Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Soliton; metmom; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; svcw
You have just put a limit on God

Great observation, Soliton! Kudos!!!

In rejoinder, may I observe that no concept of "limit" or of "limited" would be rational without reference to the idea of "limitlessness" or "unlimited?" Rational analysis usually consists of the comparison of things in the light of a standard — which expresses the proper ratio. The properties of limitlessness and unlimited are not to be found in any entity of the contingent, spacetime world accessible to direct human sensory experience. By a process of elimination, if such properties or attributes are characteristic of anything at all, they can only be "characteristic" of God.

And so here we are, "assigning qualities," "attributing characteristics" to that which is ineffable, unlimited, infinite, eternal — which concepts themselves arguably cannot even be fully grasped by the human mind.

You see the problem here I'm sure. :^)

And yet — a person placing a "limit" (or characteristic, attribute, quality) on God does not bind God's perfect freedom in any way. But in so doing, paradoxically, he might add to his own imperfect understanding of the world and his place in it by making such a mistake in good faith.

Sigh. I'm sure that's as perfectly clear as mud, dear Soliton!!! I do so enjoy speaking with you!

145 posted on 12/09/2008 5:09:44 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop

Oh please Betty include me in everything you write......my goodness it is brilliant!


147 posted on 12/09/2008 5:33:12 PM PST by svcw (Great selection of Christmas gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop
By a process of elimination, if such properties or attributes are characteristic of anything at all, they can only be "characteristic" of God.

Philosophically, though, you allow yourself unlimited room to define or redefine "God" whereas I am held to your definition of reality, materialism etc. I don't think that is fair :o). Why can't I define a multiverse as an eternal sea in which an infinite variety of universes bubble away?

In a philosophical dialog, the rules should be the same for birds and frogs.

149 posted on 12/09/2008 5:58:01 PM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop; Soliton; Alamo-Girl
[ And so here we are, "assigning qualities," "attributing characteristics" to that which is ineffable, unlimited, infinite, eternal — which concepts themselves arguably cannot even be fully grasped by the human mind. ]

Brilliant concept.. Just so, if eternity future is possible then eternity past (is/must be) also possible.. The human mind has problems with unlimited beginnings more than unlimited endings.. and infinity both ways mostly.. Linear/lineal time is quite limiting..

So much for the big bang.. if eternity future is possible why not eternity past?.. Linear time travel could be spiritual entertainment of the future.. It could take eons to trace the nuances and eddys of just our own lives(time travel) and to follow the impact each of us has on other lives during the time we spent as humans... The impact on ourselves and others.. and the drama and intrigues of what caused what with those we knew and know.. ultimately impact our own testimonies..

That could make quite a novel.. actually a series of novels..
Brilliant little paragraph above, I would say.. i.e. I Cor 2;9...

170 posted on 12/13/2008 10:30:41 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson