Do you believe in God's Plan B?
Posted on: May 21, 2009 - 4:57am
Offline
Do you believe in God's Plan B?
A God that is going to create New Heavens [and a new Earth] did not pay enough attention to the first small problem!
What on earth is wrong with the heavens, for heaven's sake?!...
I don’t believe in a God with a Plan B, do you?
- Login to post comments
Plan B implies that Plan A messed up, which means that God's plan A wasn't perfect, which means God's not omnipotent and omniscient, which means God is not God.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Exactly. Very well put!
The plan B idea is just a mental model when youre trying to explain what God is "doing" when technically God doesnt do anything. Its all laid out from the beginning. If God were to do anything like change his mind or interact with mankind then he would be changing but he is a constant. So the teaching is inconsistent with the plan B idea. But since something that has always existed is not a thing, and a thing cannot have infinite attributes, God is considered an entity but technically is a thing and not a thing. Thats a bigger problem than trying to figure out if plan B makes sense. So to believe in God you do have to believe in the possibility of the impossible.
Interesting the concept of "thing"; I like it. Go on...
Read Todangst posts on the supernatural, stephen hawking, incoherence, etc...if you havent. Essentially we have a problem with something always existing even if its the physical universe. And we also have a problem with something coming from nothing. But its more likely that something came from nothing at some point. Nothing is probably pretty unstable and didnt "last long", although measures of time and space arent meaningful at that level. So saying the universe began 15 billion years ago is kind of a mental model. Time is more influenced by relativistic effects anyway as you get closer to the beginning.
On the other hand, to say the universe was a singularity is not very helpful either because that would be a physical point with infinite attributes and that is not logical as a concept either. We cant bash God for being infinite and then let singularites exist and be infinite.
But anyway, if God exists he has to be a thing. But the definition of God is something that has always existed. Theres a problem with things that have always existed. Theyre not things. If God is not a thing he is nothing technically. That is why God both exists and doesnt exist due to that definition...implying incoherence.
I agree with your thinking.
Funny enough, the term “thing/s” occurs more than 200 times in the NT alone, in several theological aspects impossible to define.
Like in Matthew 28:20, “teach them all the things I told you.” KJV.
What things?!…
There isn’t a define “thing” in any gospel.
Take “transubstantiation”, as an example.
"So to believe in God you do have to believe in the possibility of the impossible."
That's an accurate statement.
We humans think in terms of time, space, dimension, matter, elements, logic, reason, etc. But even these, to those who accept God, are elements of His creation. The skeptic can only think within the boundaries of what he is subject to, and then concludes that since the definition of God doesn't fit within the same boundaries we do, therefore God must not exist. The error we make is forcing God to be subject to the laws of our universe, while not considering He may transcend all time and matter itself.