Yes, I’m a philosophy major. I think William Lane Craig has a response to Grunbaum somewhere, but I can’t think of it just now.
As for tips….idk, there are way more knowledgeable people here than me. Go slow, use lube, and have fun. And ask for advice, that’s what brought me here in the first place too.
I do believe that all ideas and knowledge exist foundational in God, so you could kind of say I am a platonist in that sense I guess?
I would say that we use axioms to express mathematics and to understand it, but numbers, ratios and other elements of mathematics exist independent of whether we define them or not.
Sorry, I am not trying to dodge the subject. You have merely found the limit of my analogy. All analogies about God are inadequate as he is infinite and we cannot process that. In order for the analogy to work, the pain and the good thing, have to be inseparable. Changing the mother in the analogy ruins it, because it removes that criterion.
My point (which I seem to have not expressed well) is that God either has to allow pain/evil to achieve something good that cannot be achieved without it.
Oh sorry, I clicked reply to the wrong one.
I like Craig, I shall look up his response.
What made you decide to take philosophy?
Knowledge is good, but also just sharing newcomer experiences is good too, haha. What drew you to it, if I may ask?
Hence why I objected to your argument in the first place. It sounds like a reply is given, but the complexity of the subject discussed is not reflected in the evoked image. Moreover, it’s presented as way less complex than it actually is. That’s why I said that people who use arguments like this either wish to manipulate (giving the impression of having answers) or being unable to see the complexity of the subject discussed. Perhaps even both.
If god exists out of time, and this reality is merely god unfolding in linear time (would that be an apt way to summarize your position?), yes, that would get you around the unmoved mover problem. However, that is a monistic argument, as then everything is god. It’s hard to have sin when everything that exists is god. That’s why I reject a moralistic view of the divine.
I usually start with an analogy just to get people on the page, and then move to greater complexity. I do not want to start with complex things first in case people do not grasp it and we need to go back.
No I certainly do not belief that. That is pantheism. God is not the universe.
The unmoved mover is a problem whether God exists or not, there has to be an ultimate first cause to everything.
Ah, everything needs to have a cause except god, as the ultimate first cause? What makes god exempt?
I’m a bit of a weirdo that came to school knowing I wanted to study philosophy. Camus was very influential on me in high school, I guess I was a bit of an angsty scene girl. Plus my interest in Catholicism and Buddhism fit well with the kinds of questions philosophers are often trying to answer.
As for what got me interested in anal, I described it in another post but I tried it with my first boyfriend for my first time and it blew up in my face. But then I think it became a kind of “forbidden fruit” so I kept exploring on my own. He didn’t want to try again, and we broke up eventually, but I was left with an anal kink.
Everything needs to have a justification, be it a cause or that it is necessary.
If God had a creator he would not be God, that creator would be the real God.
I just struggle with the notion one MUST be an adherent of just one, specific religion to be accepted into their kingdom.
Many communist regimes shun or prohibit religion. I just can’t accept that some child born into a dirt poor, hard working family won’t be accepted into heaven because the country god decided he was born in prohibited them from worshiping god.
I’m also interested in your opinion of adult sex with children. Men much older than 21 married young girls. Since this was biblically acceptable centuries ago, would it still be acceptable today? If not, does that imply god changes his or her (I’ll argue god is gender neutral) standards dependent on a specific date? Why would something so basic as sex with a child be OK then but not now? Seems like human created values to me.
Well I am glad to hear you took on our angst in a constructive way, haha.
I shall look for that post, thank you.
I hope you find someone else who does like it.
And at this point, all you are giving me is a definition of god, not an argument.
If your definition is wrong, so is your faith. I would like to leave it at that and urge you to find deeper truth than what you have discovered so far. I’m not saying your faith is wrong, only that the arguments you have been exposed to so far, as far as I can tell, seem circular and/or contradictory when taken as a whole. You can do better, and the complexity of the world demands tools that are less blunt. I wish you the best, friend.
No one is denied entry into heaven because of the location of birth, we are all denied because of our sin against God. Everyone gets either fair treatment or better, not one gets worst than what he or she deserves.
God’s standard is that the age for love occurs after the compilation of puberty. (Ezekiel 16:5-8)
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of any child marriages occurring in the Bible and even if they did, they would be going against what is indented by God.
Thank you, I think. I think perhaps we are just using different definitions which is causing confusion.
Given that I am getting a lot of this from scholars, and not just Christian ones, where would you recommend I look instead for greater knowledge?
Aw, thank you
And how about you, what brings you to the forum? Perhaps there’s a deep connection between interest in anal activities and interest in discussing philosophy of God? I’ll let you guys know if my research turns anything up…
“Scholars” can mean so many things in this day and age. It’s a bit like composers: There are people like Arvo Pärt who push the medium forward, experiment and innovate, and in that process produce something touching that will stand the test of time. Others write pop songs, endless repetitions of the ever-same stuff that sells (for whatever reason).
How do you tell those two apart? Reading and studying, and not only with those who already agree with you. But also: Read literature, especially poetry. Everything scholars do, poets do, too, but they need to present their arguments in a much more precise, convincing way. They don’t have the room for lengthy treatises, their argument needs to fit neatly into an apt metaphor. And the learning (good) scholars have, poets have or had as well.
I’ll proofread the questionnaire you come up with to test for that for free 
After mulling it over, there’s one more thing more important than the others. Find people you can have discussions with. Not online, but in real life. Sit together and discuss topics, for at least 90 minutes at a time. Again, it’ll have to be people who are not of your opinion, and the goal of the discussion needs to be the discussion itself, not winning an argument or getting a degree.
This is what a university education should give you; not just a degree that allows you access to jobs, but allow you to verbally spar and learn from people who have dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of knowledge.
No framework. I decided lige is difficult enough if I keep it to my surroundings. I gain nothing by worrying about stuff I can’t change.
I simply reject any form of religion because religion is invented by some smart human to controll the masses. And it still works today.
For me, the bible is merely a series of ‘fairy’ stories written by men who created a relatable story that captivated a small number of influential people, resulting in them gaining reward. That expanded exponentially over the years to indoctrinate billions of people. There are some positives in the messages but one doesn’t need to believe in a higher power or deity to agree with them.