Resurrection

[hackenslash]

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/

As the identity of energy was only what it can do (the ability to do work), I hope a similar definition of God will work too- One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

That's what energy is. That is its rigorous definition. What it can do is diverse. Your fatuous non-answers are noted. A similar definition of your preposterous magic man will not suffice, because it is alleged to be an entity with will and attributes.

[AnimatedDirt]

Ha it is not by any means lack of free will.

I believe we all have free will but all choose hell.

But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rel ... estination

I think this is a very interesting concept, check it out

I don't have time for a sermon on predestination.  I'm going to assume you define predestination as;

But God in his Grace chooses some, or the elect.

If so, I reject your God arbitrarily choosing some and not others.

So again, define predestination...if different from what I assume.

[defendor]

That's what energy is. That is its rigorous definition. What it can do is diverse. Your fatuous non-answers are noted. A similar definition of your preposterous magic man will not suffice, because it is alleged to be an entity with will and attributes.

You disagree but have no grounds on which with you disagree.  As the argument of being of energy is only defined by its capability, then a similar definition of God should suffice.  But as you have said that it doesn't, then how can you agree with what energy is only on the confines of its ability as opposed to understanding what its objective being is?  SO the same logic for God should also suffice in the same manner that you choose to define energy.

So with the definition of God in place, you choose not accept it.  I made the definition - "one who has to ability to do as he pleases."  You said because it is 'alleged to be an entity with will and attributes'.  That is assumed by this definition

entity- the inference of complete autonomy with no restrictions, as one who has the ability to do completely as he pleases
will- to do as he pleases
attributes- the ability to do what is pleasing to Him

I mentioned this on the other thread, I think you just don't want Him to exist for whatever reason.  If that is so, you never really understand the nature and character of God and could benefit from learning about him.  Thus, the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.

Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

[AnimatedDirt]

Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

If we all choose Hell, then why does God, instead of letting us choose our own destiny, go against our freewill to choose?
God then chooses, in your definition of predestination, for us.  Therefore, we have no freewill.

[Whitney]

One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

[AnimatedDirt]

One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

[defendor]

Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

If we all choose Hell, then why does God, instead of letting us choose our own destiny, go against our freewill to choose?
God then chooses, in your definition of predestination, for us.  Therefore, we have no freewill.

We have free will, and we use our free will to go against God.  God in his love and his grace chooses some.  The bible says how we are all "sinful before birth", how "no one seeks after God, no not one."  The bible also says, that God desires all men to know him and repent, but also that no one comes to him except those that the father has enabled.  If you find time, you should definitely watch that video.

[AnimatedDirt]

We have free will, and we use our free will to go against God.  God in his love and his grace chooses some.  The bible says how we are all "sinful before birth", how "no one seeks after God, no not one."  The bible also says, that God desires all men to know him and repent, but also that no one comes to him except those that the father has enabled.  If you find time, you should definitely watch that video.

If God makes the choice, then we do not have freewill.  It's simple logic.

What's that verse about Good News and beautiful feet?  God chooses those that choose Him in that those that choose Him are THEN predestined to be with Him.  By God's foreknowledge, He knows those that will choose and SO then predestines them.  It's their choice, but God knows it and so affords them salvation.  It is by grace THROUGH faith, by Christ.  It is not by grace by God's choice...as if God were picking names out of a hat.

[Davin]

One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

[AnimatedDirt]

I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

You do as you please within the limitations of what you can do.  Which is not doing everything you please, but doing everything you CAN do.  The difference is that God's 'can do' list is quite a bit longer than your 'can do' list or mine.  This may make you  a 'god' (if you're comparing yourself to speck of dust) or God-like if you're defining yourself as made in the image of God.  This in no manner, then, makes you God.

[defendor]

Davin- If you pleased to transport yourself to another dimension, could you?  Could you go back in time if you wanted?  If you pleased to resurrect yourself from the dead, could you?  Did you choose to be born?  Would you like to go to mars?  What about the center of the Earth? Can you save yourself from death?

These are extreme questions, but it shows the magnitude in what you cannot do, even if you pleased.  This is the initial sin of Adam and Eve.  Make your own rules, know good and evil, and you will be like God.  This is the greatest deception.

Animated Dirt- I think the topic we're discussing is the Human ability to simply choose God.  You are on the side, that God in his omnipotence looked down the corridor of time, saw who was going to choose him, then he chooses those who he knows will choose him.  But this view begins with us choosing him first.  Which conflicts with the Bible.  I'm not saying I understand what or how God saves the individual.  I may never, all I know is that I'm called to obedience.  Take a look at Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus.  Saul was on the way to persecute Christians, not join them.  Do you think he chose to ask God to blind him and knock him off his horse?

Personally, I'm more of an Arminianist but Biblically I'm a Calvinist.  So as believers, we can argue our thoughts all day long, which amounts to nothing.  It is only when we begin to understand scripture that we debate with tangibility as opposed to 'i think.'  Foreknowledge of who we are to be in Christ may be a big idea of how we are saved.  For instance, in the moments after were are saved, we thank God for saving us.  God who is outside of time, would he hear that prayer before you were converted and answer this prayer from the future?  Kind of like, you'll thank me later for God knows the future and has plans to"prosper us and not to harm us"

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/wh ... _theology/

[Davin]

I do everything I would do if I could do it. I do as I please, making me a god according to this definition.

You do as you please within the limitations of what you can do.  Which is not doing everything you please, but doing everything you CAN do.  The difference is that God's 'can do' list is quite a bit longer than your 'can do' list or mine.  This may make you  a 'god' (if you're comparing yourself to speck of dust) or God-like if you're defining yourself as made in the image of God.  This in no manner, then, makes you God.

I've yet to see any limitations on things I want to do.

Davin- If you pleased to transport yourself to another dimension, could you?  Could you go back in time if you wanted?  If you pleased to resurrect yourself from the dead, could you?  Did you choose to be born?  Would you like to go to mars?  What about the center of the Earth? Can you save yourself from death?

Do I want to? No, no I don't.

These are extreme questions, but it shows the magnitude in what you cannot do, even if you pleased.  This is the initial sin of Adam and Eve.  Make your own rules, know good and evil, and you will be like God.  This is the greatest deception.

Note the key portion of the concept: if I pleased. So far I have not pleased to do those things.

[Whitney]

One who has the ability to do as He pleases.

So...um...that would make us all gods.

Are you saying that everything you would do if you could is done?  I can't do all I please.

I would be willing to bet you have done everything you please...just that sometimes what we want to do is affected by how we wish to interact with others around us.  If i were to decide to become a mountain woman I could serve as a more obvious example of one doing as they please as I wouldn't have the wishes of society altering my own desires.

My main point is that defendor's definition of god is not only overly simplified but wouldn't be an acceptable definition of god for most theists.  I would think the whole creating the universe thing would be part of the definition with doing whatever it wants being secondary at best.

[hackenslash]

You disagree but have no grounds on which with you disagree.

Oh, really?

From the first raft of definitions given by a quick google search for the definition of energy:

(physics) a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργόÏ, - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html

As the argument of being of energy is only defined by its capability, then a similar definition of God should suffice.

Nonsense. You are trying here to equate your imaginary friend with measurable quantities. Which bit of 'where is the evidence for your magic man' is escaping you here? Attaching the preffered label of your celestial peeping-tom to things that we already have names for, and robust definitions to boot, is not going to wash with any possessing the intellectual capacity of an amoeba, let alone anybody seriously experienced in assessing nonsensical claims.

But as you have said that it doesn't, then how can you agree with what energy is only on the confines of its ability as opposed to understanding what its objective being is?  SO the same logic for God should also suffice in the same manner that you choose to define energy.

You entirely miss the point. 'The ability to perform work' isn't just a description of what energy does, it's what it is, in its most robust definition. If I were to define it by what it does, I would define it in terms of lifting, pulling, pushing, etc. That is what it does (any other things beside). What it is is the capacity to effect change in a thermodynamic system. That is what the word means in a scientific contextt, which is the only context in which a rigorous definition is possible for a word that deals with the effects of real things on other real things. The distinction here is drawn by the utter faiilure of apologists to a) provide a coherent definition for 'god', and b) show any evidence that this preposterous entity has any basis in reality.

So with the definition of God in place, you choose not accept it.  I made the definition - "one who has to ability to do as he pleases."  You said because it is 'alleged to be an entity with will and attributes'.  That is assumed by this definition

Energy can be shown to have a basis in reality. And the evidence for your magic man is..? Provide this and you can forget all this internet forum nonsense, you will be given a free holiday to Stockholm (a beautiful city, by the way), along with an expensive dinner and a niche, shiny medal with your name engraved next to a picture of the man who invented dynamite. So, should I get my tuxedo out of mothballs? I have the Nobel committee on a speed-dial on my phone, so I can get things moving straight away...

Oh, wait. Perhaps we'd better look at that evidence first. It's almost 3 am in Stockholm, and you know how grouchy real scientists can get when you knock them out of bed at that time.

entity- the inference of complete autonomy with no restrictions, as one who has the ability to do completely as he pleases
will- to do as he pleases
attributes- the ability to do what is pleasing to Him

Completely as he pleases? So, omnipotence, then? Are you really sure you want to expose yourself to that preposterous claim?

I mentioned this on the other thread, I think you just don't want Him to exist for whatever reason.  If that is so, you never really understand the nature and character of God and could benefit from learning about him.  Thus, the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.

See, I got a bollocking for being uncivil in that other thread, while you commit the most offensive discoursive malfeasance possible, in my opinion, in the shape of your weaselly and idiotic proselytising. I have no interest in your imaginary friend, and that's the way it will remain until you can present some evidence that this entity actually exists. At that point, of course, we'll all be booking tickets to Sweden and dusting off our best frocks.

Can't wait.

Predestiny- basically, we all choose Hell, God chooses some.  Check out the first 30 minutes if you can

Ah, so we don't have free will, then. How it actually works is this:

Your cosmic curtain-twitcher is a made-up entity, and apologetics and theology are respectively the failure to think about it properly and the making-up of more guff about this made-up entity. The particular magic man whose feet you wish us to grovel at doesn't exist. That's demonstrated beautifully enough by the silly book of lies, ignorance and manifest falsehood describing it. The rest is just wibble.

[AnimatedDirt]

I would be willing to bet you have done everything you please...just that sometimes what we want to do is affected by how we wish to interact with others around us.  If i were to decide to become a mountain woman I could serve as a more obvious example of one doing as they please as I wouldn't have the wishes of society altering my own desires.

My main point is that defendor's definition of god is not only overly simplified but wouldn't be an acceptable definition of god for most theists.  I would think the whole creating the universe thing would be part of the definition with doing whatever it wants being secondary at best.

Defendor's position stems from Calvinism (I'm guessing).  I suppose it would be best for him to answer as he sees fit.

Whitney, do you avoid death?  If you were to start crossing the street and all of a sudden notice a car was closer than you had anticipated or simply didn't see, would you get out of the way or stand there and take the hit?