Huh?
I explained clearly what I meant. Satan was not created evil and made a choice to rebel against his righteous nature, the rest is history.
Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?
I didn't suggest that the law of identity predated God. How could anything predate God? The law of identity, or a form of it anyway, is what God chose to identify Himself with. He was either accurate or He wasn't, right?
As for using Himself to describe Himself, I think that's sort of a confusing way to put it but it isn't wrong. What else could He accurately use?
I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.
This objection would only apply to what I said if their thought was about their thought, in which case it would no longer be irrational. In other words, you're not really disagreeing with me, rather you've changed the subject.
The irrational does not exist, Derf.
There is no such thing as a sphere with sharp edges. You cannot be in a place that does not exist. Etc.
Such things can happen in fiction or fantasy but the fact that it isn't real is why they call it fiction or fantasy.
What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).
God is Reason. The Apostle John, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (i.e. God Himself), says so.
I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.
He'd have to have data about a specific thing to reason about that specific thing, yes. SO WHAT?
I am baffled by this objection. I do not understand your point at all.
Are you suggesting that unintelligible data (i.e. data that you cannot understand at all) can be reasoned about? Are you suggesting that data can be collected mindlessly (i.e. without reason)?
How can the sentence, "The sky is blue." be meaningful to anyone unless they know what you're referring to when you use the words "sky" and "blue"? Those words have to be connected to concepts to carry any meaning. In addition to that, you'd have to understand, at least to some degree, something about language and sentence structure how that works. In short, you cannot think at all without reason! It doesn't have to be formal logic that is done in some consciously syllogistic manner. In fact, most reason happens intuitively, which is why we are so prone to errors but the point is that it does happen. And to whatever degree one's thought process conforms itself to reality, the thinking is rationally sound and true and to the extent that it does not, it is irrational and false, by definition.
Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it.
No, Derf, it isn't. Blue is a concept. Nothing was blue before that concept existed. You can get away with saying such things in common parlance because it is a valid statement in that there isn't anything about the light that has changed just because we decided to give it a name but that is a different topic! You're conflating two different issues. You are effectively trying to say that the concept of blue existed before anyone thought of it. That is a contradiction. Ideas do not exist before they are thought of. And they cannot be thought of without reason.
"Blue" is merely an assigned term.
Precisely! The term blue neither adds nor subtracts from the light itself. "Blueness" exists in your mind and did not exist at all for you until you understood the concept.
We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue".
Exactly! I do not understand how you don't see that you are making my point for me!
The way something looks is a concept in your mind. When you connect that concept with a word, in this case, "blue", then you can connect that word with other things that look similar. When you look at a blue car, you don't think you're looking at the sky, do you? Why not? It's because you understand intuitively that to say, "The sky is blue." is not the same as saying, "Blue is the sky." How do you understand this distinction? REASON! There is no other way.
The knowledge exists without any reasoning
Nope! No knowledge exists apart from reason. Perception can occur without reason, knowledge cannot. A particular wavelength of light hitting the back of your eye is not the same as understanding (i.e. knowing) what you're looking at.
just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.
Data cannot be collected, analyzed or understood without reason. Reality (i.e. phenomena) exists without anyone there to observe it. You are conflating data with phenomena.
This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know.
Does Satan live in some alternate reality where the laws of reason don't work and where cause and effect don't work?
If Satan is real, then his actions are subject to the same reality that ours are.
Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.
NO! Certainly not!
Satan is not in the same situation we human beings are in. First of all, Satan was not created in God's image and likeness and thus he is a fundamentally different kind of creature (i.e. created being). Also, unlike us, Satan has been in the direct immediate presence of God the Father and chose to rebel anyway. These things and perhaps many other issues render Satan and other members of the angelic kind, unredeemable. We know from scripture that Satan and his demons are without hope.
This, however, doesn't mean that they live in some alternate reality where if, hypothetically speaking, of course, they were to act wisely, that such action would not have a positive consequence. It could never be enough to save them from their eternal fate, their previous folly has sealed their eternal doom but if a demon were to build a house, it would shelter him from the rain just as it would you. If a demon planted a crop, watering would have the same effect on his crop as it would on any other farmer's crop.
Indeed, Satan uses this fact to his advantage. Otherwise, there would be no point in presenting himself as an angel of light. He uses truth to conceal his lies because the truth still works, even for Satan. Not every thought in Satan's mind is false. (James 2:19)
My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations.
Our reason?
Who said anything about "our reason"?
There is no such thing as "our reason". There is rational and then there is irrational. "We" or "Our" does not come into it. We do not define reason, God does.
Look at your objection here using a different term with which you are comfortable using in reference to God...
"...if God's word depends on our love, then it is on shaky foundations."
Do you think that there is any such thing as "our love" as opposed to actual love? Any distinction you might care to make would only be differentiating false love from real love. Likewise, anything you'd care to label "our reason" would only refer to something that is in opposition to real reason or sound reason. In other words, if "our reason" exists, it can only refer to the irrational! God's word does not depend on the irrational!
It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.
Put another way...
God's word is rational!
That's all you're saying when you say something is true. The word "true" means "consistent with a standard". In this case, the standard is reality itself. That which is consistent with reality is true, by definition. Likewise, that which is consistent with reality is rational, again, by definition. It's nothing at all other than two different ways to say the exact same thing.
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.
Well, I'd concede that there is something that is somewhat ineffable about the statement "God is Love" or "God is Mercy" or whatever other similar phrases you'd care to utter. You are saying more than that God acts in a merciful way or that God loves us. There is something about the very nature of God Himself that is what Love is. Just because we cannot fully comprehend that statement doesn't mean it isn't true. There are some things that transcend our current understanding. And so long as such things are not carried beyond a point where they become contradictions we are free to accept them as true simply because it is God who teaches them to us through His word.
I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.
What an outrageously excellent question! If half the people on this website had your mind, I couldn't ever get anything done because I'd be here on TOL 24/7.
There is no contradiction between justice and mercy, at least not when it comes to God. Your objection comes from a misunderstanding of what mercy is. The Calvinists have infected the church from tip to toe with their poisonous doctrine that teaches that God can do anything at all and that the doing of it would be righteousness by virtue of the fact that it was God who did it. This renders the statement that "God is just (i.e. righteous - same thing)." meaningless. Their terms then become infinitely plastic and malleable and can be made to mean anything they need them to mean to maintain a pretense of rational coherence. But it is only that, a pretense. God is just and perfectly so. He is also merciful. If you think there is a contradiction there then you need to make some effort to discover the source of the Calvinism (in actual fact it is Augustinianism but that's a topic for another thread) in your doctrine and purge yourself of it.
So, then how can God be both just and merciful? There is a one-word answer...
Calvary!
If God could simply do anything at all and remain just, there is no need for Christ to have suffered and died. God could have simply declared everyone forgiven and that would have been the end of it. However, without mercy, the motivation for God to bruise His only begotten Son, would not have existed.
Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?
In reality, both say the same thing. The difference is that, in the minds of English speaking people, one has a lot more meaning than the other. In fact, the phrase, "The Word became flesh..." is very nearly meaningless to most who hear it. They have no idea what it means. They understand intuitively that it means that God became flesh but if you asked them why the translators didn't simply translate it as "God became flesh.." they couldn't even begin to explain why or what the use of the different term implies.
Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.
I don't know how else to say this other than what I've already said. You are conflating actions that are consistent with a premise with acting rationally. It isn't the same thing. If my premise is false, then no matter how far down the road I go with that premise, I'm being irrational. If you make a wrong turn, you aren't going magically make it to the destination by stubbornly sticking to the wrong course. Rationality and consistency are not synonyms. You can't be rational without being consistent but you certainly can be consistently irrational.
Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do.
The very idea is blasphemy. Not to mention unbiblical.
I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.
They don't "have to be". Satan has a will. He
chooses to be consistently rebellious against God. The fact that he has a will is what makes that choice immoral or evil. There could be no more irrational choice possible.
Resting in Him,
Clete
