Is anything possible with God?

Well, no. Anything that is possible is possible with God, unlike human ... beings. It isn't like God is being that involves no restriction on His being, well, being. God can't possibly create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, as an example. But He can create a rock that is too heavy for created beings to possibly lift, human technology and enginuity notwithstanding. That is the essence of God. He can do certain things, and he cannot do certain other things. We (human beings, created intelligent beings) can relate to this only as a limited being can relate to unlimited being. By calling God "unlimited," while asserting his "limitlessness" am I not contradicting myself? Well, in a sense, yes. In another sense (the God-sense), no. God is unlimited in his ability to do that which is possible to do. Human beings cannot ever achieve that level of possibility no matter what. We'll never be able to create a rock that is impossible for us to lift, in other words, if it were at all possible for us to "create" a rock in any event.

But, in the end, I'm simply inviting others to share their view or understanding of theology. Given that we have some very intelligent, very informed commenters here, I have nothing but intense interest in their particular views on this subject.

The floor is yours...

Read More

A fundamental flaw in Dr. Keyes's thinking?

Let me state at the outset that I highly respect Dr. Keyes, his historical knowledge, his influence and abilities, his generally superior moral positions, which my regular readers already know. Anyway...

I was reading Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry earlier today when I ran across this line,

Dr. Keyes wrote:

...bereft of the choices that today allow many to determine for themselves the moment at which they surrender with dignity to the inevitable prospect of their mortality.

which didn't set real well with me. Allow me to attempt an explanation:

Okay, death is inevitable. We agree on that. And to die with dignity is certainly better than dying in an undignified way. This (a 'dignified' death) must be one of the primary goals of every living human being for himself and his loved-ones (it probably extends beyond his loved-ones, but let's establish that limitation for our purposes here).

Well, I acknowledge that insofar as any human being has legitimate control or authority (or "choice") over human life (and death), it is the individual whose life is in question, and extends no further. But I think there's a fundamental flaw in that sort of thinking, a flaw that ultimately leads, or has led, to the dire situation we're in now. No human being, in my humble opinion, possesses any kind of power over human life, including his own. As he did not give himself life, he cannot, on his own whim, "decide" when, and/or, under what particular circumstances to give it up, 'dignified' or not. Ultimately he has no control over it anyway, he just thinks he does. Which is an indication of his underlying lack of faith in the giver of life, The Sovereign God of the Universe.

Anyway, I thought it might make for an insteresting discussion, both here and at Loyal to Liberty. I decided to bring it here for my own purposes, which are altogether self-interested. So sue me.

Read More

Is belief in a literal six day Creationism irrational?

Over at VFR another good discussion on Darwinianism has ensued. These discussions are generally very interesting and informative, not to mention enjoyable to read. However, it never seems to fail that those who argue from a Darwinian perspective, and even those who argue from an "Intelligent Design" perspective, eventually speak of "Creationists" as irrational deniers of empirical scientific fact, not necessarily in those exact terms. I don't think this kind of rhetoric is useful in such a discussion unless it can be shown that in fact belief in creationism is indeed irrational.

Here's my question: As I understand it, God's nature (granting at very least that God may exist) is such that he can do anything which is possible to do, whereas he cannot do anything which is demonstrably impossible to do. Therefore, if it is possible that the creation event occured in six literal days, and science has not demonstrated the impossibility of such a miraculous event, then what is irrational about believing the biblical account of creation in Genesis taken literally? I'm not saying that it's necessarily probable that God created the physical universe in six literal 24 hr. days, I'm simply saying that if there's any evidence out there which demonstrates the impossibility of this, I know nothing of it. Which doesn't prove anything either, except perhaps that I'm ignorant of existing scientific evidence which proves the impossibility of six day creationism.

I'm very interested in any evidence you have to offer.

Read More

Update on the Traditionalist response to Liberalism

(Note: This post has been expanded, and I've moved much of the contents to the read more section.)

Mr. Auster has finally begun to post some of the comments of his readers on this topic. I for one will be very interested in reading the thoughts and reflections of this outstanding readership on this important question.

So far I've read over the entries quickly, and have submitted a reply (not yet posted Update: this is now posted under the VFR entry.) to Alan Roebuck's assertion concerning liberal virtue.

Alan writes:

Here is the way all liberals initially react to the above fundamental truth: "I don't have to believe in God in order to be good, or do any of the other virtuous things you mentioned." But this response entirely misses the point.

Of course, you can be virtuous if there is no God. You can do any doggone thing you want. But if there is no God, then there is no good reason why you should. [LA replies: I've never heard this argument before. That's powerful. I'm not absolutely sure it's correct, though.]

My contention with Alan's assertion:

In short, I believe this is incorrect. While I believe with Alan that if there is no God, then there is no good reason why one should be virtuous, I do not believe it possible for one to be virtuous if God does not exist. To separate virtue from God's necessary existence is tantamount to claiming the non-existence of both.

So, not only is there no good reason to be virtuous in the absence of God's existence, there's no reason at all, good, bad, or indifferent, because in actuality we do not and cannot exist, which is illogical.

End of initial post.

I've often argued (in one way or the other) that one of the best and strongest arguments in favor of conservatism is the illogic inherent to liberalism. It's also important to not lose sight of the distinction between liberalism and liberals. Liberals are people who are persuaded to believe the doctrine of liberalism. While liberalism is an irrational belief system, those holding to its tenets are not unreasoning beings. It's just that they reason wrongly, or that they reason exceptionally imperfectly, due to any number of factors which can be difficult to delineate. If we can show them the illogic inherent to the liberal belief system (which I acknowledge to be easier said than done), then I think this is one very good way of converting them, or, of having them begin to question their own convictions, which I speculate would result in their conversion.

So, part of the traditionalist response to liberalism would seem to be the logical vs. the illogical basis of the respective belief systems.

Read More

Nothing So Absurd...

And I have to point you in the direction of Vanishing American where she puts up a nice entry on whether 'good people,' because of their 'goodness' are resigned to doing nothing.

In my comment to the entry I quote the familiar refrain (probably more familiar to traditionalists than most) which basically states that "There is nothing so absurd than when something it repeated often enough, people begin to believe it." It applies to VA's post in a way that I bring out in my comments.

Also, VA points out in the post that "evil" can sometimes mean an absence of real good. I believe this is precisely what evil is; that the only thing real between the two, good and evil, is good.

Read More

Books I'm currently reading, cont.

(Note: this post has been edited from its original, and is likely to undergo other revisions shortly.)

I just received my copy of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, yesterday. My copy is the second edition, hard-bound, and new, though the book is currently out of print. This book came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster, whom I thank. I sat down and read about six chapters yesterday evening, and indeed, Auster was right when he said I would be in for an "experience."

In addition to that book, I'm still reading the two I mentioned the other day. Also, with all the discussion on Islam, I've gone back to re-read Secrets of the Koran, by Don Richardson. Richardson's book deals with the unique nature of Islam to preclude any attempt to reach its converts by the redemptive analogy method.

One other work I've been lately revisiting is Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, which encompasses four volumes. Another work of Geisler which is complimentary to, well, all of the aforementioned books is Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. As to the latter two books in particular, I began a system of cross-referencing them a couple of years ago, and it's proving very helpful to me in my current pursuits.

All of these will find their way into many of my upcoming posts. Indeed, they've inspired several posts I've already prepared yet haven't yet put up. Y'all stay tuned.

Read More

Some of us have it, some of us don't, part 2

If you haven't been following the thread over at VFR concerning what is required of Christianity, I would strongly urge you to do so. There, Kristor L. offers us one of the most excellent pieces of Christian Apologetics I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I think I'm going to add Kristor's initial lengthy comments to my newly added feature in the left sidebar of this blog, Select VFR Articles.

In Kristor's latest, he dismantles the arguments of his critics with a skill and a precision that is rarely to be seen these days.

We've argued these things before over at the AFB and elsewhere. And often times, when I'm asked how I know God exists, my reply is simply this: "I know God exists because of the existence of evil." Which is not to say that I believe evil is a real thing; I don't. Rather, I believe evil is a deprivation of a real thing, absolute good. But the key to it is that by simply being able to distinguish between good and evil, I must have some idea of what pure goodness is, elsewise, how could I make the distinction? In a purely physical universe (devoid of a transcendent God), where all of our observances of the phenomena of nature are marked by imperfections, how could we know that these imperfections are indeed imperfections without some idea of that which is all-perfect?...

Read More

Some of us have it; Some of us don't

I know the Bible teaches us not to covet, but I can't help but covet the talent that others have with the written word. I want you to go over to Rick Darby's blog and read what Mr. Auster has to say about the beauty of disease. I don't know how many times I've attempted to express this exact kind of thought on the non-existence of evil and evil things. They are not things in themselves, they are rather deprivations of something real. But never have I been able to put it in words as beautiful and simplistic as these. What a treat!

Read More

The Bigotry of (using) the lower-case Alphabet

(Note: The word "using" has been added to the post title since it was first put up because with the addition the title more accurately reflects what the post is about. The parenthesis is there to distinguish between the original title and the new one.)

This morning I was involved in a discussion with someone whom I highly respect concerning the capitalizing of proper names. The issue was raised when I sent a message containing the words “islam,” and “muslim” purposely not capitalized, which I was informed should be capitalized because they are proper names. In reply I explained that this was a method of mine to discountenance these terms and what they describe. My opponent replied that this should never be done as it, in short, is a form of bigotry.

I acknowledge that there is an element of truth to this. And I understand that we need to be careful about the image we project. On the other hand, I think we tend to take things like this too far sometimes. If I say, for instance, that Islam is evil, or it is a false religion, or if I even imply these things about the Muslim faith, then how much more degrading to a devout follower of Islam can describing him as a muslim be?...

What if I call the Devil by the name satan, refusing to capitalize his proper name as an expression of my protest against him and his evil works? What if I refer to Mohammed as mohammed in the context of denouncing his supposed authority and prophethood? In referring to mohammed in this way, is this worse than identifying him as a false prophet, or comparing him with Christ as a 'farthing candle and the Sun,' if that were my choice of expressing it? Are these properly forms of bigotry on my part? To be fair to my counterpart here, I don't think he's objecting to this method of protest because he thinks I'm truly a bigot, but more based on concern for the image that methods like this tend to project. But he may speak for himself on that point.

I admit that I have an extreme dislike of and bias against the Islamic religion because, as I explained to my counterpart, the religion itself makes God out to be a liar and the father of it. It makes the unchangeable God out to be in fact changeable, and allows that he can in fact contradict himself. As most of us know, this is not possible with God, He being pure simplicity with no potentiality; we being complex beings with a great capacity for potentiality (getting better or worse).

I want to make clear that when I refer to Islam or Muslims in the lower case, it's not the people who wrongly accept this false doctrine that I'm objecting to, it is the false doctrine itself, or the religion that I object to in the form of de-capitalizing the proper names. I do the same when I refer to democrats, by that name or by their personal names many times, as many of you are by now thoroughly aware. Does this mean that I'm a bigot toward certain individuals who hold to liberal-democrat beliefs? I guess one could conclude that, yes. But I think that the evidence pretty well shows that it is the belief system I'm protesting against by this method, not the individual holding it.

So, I ask you (and please be honest) am I wrong in this? Do we not risk, in strictly observing the rules laid down by my counterpart with no departure from them allowed, censoring our very defense against the religion of Islam. What I mean is, if we accept that it is simply not allowed under any circumstances to refer to Islam in the lower-case because it seems like bigotry, then what will be our next censorship of an expression of disapproval of the religion of islam?

-DW

Read More