I really shouldn't have watched this: Video: God of the Paradox

[Buster D Body Crab]

http://youtu.be/L7jClyinERY

I found this in the related videos column at YouTube after suggesting in a different forum the DVD library of Scroll Publishing. The series, What Early Christians Believed.

As someone who's felt called to find my way through the scriptures and to understand Christianity I have to say that Paradox video is an interesting find since it wasn't in the Scroll related videos when I watched their Atonement presentation on Saturday.

That video is presented to ask for counter arguments to the paradoxes they present. I had no idea of all the characteristics pertaining to God that they're bringing together in that one video. Their arguments are a bit disconcerting to this new arrival.

Please give me your thoughts if you're so inclined. No disrespect intended. I just would like to get this knot out of my stomach now that I'm starting to digest everything they presented and that apparently makes the believer look illogical or irrational.

For reference sake in the event there are those who aren't aware. I looked this up to be fully informed myself.
Paradox Defined:
par·a·dox
ˈperəˌdäks/
noun
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
"a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
"in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it"
synonyms:   contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity; More
a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
"the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox"

Thanks for your indulgence here. I admit I'm a little depressed now and for a couple of reasons.

[Jd34]

That's a rough video to watch. Made me nauseated 

[TonkaTim]

That's a rough video to watch. Made me nauseated 

I had started to have the same experience about 30 seconds in so I closed the page & did not watch.

[Buster D Body Crab]

The paradoxical points was the issue for me. That's what I wanted feedback on.
Thanks for giving it a shot. The video is amateurish and hard to watch but I made it to the end just to see their point.

[chosenone]

Say away from those who try to make others doubt God.

[Jd34]

The paradoxical points was the issue for me. That's what I wanted feedback on.
Thanks for giving it a shot. The video is amateurish and hard to watch but I made it to the end just to see their point.

Those type of arguments have been around for a long time and rest in the semantics of philosophy.

"A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force."

Wiki

[AVZ]

The paradoxical points was the issue for me. That's what I wanted feedback on.
Thanks for giving it a shot. The video is amateurish and hard to watch but I made it to the end just to see their point.

Those type of arguments have been around for a long time and rest in the semantics of philosophy.

"A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force."

Wiki

Often these paradoxes are used to try to show that God cannot exist because at some point He is impotent.
Factually however, the performance of the requested action nullifies the request.

The question if God could build a rock the He can't lift requires 2 attributes:
- God who is omnipotent
- Gravity (or an object to lift something off). Realize, that "lifting" only exists if gravity exists.

So lets say God starts building a rock the size of the sun...then He can lift it.
Now what if God would build a rock 100 times the size of the sun? He can still lift it.
At some point however the rock would be so large, that it's gravity would pull all bodies in the universe to itself and absorb it.
At that point the rock would be the only existing object in the universe and the term "lifting" would cease to exist as there is no more gravity besides the gravity of the rock itself to "lift" it from.

So the answer to the question is "Yes, God can create a rock He cannot lift".
All He does it create a rock the size of the universe, and voila..."lifting" is no longer possible.
This act would neither violate the laws of nature, and it would also not violate the omnipotence of God.

PS. Alternatively God could of course take a small rock, destroy the rest of the universe, and end up with the same result: A pebble that cannot be lifted.



With regards to 1+1=3, if this is used to say that God does not exist, then science can be posed the exact same question to prove it's wrong.
When it is about the start of this universe, science too takes the assumption that there was nothing...and then there was something.
So the mathematical formula is 0+0=1
That too is a logical absurdity, and should therefore be considered an equally valid negotiator.


Finally "God cannot lie". This is a philosophical paradox, not a realistic one.
If God always speaks the truth and He would lie, that that lie would automatically become truth because God always speaks the truth.
The same goes for every other good/bad challenge.
Killing people is bad, but if God would to kill people it would be good because everything God does is good.
And why does God always do good? Because He is God. He is the only person who can declare things to be good or bad.
So if God decides a lie to be truth...then it would be truth for that simple reason only.
The answer to this statement should therefore be "God cannot lie because He exists" instead of "God cannot lie therefore He does not exist".

[DaveW]

"Logical Absurdities" aside, God can indeed do anything He wants to, even if it violates every rule of logic and every physical law in existance. 

I am sure if he wanted to, He could make that big rock.
(don't ask me how; I do not know how to sidestep the laws of logic or physics)

[Buster D Body Crab]

I appreciate everyone posting here. I've learned a lot. I'd not heard of the Euthyphro dilemma before this.

I forwarded the video to where God is in the principles office to make it a little easier to stomach. This is the part of the video where all the paradoxes begin.(The 3 minute 24 second mark in the event this video start option doesn't kick in)

http://youtu.be/L7jClyinERY?t=3m24s

I take this paradoxical assembly to say that Christians are ultimately contending against God when living the delusion they're battling evil and cleaving to righteousness. And that in truth there is no free will nor choice because God is the body of it all. The limitless characteristics defined here, those omni-characteristics, that present the paradox are the backbone of their argument I think.

Thanks again everyone. I really appreciate your taking the time.

[Jd34]

"Logical Absurdities" aside, God can indeed do anything He wants to, even if it violates every rule of logic and every physical law in existance. 

I am sure if he wanted to, He could make that big rock.
(don't ask me how; I do not know how to sidestep the laws of logic or physics)

I feel the same DaveW! Trying to reason God through the semantics of Philosophy is like me trying to  teach my dog Calculus.

[Buster D Body Crab]

I don't see this as trying to make God conform to human constructs of logic and philosophy. I see it as trying to communicate to people what is being asked of them when they enter into faith in a monotheistic omni-characteristic God while using the constructs of logic and philosophy to structure a framework that breaks down what they're being asked to accept in faith.

Thanks again.

[notreligus]

1Ti 3:15  ...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
1Ti 3:16  Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

1Ti 6:3  If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,
1Ti 6:4  he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing....

2Ti 1:8  Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,
2Ti 1:9  who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
2Ti 1:10  and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
2Ti 1:11  for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
2Ti 1:12  which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

2Ti 2:7  Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
2Ti 2:8  Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel,
2Ti 2:9  for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!
2Ti 2:10  Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
2Ti 2:11  The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
2Ti 2:12  if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
2Ti 2:13  if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.
2Ti 2:14  Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
2Ti 2:15  Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16  But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
2Ti 2:17  and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
2Ti 2:18  who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19  But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."
2Ti 2:20  Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable.
2Ti 2:21  Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.
2Ti 2:22  So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
2Ti 2:23  Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
2Ti 2:24  And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25  correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Satan was the original fool.   He offered the world to the One who created it.   

Luke 4:5  And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,
Luke 4:6  and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.
Luke 4:7  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."
Luke 4:8  And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"

These childish South Park-like videos are nothing new.   Why do they spend so much effort trying to disprove something they claim does not exist?   

Matt 16:18  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Many have tried to destroy the Church and the Gospel of Christ.   

[Buster D Body Crab]

Thanks very much for that.
  I had thought I stumbled on a whole new thing as far as the paradoxical argument that was presented there. And you're right that it is South Park like. Though I could have stomached sitting through SP far more so than it took to finish watching this just to get their point.

It is kind of funny that atheists go to enormous lengths to reiterate their belief that nothing called god is real. Sounds like they're worried more so than certain.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The God vs satan thing is funny to me.  Why would satan want to fight against God when he has no chance of winning?

Are we to assume that's logical on satan's part?  That relationship isn't rivals (as the video says), but more the relationship between a parent and a petulant child.  The child's disobedience isn't necessarily logical - it's just rebellion.

Jarrod

[Buster D Body Crab]

True. And in a sense he's a tool used by God to show us the cherished importance of righteousness in the face of temptation.
When I first found that video I was concerned with the message it intended to deliver. I was and remain so drawn to the scriptures and the teachings of Christ and yet there was this rational side that was that adversarial road block saying; yes, but what about this?

I appreciate again everyone taking the time to bring their experience as Christians to this thread so as to assist what was a new Christian seekers understanding.

[Bob Perry of Web Presence Consulting]

hmm, seems this site needs an update, the insert quote doesn't function?

Wish the owner would put more forethought into maintaining this wonderful site...

At any rate, this thread is very interesting tho don't yall jump on me for not posting sooner, grin...

Been overwhelmed with my own site and yall really ought to encourage the owner of this site to keep close tabs on the pending release of SMF 2.1 

Anyway, haven't watched this video yet but intend to do so in just a minute then respond again, i want to see it after scanning the comments briefly...

And note that I more than likely will be monitoring this board with more scrutiny than in the past, time i did something around here eh?

Times are a changin...



UPDATE: only made it thru to 7:15 of that video... seems like a modern day child's view of deep christian thought processing in my opinion...

[Buster D Body Crab]

I appreciate your input. 

God must have insured that my old post would be the first to get your attention. I found that when I was first here and at quite a loss for the points that were presented as paradoxical to the scriptures I had come to love. It was confusing as a newbie to think that someone could make these points seemingly from scripture.

Again I look forward to your thoughts.
God Bless,
Dave

[Alan]

I received an email today for 2.0.9, not sure if the included updates will help out here while waiting on the release of 2.1.

[john9hoffman]

Even though I feel the creator of this video is sincere in trying to determine 'truth' through logic I believe his or her underlying premises about the definitions of 'logic' and reasoning are flawed at a fundamental level.  Christians and other members of other faiths without consciously understanding it follow a form of truth those in the liberal arts community know as the 'aesthetic experience'.  It is a form of truth based on what is felt as much as what is mentally determined or in some combination thereof.  To a Christian it is that 'right as rain' feeling they get after attending church or experience the infilling of the Holy Spirit.  To a liberal arts professor or one trained in the liberal arts it is the inspiration he or she feels after reading an inspiring poem, viewing an artistic masterpiece, or listening to music they enjoy.  This is one of the great debates in the liberal arts field is how to take back the concept of truth as something that is only mentally determined from the philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, and scientists.  What is disconcerting about this video is the arrogance of the creator in assuming he or she possesses the framework to judge truth from a high and lofty peak.  Like Hegel who declared he had encompassed the god-head and all that (his) god was, is, and ever could be or Carl Sagan declaration that the cosmos is all that was and is and ever would be, the evolution of the image of God within the collective imagination of man is ever increasing.  The creator of the video is unfamiliar with the concept of types and arch-types which the Bible is full of and the necessity of them for the advancement of man's knowledge.  My advice is that the creator of the video go back to school and read-up at least on his Neo-Platonism or as a minimum a little of Carl Jung's theory on Types and Arch-Types before he attempt another venture from such a high and lofty peak.  But alas, as it has been said time and again 'A little knowledge ...'  To the poster of this comment please don't feel bad that you did not understand these things and stick to your guns about what you 'feel' is true.  The mental understanding will come later, :).