Is Faith logical?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Let us look again at the statement "All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass." Usually someone will point out that there are lots of things which are green but which are not grass. For example, a green shirt is not grass but it is in the *image* of grass because of its green color.

Would it not seem unlikely that God might choose such an image so radically disparate from his intending meaning? If God might not be relied upon to accurately describe his intended association with mankind, how might one be plausibly expected to form a meaningful relationship with him while on Earth?

In order to answer the items in post 131, first, one needs to tell me if the nature of God is the same as the nature of humans just as the color green of the shirt is the same color of the grass.

God is the Creator. Claiming the image of His creation for Himself would indicate that the created existed before the Creator.

Would it not more accurately suggest that the image existed in the mind of the creator prior to the created? Surely it was not the created that provided God with this image?

Once one decides who came first, the Creator or the created, then one can look at the natures of both the Creator and the created. Catholicism holds the logical position that there is only one God so logically there would not be a created being equal to God. So what is it about man, which leads to the Catholic position that man is made in the image of God. Or is God made in the image of man? Does God have the same color skin as we do?

Given the extreme variance of beliefs throughout history, would it be that unlikely that God might be cast in man's image? If not unlikely, is anything purported to be from God truly likely to be so?

[grannymh]

So what is it about man, which leads to the Catholic position that man is made in the image of God?

It is our spiritual soul. Once we can accept that we are an unique unification of material anatomy and spiritual soul, then it is logical to seek our Creator. The Catholic position is that God calls us, the created ones, to share in His own life through knowledge and love. The Catholic Church provides what is necessary to seek God and then to have a personal relationship with God via the seven Sacraments. God, Himself, abides with us in the Catholic Eucharist.

Is the Catholic Church logical? I believe that it is and I invite all to find out for themselves.

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist is the Light, Strength, and Life of our souls.

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by ChesterBeach

Credo quia absurdum

"I believe because it is absurd"

I've always wondered about this line of reasoning. I mean, there are all kinds of absurd positions we don't believe. That's why there's such a thing as reductio ad absurdum. I just don't see why we should look at one absurd thing and think it couldn't be false, and look at another equally or more absurd thing and disbelieve it precisely because it's absurd.

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

It seems unfortunate to have arrived so early at such an axiomatic rift. May we agree first that the universe might be closed, with the understanding that we might also be in error?

Okay, then. If we agree that, then I assume we have the following 4 axioms from what you've said:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

So that makes four shared assumptions.

My mind wants to wander off onto a new set of assumptions, and it's hard to stay on topic here. Let's try to see how much we agree on the nature of the Universe. If we do this a certain way, this new tangent could lead back to the idea of a closed system in our Universe. But I want to take it slowly.

Can we share assumptions about a fifth axiom: Is it possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

As an interesting aside, might God have been able to inject the Holy Spirit into a closed system?

Yes. However, when God does this, the system is no longer a closed system until He is through injecting.

But your question brings up more questions.

Has the Holy Spirit always been in this Universe, and just waiting for the time for It's proper role? If not, when was the Holy Spirit injected into the Cosmos?

If the Holy Spirit has been inserted into our world at a specific point in history, then it was at that time that a gateway was opened between the dimension of Heaven and the dimension of our Universe, and truly, at that point, we were an open system. At the moment that the "injection" stops, we became a closed system again.

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

5) Does God have free will?

Sure.

[ErnestoMM]

responses very good! )

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by ChesterBeach

At the heart of Christianity is the mystery of the Trinity, which transcends logic. We are using our finite minds to try and grasp the infinite. We are destined to fail, like trying to drink the ocean. It makes the whole of the faith like a zen koan.

Hm, I'm just trying to relate this back to our exchange on the principle "Credo quia absurdum".

It seems like you're saying Trinity is absurd (and Christianity by implication, since it's the heart of Christianity), and that's why you believe in it.

But, if our minds cannot grasp the Trinity at all, then it's unclear that you actually believe anything. That is, if the Trinity is completely beyond our comprehension, then you don't actually believe in anything called the Trinity, since that word doesn't refer to anything intelligible.

If we can grasp something about the Trinity, then that something is either absurd or it isn't. If it is absurd, it seems like the appropriate response is to disbelieve in it (like we do with anything else that's absurd). If it isn't absurd, I think I may have missed your point.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Okay, then. If we agree that, then I assume we have the following 4 axioms from what you've said:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

So that makes four shared assumptions.

My mind wants to wander off onto a new set of assumptions, and it's hard to stay on topic here. Let's try to see how much we agree on the nature of the Universe. If we do this a certain way, this new tangent could lead back to the idea of a closed system in our Universe. But I want to take it slowly.

Can we share assumptions about a fifth axiom: Is it possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

It seems not only possible, but probable.

Yes. However, when God does this, the system is no longer a closed system until He is through injecting.

But your question brings up more questions.

Has the Holy Spirit always been in this Universe, and just waiting for the time for It's proper role? If not, when was the Holy Spirit injected into the Cosmos?

If the Holy Spirit has been inserted into our world at a specific point in history, then it was at that time that a gateway was opened between the dimension of Heaven and the dimension of our Universe, and truly, at that point, we were an open system. At the moment that the "injection" stops, we became a closed system again.

It is not possible to know, but assuming that Jesus was not also always within the realm of our cosmos, would it not seem likely that the Holy Spirit would be equally injected at a fixed time?

Further, if prayers are answered by God in Heaven, would the power necessary to effect the prayer request re-open the system each time? Assuming a continuous prayer answering system, would this require that the system be continuously open?

Or is the system only open in a limited way? If so, what might be the consequences of these limits?

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Sure.

Let us state the agreed properties of God (insofar as current knowledge allows).

God:

1) Is Omniscient
2) Foresees the future
3) Is Perfect
4) Exists in a realm in which information may accumulate (ie. time passes)
5) Has Free Will

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)?

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Let us state the agreed properties of God (insofar as current knowledge allows)...

God:

1) Is Omniscient
2) Foresees the future
3) Is Perfect
4) Exists in a realm in which information may accumulate (ie. time passes)
5) Has Free Will

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility...

As it was with your previous questions, I'm gonna need a bit of time to respond. So, hang tight.

-L.H.

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)?

This is a lot of new considerations from your end. A lot of suppositions and conclusions, and it comes a bit too quick for me. Let's slow it down, if possible.

I have responses for everything, but I want to check on some of what I'd answer with before approaching those particulars. Also, perhaps we should start categorizing two different sets of axioms. For example: Axioms proposed by Laramie, and Axioms proposed by Jelrak.

For now, though, I will break up your latest response into sections, for clarity:


Section 1
Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

Section 2
In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Section 4
Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)

- - - -

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4.

A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?
- No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
to consider His actions evil.

B. [If He were to be "evil"/inconsistent,] would this not seemingly defy Perfection?
- A Perfect Being can choose to be inconsistent, while still retaining Perfection. The
consistency of His plan would be imperfect, though.

The answers to A. and B. break apart your third question, C.

C. [If this action did not defy Perfection], would He truly have Perfect free will?
- Yes. But again, your third question is based on the previous two suppositions, which
alter how question C. is perceived. If God were to choose to be inconsistent with
His policies in the cosmos, He would still be a perfect being, and He could make
such a choice using His free will.

- - - - -

Again, let's try to hone down to less tangents. If this conversation turns into a three-dozen headed hydra, it would be very difficult to respond, follow, and observe.

But I'll get to Sections 1-3, nevertheless. Also, I'll propose a 6th Axiom later this evening.

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

It is not possible to know, but assuming that Jesus was not also always within the realm of our cosmos, would it not seem likely that the Holy Spirit would be equally injected at a fixed time?

Actually, I think you are right here. I recall Christ stating that He had to leave so that the Comforter could come.

So yes, both were introduced at a particular time.

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

Further, if prayers are answered by God in Heaven, would the power necessary to effect the prayer request re-open the system each time? Assuming a continuous prayer answering system, would this require that the system be continuously open?

Or is the system only open in a limited way? If so, what might be the consequences of these limits?

In regards to the idea of the cosmos being an open or closed system, perhaps it could be said that when it comes to prayer, prayer and information, at least, are allowed to pass freely between the dimensions. If this were the case, it could be said that the cosmos is an open system in terms communication, though not material.

Assuming that information via prayer is a real thing which cannot yet be measured, we already have one example that fits under Axiom 5's umbrella: that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

But Axiom 6 will not be whether or not prayer is real or not. Instead, can we agree on a 6th Axiom, which establishes the possiblity that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection?

When I think about this possible 6th shared assumption, I imagine many science fiction stories, or a particular Star Trek episode in which the crew might come across a life form that was undetectable to their censors.

[LaramieHirsch]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Yes, God knows Himself. God is omniscient, possessing perfect knowledge of all things, due to His infinite perfection. And He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act?

No.

If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

The real concept of Original Sin is based on the logical relationship between Divinity (Creator) and humanity (creature). The first human had both rational intellect and will so that he could choose to live in submission to his Creator. When Adam scorned the requirements for sharing in God's life, the bond of friendship between humanity and Divinity was shattered. Obviously, leaving the presence of a loving Creator would not lead to pleasantry.

[Jelrak TB]

Originally Posted by LaramieHirsch

This is a lot of new considerations from your end. A lot of suppositions and conclusions, and it comes a bit too quick for me. Let's slow it down, if possible.

I have responses for everything, but I want to check on some of what I'd answer with before approaching those particulars. Also, perhaps we should start categorizing two different sets of axioms. For example: Axioms proposed by Laramie, and Axioms proposed by Jelrak.

For now, though, I will break up your latest response into sections, for clarity:


Section 1
Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

Section 2
In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Section 4
Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)

- - - -

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4.

A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?
- No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
to consider His actions evil.

Since the question was whether he might be *able* to choose to do evil, how is it consistent that he would not be *able* to do so given it would run contrary to his will? Is this not the same as stating that he *could* not do so because he *would* not wish to do so? For clarity, is God's own will capable of thwarting God's own will?

Alternately, how might it be conceived to be inconsistent of him to be *able* to do evil, but freely choose not to?

B. [If He were to be "evil"/inconsistent,] would this not seemingly defy Perfection?
- A Perfect Being can choose to be inconsistent, while still retaining Perfection. The
consistency of His plan would be imperfect, though.

This seems reasonable, provided the being's Perfection remains unqualified. Would the same hold true for a being considered Perfectly Good?

The answers to A. and B. break apart your third question, C.

C. [If this action did not defy Perfection], would He truly have Perfect free will?
- Yes. But again, your third question is based on the previous two suppositions, which
alter how question C. is perceived. If God were to choose to be inconsistent with
His policies in the cosmos, He would still be a perfect being, and He could make
such a choice using His free will.

Accepted in light of the current understanding of Perfection. Might this alter if his Perfection might be qualified as per above?

- - - - -

Again, let's try to hone down to less tangents. If this conversation turns into a three-dozen headed hydra, it would be very difficult to respond, follow, and observe.

But I'll get to Sections 1-3, nevertheless. Also, I'll propose a 6th Axiom later this evening.

Shall we then follow a proper format? One in which a premise is 1) advanced, 2) rebutted, 3) clarified, 4) concluded? This should reduce all tangents to four posts (two each).

Naturally the central theme may unfold as desired.

In such a vein, the above 4th consequence has been advanced, rebutted, and refined. It now merely awaits your conclusion.