Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Is the world really searching for truth?

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,755
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
The post of mine you are quoting was simply an attempt to put into plain English Jethro's position as I understand it. The point being, "God and His character" define "absolute reality" and therefore "absolute truth." Of course God "knows" about abortion, but it is completely alien to His character; it is part of mankind's sinful reality, but not God's absolute reality. When the corruption of sin is eliminated from creation, abortion will cease to exist because it was always a perversion of absolute reality as defined by God and His character. I thus understand (or think I do) what Jethro is saying when he says your definition of truth is "too narrow." Again if I correctly understand Jethro, he would say that "absolute reality" and "absolute truth" are what exist when the corruption of sin is stripped away . If we were to insist upon talking about abortion as "true" or "not true," then what Jethro is saying seems to me to be about the only intelligible way to do it. Not to sound like Jethro's personal apologist, but I suppose he would say in response to your definition above that "the dictionary defines reality and truth as understood by sinful mankind, but God defines absolute reality and absolute truth."

Runner,

God's reality in the world allows for the truth that corresponds with reality - gravity, the equator, jasmine bushes that have a profuse aroma emanating from the flowers in the adjoining property to me, grass that dies with no rain and becomes green and grows after rain, etc.

My definition of truth is not narrow at all. I have provided several definitions of truth, thus providing more extensive definitions of truth.

How do you define the facts of truth relating to gravity as an important dimension of God's absolute truth?

Oz
 
G

GodsVoice

Guest
Is this your experience?
I wonder sometimes given the ever increasing resistance to truth.
If they are looking for truth it seems to be their own version of truth they are pursuing.
Maybe I'm just not bumping into people searching for the real truth.
How 'bout you?

What is your version of the "real" truth? Are you the judge of other people's truth or is it just your opinion of what truth is? Unless you know for sure what truth is, then you can't speak the truth. The deceivers hate the truth with a passion and they replace any idea of what you think is truth with their truth. This is why it's so important to actually hear the voice of God and obey all his commandments. This is the only way to the truth.

Deuteronomy 28:
1: And if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
2: And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God.

1 John 2:
3: And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4: He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

1 John 5:
2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Revelation 3:
20: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
 

th1b.taylor

Member
From
SE Texas
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
15,569
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
I agree a lie in of itself has nothing to with truth.
However is not a lie the opposite of its truth?
This can be the nature of a particular lie but it is not of necessity. Your chosen instance proclaims the possibility but falls shor6t of being fact. i.e. I entered the service, sans a High School Diploma and the US Air Force would not allow me near an aircraft. The Navy, my second choice would not guarantee me service in a fleet with an Air Craft Carrier. I enlisted in the Navy, reluctantly, admitting the truth, as I saw it, I would never work on an aircraft, let alone fly on one. It was an accepted truth.

But then my Wing Man Ronnie Sullivan did not want to remain in Houston and me go off into the service. Ronnie sang C&W music with the voice of an angel but stuttered so bad that he made Mel Tillis sound normal, he would never get into the Navy.

I rode the bus down to the Army Recruiter's Office and the ever slick recruiter sat outside with me, smoking a cigarette and exploring what I wanted to do with my life. In spite of the truth my lack of a diploma presented me with, he guaranteed me a seat in the Crew Chief's on the Military's newest Jet Engined Helicopter, the HU-1A, later known as the Huey.

Suddenly what I knew to be true, was not. I would never work on a single Jet Fighter but I did get my hands on the sticks and my feet on the pedals of one of the finest flying machines the world had ever known, in spite of an obvious truth but I had so wanted and dreamed of a fighter or at least a bomber.

You might not see the difference between a fighter, a bomber, or a flop-winged helicopter but believe me, any and I do mean any, aviator does but I not only had a seat on board, more than once my Pilot slept off a hangover while I flew the ship and logged both of our flight times. (Did I really admit that?)

A lie is not always the opposite of the truth. I still, did not have a High School Diploma but had I remained in the Army, my next schools were Warrant Officer and Flight Schools, I would have become a pilot had LBJ not, purposely murdered so many of my men.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,786
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Wondering,

Before I can give a considered response to your post, would you please clarify your understanding of Natural Law? Is Natural Law immutable, i.e. unchangeable?

Oz
Hi OZ,
This is my understanding of the Natural Law. I studied it a couple of years ago but cannot remember everything.

Natural Law is an absolute law to which civilized people ascribe.
Christians also ascribe to the Natural Law because it is God-given in nature, even though atheists will not admit to this and believe man has created it.

So: A secularist might say that it CAN be changed in respect to the progress of civilization.
As Christians, we know that man's nature has never changed and so the Natural Law was the same always and cannot be changed.

In my understanding it is immutable.

Murder, for instance, has always been wrong and not acceptable - even though a government may declare that it is (Nazi Germany).

Please comment.
Below is the post to which you're responding so you don't have to look for it.

Wondering
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Hi OZ
Of course I agree with what you say above. Of course the truth does not depend on everyone agreeing to a moral law.
I don't know what I could have said to make you come to this conclusion.
I might have said that God made Natural Law and that the civilized world agrees to the Natural Laws, except for the uncivilized. I think I gave an example of cannibals in relation to murder. Natural Law says it is not right to murder.

Yes. Even if EVERYONE practiced lying and murder IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG because Natural Law says it's wrong.

I also believe I was trying to distinguish between something that is true and something that is the truth. The truth has to do with morality.
I may think Ben and Jerry has the best ice- cream and this could even be true.
But it is not THE TRUTH.

I also agree with your last paragraph. I've had many discussions with atheists regarding this. They believe in relativism. They'll tell you sin hurts no one as long as no one else is involved.

Truth is ABSOLUTE. It is NOT relative to what I believe, but is a God-given Law.

I tried your site for Natural Law but could not find it.
Here is one explanation:

Natural Law
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and
supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today.
 
R

Runner

Guest
Runner,

God's reality in the world allows for the truth that corresponds with reality - gravity, the equator, jasmine bushes that have a profuse aroma emanating from the flowers in the adjoining property to me, grass that dies with no rain and becomes green and grows after rain, etc.

My definition of truth is not narrow at all. I have provided several definitions of truth, thus providing more extensive definitions of truth.

How do you define the facts of truth relating to gravity as an important dimension of God's absolute truth?

Oz
It seems to me the question would be better directed to Jethro. Again putting on my Jethro Hat, I suppose the answer would be that all of creation before the Fall, which would have included gravity but not abortion, would have reflected God and His character and thus have been "true." (Somewhat weirdly, there is a famous mystical golf book called Golf In the Kingdom where the concept of "true gravity" is central.) Fallen creation would be "true" for sinful mankind, but not for God. So long as Christians remain in the flesh, they cannot avoid finding themselves in the middle of fallen creation and thus having it as their current reality in that sense, but they can recognize that it is not "true" - and that certain aspects, like abortion, are "extremely not true." This is getting pretty sophisticated, but I'm starting to like it. When my three-volume Jethrovian Dogmatic Theology is complete, which shouldn't be more than 8-10 years, I'll get back to you.
 

smaller

 
Member
From
spiritinflesh at hot mail dot com
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
12,380
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Why? Relativism does not uphold God's absolutes. Is something is true for you but not true for me, that is relativism in action. It is contrary to Scripture.

Oz

I always get a chuckle over believers who think they personally bear and hold forth, personally, the semblance of Gods Absolutes.

To me that isn't even on the table of possibilities. Such, instead, bear their personal forms of relativism.

IF I never heard another preacher claiming to have "all truth" it would suit me just fine.
 
G

GodsVoice

Guest
I always get a chuckle over believers who think they personally bear and hold forth, personally, the semblance of Gods Absolutes.

To me that isn't even on the table of possibilities. Such, instead, bear their personal forms of relativism.

IF I never heard another preacher claiming to have "all truth" it would suit me just fine.

Most people do not know the truth when it's presented to them because it's totally invisible to man. It can only be revealed if you listen to the voice and obey all it's commands within the MIND.
 

smaller

 
Member
From
spiritinflesh at hot mail dot com
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
12,380
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Most people do not know the truth when it's presented to them because it's totally invisible to man. It can only be revealed if you listen to the voice and obey all it's commands within the MIND.

An "obedient mind" knows for no uncertain fact that there is evil present with us. Romans 7:21, Heb. 10:22.

Voices that apply plaster over the matters are wasting their time.
 
R

Runner

Guest
Just my $0.02 worth on natural law, which is yet another entire branch of philosophy. Apart from the concept of God and a God-instilled conscience, or at least some higher Law-Giver, the concept of an immutable natural law seems to me to make little sense. Human societies throughout history have varied widely in their understandings of what was right and what was wrong. It seems to me each society subjectively decides for itself what is “natural” or conveniently redefines the supposedly universal principle (such as what constitutes “murder”) to fit its preferred paradigm. It will not suffice to say, “Oh, sure, that society condoned what we would call murder, but they knew in their hearts it was wrong” or “Well, of course they didn’t understand the natural law principle – they were savages.” What sort of natural law would that be? The Aztecs were not savages by a long shot. The basic idea of a natural law apart from God is that it exists Out There, independent of man, waiting for man to discover it. But again, this assumes something that is patently not true – that we are capable of discovering it and will all agree on what it is when we do discover it.

For natural law to make sense, it seems to me that it requires a Law-Giver. The basic Christian concept, as I understand it, is that the requirements of the Law are written on the hearts of men regardless of whether they have ever heard of the Ten Commandments and that their God-instilled consciences should convict them. Romans 2:14-15. This makes sense and is indeed talking about an “immutable law” because it flows from God. Whether it is “natural” is debatable. It is “natural” in the sense that man can (supposedly) discover it apart from an explicit knowledge of the Ten Commandments, but its source is God and man’s ability to discover it is God-given.

Another sense in which natural law might make sense is for one to say that evolution has programmed humans with notions of what is right and what is wrong for evolutionary purposes and that the great majority of humans recognize and are guided by these principles. Evolution becomes the Law-Giver. This is one way an atheist can avoid relativism. Evolution is by definition is not immutable, so this is neither “immutable” nor even a “law” in any intelligible sense. It is, however, entirely "natural."

The common claim that “everyone knows murder and rape is wrong” is, I believe, difficult to sustain. Everyone, civilized or not, doesn’t know this. Even highly civilized societies define murder and rape to suit their tastes or purposes and work from that definition. This still might suggest that there is, Out There somewhere, an immutable universal principle that Murder and Rape are wrong and that humans instinctively recognize this but simply adopt flawed notions of the universal principle. Again, this makes sense if we posit a God who has decreed the universal principle, but it really just makes no sense to say, apart from some Law-Giver, that there is a universal principle Out There all humans intuitively recognize.

How would a universal principle exist Out There in the ether, anyway? What would that even mean? It requires no source? Certainly if we look at the way the natural world, including the animal kingdom, operates, we would have a hard time deriving any principle that rape and murder were wrong. I was reading a fairly high-level discussion on another forum where one of the posters said, "Every time I ask someone to defend the concept of natural law, it always comes back to the Bible or at least God." I think that is probably pretty much true.

Mildly off the topic, but not completely: There has been considerable debate as to whether mathematical principles are "discoverable" (like the conventional notion of natural law) or "invented." A Platonian view would be that they are discoverable. One mathematician, Barry Mazur, has described the Platonian position thusly:

For if math is out there waiting to be discovered, what once was a purely abstract notion then has to develop an existence unconceived of by humans. Subsequently, Mazur describes the Platonic view as “a full-fledged theistic position.” http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/is-mathematics.html
Likewise, it seems to me "natural law" is inevitably theistic.
 
G

GodsVoice

Guest
An "obedient mind" knows for no uncertain fact that there is evil present with us. Romans 7:21, Heb. 10:22.

Voices that apply plaster over the matters are wasting their time.

It's a waste of time for you but for me it's everything to know who I AM now that the beast taught man how to build the AI and voice technology with their human hands.
 
R

Runner

Guest
I always get a chuckle over believers who think they personally bear and hold forth, personally, the semblance of Gods Absolutes.

To me that isn't even on the table of possibilities. Such, instead, bear their personal forms of relativism.

IF I never heard another preacher claiming to have "all truth" it would suit me just fine.

Absolutely. Christianity merely embarrasses itself with these self-evidently nonsensical claims and constant in-fighting. It is the single biggest turn-off for my friends who are not Christians. To the limited extent I actually witness to anyone, which I'll have to admit is pretty darn limited, I always tell them: "I agree with you, what passes for Christianity is largely an embarrassment. Forget Christianity, forget Christians. Focus on Jesus - just make a decision what you are going to do with Him. Yes or no, simple as that."
 

smaller

 
Member
From
spiritinflesh at hot mail dot com
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
12,380
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Absolutely. Christianity merely embarrasses itself with these self-evidently nonsensical claims and constant in-fighting. It is the single biggest turn-off for my friends who are not Christians. To the limited extent I actually witness to anyone, which I'll have to admit is pretty darn limited, I always tell them: "I agree with you, what passes for Christianity is largely an embarrassment. Forget Christianity, forget Christians. Focus on Jesus - just make a decision what you are going to do with Him. Yes or no, simple as that."

I'll admit I've had to "soften" my sights to even find any kind of "peace" between believers also in my witnessing of Jesus, in order to apologize for all the nonsense that comes from the pulpits of christian sectarianism.
 
G

GodsVoice

Guest
I appreciate your attempts to defer 'evil present within us' to other things but it's an old game.
The old game is still going my friend until the day of the Lord. Then a new game begins.
 

smaller

 
Member
From
spiritinflesh at hot mail dot com
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
12,380
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
The old game is still going my friend until the day of the Lord. Then a new game begins.

Uh huh. I refuse to play the lying game. My bad?

God has bound us all with the spirit of disobedience in the flesh (Romans 11:32, Gal. 5:17). It's called indwelling sin and evil present with us. Romans 7:17-21.

I might consider these a legitimate measure of "who" is speaking honestly and who is trying to pull somebodies leg. 1 John 1:8 is the same measure. So is 1 John 3:8. So are many other such citings of fact.

If we can't be honest in the here and now, what good is it to HOPE for that to end, if it were only an illusion? Phil. 3:21.

If I want to read fantasy novels, they are a dime a dozen at the used book store.
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,755
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Hi OZ,
This is my understanding of the Natural Law. I studied it a couple of years ago but cannot remember everything.

Natural Law is an absolute law to which civilized people ascribe.
Christians also ascribe to the Natural Law because it is God-given in nature, even though atheists will not admit to this and believe man has created it.

So: A secularist might say that it CAN be changed in respect to the progress of civilization.
As Christians, we know that man's nature has never changed and so the Natural Law was the same always and cannot be changed.

In my understanding it is immutable.

Murder, for instance, has always been wrong and not acceptable - even though a government may declare that it is (Nazi Germany).

Please comment.
Below is the post to which you're responding so you don't have to look for it.

Wondering
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Hi OZ
Of course I agree with what you say above. Of course the truth does not depend on everyone agreeing to a moral law.
I don't know what I could have said to make you come to this conclusion.
I might have said that God made Natural Law and that the civilized world agrees to the Natural Laws, except for the uncivilized. I think I gave an example of cannibals in relation to murder. Natural Law says it is not right to murder.

Yes. Even if EVERYONE practiced lying and murder IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG because Natural Law says it's wrong.

I also believe I was trying to distinguish between something that is true and something that is the truth. The truth has to do with morality.
I may think Ben and Jerry has the best ice- cream and this could even be true.
But it is not THE TRUTH.

I also agree with your last paragraph. I've had many discussions with atheists regarding this. They believe in relativism. They'll tell you sin hurts no one as long as no one else is involved.

Truth is ABSOLUTE. It is NOT relative to what I believe, but is a God-given Law.

I tried your site for Natural Law but could not find it.
Here is one explanation:

Natural Law
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and
supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today.

Wondering,

The view that Natural Laws are immutable (unchangeable) was an argument against miracles that was popularised in the 1670s by Jewish pantheist, Benedict Spinoza. As you well know, pantheism is the worldview that God is everything and everyone-everything is God.

Spinoza's argument went like this:
  1. Miracles are violations of natural laws;
  2. Natural laws are immutable;
  3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws;
  4. So, miracles are impossible.
If we follow Spinoza's philosophy/worldview, then natural laws cannot be overpowered and that puts an end to miracles.

The basic problem with Spinoza's view of Natural Law is that it commits the begging the question fallacy or engages in circular reasoning. This fallacy includes the conclusion in its premises, directly or indirectly. It assumes the conclusion is true and places in in its presuppositions.

This is where Spinoza's worldview needs to be exposed. His presupposition was that there is no theistic God who performs miracles because he was a pantheist and did not believe in the personal, theist Yahweh.

We know from the evidence of creation (whether one accepts it from Scripture or the Big Bang of science) that we have evidence of the greatest miracle of all in creation of the universe out of nothing. This example of the violation of Natural Law demonstrates that the Natural Law (miracle performed) is not immutable.

It has been put this way by Geisler & Turek:

We also know that natural laws are not immutable because they are descriptions of what happens, not prescriptions of what must happen. Natural laws don't really cause anything, they only describe what regularly happens in nature. They describe the effects of the four known natural forces - gravitational, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Once you introduce intelligent beings into the picture, natural forces can be over powered. We know that those forces can be overpowered because we do so ourselves every day.
For example, when a baseball player catches a falling baseball, he is overpowering the force of gravity. We do the same whenever we fly planes or blast off into space. In such cases, gravity is not changed, it is simply overpowered. If finite beings like us can overpower natural forces, then certainly the infinite Being who created those forces can do so (Geisler & Turek 2004:204).​

We could get into the differences between moral laws and natural laws, but that's for another thread.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L & Turek, F 2004. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,755
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
I always get a chuckle over believers who think they personally bear and hold forth, personally, the semblance of Gods Absolutes.

To me that isn't even on the table of possibilities. Such, instead, bear their personal forms of relativism.

IF I never heard another preacher claiming to have "all truth" it would suit me just fine.

Are you spoofing at what I wrote? :confused
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,786
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Wondering,

The view that Natural Laws are immutable (unchangeable) was an argument against miracles that was popularised in the 1670s by Jewish pantheist, Benedict Spinoza. As you well know, pantheism is the worldview that God is everything and everyone-everything is God.

Spinoza's argument went like this:
  1. Miracles are violations of natural laws;
  2. Natural laws are immutable;
  3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws;
  4. So, miracles are impossible.
If we follow Spinoza's philosophy/worldview, then natural laws cannot be overpowered and that puts an end to miracles.

The basic problem with Spinoza's view of Natural Law is that it commits the begging the question fallacy or engages in circular reasoning. This fallacy includes the conclusion in its premises, directly or indirectly. It assumes the conclusion is true and places in in its presuppositions.

This is where Spinoza's worldview needs to be exposed. His presupposition was that there is no theistic God who performs miracles because he was a pantheist and did not believe in the personal, theist Yahweh.

We know from the evidence of creation (whether one accepts it from Scripture or the Big Bang of science) that we have evidence of the greatest miracle of all in creation of the universe out of nothing. This example of the violation of Natural Law demonstrates that the Natural Law (miracle performed) is not immutable.

It has been put this way by Geisler & Turek:

We also know that natural laws are not immutable because they are descriptions of what happens, not prescriptions of what must happen. Natural laws don't really cause anything, they only describe what regularly happens in nature. They describe the effects of the four known natural forces - gravitational, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Once you introduce intelligent beings into the picture, natural forces can be over powered. We know that those forces can be overpowered because we do so ourselves every day.
For example, when a baseball player catches a falling baseball, he is overpowering the force of gravity. We do the same whenever we fly planes or blast off into space. In such cases, gravity is not changed, it is simply overpowered. If finite beings like us can overpower natural forces, then certainly the infinite Being who created those forces can do so (Geisler & Turek 2004:204).​

We could get into the differences between moral laws and natural laws, but that's for another thread.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L & Turek, F 2004. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
I agree with Geisler and Turek.

The first thought that came to mind when reading about Spinoza was that God, the creator, can do anything and is not limited by Anything since He created everything, including all laws of nature.

I was speaking to moral law, but the above is also interesting.
Some think too much of God as a "person" and desire to bring Him down to our level.
These persons do not know God, of course.


Wondering
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,755
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
I agree with Geisler and Turek.

The first thought that came to mind when reading about Spinoza was that God, the creator, can do anything and is not limited by Anything since He created everything, including all laws of nature.

I was speaking to moral law, but the above is also interesting.
Some think too much of God as a "person" and desire to bring Him down to our level.
These persons do not know God, of course.

Wondering

W,

Since you were speaking about moral law and not Natural Law, it is important to note that the Natural Law is not based on God's attributes/nature and so Natural Law is changeable. God can penetrate it with miracles. NASA can violate Natural Law with its space crafts.

However, God can't defy his moral laws as they are based on his nature. Murder, adultery, theft, lying and covetousness are wrong (e.g. Ex 20 ESV) because they are based on God's nature.

Yes, God can do anything (except sin) and is not limited, but that is based on God's self-revelation in Scripture. Spinoza did not accept that view as a pantheist - even though he was a Jew and should have known better.

I agree that the moment we speak of God as a 'person' (as in the 3 persons of the Trinity), it is way too easy to presume we know the characteristics of a person, based on human understanding. However, the truth is that we need to allow God to define and describe his nature/person himself. Here we search the Scriptures for accurate descriptions of God's personhood.

Thanks again for an engaging discussion.

Oz
 
Last edited:
R

Runner

Guest
It has been put this way by Geisler & Turek:

We also know that natural laws are not immutable because they are descriptions of what happens, not prescriptions of what must happen. Natural laws don't really cause anything, they only describe what regularly happens in nature. They describe the effects of the four known natural forces - gravitational, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Once you introduce intelligent beings into the picture, natural forces can be over powered. We know that those forces can be overpowered because we do so ourselves every day.
For example, when a baseball player catches a falling baseball, he is overpowering the force of gravity. We do the same whenever we fly planes or blast off into space. In such cases, gravity is not changed, it is simply overpowered. If finite beings like us can overpower natural forces, then certainly the infinite Being who created those forces can do so (Geisler & Turek 2004:204).​

We could get into the differences between moral laws and natural laws, but that's for another thread.

Oz

Spinoza and Geisler & Turek are of course talking about the "laws of nature." Geisler & Turek are merely discussing why miracles do not "violate" the laws of nature. The concept of "natural law" is an entirely different animal. An entire branch of philosophy is not devoted to the laws of nature.

Natural Law
The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe.

Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which, despite the slightly goofy title, is peer-reviewed and reasonably authoritative), http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/.​

It appears you have copied your summary of Spinoza from "Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought" by Geisler, http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html. In any event, it's a good summary of this topic - which, again, has nothing to do with natural law. No wonder my analysis received no response, if we're at the level where the laws of nature are confused with natural law.

View attachment 10593

I continue to think Jethro has a legitimate point. When Jesus said "I am the truth," He was not saying "I determine what is true," or "What I say is true." He was saying I am the truth, which really does not make sense in any sense other than the sense of "truth" that Jethro is advocating.
 
Top