heehee!If you have not advanced this argument. Then you should pay heed to the flaws put forward in the OP, and not start making the argument any time soon.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
heehee!If you have not advanced this argument. Then you should pay heed to the flaws put forward in the OP, and not start making the argument any time soon.
That really depends on the denomination. Some of Paul's comments are clearly panentheistic.There is no such flaw with pantheism or infinity. I never suggested their was. Since I was referring to the christian, I was referring to the christian god.
So two things that are not separate can interact? Like 'God' and the universe?You claimed interaction implies separateness.
I did not.
Becaue interaction is required for experience.
If that was the case, then every time god wanted them to experience him, he would not be outside of them. If they are interacting with god, god is not separate from them.
If the christian maintains that god can interact with us, then no problem. But god would not be outside the universe, and thus would be able to be detected by science. There is nothing wrong with this.
I am simply pointing out the flaw of saying that god is outside the universe, but that he is also omnipotent. If god is apart from you, he can not affect you. That's the logical principle in effect here. I am only pointing out that the christian accepts the first half, but rejects the second.
<<This assertion relies upon the scientific observation that an object separated from a system, can not be accessed from within the system.>>
An object in your case is a material substance. God is not composed of a physical or material substance. He did create material substance/mass and energy. He can function within his own creation at will without any scientific observation since science is limited to the physical/material plane of existence. You're still trying to bring the Creator down to the level of man's science. It will not work, He stands outside and above all scientific principles.
Now we're getting somewhere....which, if you claim that god can interact with us, you claim that god is an object.
So two things that are not separate can interact? Like 'God' and the universe?
Like fire and water.If two things are not separate, then they are interacting.
In ever case that you have personally experienced, a far cry from all experiences that anyone has experienced across all of time
Yes. I do insist. There is no reason to suppose that a "creator" is bound by completely different rules. Strange, nowhere is this said in the bible, catechumen, protestant literature, or father's of the church literature. You insist on saying that god is bound by different laws because it allows you justify whatever you want to about god and not be restricted by simple things such as common sense.Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to. I have tried to explain the hangup with this, but you seem to insist.
If he interacts with something, then he's not separate from it. The fact that what he's interacting with has less sensory capabilities is irrelevant.Ummm, quite to the contrary, you are supposing that an omnipotent being could not possibly do something (ie create a place with beings that have less sensory capabilities than himself).
And for good reasons.
That's one point --it's not advanced "by Christians."I am only pointing out the flaws in this particular argument advanced by christians. If a certain christian cult does not advance this argument, then they need not worry. This is not a "disprove god" thread. It's a "point out flaw in this argument" thread.
I don't quite understand you.
Yes. I do insist. There is no reason to suppose that a "creator" is bound by completely different rules. Strange, nowhere is this said in the bible, catechumen, protestant literature, or father's of the church literature.
You insist on saying that god is bound by different laws because it allows you justify whatever you want to about god and not be restricted by simple things such as common sense.
If he interacts with something, then he's not separate from it. The fact that what he's interacting with has less sensory capabilities is irrelevant.
List the reasons or be discounted for putting garbage in this thread.
...and stereotyping.The term christians is shorthand and timesaving.
I am not arguing from my own experience.I'm pointing out that your own experience may or may not be representative of what is possible
In you're previous post you advanced the idea that God is bound by rules completely different from logic or science. You advanced this because you wanted to justify whatever you wanted to say, and not have anyone attack you. Unfortunately, your opinion, or perhaps your "experience" is not representative of what is possible.lNo one is supposing that a creator is bound by any rules at all, much less "completely different rules". You are the only one supposing to know something that you couldn't possibly know.
On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.
I know you are but what am I?
...and stereotyping.
I am not arguing from my own experience.
Becaue interaction is required for experience.
In you're previous post you advanced the idea that God is bound by rules completely different from logic or science.
Me said:Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to.
You advanced this because you wanted to justify whatever you wanted to say, and not have anyone attack you.
Me said:On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.
Well, since common sense dicatates the argument that you've presented, you should be able to list those "good reasons" with quite the ease.
Please, elaborate using common sense:
If you are arguing that god is outside the universe,
and thus can not be detected by science, then you are using a logical principle which would also uphold that god is impotent.
Jayhawker Soule[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/jayhawker-soule-264.html" said:[/URL]]Saying does not make it true. Repeating it does not make it true. Fabricating "scientific principles" does not make it true. And, finally, wanting it to be true does not make it true.
Might not be common sense, but it IS logic.
And since the first argument relies on logic to say that science can say nothing about god, it must also rely on the same logic that says god cannot access that which he is apart from.
I can't help but notice that critics of religion in RF are becoming more and more selective as to what kind of theism they challenge, probably because "supernatural theism," being more the product of secularism and atheism than Christianity, is vulnerable to their criticism."then they need not worry." -Cacafire
The term christians is shorthand and timesaving. I can't replace christians with, *insert really long list of people who have advanced this argument here.* Do you understand?