A philosopher's look at the religious God

[Barnabas]

I counter and say that ANYONE who feels as if a god is talking to them has a mental disorder. What difference does it make if the person believes they are being directed to kill as opposed to say, dance in the street?

Well in the old days when Gd talked to you he called fire from heaven, put dew on the ground, made much quail and used bears to communicate that something beyond ordinary may be occurring. That's why I liked Gideon he recognized that either God was actually speaking to him or that he was to crazy to tell the difference.

 

[dogman6126]

Fun test! I got worried about the shots at the end.

What's so wrong about having complex, opposing views in faith? Is there really such a thing as being "wrong" in religious opinions and beliefs? If it's what you believe, it's what you believe. After all, it's better to believe something that doesn't logically make sense with passion than to believe nothing and have no purpose, right?

There is something to be said about having some kind of faith over no faith. That's for sure. But there's also something to be said for a faith that is not self-contradictory (not saying that yours is, only playing with the idea of such a faith). The part about strange conclusions is ok, so long as your willing to accept the strange conclusions, but a direct contradiction is not so good. To ignore a direct self-contradiction is to ignore rational deliberation in your views. By definition that is illogical. Is it bad? Well I guess that's a different kind of question that I don't know how to answer.

 

[sprinkles]

There is something to be said about having some kind of faith over no faith. That's for sure. But there's also something to be said for a faith that is not self-contradictory (not saying that yours is, only playing with the idea of such a faith). The part about strange conclusions is ok, so long as your willing to accept the strange conclusions, but a direct contradiction is not so good. To ignore a direct self-contradiction is to ignore rational deliberation in your views. By definition that is illogical. Is it bad? Well I guess that's a different kind of question that I don't know how to answer.

I don't think it's necessarily bad if one knows what it is.

Personally I try to be rational but hold plenty of... let's call them irrational superstitions. But I know what they are and I'm comfortable with that.

 

[dogman6126]

Enjoyed that one. I got hit on one question

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 6 and "False" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in earlier answers you indicated that any entity that it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most, but not all, philosophers and theologians, and contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

Good job. I'm curious though, which stance do you take here? How do you solve that contradiction? Do you think God is unbound, or do you think he is constrained by basic principles of logic such as circular squares?

 

[CindyLou]

Good job. I'm curious though, which stance do you take here? How do you solve that contradiction? Do you think God is unbound, or do you think he is constrained by basic principles of logic such as circular squares?

Thanks. I think that God cannot do things that God can't do. I don't think God can do the impossible. Once something has been done it's become possible. A circle square isn't possible so God cannot create circle squares but I think he can still be God while still having the freedom and power to do any possible things that can be done.

I don't know if that made any sense lol When asked if God had the power to do anything I didn't think that meant doing the impossible because that in itself makes no sense.

So I was wrong when I said that God can do anything if that meant also doing the impossible. The impossible can't be done by even God.