Can God make mistakes?

[Agoraphobic]

When I said "absolutely no absolutes" - I meant in my view, there are no absolutes, only different shades of grey, which is supportive of my earlier statements, not contradictory. I do not take a narrow view of the issue(s) discussed.

Cheers!

How so? When you have contradicted yourself it cannot be mere semantics.

 

[Frodo]

When I said "absolutely no absolutes" - I meant in my view, there are no absolutes, only different shades of grey, which is supportive of my earlier statements, not contradictory. I do not take a narrow view of the issue(s) discussed.

Cheers!

Again not playing word games with you. But please note that when you said there are no absolutes you are already making an absolute statement. It's like claiming in English that you do not know a word of English! It's a self-refuting claim which is always false. I am asking you to be logical as you so claim for yourself.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Never knew those "rules" existed. I just use the language as it comes to my mind, and like my thoughts on other issues, I do not live within many boundaries that people impose on themselves or others.

Cheers!

............... But please note that when you said there are no absolutes you are already making an absolute statement. It's like claiming in English that you do not know a word of English! It's a self-refuting claim which is always false. I am asking you to be logical as you so claim for yourself.

 

[Frodo]

Never knew those "rules" existed. I just use the language as it comes to my mind, and like my thoughts on other issues, I do not live within many boundaries that people impose on themselves or others.

Cheers!

These are reasoning "rules", you ought to know them and abide by them, since you want to be seen as logical and rational as compared to religious people, right?

 

[Agoraphobic]

And who sets these "rules?" And by what/whose authority must they be abided by? Religious peoples live by the rules they set for themselves, no one else need to be subjected to them. The way I see it, as long as one does not encroach onto another person's rights, one is justified to live/behave as one chooses.

Cheers!

These are reasoning "rules", you ought to know them and abide by them, since you want to be seen as logical and rational as compared to religious people, right?

 

[Frodo]

And who sets these "rules?" And by what/whose authority must they be abided by? Religious peoples live by the rules they set for themselves, no one else need to be subjected to them. The way I see it, as long as one does not encroach onto another person's rights, one is justified to live/behave as one chooses.

Cheers!

If you ask me, the laws of logic are grounded in God's nature. Of course you can choose to disagree with me. But you can't deny this rules without at the same time affirming them. They are universally recognised rules of reasoning.

You said that as long as no one encroaches on another's right, you can do as you see fit. But then again, have you thought it over that since you already said everything is relative, another person can disregard this rule you set so long as he can run over you with might and power? He might see you as having no right, can you fault him since you believe there are no absolutes?

 

[Agoraphobic]

The only rules which are absolutely true are the laws of science, like gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, math, etc. They are governed by physical laws, Everything else is relative or subjective (eg. is democracy good or bad? Communism?) And the most debatable is religion, because it is all made up from someone's thoughts in the past. And is the reason why we can yak and yak and still not come to any agreement. I am sure that there was period in history where the ancient Greeks must have debated amonst themselves when Christianity was introduced to them. Their society had to choose between the gods lived on some mountain in Athens and the god that came from some Jewish preachers.

Cheers!

If you ask me, the laws of logic are grounded in God's nature. Of course you can choose to disagree with me. But you can't deny this rules without at the same time affirming them. They are universally recognised rules of reasoning.

You said that as long as no one encroaches on another's right, you can do as you see fit. But then again, have you thought it over that since you already said everything is relative, another person can disregard this rule you set so long as he can run over you with might and power? He might see you as having no right, can you fault him since you believe there are no absolutes?

 

[Frodo]

The only rules which are absolutely true are the laws of science, like gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, math, etc. They are governed by physical laws, Everything else is relative or subjective (eg. is democracy good or bad? Communism?) And the most debatable is religion, because it is all made up from someone's thoughts in the past. And is the reason why we can yak and yak and still not come to any agreement. I am sure that there was period in history where the ancient Greeks must have debated amonst themselves when Christianity was introduced to them. Their society had to choose between the gods lived on some mountain in Athens and the god that came from some Jewish preachers.

Cheers!

But wait a minute, where do these laws of nature come from, and why do they hold uniformly across time and space? As an atheists you have to believe that there was a time when these laws do not exist and then suddenly they do, for no apparent reason and cause they just come into existence all by themselves. But the theist believes that God has created the universe and ordered it the way it is, and God upholds the laws of nature, which is why they are uniform. These are contingent things, which means they need not exist and be the way they are. But God has made it so and He keeps them so. Which is why science saw great progress under the theistic worldview of the West, as these first scientists believe the world can be studied because it shows order. But the atheist cannot explain why random events can give rise to order.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Going by the logic you presented, if a murderer is charged in court, he can simply say "God made me do it!" and he is not guilty!

Cheers!

But wait a minute, where do these laws of nature come from, and why do they hold uniformly across time and space? As an atheists you have to believe that there was a time when these laws do not exist and then suddenly they do, for no apparent reason and cause they just come into existence all by themselves. But the theist believes that God has created the universe and ordered it the way it is, and God upholds the laws of nature, which is why they are uniform. These are contingent things, which means they need not exist and be the way they are. But God has made it so and He keeps them so. Which is why science saw great progress under the theistic worldview of the West, as these first scientists believe the world can be studied because it shows order. But the atheist cannot explain why random events can give rise to order.

 

[Frodo]

Going by the logic you presented, if a murderer is charged in court, he can simply say "God made me do it!" and he is not guilty!

Cheers!

Huh??? How did you get from what I wrote earlier to this????

 

[Agoraphobic]

Because according to your explanation, god is responsible for everything. Everything is up to god. He makes and does everything. It is akin to saying that Singapore is what she is today because of Lee Kuan Yew. Everything that anyone did, has no part in it. He is all powerful, omnipotent. That's the picture you have painted.

Cheers!

Huh??? How did you get from what I wrote earlier to this????

 

[kryonlight]

The only rules which are absolutely true are the laws of science, like gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, math, etc. They are governed by physical laws, Everything else is relative or subjective ...

That's absolutely not true! Even physical laws are relative. You ought to update yourself. Hehehe!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120329-can-the-laws-of-physics-change
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

You know, the physical laws of Andromeda galaxy could be very different from the physical laws of the Milky Way Galaxy. You can't be absolute about that!

 

[Frodo]

Because according to your explanation, god is responsible for everything. Everything is up to god. He makes and does everything. It is akin to saying that Singapore is what she is today because of Lee Kuan Yew. Everything that anyone did, has no part in it. He is all powerful, omnipotent. That's the picture you have painted.

Cheers!

Huh? What did I explain? Did I explain that, or did you just make it up and ascribe it to me? I said that the laws of nature are established by God who upholds them, whereas the atheist believe they just pop into existence and somehow can hold uniformly across time and space. And from this you concluded that I believe if a murderer is charged in court all he needs to say is "God made me do it?" and he is not guilty? That's a big leap of logic there from you!

Oh, and for the record, my stand is that if you are charged for murder, then saying God did made me do it does not absolve you of the charge. It only means that the court may then need to assess your mental state and you get to waste everyone's time and money.

 

[Agoraphobic]

That is right. The force of gravity on Mars in different than that of Earth's. In this respect, everything is relative.

Cheers!

That's absolutely not true! Even physical laws are relative. You ought to update yourself. Hehehe!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120329-can-the-laws-of-physics-change
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

You know, the physical laws of Andromeda galaxy could be very different from the physical laws of the Milky Way Galaxy. You can't be absolute about that!

 

[Agoraphobic]

This was what you said.

Cheers!

"............. But the theist believes that God has created the universe and ordered it the way it is, and God upholds the laws of nature, which is why they are uniform. These are contingent things, which means they need not exist and be the way they are. But God has made it so and He keeps them so. Which is why science saw great progress under the theistic worldview of the West, as these first scientists believe the world can be studied because it shows order. But the atheist cannot explain why random events can give rise to order."

Huh? What did I explain? Did I explain that, or did you just make it up and ascribe it to me? I said that the laws of nature are established by God who upholds them, whereas the atheist believe they just pop into existence and somehow can hold uniformly across time and space. And from this you concluded that I believe if a murderer is charged in court all he needs to say is "God made me do it?" and he is not guilty? That's a big leap of logic there from you!

Oh, and for the record, my stand is that if you are charged for murder, then saying God did made me do it does not absolve you of the charge. It only means that the court may then need to assess your mental state and you get to waste everyone's time and money.

 

[Frodo]

This was what you said.

Cheers!

"............. But the theist believes that God has created the universe and ordered it the way it is, and God upholds the laws of nature, which is why they are uniform. These are contingent things, which means they need not exist and be the way they are. But God has made it so and He keeps them so. Which is why science saw great progress under the theistic worldview of the West, as these first scientists believe the world can be studied because it shows order. But the atheist cannot explain why random events can give rise to order."

Uhhh...I know what I said. But how did you get from this to me therefore saying that murderer is not guilty simply because he claimed "God told me to do it?" I was talking about the laws of nature. And you changed the topic to a man tried for murder. What's the connection? What am I missing here? Please elaborate.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Because in your world, God made man, Man is nothing if not for God, so man is only able to do or perform anything because of God. So if he does something (like murder), he can say that God made him do it. If not, he is unable to do it. Or are you now saying that if the action was bad, it is his own free will? Not by god? It is simple, nothing complicated or sophisticated. God or man is the doer here?

Cheers!

Uhhh...I know what I said. But how did you get from this to me therefore saying that murderer is not guilty simply because he claimed "God told me to do it?" I was talking about the laws of nature. And you changed the topic to a man tried for murder. What's the connection? What am I missing here? Please elaborate.

 

[Frodo]

Because in your world, God made man, Man is nothing if not for God, so man is only able to do or perform anything because of God. So if he does something (like murder), he can say that God made him do it. If not, he is unable to do it. Or are you now saying that if the action was bad, it is his own free will? Not by god? It is simple, nothing complicated or sophisticated. God or man is the doer here?

Cheers!

See, you completely left out the laws of nature thing! Thus it is clear that you have changed the subject. For what reason I shall not bother to find out. So let's look at your new topic here.

Yes, in Christian thought God made man. But God also endowed man with free will. Man is not a puppet on strings. If you wish to fault the Bible you need to assume the worldview of the Bible, and not make up your own ideas and take down your own strawman arguments. If you can find any narrative in the Bible where it is taught that whatever bad things man do is because God was pulling the strings and thus man is completely not at fault, please show.

 

[kryonlight]

Yes, in Christian thought God made man. But God also endowed man with free will.

You have already contradicted yourself.

If God is omnipotent and knows everything, he would have known that you will be a murderer when he created you. Despite knowing that, he still created you. Therefore, there can't be such a thing as free will when God is omnipotent and knows everything in advance. It is all planned and conceived by him alone.

The only way there can truly be free will is when God doesn't know your thoughts in advance. Only then can there be true free will. However, that would make God NOT omnipotent and thus diminish his status. LOL!

Which way do you want, Frodo? You can't have the whole cake and eat it all by yourself.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Bro, I am unable to debate with a logic that says God is all powerful, and made man, and when man does something wrong, it is not God's fault.

However, while Christian thought says that God made man, I can say that in actuality, man made God. Or gods, depending on where one comes from.

Cheers!

See, you completely left out the laws of nature thing! Thus it is clear that you have changed the subject. For what reason I shall not bother to find out. So let's look at your new topic here.

Yes, in Christian thought God made man. But God also endowed man with free will. Man is not a puppet on strings. If you wish to fault the Bible you need to assume the worldview of the Bible, and not make up your own ideas and take down your own strawman arguments. If you can find any narrative in the Bible where it is taught that whatever bad things man do is because God was pulling the strings and thus man is completely not at fault, please show.