On the omniscience of God

[Derf]

I often wonder what it is that makes someone so loyal to the idea that God exists outside of time. What is it that they get out of it?

It allows them to say, "God is more wonderful than we can even know, so what I say about God is true." In other words, it is a blank check to support a doctrine that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

[Clete]

It allows them to say, "God is more wonderful than we can even know, so what I say about God is true." In other words, it is a blank check to support a doctrine that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

How does making a big deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does making a bid deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

You're demanding reason from someone who bases their beliefs on emotions rather than facts. (Not Derf, but any kind of person who would make such an argument.)

 

[Clete]

You're demanding reason from someone who bases their beliefs on emotions rather than facts. (Not Derf, but any kind of person who would make such an argument.)

I'd settle for a purely emotionally based explanation. I can't find any way at all to draw a line that connects the dots that get you from "god exists outside of time" to "my god is better than your god".

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'd settle for a purely emotionally based explanation. I can't find any way at all to draw a line that connects the dots that get you from "god exists outside of time" to "my god is better than your god".

I'm not saying it exists, I and Derf are just saying that's how they think. It's an irrational position.

 

[Derf]

How does making a big deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

It seems to me that when you say, "Logically, you can't both know someone will make a particular choice in every given circumstance, and that the person has the ability to choose between the different choices," the only answer is to say, "Logic doesn't apply." That's what that answer does...it says, "you got me, I have no answer, but I'm justified in maintaining my position because you (or we) can't understand God."

So, in effect, the answer is a non-answer that has no way to falsify it, so the conversation ends.

 

[Clete]

It seems to me that when you say, "Logically, you can't both know someone will make a particular choice in every given circumstance, and that the person has the ability to choose between the different choices," the only answer is to say, "Logic doesn't apply." That's what that answer does...it says, "you got me, I have no answer, but I'm justified in maintaining my position because you (or we) can't understand God."

So, in effect, the answer is a non-answer that has no way to falsify it, so the conversation ends.

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

Unwillingness to be wrong. "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't care what you think or say."

 

[JudgeRightly]

In other words, it's a lack of humility.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In other words, pride.

 

[Right Divider]

In other words, pride.

Selfishness is the fundamental issue behind all sin. It is the ultimate rebellion against God and causes all of those problems.

 

[Derf]

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

It's hard to give up firmly held beliefs, so they cling to whatever will allow them to maintain it in the face of logically strong opposition. That doesn't mean good arguments don't have some effect on them...I think they see the holes, and if they allow themselves to process through it, they will see the holes grow. Some people, at least. That's why we need to give answers with gentleness and respect.

 

[Clete]

Did you guys see the series about Scientology that Leah Ramini did a couple years ago?

Whenever I see someone that just isn't permitting rational arguments to contact their mind on even relatively minor issues, it engenders the same reaction in me that I got when watching that show. How is it possible that such a show is necessary? How can it be that anyone could be persuaded (as an adult) to join any sort of cult, much less one that is so blatantly ludicrous as Scientology? It's just so patently absurd from start to finish that it just seems impossible that even one person could ever become a convert and yet there are millions of those morons. What level of depravity and metal dysfunction does it require for anyone to have ever joined the Heaven's Gate cult or the Branch Davidians? It just doesn't seem like it should be possible.

Whether its Oatmeal showing up to declare that God is outside of time or DFT Dave going on and on for years about the Earth being flat, when making really good and perfectly rational arguments is like shooting spit balls at a battleship, it just makes by brain hurt to the point of anger. It feels like an insidious kind of evil akin to things like Voodoo and drag queens.

 

[Right Divider]

Did you guys see the series about Scientology that Leah Ramini did a couple years ago?

Yes.

Whenever I see someone that just isn't permitting rational arguments to contact their mind on even relatively minor issues, it engenders the same reaction in me that I got when watching that show. How is it possible that such a show is necessary? How can it be that anyone could be persuaded (as an adult) to join any sort of cult, much less one that is so blatantly ludicrous as Scientology? It's just so patently absurd from start to finish that it just seems impossible that even one person could ever become a convert and yet there are millions of those morons. What level of depravity and metal dysfunction does it require for anyone to have ever joined the Heaven's Gate cult or the Branch Davidians? It just doesn't seem like it should be possible.

I completely agree. That cult is one of the craziest. Their founder was a complete loon.

 

[Derf]

Whether its Oatmeal showing up to declare that God is outside of time

I don't fault @oatmeal too much for this, because it is pervasive in Christian teaching, just like Calvinism and Arminianism are (which are the two sides of settled theism), but it is frustrating to hear it so often, without an explanation of what it results in or much in the way of scriptural support.

or DFT Dave going on and on for years about the Earth being flat, when making really good and perfectly rational arguments is like shooting spit balls at a battleship, it just makes by brain hurt to the point of anger. It feels like an insidious kind of evil akin to things like Voodoo and drag queens.

Yes, I agree on the flat earth cult. This may not be THE apostasy Paul talks about, but it is apostasy-like.