Edgars learning thread

[EdgarAleNPie]

i have decided to refresh my knowledge of the worlds religions. the only way to stay in target is to have it in 'threads I'm on' and have a promp to stop any backsliding...

so last night i commenced 'Understanding Islam' -

stuff i remember this morning -

to be 'Muslim' = be as God intended. therefore a rock or tree is muslim whatever it is or does. A person is only Muslim however if they choose to be as God intended. How you know you are as God intended - God sent out prophets to every people on the Earth. The Qu'ran lists 25 prophets, the first is Adam, in fact 21 are biblical characters (Abaham, Moses, Jesus and John the baptist)

To be a prophet generally means one in receipt of revelation from God. Prophets are regarded as sinless, at least in so far as their being a prophet goes - though majority opinion is that they are sinless in every way (thus the sin of Adam is regarded as the Will of God, or a non-sin as they weren't conscious of evil then,)

the duties of a Muslim 'the five pillars of Islam'

Shahadan - the key profession of faith 'there is only one God (one thing worthy of worship) and Mohammed is his prophet' - so an anti-idolatry profession, but also an invocation against e.g the worship of money.
Salat - five times daily prayer - facing Mecca (though early practice was prayer to Jerusalem, and 'for the first 16 months in Medina' - then in the direction of the Qa'ba) - planes for e.g Brunei air show you which direction to pray!
Zakat - charity - purification of wealth by donation of 2.5% to chairty (specific groups, i'm gusessing widows, orphans as per bible?)
Sauwm - fasting in Ramadan - a month of abstention fom food & sex - to emphasise 'taqwa' or god-consciousness by ranscending the demands of flesh (these things still seen as good)
Haj - the pilgrimage to Makka - if healh and wealth allow -

however Morris objects ' he has given no argument that for hs view that necessity and impossibility can only be a result of linguistic convention'

hmm....

but mathematical terms (numeric conventions) DO ONLY HAVE ANY KINd OF XISTENCE IN THE HUMANCONSCIOUSNESS (AS FAR AS ANYOE KNOWS)

they may represent things in the universe, but the being they hav reality for is a contingent one, that could quite possibe cease to exist.

mathematical necessities may hold true for this reality (though again, we can't even be sure of that, e.g Godels Proof') but are constructs of linguistic convention (or human conventiona anyway)..

i don't think either side wins out on this one.

could Morris provide an example of something that is a necessary truth but not a product of linguistic convention?

Edgar! I admire your persistence.

well, the difficult bit has been staying off the rest of MN...
am a bit stuck 'the bible: a biography' has turned up, and is good fun to read (thank you for recomendation!), but this book is 550 pages long ....am up to 150 pages in...

sits on hands

that is, i need to finish the book i'm on, and tis very long.

and I need to pay some attention to my kids.

am quite motivated by the thought of an actual interview, and the thought i could be having to know this stuff very very soon, and not having time to pore over it in the sam way.

Of course, rs PGCE?

They'll faint if you know all this...

so will I :)

Aquinas

1. God is not omnipotent because he is immovable - if he can't move, then he's not omnipotent!
2. sin is an act - can God sin? if not, he is not omnipotent.
3. he manifests his omnipotence 'by sparing and having mercy' - Aquinas thinks that creation would be a greater at so reckons God to be less for this
4. if God were omnipotent, all things would be possible. but then nothing would be necessary - 'for what necessarily exists can't not exit' ie if god is omnipoent he could make a triangle with two sides, the reatest possible thing could be hus without existing (thus disproving ontological proof!)

all confess that God is omnipotent, but it seems dificult to explain in what His Omnipotence consists.

• this is a struggle to see how an omipotent being could xist. what that would mean - whether that would be the God that Aquinas worships.

so he goes on to explain

'it is more appropriate to ay that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them'

he accepts somethings are simply impossible - not because hey are beyond the power of God, but because the notion of doing them is nonsensical.

1. God is still imovable. that doen't present a prblm to his omipotence (as all-powerful in respect to activepower, the power he wields, rather than being moved - though of course that still allows he can be moved if he wills it.

2. to sin is to fall short of pfection, there fore a perfect god can't sin - but if God did something evil - then it would be good! by definition.

3. 'the effect of he divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works.

4. 'it is clear that the omnipotence of god does not take away from things their ipossiblity and necessity' -

that is Gods possiblity is for God, but that possiblity does not include things that are plain and simple ipossible e.g.creating a square circle.

Aquinas has wrestled with some trivia here, and there is as much scriptural thought at work as socratic reason - he is definitely tying to reconcil the God of th bible (merciful, creator, all-powerful) with the God his philosophy demands of him - that is a perfect and unsurpassable God.

i don't see the problem with God being 'immovable ' and omnipotent - surely up to an omnipotent being to decide on he day which to be?

if God can sin, but that sin would instantly become good de facto - seems a bit manafactured. my line would be more - that God can sin, but being good, chooses not to. doesn't need to affect his omnipotence.

3. Aquinas might find this a problem, but i don't - an omnipotent God can do both sparing and creating, and anyway - if this is a supreme being, who are we to judge which is better?

However on 4) - i think he is copping out - God should be able to make a square circle. then he'd be truly omnipotent. humanity, however, is ill-equipped to answer a question like 'can God make a square circle'? - if we don't understand the question, how are we getting the answer?

Mavrodes

He coments on Aquinas and the square circle - God could draw a perfect circle (possiblefor him, dificult for humanity) but not a squared circle - as that jsut doesn't make sense.

'the fact that it is false to say that God could not draw one does no damage to the doctrine of His Omnipotence'

can God create a stone too heavy to lift?

this is not a nonsense - we undersatnd what is meant, though it does seem to create a problm

solutions 1) either God can't create such a stone, or he can't lift it, either way he is not Omnipotent
2) this is in fact self-contradictory - unpacked the meaning is - 'a stone which cannot be lifted by him whose power is sufficient forlifting anything (so a nonsense such as a squared circle) - but only if you have already assumed GOd is omnipotent!
'not being a lack of power at all, its failure to exist cannot be result of some lack in the power of God'
3) Go can create such a stone. and lift it. he can do both - being Omnipotent and all!

I think thes word-game arguments fail - they reflect nothin real aout peoples faith, nor do they really suceed in the objective of tlling us anything about Omnipotence -

Being Human, we are in no position to ay whether God can or can't create a squared circle - how would humanity know i God had already dont such a thing? or could? as a species non-euclidean geometry is a fairly recent science.

many of these arguments can be answered baldly 'yes, God can o that, he's onipotent, my lack of ability to explain how this would be done, is downto my lack of potency, not Gods!'

Nelson Pike

'if God exists, no human action is voluntary'

let us suppose that Jones is going to mow the lawn on sunday. God hs known this all along. because God has known this, Jones is not capable of deciding not to do this, as that would render one of Gods beliefs false.

he goes through the argumetns about this, but to me, this one hits thr 'Round File'

God can know what jONES IS GOING TO DO. jONES can choose it. Jones has freedom of choice, and God has omniscience, - where's the problem?

\Boethius

God is timeless

How can a timeless God still be moved by humanity? How can he still be involved and be the God that speaks to Moses?

surely the contingent moment in which he sets the bush alight - he manifests hiimself within time?

I don't think this is the problem he considers it to be.
#Possibly because in the c20th time ceased to be seen as an absolute but something affected by gravity...and 'other universes/realities considerd possible -

one could imagine God touching every part of reality and being outside time, but still connecting to it - in a niverse where pairs of electrons and positrons pop in and out of existence (observable) - IT COULD BE POSSible for the divine being.

or that od is timeless, but can still be invlved in time-bound creatures - our perception of this one is not authoritative.#

Boethius also sees no problem in God being omniscient and the existence fo free will saying -

'mortal mans freedom of judgement remains inviolate and because his free will is free from any necessity, the laws which propose rewards and punishments are not unjust.'

Nicholas wolsterlorff

'God is everlasting'

People are always subject to time 'the gnawing tooth of time bites all'

thus, one can understand the feelng that being bound by time is a bda thing - thus the reation f a timeless God. But the God if the Hebrews is'everlasting', enduring in time - the God of the bible changes.

however 'God can bring about changes in history without himself changing'

only two passages in the bible refer to God as timeless 'i am your Lord, unchanging'

• this is not the same as saying God is eternal and changeless

(Hebrews 13:8 ('the same today as yesterday tomorrow and forever') refers to X not God)

he concludes 'it is not because he is outside of time - eternal immutable impassive- that we are to worship and obey God. It is because of what he can and does bring about within time that we mortals are to render him praise and obedience'.

i sort of agree.