A dilemma without answer?

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Post Reply
michaelh2951
Newbie Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:19 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

A dilemma without answer?

#1

Post by michaelh2951 » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:24 pm

According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?

Jay_7
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#2

Post by Jay_7 » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:30 pm

Before man was created, God still existed.

Think of it this way, before you knew i existed, did i still exist? Yes i did

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: A dilemma without answer?

#3

Post by August » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:33 pm

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?
No.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: A dilemma without answer?

#4

Post by IRQ Conflict » Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:41 am

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?
Welcome.

Hmmmm, the ol 'If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it' theory.

Psa 103:20 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: A dilemma without answer?

#5

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:30 pm

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?
No

All it means is that Man is the only one capable of perceiving God.

It's faulty logic.

Pam is the only one who can chew nails.
No Pam = no nails? Nope.

Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: A dilemma without answer?

#6

Post by IRQ Conflict » Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:43 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.
Is this falsifiable? Prove it! :twisted: :lol:
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: A dilemma without answer?

#7

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:10 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.
Is this falsifiable? Prove it! :twisted: :lol:
Well we're talking in terms of logic and philosophy here so there really is no need for me to prove it. The logic is sound.

However for your amusement.
I'll take it that you want me to prove it scientifically.

Let's set up an experiment.

We need 100 volunteers and a box of nails from the hardware store.

We split the volunteers into 4 groups.
Group 1 is shown the nails.
Group 2 is shown nothing.
Group 3 has a nail dropped on them.
And Group 4 is forced to chew on them.

Results:
Group 4 experienced much pain and reported it as such.
This result was pretty much unanimous.
Group 3 perceived the nail by feeling something drop on them. Some were injured. Some did not know what was dropped on them, never the less they did perceive something.
Group 1 most reported being shown a nail.
Group 2 perceived nothing.

The nails do in fact exist.

So in conclusion, perception is not required for the nails to exist. (Control Group 2), perception is not always painless, however analysis of subjective testimonies showed a consistent report of pain for those chewing the nails. Thus leading one to beleive that those in Group 4 shared a subjective experience.

It is likely that chewing is more painful than perceiving.
More experiments will stregthen the results.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#8

Post by IRQ Conflict » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:20 pm

:shock: Sorry bgood, just a lame effort on my part to make a funny is all.
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#9

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:45 pm

IRQ Conflict wrote::shock: Sorry bgood, just a lame effort on my part to make a funny is all.
=)
It's ok.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

kateliz
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#10

Post by kateliz » Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:06 am

:lol: BGood, I've not been aware that I've been missing your humour!

michaelh2951
Newbie Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:19 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

RE

#11

Post by michaelh2951 » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:40 am

Well thank you for all the replies, very interesting without a doubt. I guess I was really hinting at that God created man and man created God(for the sake of discussion), but I see your logic; existence does not equal perception. I think it still remains an interesting topic though.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#12

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:36 pm

kateliz wrote::lol: BGood, I've not been aware that I've been missing your humour!
I've certainly been aware of your absence. I'm glad you're back.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Wall-dog
Established Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:18 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#13

Post by Wall-dog » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:39 pm

BeGood,

I thought it was a funny joke :)
man created God
I was raised in the Unitarian church. They absolutely believe this, though you would have to change it somewhat. It should look more like:
stupid men created God.
Or more to the point, I think the official stance is more along the lines of:
Mankind is God
My Grandmother was a devout Dutch Reformed Christian. Very strict. She used to tell my mother that the church we went to (fittingly named "People's Church") was built round so the devil couldn't corner you.

Karl Marx in his book The Commuist Manifesto called religion "An opiate for the masses." Communism believed that religion was invented by the capitalist elite to keep the poor in check and thus to keep themselves rich.

I think your argument stems from these kinds of philosophies.

If you'll allow me to answer a question with a question, does mankind's position as the only creatures in creation that can percieve God detract from God's greatness? I would think that the implications that all of creation could be for our benefit would do more to put us in awe of God (more to the point - in awe of the special place we hold in His heart) than it would do to detract from His greatness. Would you not agree?

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#14

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:46 pm

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

I thought it was a funny joke :)
I think your argument stems from these kinds of philosophies.

If you'll allow me to answer a question with a question, does mankind's position as the only creatures in creation that can percieve God detract from God's greatness? I would think that the implications that all of creation could be for our benefit would do more to put us in awe of God (more to the point - in awe of the special place we hold in His heart) than it would do to detract from His greatness. Would you not agree?
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, just what position do you beleive I am taking?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Post Reply