a thing you can only say if you think you understand it well enough to follow it to a conclusion--and thus, by necessity, would be forced to argue that all of those who hold to my position must come to the same conclusion. Yet it is clearly absurd to argue that the early Church Fathers were deists.

Here is a possibility: what are the chances that, if your understanding of classical theism causes you to interpret it as deism, your understanding of the position is simply wrong? If you are forced to call the Church Father's deists, can you be "truthful about it" to admit that perhaps you have misunderstood the position, or do you think you understand it better than the people who formulated it?

Here you go labeling things again.. It's only "classical" to you it seems.. Not everyone sees it that way..

Jac3510 wrote:Thus, I completely and utterly fail to see how I've at all said that we control God's emotions. That would deny God's impassibility, which is a central tenant of classical theism. Perhaps if you understood my position better, you would not have read me in that way?

Ok, so what you are saying is that God doesn't get angry, He doesn't love, He doesn't hate, He doesn't get jealous... I see.. Is that scriptural?

Jac3510 wrote:I didn't ask you if you would negate what the Bible says. Obviously, I think that you believe you are following Scripture. I'm assuming you think the same of me (that I think I'm following it). The issue is whether or not the emotional language the Biblical uses to describe God is literal or anthropomorphic. In the meantime, this line continued your habit of responding a way that has nothing to do with my statement. I asked if you were going to read my words or if you were going to attribute to me positions I don't hold. I still wonder about that. I'm not sure what either one of our reading of Scripture has to do with whether or not you are going to look at my actual arguments or if you are going to make up things that I've never said and change my words as you did above.

I'm looking at your argument and I disagree with the statement that God cannot have any emotions.. Is that clearer now?

Jac3510 wrote:Of course I've admitted that not all valid arguments are always true, but that doesn't mean that NO valid argument is true. Nor does it mean that it is arbitrary which valid arguments are true and which ones are not. The ones that are true are the ones that are valid AND sound. You've conceded the validity of my arguments. You now have to show which of the premises is false (deal with their soundness). You've not done that.

I have, both figuratively, scripturally, and logically..

Jac3510 wrote:Why can't I? You said that my logic leads to deism. Why can you say my position entails a conclusion and I can't say that your position does?

I also said that I couldn't fully rule out what you were saying either.. Don't twist my words please.. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments and closing conversations..

Jac3510 wrote:Now, obviously, as I already said, "I know that YOU, personally, do not deny that God is the Creator." But your position is not you. What I think about YOU is that YOU have not thought your position through, because a composite, temporal, passible, contingent, mutable God cannot be the Creator; but any God that has emotions must be composite, temporal, passible, contingent, and mutable. Thus, an emotional God cannot be the Creator.

I just don't see it the same way as you.. To me an emotional God is a STRONGER God. It does not change who he is, he is always the same..

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not angry, Gman. I'm not upset. I'm not even irritated. I only want you to deal with my arguments rather than attributing to me position I don't hold. I want you to deal with my arguments rather than those you make up but that I've never stated. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest and either discuss my positions or to let it go. It's wrong of you to challenge me based on positions I do not advocate. Likewise, it is wrong of you to to challenge me without considering what I actually have said.

Here's to a more constructive conversation in the future.

I believe I have dealt with the argument.. I have shown that not all valid arguments are sound. I have shown what is scriptural and what isn't.. I have demonstrated that knowing all things doesn't negate one from having emotional feeling towards it..

Just a thought.

Blessings...

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:47 am**

I did not want to respond to this thread anymore but need to state one last thing before I voluntarily leave this thread.

Jac, I discombobulated you and created anger in you. Sorry about that but it brings out another important point. When dealing with Atheists worth their lick of salt, they will use the same tactics on you to throw you off. All I can ask of you Jac is to learn something and that something is too learn humility and be more flexible in your presentation and be not so rigid.

Atheists worth their lick of salt will know enough of the bible to throw you off. I used a similar tactic but as a Christian and not as an atheist. An atheist worth his lick of salt will point to Jesus, questioning you about his divinity in order to prove God has emotions to win their case.

How will you respond to it? With the same historical rhetoric they have prepared pat answers for? That same Emotion Argument used to prove for God to be omnipotent / omniscient/ omnipresent that he cannot have emotions. Dealing with a tried and true atheistic who is intelligent will attempt to trap you and discombobulate any logic you attempt to use. If what I said got you upset, just think what an intelligent clever atheist could do.

I did made you angry, got you off focused very easily. Notice that I stated repeatedly in a non-threatening manner — the argument posed. I addressed the argument. I am no longer an Atheist but being of that former background, I learned a few tactics to discombobulate Christians by getting them angry, off focused, to expose narrow mindedness, and intellectual pride. They Paint themselves in negative manner. The Political Left uses such tactic against the Right.

So I hope you can forgive me and learn from me something you need to avoid doing. With that, I'll say ado and so long and leave this thread. You are a good man but watch your anger and be aware how easy it is to become discombobulated due to rigidity of thought. That is something I hoped you could learn from all this...

Last example below (very simplistic advise - but please just look it over)

Mr. Atheist says to Christian: God having emotions would negate God's being omnipotent / omniscient, etc… God that has emotions must be composite, temporal, passable, contingent, and mutable. Thus, an emotional God cannot be the Creator or God. (Now if you try proving that God doesn't have emotions to combat their argument watch out as you will fall prey to a set up so do not fall for it by trying it - throw them off balance).

Christian says to Mr. Atheist: God is unlike all beings. God has emotions related to his own nature would not disprove his being omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient in the least. God has his own wisdom, knowledge, intelligence related to his nature. Notice the statement you made shows your system is based on your own assumptions — not facts or logic.

Mr. Atheist responds - What about God being angry, emotions temporal, etc and etc… proving God is not as you say he is…God cannot love and hate at the same time… etc and etc… — No it is your system that is assumption based not mine.

Christian: God being able to be angry with one person and love another at the same time does not disprove him being omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, in fact it establishes these as true. He is God. (An intelligent atheist good at his craft of debate will not be swayed by Christian's denying God has unique emotions that are related to him — such he/she atheist will exploit such denial — turn it against you. They'll eat you alive if you remain so inflexible in your use of logic by making you angry and by you playing the martyr card).

Instead, have the atheist explain what they think God would be like if they themselves were God — a Supreme Being. Would proving that they have emotions disprove their own existence or rather would it help define their nature? Turn it back on them…

Back to discussion — Christian: So an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God cannot be more than one place at a time? Cannot stand in time and outside of time at the same time? Cannot answer more than one prayer at a time? Has to do one thing at a time? The answer is No because he is God, a being vastly different than you or I.

Likewise, how could God having his own emotions related to his own nature disprove his being all powerful? It cannot. The logic you use is flawed.

How?

First, can an all powerful God live both inside time as well as outside of time? To be all powerful, one would be able to do both. After all, who made time in the first place? Man or God? (From here you toss in a new line of logical argument that will throw them off balance — not you. Remain cool)

Atheists would most likely say that the big bang made time and seasons for time after humans evolved intelligence to track it. Christian: Who the made the big bang? Elements and matter did — say Mr. Atheist. Where did the elements and matter come from that made the big bang? They were just there. So being just there is a possibility? Correct... Then likewise, God can be just there too — with no beginning and no end and He equally can make the elements and matter for the big bang to happen as well.

How does that disprove God's existence? It just does - says the atheist — we have facts. Christian: So you base what you know on belief in always existing matter and elements? Yes they would say, because it is based on facts not belief because Matter exists. How do you know where the first matter came from? Are you not speculating and having faith in your belief that matter always was? Then you have faith in your hypothesis and not facts — where did the first matter come from that made the big bang happen….

Now how would an all powerful God having or not having emotions make any difference in proving he exists or not? You believe he does not exist does not qualify you (Atheist) as an expert on matter and where it first came from that caused the big bang. If an all powerful God wanted to create a universe — He can from nothing.

If God exist, then you have a problem. If God made the heavens and earth out of nothing then that explains where matter and the elements came from. If not, then how did these become when nothing existed except dark void? Darkness is matter - they say and cite experts.

If that is the case, where did it come from? Evidence shows that light and the stars exist in complexity of motion, gravity, physics, etc. Thus showing God has wisdom, knowledge, intelligence and ability way beyond what our minds can conceive. Likewise, God's emotions are beyond what we can conceive and has no bearing on showing him a contradiction. Mr. Atheist I know you have an open mind but do not like the bible but here is a quote you need to consider:

Genesis 1:14-15, “And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.” ESV

God created time and thus can live in time as well as live outside time as he lived outside of time before anything ever was the same way you postulate about matter and elements always existing If not, then he is not all powerful just as you believe and cannot be God. Atheist — I don't believe - I have facts and logic. Emotions are temporal….If God has emotions…he is temporal…

Christian: Limited to either time or only outside of time would impose a limit on God being all powerful; therefore, such imposed limit proves He is not really truly all powerful. Agree? …Yes…

However, God who lives in time as well as lives outside time for all time proves he is indeed all powerful as well as demonstrate that his own emotions can have temporal (In time) and everlasting (outside of time) effects… How?

If God is limited to either time or outside time
He has limits
God could be not all powerful

-And you would be correct-

If God is not limited to being either in time or outside time
He has no limits
God would be all powerful

-this would prove us correct about God-

God Is All Powerful
God lives in Time as well as outside of Time at the same time
If He cannot. Then how can God really truly be all Powerful?

-this would again prove us correct about God-

God can and does live in time and outside of time all at the same time...as that defines an all powerful ability. If God so lives in time and outside of time all at the same time then his emotions, intelligence, wisdom, etc must be like he: in time and outside of time all at the same time.

How can that be…Mr. Atheist responds…

Next, another bible passage Mr. Atheist.

Mr. Atheist says - hey don't use the bible it is fallacious…

Well then Mr. Atheist do not use Hawkins or Dawkins…or any of your experts…either. To not use the bible which reveals God would be like you not using what you learned from the experts you cite. Is that fair? Are you fair?

If you are going to say we can't use the bible then where did the first matter/elements come from that caused the big bang? …It evolved … How when nothing but a void existed? The bible has answers. Not allowing it to be used proves atheists are not as open science minded as many claim to be by avoiding all evidence as well as unwilling to explore all options but you are not like that — are you?

Mr. Atheist, are you being closed minded and afraid of taking the risk of looking into the bible for a moment? If not, we need to end our discussion right now. So…

Before we go — remember God is his own being vastly different than we are and subject to his own nature that define his own wisdom, emotions, and character. Having any of these will not disprove who God is and what he is like because he is vastly different than anything we can fully fathom. God is HIS OWN BEING. If you are not willing to explore and consider this with your open mind — we will go nowhere in any future discussions.

Have a good day Mr. Atheist

A: Wait a minute…I have emotions and I am temporal therefore God would be temporal if he has emotions. Your - in time and outside of time all at the same time is a contradiction it cannot happen.

C: Basing your assumptions on yourself does not prove God is like you — temporal but are you really temporal Mr. Atheist?

A: Yes, when I die, that is it.

C: A big bang all for nothing in a complex universe where physics hold things together…no intelligence in that is there? Hmmm… in time and outside of time all at the same time proves an all powerful ability true. No contradiction…

Have a good day Mr. Atheist

(This is a bit simplistic example but when dealing with a sharp atheist — you have to set the premise — not they.That is all I am trying t o convey in that example)

So Jac — you are easy to discombobulate — learn from this and be blessed! Have a great day…

I hope this is my last post on this particular thread. Remember the above example is meant to be a simplistic learning example on how to throw an athiest off balance before they you. One has to develop his/her own flexible style to set them up and make them think so the Lord can awaken them. How to work this depends on you and how atheist respond - be flexible and always get back on topic.

God having emotions does not make God temporal and neither would God having wisdom make God temporal. God is his own being. We are not God and neither are we really temporal. All of God, his wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, emotions, etc, have both temporal and eternal effects all according the will of God. Not having this so would prove God not all powerfully able work through all things all powerfully in all things he does. God is active in time, outside of time, all the time in all his ways, if not, then he cannot be God all powerful.
-
-
-

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:25 am**

B.W., if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that you angered me, then think whatever you will. All I've seen out of you in this thread is attempts at logical proofs that were invalid to an extreme and a refusal to answer any of my questions. At least Gman has interacted with my ideas. You've done nothing but stop up your ears and scream heresy. Feel free to leave the discussion. In any case, whether you choose to reply anymore or not, rest assured I have nothing more to say to you on this until you choose to engage in real, meaningful dialogue. I have far better things to do with my time than to respond to people who are only interesting in judging others and provoking them. I'm sure others have better things to do with theirs than to read as much.

Gman, I do thank you for you continued substantive responses, even if we are still disagreeing. I believe the problem between you and me is simply one of clarity. Since I do take your replies so far to be a serious attempt at engagement, I do hope, if nothing more, that we can come to understand one another's position more fully. I'll get back to you later then.

God bless

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:32 am**

I think cslewislover makes a better spock than jac.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:45 am**

ageofknowledge wrote:I think cslewislover makes a better spock than jac.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:57 pm**

Gentlemen and Lady,

After reading all this, I have decided to chuck it all, move to Thailand and become a Buddhist Monk. Naaaahhhhh, I don't look good with a shaved head.

W

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:48 pm**

Gman,

I have a great deal of respect for you based on the help you have given me thus far, along with other Mods on this board. Please take this in the spirit it is meant, one of asking a question which may be the result of my failing once again to thoroughly understand a concept.

In one of your previous posts to Jac you stated the following: "This is where we disagree. God can be loving toward us, but still hate the sin in us.. God can still love us but also have jealously toward us." You noted that: "God can have jealously (SP?) towards us?" Did you mean Jealousy? Consider the following: " Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh. (Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians5:21). Webster defines jealousy as "resentfully envious." It is a trait that has its roots in darkness (Romans 13:12-13). It is also I believe listed as one of the 7 deadly sins. How then could God have JEALOUSY toward us? Or is there a difference between JEALOUSLY and JEALOUSY?

I am far from having the level of biblical knowledge that most of you have, but this was curious to me.

Thank you,

Walt

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:08 pm**

W,

I'm not G, obviously, but let me tell you that I know exactly what he meant. The Bible expressly calls God a "jealous God." God most definitely is jealous. The word refers to a possessive (not necessarily a bad thing) love for another. For example, I would say that I am jealous for my wife. By that, I mean that I would be very angry if I found out that she was with another man. I would be hurt. I want her love for myself and me only.

This, by the way, is a good example of why I don't think that God has emotions. What the Bible means by describing as jealous is that He doesn't want us to worship anyone but Him. We are made to be in a relationship with Him, so to be in a "relationship" with any other "god" denies our purpose for existence. In that sense, God's desire for us can be called "jealous." His "emotion" here is analogous[/] to our own, but it hardly means that He has the precise emotion I call jealousy when I think of my wife with another man.

Bottom line: jealousy doesn't have to be a bad thing, though, of course, it can be. To call God jealous is good if it is meant in the terms of God's desire for an exclusive relationship with His people.

Hope that helps!

And G, I'm still going to get to you, but on thinking of this more, I think I'm going to table this discussion and open another thread on classical theism--the doctrines of simplicity and impassibility need to be addressed in a systematic manner. Unfortunately, they have not been yet.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:46 pm**

Jac3510 wrote:W,

I'm not G, obviously, but let me tell you that I know exactly what he meant. The Bible expressly calls God a "jealous God." God most definitely is jealous. The word refers to a possessive (not necessarily a bad thing) love for another. For example, I would say that I am jealous for my wife. By that, I mean that I would be very angry if I found out that she was with another man. I would be hurt. I want her love for myself and me only.

This, by the way, is a good example of why I don't think that God has emotions. What the Bible means by describing as jealous is that He doesn't want us to worship anyone but Him. We are made to be in a relationship with Him, so to be in a "relationship" with any other "god" denies our purpose for existence. In that sense, God's desire for us can be called "jealous." His "emotion" here is analogous[/] to our own, but it hardly means that He has the precise emotion I call jealousy when I think of my wife with another man.

Bottom line: jealousy doesn't have to be a bad thing, though, of course, it can be. To call God jealous is good if it is meant in the terms of God's desire for an exclusive relationship with His people.

Hope that helps!

Thank you Jac, I did get this answer from another Mod, CSLewislover. She essentially made the same points as did you. There is much I do not know but I am reading and attempting to learn.

thanks,

Walt

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:57 pm**

Jac3510 wrote:Gman, I do thank you for you continued substantive responses, even if we are still disagreeing. I believe the problem between you and me is simply one of clarity. Since I do take your replies so far to be a serious attempt at engagement, I do hope, if nothing more, that we can come to understand one another's position more fully. I'll get back to you later then.

God bless

Thanks Jac.. No problem. I think we do and again I'm not ruling out what you are saying.. Also I'll probably have to stop here soon too. I'm off to D.C. this weekend to see my sister, nephew AND possibly zoegirl...

Later,

G -

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:04 pm**

WConn wrote:Gman,

I have a great deal of respect for you based on the help you have given me thus far, along with other Mods on this board. Please take this in the spirit it is meant, one of asking a question which may be the result of my failing once again to thoroughly understand a concept.

In one of your previous posts to Jac you stated the following: "This is where we disagree. God can be loving toward us, but still hate the sin in us.. God can still love us but also have jealously toward us." You noted that: "God can have jealously (SP?) towards us?" Did you mean Jealousy? Consider the following: " Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh. (Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians5:21). Webster defines jealousy as "resentfully envious." It is a trait that has its roots in darkness (Romans 13:12-13). It is also I believe listed as one of the 7 deadly sins. How then could God have JEALOUSY toward us? Or is there a difference between JEALOUSLY and JEALOUSY?

I am far from having the level of biblical knowledge that most of you have, but this was curious to me.

Thank you,

Walt

Looks like Jac already answered this.. Jac is absolutely correct here. There is a bad jealousy and a good jealousy.. Just as there is a bad hate and a righteous hate, good guilt, bad guilt, etc... It's not all black and white. I'll explain later...

Evidence for God from Science

Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God

Re: Emotions of God