Nothing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
In this case, the analogies of the balloon and the raison bread break down when you consider boundaries because the universe does not have hard boundaries.

---

Forgiven,I didn't see this stated elswhere and I think it is important.Consider the balloon analogy. Imagine a balloon shrunk down to a dot like a tiny rubber ball (yes, the analogy breaks here, but what comes next is the important part) Now, imagine that the rubber ball/balloon is inflated from the inside. Anyone standing on the SURFACE would see everything move away, giving the illusion that the observer is at the center. It doesn't matter where you stand, you get the same effect. Nor is there any epicenter on the SURFACE of the balloon, any more than there is a center of a spherical surface.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
but does this (relative) movement common to each mean there wasn't an epicenter? my mind is having trouble understanding how the exact location of the explosion can't be considered the center *of* that explosion... hope that makes sense

---

Yeah, it does make sense. It is a very difficult thing to visualize.The problem with this analogy, and the problem with all of the analogies we've discussed, is that they all involve the expansion of something (the balloon, the shrapnel) within space. This isn't the same thing as the expansion of space itself. We have no real reference within our experience with which to compare this, it can be modelled mathematically though. The math is the meat and potatoes, the analogies are just the fluff to make it look pretty on the diner table.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i'm a little less fuzzy on it, but you gotta admit it still seems anti-intuitive...

---

Can't argue with that.

quote:

---

almost as if we have to deny what we know from our senses...

---

We do to some extent. Our senses function in three dimensional space plus time. Outside of that framework things just seem wierd.

quote:

---

it struck me that one thing it could be that i've never heard before is, a thought God had...

---

This is not an uncommon idea among, for example, Jewish Kabbalists.

quote:

---

oh well, it seems to fit, given the premise of an all powerful God...

---

Yeah, it does fit, but proving that it is actually the case is the trick.

quote:

---

i can actually think of only one other theory i've ever read that can even come close to this

---

Bishop Berkely believed something similar. The closest similarity can be found among the Kabbalists, though.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
and i'll do a search now for 'kabbalists'

---

If you are willing to buy books, Aryeh Kaplin is the man to read. I also suggest you avoid the new-age watered-down kabbalah.

quote:

---

and 'bishop berkeley'

---

Bishop George Berkeley... a funny sort of empiricistic idealist.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
^^^^ buy a book? BUY a book? surely you jest...

---

I know. I know. But Kaplin is worth the effort.

quote:

---

berkeley was no dummy...

---

I rather like Berkeley, actually.

quote:

---

oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe

---

How do you know this? Rather, how do you know the attributes of God? How do you know God is logical?

quote:

---

granting free will

---

What you outlined in you first paragraph is of a God who knows precisely what will happen before he creates. There is no free will in that universe. It is all locked in from the get-go.

quote:

---

he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...

---

As you outline this creation, God knows precisely what will happen. Therefore, we are damned or we are saved right from the beginning. Salvation is meaningless in this context. It is simply part of the script.Craig?

quote:

---

he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals...

---

Apparently something is limiting God's ability to create. What is that something? Why not just write a script where we all die and go to heaven? Surely God can do that?

quote:

---

so his foreknowledge and our predestination don't negate free will

---

Yeah it does. You argue that it simply doesn't matter that we have no free will, since the damned would have been damned in any possible world.

quote:

---

why create any of those trans-worldly damned at all? in order to maximize the ones who would be with him eternally (some of whom *may* have not chosen to believe him in all but one possible universe)..

---

This doesn't follow from anything that I can tell.

quote:

---

why not just create us with the knowledge that we'd all choose him? that takes away even the semblance of free will *and* it means we wouldn't be "in his image" (given free will as one of his attributes)

---

What does the semblance matter when the actuallity in this scenario is that free will does not exist? Creating the illusion seem a bit misleading really.We are like God and have free will, yet God knows precisely what will happen when from the beginning to the end? It doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be

---

Well, maybe you at least had an original sentence. Isn't that the same thing? ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Craig?

---

​

William Lane Craig....

​

(I assume from the context)....

---

Yeah, I noticed that too much further down the post, but didn't delete the question. You know, lazy...------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com