Predestination

[zz1000zz]

Galad Aglaron

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...

Would you mind clarifying this? I have no idea where you are coming from.

If there is no obligation for God to be restricted by the same temporal rules as humans, then surely there's no obligation for God to be restricted or defined by anything that humans can conceive of or understand. Therefore, any speculation about the nature of God is just that - speculation.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. Of course speculation is just speculation. It can be idle speculation, or it can be structured debate based upon biblical passages (or any other type of speculation). Nobody disputes this.

But the fact this is speculation in no way means there is "no point" in discussions of the nature of God. That we cannot test our conclusions, or prove them to be true in no way means it is pointless to consider them.

For example, in this topic people have raised the concern an all-knowing deity would contradict the concept of free will. If this concern were true, it would show commonly accepted religious beliefs were wrong. Either God could not be all-knowing, or we could not have free will. This is a serious concern, and considering it is not pointless. Given that, discussing why this concern is wrong is also not pointless.  

[Galad Aglaron]

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...

Would you mind clarifying this? I have no idea where you are coming from.

If there is no obligation for God to be restricted by the same temporal rules as humans, then surely there's no obligation for God to be restricted or defined by anything that humans can conceive of or understand. Therefore, any speculation about the nature of God is just that - speculation.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. Of course speculation is just speculation. It can be idle speculation, or it can be structured debate based upon biblical passages (or any other type of speculation). Nobody disputes this.

But the fact this is speculation in no way means there is "no point" in discussions of the nature of God. That we cannot test our conclusions, or prove them to be true in no way means it is pointless to consider them.

For example, in this topic people have raised the concern an all-knowing deity would contradict the concept of free will. If this concern were true, it would show commonly accepted religious beliefs were wrong. Either God could not be all-knowing, or we could not have free will. This is a serious concern, and considering it is not pointless. Given that, discussing why this concern is wrong is also not pointless.

But if the nature of God - a matter central to this debate - is beyond all human comprehension, such as not being bound by the same temporal laws as human beings, then surely the point is moot and nothing approaching the truth may be gained from the discussion.  

[zz1000zz]

Galad Aglaron

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...

Would you mind clarifying this? I have no idea where you are coming from.

If there is no obligation for God to be restricted by the same temporal rules as humans, then surely there's no obligation for God to be restricted or defined by anything that humans can conceive of or understand. Therefore, any speculation about the nature of God is just that - speculation.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. Of course speculation is just speculation. It can be idle speculation, or it can be structured debate based upon biblical passages (or any other type of speculation). Nobody disputes this.

But the fact this is speculation in no way means there is "no point" in discussions of the nature of God. That we cannot test our conclusions, or prove them to be true in no way means it is pointless to consider them.

For example, in this topic people have raised the concern an all-knowing deity would contradict the concept of free will. If this concern were true, it would show commonly accepted religious beliefs were wrong. Either God could not be all-knowing, or we could not have free will. This is a serious concern, and considering it is not pointless. Given that, discussing why this concern is wrong is also not pointless.

But if the nature of God - a matter central to this debate - is beyond all human comprehension, such as not being bound by the same temporal laws as human beings, then surely the point is moot and nothing approaching the truth may be gained from the discussion.

First, something not being bound by the same temporal rules as humans is in no way beyond human comprehension. It is actually pretty basic stuff.

Second, that it might be impossible to grasp the full nature of God in no way means it would be impossible to understand aspects of God. That would be like saying scientists don't know how consciousness arises from the human brain, so they don't understand anything about how the brain works. It's silly.