Does God change his mind?

[OnceConvinced]

A Christian member of our forum recently pointed out a bible contradiction for all to see:

This verse was presented first:
Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

The Christian then attempted to trump it with a contradictory scripture where God DOES change his mind, thus exposing a blatant bible contradiction:

Jeremiah 18:8 "But if that nation about which I spoke turns from its evil way, I'll change my mind about the disaster that I had planned for it."

Here are further verses that show God changing his mind:

Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. (wow this is a verse where God says he will break his promise!!)


So questions for debate:

Does Got change his mind?
If he does change his mind, how do we know he hasn't changed his mind about much of what he expected from us in the New Testament?
If he does change his mind, how can we really know what he wants of us today?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 320 by marco]

I guess we agree to disagree. I don't see the relevance of your numbers example to the issue at hand. If anything, it seems to prove my point. "Finite" and "infinite" are all terms we are familiar with. Hence, the solutions to the math problems, whatever they may be, are in terms of which we are familiar. If I said my solution was"'plange," you'd have no ide what I was talking about, as you don't know what plange means, are unfamiliar with it. When you examine a problem, you do so from a certain POV with which you are familiar. An engineer examines the problem before him from what he knows best, engineering. You wouldn't ask an engineer to study the structure of a particular symphony, as he has no background or training, no familiarity with musical composition. Consider the Rosetta Stone. It enabled us to decode ancient Egyptian because it put the latter in terms of languages with which we, or at least some, were familiar. Without that, we'd know nothing about ancient Egyptian. Consider how you learn a foreign language: By being able to relate or translate foreign words into your mother tongue, the language with which you were familiar. Consider our knowledge of animals. We have to project. That's why we say the bear is angry because we violated his territoriality, for example. If we couldn't project, we could know nothing.




You said there were no solid profs for God--and that's it. Well, where is your evidence? Where is your rebuttal to any of them? And what are your standards for proof, in the first place?

Also, I am not sure what your position is. Are you agnostic? Saying well, maybe there is a God, maybe not? Or are you taking the atheist stance, there is no God. If teh latter, then I submit that is an irrational position. Rational atheists are probabilistic atheists, admit there is some probability that there is a God, however small that might be. If the former, I also submit that is irrational. If you admit there is some possibility of there being a God, then logically you have to admit God exists. Actuality is superior to possibility or potentiality, and God is unsurpassable, save by himself, the ideal perfection.

[marco]

I guess we agree to disagree. I don't see the relevance of your numbers example to the issue at hand. If anything, it seems to prove my point.

Your point was we use our familiar methods to deal with the unfamiliar. In many cases this works perfectly well. My example was given to show that when we apply common sense to an infinite series, we make mistakes. So, when we apply familiar methods to the search for God, we can also fall into error. The point is most relevant.

If I said my solution was"'plange," you'd have no ide what I was talking about, as you don't know what plange means, are unfamiliar with it.

It is amusing to note your assumption is wrong here. Plange is the imperative of the Latin verb plangere which means to bewail.

When you examine a problem, you do so from a certain POV with which you are familiar.

I think you are confusing methodology and the tools for examination. The tools we have for making statements about God are inadequate for the task. Our employment of reason is not the contentious part.

Consider the Rosetta Stone. It enabled us to decode ancient Egyptian because it put the latter in terms of languages with which we, or at least some, were familiar. Without that, we'd know nothing about ancient Egyptian. Consider how you learn a foreign language: By being able to relate or translate foreign words into your mother tongue, the language with which you were familiar. Consider our knowledge of animals. We have to project. That's why we say the bear is angry because we violated his territoriality, for example. If we couldn't project, we could know nothing.

All interesting but not to the point. We make deductions here from the known to something of the same nature and our assumption that one applies to the other is satisfactory. In the case of God there is no good reason to suppose our extrapolations hold water.

Are you agnostic? Saying well, maybe there is a God, maybe not?

I am not an atheist since I agree that an outright declaration that X does not exist - when we know nothing about X - is fatuous. God is a human idea. We put a bit of paper under a table leg to stop it from wobbling. In the same way we supply the idea of God to explain what we cannot understand. I don't go along with this routine and as I said there is no onus on me to prove the non-existence of this human expedient. I can understand why God has been invented. Voltaire said if he didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him. Yes, he is a convenience.

Proofs about his existence are semantic games. We postulate there must be a first cause and find God; we postulate that intricacy requires a designer and find God; we play with the terms "than which there is no greater" and find God. If the Biblical God lets us down, we play with pantheism or an offshoot. God is a human convenience.


But I am happy to agree to differ. My position requires no defence lawyer. Go well.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 322 by marco]

Interesting take on "plange." What you did was generalize from what you are familiar with, Latin, to what was new and unfamiliar to you, my claim. You were using analogous reasoning and thereby proving my point. Also, you failed to address my point, that counter-intuitive or no, the results we reach with numbers are expressed in terms of what is already familiar to us.

You keep saying our tools are inadequate to know anything about God, but fail to explain exactly why you make this claim. Are you arguing that God is a meaningless term, because we can give God no predication? As transcendent, God is beyond our full understanding. However, that does not me cannot know anything at all about God. Indeed, it is the uniformity between ourselves and God that makes for teh mystery of God. As I said before, God enjoys a direct immediate empathic experience with any and all creaturely feeling, and we are strangers to sensitivity on that grand of scale.
OK, the philosophical arguments for God did not impress you. However, you failed to show why, to offer a rebuttal to any one of them. Just saying it's all word play is no rebuttal.

[marco]

Interesting take on "plange." What you did was generalize from what you are familiar with, Latin, to what was new and unfamiliar to you, my claim. You were using analogous reasoning and thereby proving my point.

Hoghead, I do not dispute the fact that we move from the familiar into the unfamiliar; we use all our known resources to enquire into the unknown. That is your point and that is a point I have no issue with.

Also, you failed to address my point, that counter-intuitive or no, the results we reach with numbers are expressed in terms of what is already familiar to us.

I addressed your point but you seem not to have understood. In using tried and true methods, even common sense, we reach wrong conclusions when dealing with certain infinite series. This alerts us to the problem of making common sense or reasonable conclusions about God, who presumably belongs to the same infinite area. My point is that when we keep to the realm of the human, as with Latin here, we are entitled to believe our conclusions are correct. I demonstrated that when we move to the infinite, our reasonable conclusions are wrong. If I say so myself, this is a good rebuttal of what you were proposing.

As transcendent, God is beyond our full understanding.

There is no point in examining arguments for God's existence when we can make a statement like this. You already assume the possibility of his existence and his properties and then add colour in the form of argument. God is a human construct; the type of existence he is given depends on the sophistication of his inventor. I would suggest Process Theology is one of the more sophisticated forms, higher than the one that was given a thunderbolt to throw. But essentially all gods have their birth in the human brain.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 324 by marco]

Well, I'm not a mathematician, so I am not sure about the validity of your conclusions. However, that is beside the point. My point is that "finite" and "infinite" are human concepts. So you are still generalizing from the familiar to the unfamiliar, regardless of the results we get. Furthermore, "finite" and "infinite" have more than one meaning. So your argument is also ambiguous. Arguing that something is illogical is also ambiguous. Logic has more than one meaning. I'm not sure what logic you are applying. My gut reaction is that if you are getting illogical conclusions about the infinite, then your concept of the infinite is simply nonsense. I add that your starting-point appears lame. You are generalizing from mere numbers. My suggestion is we should start with ourselves and work from there. If the "numbers" give us finny results, that is because we should have worked from our experience, and we are far more than mere "numbers." I know best what it's like to be human, less well do I know what it is like to be a mere 'number."

For example, saying God is infinite and letting it go at that, is vague, requires some qualification. I believe God is finite, limited, in many key respects, though infinite in others. God is finite, limited by us, because God is empathically responsive to any and all creaturely feeling. God is infinite because God can experience any and all creaturely feeling, which marks God's radical transcendence. The latter is unknowable or unimaginable to me. I can't fathom what it would be like to be that sensitive. The fact that I can know some things about God does not mean I can know all things.

Your criticism of the proofs seems very lame to me. You have yet to demonstrate your point, by specifically examining a proof and showing you can rebut it. Saying that philosophers simply assume God and work from there, that kind of argument, would also invalidate your whole discussion of "infinity," as you, too, seem to be assuming there is some sort of "infinity" and then attempted to color it in . You are in the same boat here.

[marco]

My suggestion is we should start with ourselves and work from there. If the "numbers" give us finny results, that is because we should have worked from our experience, and we are far more than mere "numbers." I know best what it's like to be human, less well do I know what it is like to be a mere 'number."

The "funny" results tell us that YOUR methodology is flawed; that is, it is unsafe to take the conclusions that are correct in our world and apply them to the infinite. You have nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that your theories about God are correct while I am showing you that we have to be careful about the extrapolation you seem so happy to employ.

For example, saying God is infinite and letting it go at that, is vague, requires some qualification. I believe God is finite, limited, in many key respects, though infinite in others. God is finite, limited by us, because God is empathically responsive to any and all creaturely feeling.

Saying God is anything is already a step too far. You believe God is finite etc. and your "belief" amounts to nothing I'm afraid.

The fact that I can know some things about God does not mean I can know all things.

Well there is no "fact" here since you do not know any anything about God - you surmise or believe you do.

Your criticism of the proofs seems very lame to me. You have yet to demonstrate your point, by specifically examining a proof and showing you can rebut it.

Others have done this more competently than I and you must have read the literature that supports or rebuffs the so called proofs. I have too.

Saying that philosophers simply assume God and work from there, that kind of argument, would also invalidate your whole discussion of "infinity," as you, too, seem to be assuming there is some sort of "infinity" and then attempted to color it in . You are in the same boat here.

I think we are decidedly in different boats. Infinity is demonstrable, God is not. By postulating the notion of infinity we solve problems. We get true answers. We can even PROVE that some sets of numbers are infinite. Your talk of God is little better than belief that Zeus seduced humans. You assume the existence of an entity and then use "proof" to call your assumption fact, when there is no proof, just an appeal to reason and logic. I have said that we can demonstrate in mathematics that such an appeal to logic fails when we move outside our physical world. It is one thing to introduce infinity in mathematics and quite another to endow a deity with intelligence and empathy.

It would seem I have solid argument on my side; you have theology, for what it's worth.... the study of theos, when we don't know anything about theos. You are in the same boat as any of the various religious branches who claim special knowledge of their kind of deity. You too come equipped with esoteric knowledge, derived from God knows where, so to speak.

[dio9]

God's thoughts are not my thoughts , my thoughts always change , I can only say from my own experience in meditation and prayer , God's thought is transcendent and seems to be above change.

[marco]

God's thoughts are not my thoughts , my thoughts always change , I can only say from my own experience in meditation and prayer , God's thought is transcendent and seems to be above change.

Your experience in meditation and prayer might be something beneficial to you but you are simply assigning the effects to God when there is no evidence of God's involvement. The moving factor is your strong belief. It has ever been so through the ages. Some people have even suffered death for their strong beliefs in this or that God.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 326 by marco]

Your post presented me with a number of unqualified and contradictory claims. You said, "It is incorrect to take conclusions that are correct in our world and apply them to the infinite." (A claim I have failed to see you amply support yet, by the way.) Well, but that is precisely what you are doing here, in making your above claim. Your whole claim is nothing but the finite claim of a finite being about the infinite and therefore self-contradictory. You also said, "such appeal to logic fails when we move out of our finite world." Well, but we can't move out of our finite world, we can't cease and desist being human, finite beings. When was the last time you stepped out of the finite world? It sure seems to me you're the one claiming some sort of esoteric knowledge coming from God-knows-where. Your contradiction only deepens when you claim that you can demonstrate infinity, a claim for which you showed no evidence or proof. OK, how can a finite being demonstrate infinity? How do you know it exists, what character it has, when you are bound to the finite and have already admitted that we can't use anything in our finite world to grasp the infinite? You claim logic, whatever you mean by that term, does not apply to it. OK, so how do you know it isn't then some sort of irrational idea on your part? And how is it that the infinite, whichever you mean by that term, can be demonstrated, but not God? Isn't God infinite?

Your claim that we can know nothing about God isn't anything new. It comes from the traditional via negative or negative theology of classical theism, which argued creaturely, finite attributes cannot be applied to God. hence, we can know only what God is not, not what God is. It is based on the logic of perfection of classical theism, which arbitrarily argued that time, change, contingency, materiality are inferior, evil, a big illusion. Hence, there are other forms of logic, other concepts of perfection that make more sense. Hence, your argument is irrational, based on a lopsided concept of perfection.

Yes, I am well aware that there are rebuttals to proofs for the existence of God. And I am also aware that there are also good, solid counter-rebuttals as well. A solid discussion on God requires we discuss these, not sweep them aside as you are doing. Howver, that would require a separate OP, I think. Largely this OP was on whether or not God changes. And I think we should stick to that, much as I enjoy getting off topic and discussing these matters with you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 327 by dio9]

What is your case that God is wholly immutable, however? The Bible sure doesn't claim that. In over 100 passages, the Bible attributes change to God. Indeed, I can't se how God could finish the sentence if he can't change. Just think of teh change you go through in writing a single sentence.