God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

In the recent debates about the Modal Ontological Argument, God or the MGB has been defined (in part) as being omni-present. That is, existing everywhere.
If one watches the first minute of the following video
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

we hear from William Lane Craig, the same guy who proposes the Modal Ontological Argument, that hell is a separation from God.

Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omni-present?

So question for debate - How can standard Christian doctrines of hell be compatible with the definition of God in the Modal Ontological Argument?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #2

Post by Willum »

Obviously he is proposing a more interesting God.
One whom is not all-powerful.
One who struggles with an imperfect universe just as we do.
Who creates prisons to punish (and not reform - why?), just as we do - when we fell helpless to help others.

But as I have said, William Lang is not even worth quoting. I don't understand his popularity, except I suppose he fools some of the people, some of the time. Other than that, his arguments, as you and others has pointed out, have big gaping holes in them.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #3

Post by Goose »

rikuoamero wrote:
we hear from William Lane Craig, the same guy who proposes the Modal Ontological Argument, that hell is a separation from God.

Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omni-present?

So question for debate - How can standard Christian doctrines of hell be compatible with the definition of God in the Modal Ontological Argument?
You are knocking down a strawman here. Although the characteristic of omnipresence isn't logically ruled out, in William L. Craig's (or Alvin Plantinga's) version of the MOA God is defined with the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #4

Post by rikuoamero »

Goose wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
we hear from William Lane Craig, the same guy who proposes the Modal Ontological Argument, that hell is a separation from God.

Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omni-present?

So question for debate - How can standard Christian doctrines of hell be compatible with the definition of God in the Modal Ontological Argument?
You are knocking down a strawman here. Although the characteristic of omnipresence isn't logically ruled out, in William L. Craig's (or Alvin Plantinga's) version of the MOA God is defined with the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
I see your link and raise you this
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... cript/s3-8

there is no place that God is not present.

To sum up, God is omni-present. Everywhere, according to William Lane Craig and certain people on this site who have debated the MOA. In that link, he talks about this contradiction, but I think it to be a load of waffle, in that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. God is present everywhere, but not present in hell, even though he is there, because reasons.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #5

Post by Goose »

rikuoamero wrote:
Goose wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
we hear from William Lane Craig, the same guy who proposes the Modal Ontological Argument, that hell is a separation from God.

Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omni-present?

So question for debate - How can standard Christian doctrines of hell be compatible with the definition of God in the Modal Ontological Argument?
You are knocking down a strawman here. Although the characteristic of omnipresence isn't logically ruled out, in William L. Craig's (or Alvin Plantinga's) version of the MOA God is defined with the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
I see your link and raise you this
Did you read it? Have you read any of the scholarly work on the MOA?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... cript/s3-8

there is no place that God is not present.

To sum up, God is omni-present.
Red Herring. Craig's position on omnipresence has nothing to do with his version of the MOA. Still knocking down a strawman in your OP.

Everywhere, according to William Lane Craig and certain people on this site who have debated the MOA.
Yes Craig argues for omnipresence. Just not in the MOA. Still knocking down a strawman in your OP.

In that link, he talks about this contradiction, but I think it to be a load of waffle, in that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. God is present everywhere, but not present in hell, even though he is there, because reasons.
Is this supposed to be a coherent rebuttal?

Here's Craig's answer again.
William L. Craig wrote:What I would want to do is to try to re-interpret what people mean when they say that God isn’t present in hell because clearly in the way we described it, he is present in hell. He knows what is happening there, and he is causally active there, sustaining it in being. What would it mean? When Scripture says that people are excluded from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might, I think it is talking about a relational rupture. God is not present to the people in hell in a personal, relational sense. It is in that sense that they don’t have an experience of the presence of God. But certainly he is there cognitively and causally, though there is no relationship with God, and in that sense people in hell experience the utter absence of God. I would interpret it as a relational rupture.
Care to give it another crack?

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #6

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 5 by Goose]

Explain to me please how what I'm doing here is a red herring . WLC teaches
1) God is omnipresent.
2) God is not present in hell.

Christians who propose the modal ontological argument often take inspiration from WLC and define their god as being omnipresent, since they think that is one of his maximal attributes. These same Christians often teach that hell is a separation from God.
Which is a contradiction.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #7

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 5 by Goose]

Omnipotence.
Omnipresents.

Those words... They don't mean what you think they mean.
They mean the least thoughts of such a creature are capable of bending diamond. That the desires of such a creature could blacken a thousand suns.

They mean he watches over people in Hell, experiencing whatever emotions it desires to experience as it watches them suffer.

Are you there yet?
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #8

Post by rikuoamero »

To add to my above reply
3)WLC also teaches the MOA.
In all three situations he is talking about the same entity.
So it doesn't matter if Craig never says omnipresence whenever he debates the MOA.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #9

Post by ttruscott »

rikuoamero wrote:Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omnipresent?
1. GOD is omnipresent within HIS created reality but not 'outside' of HIS creation. IF that which is not within created reality is the outer darkness, there is no need to suppose that omnipresence must exist there. IF GOD is everywhere, how can HE be where there is no where? If there is not an uncreated nowhere past the edge of our created reality, then our reality must be infinite...and I don't think the Bible supports that.

2. GOD is with us now but everyone does not feel it and that is to be without HIM, separate from HIM. The separation is our pov, not HIS. I don't particularly like this one...
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 737 times

Re: God, the MOA, Omnipresence and Hell

Post #10

Post by benchwarmer »

Goose wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
Goose wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
we hear from William Lane Craig, the same guy who proposes the Modal Ontological Argument, that hell is a separation from God.

Wait a minute. How can one be separate from God...if God is omni-present?

So question for debate - How can standard Christian doctrines of hell be compatible with the definition of God in the Modal Ontological Argument?
You are knocking down a strawman here. Although the characteristic of omnipresence isn't logically ruled out, in William L. Craig's (or Alvin Plantinga's) version of the MOA God is defined with the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
I see your link and raise you this
Did you read it? Have you read any of the scholarly work on the MOA?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... cript/s3-8

there is no place that God is not present.

To sum up, God is omni-present.
Red Herring. Craig's position on omnipresence has nothing to do with his version of the MOA. Still knocking down a strawman in your OP.

Everywhere, according to William Lane Craig and certain people on this site who have debated the MOA.
Yes Craig argues for omnipresence. Just not in the MOA. Still knocking down a strawman in your OP.

In that link, he talks about this contradiction, but I think it to be a load of waffle, in that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. God is present everywhere, but not present in hell, even though he is there, because reasons.
Is this supposed to be a coherent rebuttal?

Here's Craig's answer again.
William L. Craig wrote:What I would want to do is to try to re-interpret what people mean when they say that God isn’t present in hell because clearly in the way we described it, he is present in hell. He knows what is happening there, and he is causally active there, sustaining it in being. What would it mean? When Scripture says that people are excluded from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might, I think it is talking about a relational rupture. God is not present to the people in hell in a personal, relational sense. It is in that sense that they don’t have an experience of the presence of God. But certainly he is there cognitively and causally, though there is no relationship with God, and in that sense people in hell experience the utter absence of God. I would interpret it as a relational rupture.
Care to give it another crack?
So it seems WLC doesn't think omni means omni? My understanding of the prefix 'omni' means 'all'. The above waffling of WLC seems to be trying to remove some of the places God is not actually present i.e. personally and in relationship. So basically God is everywhere (even within our person, since that is part of everywhere) except He is not there personally. Whatever that means. I call it redefining words to make an argument work.

Another way to look at it is if God is real and Hell is real then God is right there in Hell with everyone, experiencing all the agony with everyone, but doing nothing about it (because presumably it's too late once you find yourself in this Hell place God has built to both be and not be in all ways). So God is all knowing, all loving, and all present, but apparently impotent to sort out the ever growing pile of souls in agony in Hell. Fascinating.

Post Reply