Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Sorcerer's Plight

I have made an online acquaintance. His name is Ray. And Ray has got himself into quite the predicament. He seems to have convinced himself that even the idea of Almighty God is incoherent and internally contradictory. He reports his findings here.

I have invited him to this blog. I have offered him a venue for friendly discussion. I aim to clear some if not all of the confusion from his mind. I understand that this will not be easy. He has invested a great deal of honest thought and effort into the construction of his line of reasoning. In fact I fear that he has gone over it so thoroughly in his mind that unintentional ruts may have been carved. While comfortable and perceived as safe these engraved lines of thinking may prove insurmountable obstacles to the truth; God forbid.

When we read Ray’s list of Assumptions we see Ray trying to paint God into a corner of contradiction. He seems to be saying “God, if you CAN make a perfect universe, then why did you NOT?” Well the answer might be that Ray’s idea of a perfect universe and God’s idea of a perfect universe are different.

What if the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, Ray referred to, wanted to create special beings that love Him? Well, He could create them so they have to love Him. But, that is weird. I mean love is a decision. It is not a character trait. For these creatures to be able to actually love God, they would have to have the real option to reject God. Hence, the possibility of Evil is a necessity for a universe that meets God’s standards. He would have to sow a universe where Evil is allowed in order to reap a universe that fits His standards.

One problem; God will not tolerate Evil. He separates Himself from the smallest of sins as He does from the gravest of sins. God must then devise a universe in which His special creatures can choose Evil time and again yet be always near a path to reconciliation. And what of the sin; God can’t just overlook it. All seems lost; the perfect universe unattainable.

But wait. What if God intervenes? What if God enters His creation fully as one of His creatures and fully as Himself? He then having committed no sin would be legally qualified to pay the sin debt for each of the special creatures. They in turn, sins accounted for, would have a continually new opportunity to choose to love God.

Is this the perfect universe; with God separated from Himself? Don’t forget; He is the All Mighty! He has power over death. He, with the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled and raised from the dead, lives and rains as God for all those special creatures who decided to love Him and worship Him. Those special creatures loved by God but choosing time and again to reject God to the end; live eternal separated from Him in torment. Again, this is a necessary consequence in order to reap the universe fit to standard.

Ray, and others, does this presentation clear up in the mind “The Problem of Evil?”

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

16 comments:

Ray Ingles said...

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply before now. What you're essentially proposing is the "free will defense". You're equivocating a bit on the definition of 'Evil', though. You're attempting to define 'evil' as 'not loving God'. Even if we assume that that's correct, we still have some problems, though.

Consider the story of the Prodigal Son. We're impressed by the generosity and forgiveness of the father in the story - he loves his son unconditionally, and showers him with affection the moment he reappears. That's all well and good, but imagine a different version of the story.

The son shows up, and the father has his servants grab him. The father says, "Oh, gee, too bad - if you'd come last year, I'd have been overjoyed, and slain the fatted calf. But you're past the statute of limitations, and I'm going to have my servants beat you and throw you off a cliff instead."

I've got four kids. I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would stop me from loving them, or wanting them to be healthy and happy. If they did some terrible thing I'd want them locked up and treated, with the hope they might eventually be cured. I can't picture putting a statute of limitations on my love for them.

Besides which, as you say, love is a decision. I certainly hope my kids always love me, but I can't force them to. And if they decide someday they want nothing to do with me, I'll let them go - though I'll still be ready for them to come back whenever. I won't lock them in the basement for years.

That, however, is what God's alleged to do. His creatures are not "always near a path to reconciliation" - after a certain point, it's game over, no second chances. (Well, most Christian variants think that, anyway.)

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Ray, thank you for your post.

If my definition of “Evil” is ambiguous, then I might say it is unavoidable. Much like the fundamental terms point and line are generally left with no formal definition in a geometry text, so the term Evil will be hard for us to pin down exactly. However, if God is thought of as good, then it stands to reason that anything contrary to God and His will would be Evil. Now, if a person loves God, then they will act according to His will. If a person does not love God, then they will act according to their own desires. The decision to reject God’s will is anti-love of God or Evil.

Your argument for allowing the prodigal son an infinite amount of time to repent and come to the father requires, well, an infinite amount of time. God has said that He will not contend with man indefinitely. Why? Well my belief is that it is because He is not a creature of time. He is not confined by time. He did step into time in the person of His Son Jesus Christ; but, Jesus humbled Himself in this way for the specific purpose of saving His creation from their own hard heartedness. In any case, He will not be confined by the linear nature of time indefinitely. That is His choice. And, if He is almighty, then He gets what He desires (limited time). Now, I suppose He could have created man as a creature outside of time. This would have been disastrous for man (ref: removal of access to the tree of life). Man’s sin would have been outside of time; everlasting.

Before I address the valid concern of the “game over” aspects of your last post, may I ask: (1) Is the definition of Evil more acceptable? (2) Have I been clear on how God’s nature demands a limited time for man to repent?

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

Ray Ingles said...

Note that you've made a distinction - it's now 'acting in accordance with God's will' that's good or evil, not the love per se. Love is just a motivator for the actions.

Even then, we're not talking about the kind of love people have for each other. I love my wife and kids but that doesn't mean that I act in accord with their will - quite the contrary, often enough, and for good reason. But on the other hand, I don't demand that they act in accord with my will in all things. Because I love them, I try to find out what they want and help them do that, when possible. (I've kind of soured on the Boy Scouts since they decided to become a purely 'faith-based organization', but my son wanted to be a Cub Scout so I attend the meetings and help him with crafts and such.)

So, ultimately, it comes down to God's will. We can define 'good' as 'obeying God's will', but that's sort of a propaganda ploy. What makes obeying God's will mandatory? Why is that standard one we should agree to?

Is it purely and simply that it's wise not to draw the ire of The Most Powerful Being? Or is there something else about God's will that makes it a worthwhile standard? (For example, is it just a whim that a finite time is required - just 'cause God happened to feel that way, what the heck - or is there a good reason for it?)

Even then, I have a perhaps different understanding of time than the common one (I don't worry about foreknowledge implying predestination, for example) but something that doesn't experience time (as opposed, to, say, experiencing time along an orthogonal dimension to our own) can't be said to possess a mind or thoughts in any way that even vaguely resembles our own. Nor will humans, according to most Christian conceptions I've heard of, ever be outside of time in that way. Bodies like ours, however 'glorified', only make sense in a time continuum.

Creating humans outside of time doesn't have to be the only other option, anyway. There's no limits on God's resources, allegedly. Creating an infinite amount of 'linear time' is no hardship on God, no?

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Yes, but if your wife’s will was perfect and she had created you and you were aware of these facts, then you ought show the type of love God demands from us for her. We do not love our wives and children, even ourselves for that matter, in this way because their will, our will, is not perfect. God’s will is perfect and that perfection demands our love and devotion just because of its Holiness.

How should we love one another? We should love others by laying down our life for them after the model of Jesus Christ. This is not to say we need to be crucified in the flesh as He was; but rather, we should crucify our flesh; surrendering selfish gain for the good of others. I agree we all make an attempt (You did cub scouts; I played a lot of Candyland) to do for the good of others, especially those close to us. However, too often our agenda is for the good of the self, especially when the other does not look or talk like us.

God’s will is the standard because He says so and He is perfect. If God is not perfect, then I am in trouble; for I have staked everything on this promise. God never changes. What He wills never changes. We can use our reason to understand this but only in part. If you demand a logical proof that God’s will is perfect I have none. I do have my personal experience with these truths but would share them only at your request. Eternity in heaven will not be a democracy but it will be a consensus.

I hesitate to speak of God’s attributes as they relate to the present physics of this universe. However, I will endeavor to comment on time from your perspective. Scientists have observed two interesting facts with respect to time: (1) The faster one travels, the slower time is measured to proceed, and (2) The more gravity that is present, the slower time is measured to proceed. You interpret these facts about time dilation to mean one can move forward in time. I would interpret these facts to mean that man has no accurate measure of absolute time. In any case, God is everywhere always present. Just as the three dimensions of space are finite, so time is finite. Just as the three dimensions of space can be skewed by our perspective, so time can be skewed by our perspective. Just as God existed before the creation of three dimensional space, so God existed before time.

Ray wrote:
“Something that doesn’t experience time can't be said to possess a mind or thoughts in any way that even vaguely resembles our own.”

This is Biblical (Isaiah 55: 6 – 9):
Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

Now I do not pretend to know the physics that will be present in heaven. I would venture to say that in our present state it would completely blow us away. As Paul relates in 2 Corinthians 12, the reality of the 3rd heaven is inexpressible in terms of our present sensory experience. If there is a measurable space between events, then it is not closely represented by time as we know it.

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Ray wrote:
"Creating humans outside of time doesn't have to be the only other option, anyway. There's no limits on God's resources, allegedly. Creating an infinite amount of 'linear time' is no hardship on God, no?"

So you say. God said: “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

At the men’s Bible study I attend on Thursday nights we (last night) turned our attention to the question: Is there the passage of time in heaven? Our conclusion was inconclusive. As much as I like to give my opinion on the matter, the truth is I simply do not know.

I do know, hardship or not, God has put a time limit on man that he should repent.

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Ray Ingles said...

Still a foundational problem - God's 'perfect' relative to what? By what standard?

(Oh, and on what does the principle 'something created should respect its creator' rest? Because the creator says so?)

Just as an aside, Relativity doesn't mean that "man has no accurate measure of absolute time" - time is still quite well-defined in Relativity. Speed or gravity changes what "slices" of space-time you see, but you can still predict, quite well, what slices others will see under different conditions. Having different perspectives on something doesn't mean the something doesn't exist. (And 'before time' is, er, kind of a contradiction in terms...)

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Ray wrote:

“That, however, is what God's alleged to do. His creatures are not "always near a path to reconciliation" - after a certain point, it's game over, no second chances. (Well, most Christian variants think that, anyway.)”

The apostle Paul relates to us: “God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent; because he has established a day on which he will 'judge the world with justice' through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead."

So, you are correct. There will come a time (judgment day) when the creatures are no longer near a path to reconciliation. In fact there will be a separation of the type described in Luke chapter 16.

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Ray,
God and His will are the standards of perfection. If you consider this too arbitrary, then I would ask; what standard is not arbitrary?

I hate to be the one to break the news to you but human kind is wired to strive for, honor, adore, and yes even worship perfection. Why we even adore perfection that we can’t verify exists in the physical world (Example: a circle). And yes, it does all boil down to: What God says goes!

I agree, “before time is” is a contradiction in terms. I lack the capacity to articulate what I have never and can’t experience in my present body; that being a universe with no time. But, God is beyond time. Therefore, such existence must be possible.

Theoretical physicists espouse that before the “Big Bang” all that exists now existed in a singularity (point of no dimension). That would imply, no space and no time – would it not?

Aside: I am duly impressed by the practical nature of the theory of relativity. But, it is a mathematical model used to predict reality. Unfortunatly, we have no way of confirming that it is reality – unless by faith. I am not married to absolute time as was Newton, but I don’t reject the concept either. I simply maintain that, lacking any verifiable fixed point in space, the stationary system required to crown any change in time as absolute is arbitrary. Or at the very least the coronation requires faith.

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Ray Ingles said...

Relativity does have an absolute, though - the speed of light in a vacuum. Not matter where you are, or what speed you're going, light in a vacuum will always measure to be going the same speed. There's a standard that's not arbitrary. The laws of physics aren't 'arbitrary' either. It's true we can't be sure we've got them right, but that's not the same thing as being wildly wrong.

As Isaac Asimov put it, [W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together..

If it all boils down to 'What God says goes', then what we've got is, as I said in my article, "the ultimate case of 'Might Makes Right'". In principle, collaborating with Nazis and following God is the same thing, except that the Nazis aren't the biggest bullies around.

We could have saved a bit of time if you'd said this at the outset. :->

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Ray,

God did say it (What God says goes) right from the beginning.

You assume His might is what makes Him right. This is not the case. His authority is what makes Him right. His authority comes from the fact that He is the creator of the universe. The whole thing (earth, sun, stars, you, me) belongs to Him. It is true that His power supports His authority and thankfully so. It is a good thing Hitler did not have absolute power. It is a good thing I do not have absolute power. It is a good thing God does.

Aside: I thought the speed of light being constant was a postulate of the theory of relativity? In any case, this is of no consequence to my point. In the velocity time dilation formula we have two different delta t’s. The proper time delta t and the Lorentz factor delta t. My point is that the proper time is arbitrary. We can only measure the relative velocities between the two positions. We can’t confirm any fixed point in space and this would be the only way to establish an absolute time. What we do is arbitrarily assign a system, usually our solar system as a stationary system to house the proper time and pretend it is absolute time. If there is an absolute time, then God would be a better judge of it; existing outside of the universe and all.

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Melvin_H_Fox said...

Whoops, my bad. I asked you for a standard that was not arbitrary and you gave me “c”. It went right past me for I was too slow to catch it.

This is an interesting proposition. You are saying that c = 299,792.458 km/h is by definition a standard that is not arbitrary. Also, you report the laws of physics themselves are standards not arbitrary.

It seems to me that the standard “c” is dependent on physical constants like the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio. Further, these constants, to the best of my knowledge, are supposed to have been determined by the boundary conditions at the “Big Bang”. Theoretical physicists love to play with boundary conditions and report that no set of such conditions are necessitated. In other words, the physical laws present today are the result of arbitrarily determined boundary conditions at the inception of the universe.

Now, if I have misunderstood the texts from which I derive my opinion, please set me straight.

One last interesting thought about light; God has identified Himself with light – light of the world. If God is actually light or light like, then He would move at the speed of light. Moving at the speed of light would cause there to be no time for God; He would exist outside of time. Interesting?

In the love of Christ,

-Mel

Anonymous said...

mel,


you should come back to spanish inquisitor thread and back that guy cl up.

Ray Ingles said...

As I asked in my original article, "Well, on what authority does the principle that 'the creator of something owns it' rest?" Is that something commanded by God? If so, it seems that what it boils down to is, "What God says, goes, because God says that what God says, goes." Or does it rests on something prior to God's say-so?

It's also not clear that the constants we have could be different, as I've noted before. The temperature water freezes at (at a given pressure, etc. etc.) used to be considered such a constant, but it turns out to be related to more fundamental principles - including the the speed of light, as well as "the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio". The constants we see may well be related to more fundamental properties that can't change. Indeed, that's what cosmologists and physicists are looking for.

Melvin_H_Fox said...

I will not chase around in circles; nor will I look, with my finite mind, into the infinite reflection of mirror in mirror trying to understand the end. My belief in God’s ultimate authority is foundational. It is a priori. “It is in fact not the discursive of analytic reason, but the higher reason, the “Intellectus” of the schoolmen, which is independent of sensible experience and is capable of comprehending pure and absolute being in an act of simple intuition. It is a law unto itself, the creative power which lies behind the phenomenal world and from which the latter derives its reality.” [“Progress and Religion”; Dawson; page 32] Now, I don’t buy into the whole package of 19th century German philosophy subsequently detailed by Dawson in his book; but, the revelation of God to His creation is manifest. The acceptance of God’s authority as foundational requires no more than this simple but powerful Reason.

You wrote: “The constants we see may well be related to more fundamental properties that can't change.”

And if those properties can change, then they could be related to even more fundamental properties that can’t change. It seems to me that the defining fixed physical standard searched for by the cosmologists is logically problematic. I suppose you could try an application of limit theory and conclude the standard is at the end of your infinite halving of the distance between what we know and the standard we seek. I won’t (Zeno might have) argue against that.

However, I maintain what you seek is supernatural. For example, if we, given a fixed perimeter, set out to corral a region of maximum area, the limiting shape is a circle. Unfortunately we lack the capacity to verify the existence of circles. Therefore we must conclude circles are supernatural. Since circles are supernatural, any other configuration set as yielding a maximum area is arbitrary.

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

Ray Ingles said...

You can state that "God's ultimate authority" is "foundational" or "a priori", but you'll understand that that's not entirely satisfying to many. Particularly in light of things like 1 Samuel 15:3 or Joshua 10:40 (or even Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

And we have a definitional dispute with the use of the term 'supernatural', as well. As I state here, "The 'supernatural' is unknowable by humans - something forever beyond human ken, something we will never be capable of understanding. Different terms are used - the 'ineffable', the 'mystery', and so forth - but the basic idea is the same.

Think about the difference between the notion of the 'powerful alien' (a staple of science fiction) and the notion of a 'god' in a religion. What's the essential difference between them? In the stories, they both do amazing, astonishing things. But a powerful alien is (ultimately, eventually) comprehensible - often in the story humans are able to figure out some way of duplicating its powers, or interfering with them, etc. Gods, though, are beyond what humans can do, and there's no point in trying to figure out why or how they do what they do."


Circles are certainly comprehensible to humans, even if we can't construct a perfect example thereof in the real world, so I can't see clear to classifying them as "supernatural".

Melvin_H_Fox said...

I understand that it is absolutely unsatisfying to anyone who has not been freed from the law of sin and death; as I have been. If God is God, then His judgment is righteous. That this does not satisfy some has no effect (Job 40: 8) on the righteousness of God.

Our null hypothesis where circles are concerned must be that they do not exist in nature (in the physical universe by natural law). That would make them supernatural. For, if we came across one, then we – due to our physical perceptual limitations – could not possibly know we had. If we can ever only guess that we have, then we can’t ever really know (have clear and certain perception) that we have. Therefore, the circle is unknowable. Now we can imagine a circle. And you say that this makes the circle a natural phenomenon; because we can imagine it?

We can imagine gods. I can imagine what Zeus would be like. Does that make him natural? God is supernatural. While He exists in nature, He can’t be explained nor understood by natural forces alone. Therefore, man can’t, in his own physical perceptual limitations, comprehend God. God chooses to reveal Himself to us. He does this by His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2: 6 – 16). Therefore, God is knowable to humans by the revelation of His Spirit poured out on those of His choosing.

I agree that the circle is comprehensible (grasp the idea of in the mind – imagine). However, that does not make the circle knowable in the sense of being a physical reality. Likewise, the idea of a god can be grasped by the reason of man – again imagined. This is much in the same way that the mathematical idea of infinity can be grasped. But again, what is imagined is not necessarily a physical reality. God Almighty Is. This physical reality while consistent with our limited perceptions can’t be confirmed by them. It can only be confirmed by the revelation of God Himself.

In the love of Christ,
-Mel