The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

[kedo1981]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?

[Wings]

Apparently God is so good that he gives us freewill to choose to love him. Of course, if we choose not to, when we die we BURN IN HELL!

Penn Jillette : Now there's a kind god.

I hope I bring some marshmallows with me.


As to your question, my money is on God having a laugh from all the suffering. He probably has a TV set in the throne room where he can watch wacky videos of humans falling to their death or getting hurt in various other ways.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The general answers are:

If there is only good, then there is no choice to be made, so free will is meaningless.

To which you can ask, well how about different types of good? Can't we just choose amongst different good things?

To which they will answer -- good and evil make sense only in their reflection of one another. Without good there is no evil, without evil there is no good. Good and evil cannot be defined without each other.

To which you should respond, So? Who cares if they are defined? If you have choices, then you have choices, plain and simple. Why do you need evil?

To which they respond, any comparison between certain goods will result in one being seen as evil -- that definition thing. Something not quite as good as chocolate -- say fruit roll ups -- will be defined as evil if that's as bad as things get.

Just imagine a world of fruit roll ups and no chocolate! It's almost as bad as not winning Powerball.

Time for a beer.

[Robin]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?
Catch all theist answer - we don't know but you can't prove there isn't a good answer.

[slingblade]

Catch all theist answer - we don't know but you can't prove there isn't a good answer.

..or even a god answer.


:p

[A Christian Sceptic]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?

So, do you believe there is evil and sin? If so, why?

[blobru]

Theodicy, is it? Let's see.

Free will allows us to make that great big leap of faith.

Evil is to test our faith.

If we pass the test, keep our faith, we get into heaven, a reality where there is no evil.

Why faith is so important... I have no idea.

Hmmm.

The most basic premise in xtian theology -- is God likes to be believed in. Desperately. He doesn't seem to have faith that we have faith, so God allows evil, which makes us think maybe God isn't good, and tests our faith.

If we think too much, we lose our faith, which pisses God off like you wouldn't believe.

If, however, we stop thinking and accept God is just yanking our chains, nothing personal you know, keep the faith -- God won't fry us on J-Day.

Sure it's *********** up, but apparently God loves us so much that if we don't love Him back He pretty much loses it, sort of like Fatal Attraction, except male, and almighty (and salt-n-pepper brunette).

Always, always loving us. Always watching us. God... is... a stalker?

While we have the free will to love Him back no matter how evil things get. And a reminder we'd better use it, or else.

[tsig]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?

Adam was co-creator of our world. God made it perfect Adam made it human. Without Adam we'd all be walking around with nothing to talk about.

[arthwollipot]

Sounds like a good place to quote Epicurus again...

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing and able?
Then whence comes evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Sounds like a good place to quote Epicurus again...

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing and able?
Then whence comes evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

You also forgot:
Is God currently dealing with evil?
Then ____________________

Is God currently dealing with evil one person at a time?
Then ____________________

[A Christian Sceptic]

Sounds like a good place to quote Epicurus again...

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both willing and able?
Then whence comes evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

There is no evil - someone may say. Then this entire argument doesn't prove God doesn't exist or anything about his character. This argument only carries weight if you believe in evil.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You also forgot:
Is God currently dealing with evil?
Then ____________________

Is God currently dealing with evil one person at a time?
Then ____________________
OK, then is God able to eradicate evil immediately but not willing?
If so, he is malevolent.

Is God willing to eradicate evil immediately, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Etc.

It's the same argument. Claiming that he is in the process but hasn't finished doesn't change anything.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here's some questions for you:

What do you call a parent who never gives a child a chance to make a choice for themself?

What do you call a parent who tries to force the child to make the right choice everytime?

[That_guy]

Here's some questions for you:

What do you call a parent who never gives a child a chance to make a choice for themself?

What do you call a parent who tries to force the child to make the right choice everytime?

Here's a question for you: What do you call a parent who incinerates their child for not saying "Yes sir."?

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is no evil - someone may say. Then this entire argument doesn't prove God doesn't exist or anything about his character. This argument only carries weight if you believe in evil.

You're using a different meaning of evil here. I think you're talking about evil as some inherent badness inside of people--something you can either believe or not believe.

In Epicurus' argument "evil" is the presence of the kind of pain and suffering that God, if he existed, would surely be able to prevent. Every instant of every day, people are starving, sick and in pain, victimized by rape, torture, murder, the infirmity of old age, suffering from natural disasters, loneliness, and so on.

The overlap in the two meanings of evil is that some of this suffering might be caused by the kind of "evil" you're talking about. Even if the kind of evil you're speaking of doesn't exist, the kind Epicurus speaks of is undeniable.

[fuelair]

Theodicy, is it?.

I always spelled that Theoidiocy, but that's just me:D

[A Christian Sceptic]

OK, then is God able to eradicate evil immediately but not willing?
If so, he is malevolent.


Are you talking about Evil men do?
How should he eradicate it? At what point should he eradicate it? Should he smite an evildoer into non-existence? At what point in a person's life should he smite them? The first time they do a small bad deed? Or only when they cross a certain threshold and do a bid bad deed? Should it be when they think of it? At what point does a bad deed become evil? Or once they do it? Or as they are doing it?

How can there be evil without free will? If there is no free will - then what's the agony over evil you have? People are only reacting to previous causes set in motion since the beginning. That a certain action happens to you that you feel is evil is simply the way it was going to happen anyway without any choice on your side or the other persons. You just happened to be in the path of that deed because of all the previous causes before you. Or rather - the choice each of you made was bound to happen no matter what - because there is no free will to make a different choice if you could go back in time and relive the exact same moment.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here's a question for you: What do you call a parent who incinerates their child for not saying "Yes sir."?

The same thing you do.

[That_guy]

The same thing you do.

And yet you worship it. Curious.

[A Christian Sceptic]

And yet you worship it. Curious.

Nope. Sorry. And I'm glad you don't either.

Do you think parents should punish their children?

[kedo1981]

Not really meant to be a discussion good or evil or sin, none of that is relevant to my question.

Let me put it another way.
I’m a 3D animator, everything in an animation is there by design, if I want a bicycle to fly then I make it so, that is the reality I made.

If god creates the reality, then could not there be a way to have free will and no suffering.

We can not, perhaps, imagine a reality where that is the case, I freely do the “right thing” but not have “wrong thing” to choose from.

Could not God make 2+2=5, can God not make the bicycle fly.

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you talking about Evil men do?
How should he eradicate it? At what point should he eradicate it? Should he smite an evildoer into non-existence? At what point in a person's life should he smite them? The first time they do a small bad deed? Or only when they cross a certain threshold and do a bid bad deed? Should it be when they think of it? At what point does a bad deed become evil? Or once they do it? Or as they are doing it?

How can there be evil without free will? If there is no free will - then what's the agony over evil you have? People are only reacting to previous causes set in motion since the beginning. That a certain action happens to you that you feel is evil is simply the way it was going to happen anyway without any choice on your side or the other persons. You just happened to be in the path of that deed because of all the previous causes before you. Or rather - the choice each of you made was bound to happen no matter what - because there is no free will to make a different choice if you could go back in time and relive the exact same moment.

Congratulations on making your god meek and powerless. If your god as as might as you claim, he should be able to eradicate evil without violating free will.

[That_guy]

Nope. Sorry. And I'm glad you don't either.

Do you think parents should punish their children?

I'm confused. I assumed, based on your forum name, you were a Christian. My mistake.

[Beerina]

The general answers are:

If there is only good, then there is no choice to be made, so free will is meaningless.

To which you can ask, well how about different types of good? Can't we just choose amongst different good things?

To which they will answer -- good and evil make sense only in their reflection of one another. Without good there is no evil, without evil there is no good. Good and evil cannot be defined without each other.

To which you should respond, So? Who cares if they are defined? If you have choices, then you have choices, plain and simple. Why do you need evil?

To which they respond, any comparison between certain goods will result in one being seen as evil -- that definition thing. Something not quite as good as chocolate -- say fruit roll ups -- will be defined as evil if that's as bad as things get.

Just imagine a world of fruit roll ups and no chocolate! It's almost as bad as not winning Powerball.

Time for a beer.



I don't accept this argument, but even if it's true, the magnitude of evil that's possible is completely unacceptable.

We don't need 9 year olds being raped and buried alive in order to live a decent life. We don't need pain to be so agonizing, or prolonged, in order to live a decent life.

I've always said all along, to a similar issue, that it may be in the nature of such a god to create humanity, it does not follow that one puts them in a universe where they could harm each other.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Congratulations on making your god meek and powerless. If your god as as might as you claim, he should be able to eradicate evil without violating free will.

Tell me how.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not really meant to be a discussion good or evil or sin, none of that is relevant to my question.

Let me put it another way.
I’m a 3D animator, everything in an animation is there by design, if I want a bicycle to fly then I make it so, that is the reality I made.

If god creates the reality, then could not there be a way to have free will and no suffering.

We can not, perhaps, imagine a reality where that is the case, I freely do the “right thing” but not have “wrong thing” to choose from.

Could not God make 2+2=5, can God not make the bicycle fly.

How do you know he hasn't somewhere? :)

It seems to me there is a way to have free will without suffering caused by bad choices and that would be everyone making the good choices.

Or are you really saying - can there be a reality where there is no bad choice option?

I'm not sure - doesn't a choice imply there is at minimum two different options? Both choices don't always have to be good or bad but sometimes they will be. If I'm angry - can I choose not to throw something if I can't choose to throw something? Can I choose to not steal something if I can't choose to steal it?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm confused. I assumed, based on your forum name, you were a Christian. My mistake.

So - do you think parents should punish their children?

[That_guy]

So - do you think parents should punish their children?

In a manner proportional to what they've done wrong, sure. Feel free to skip to the point.

[A Christian Sceptic]

In a manner proportional to what they've done wrong, sure. Feel free to skip to the point.

Well - I feel the exact same way.

If I put my child in time out for an amount of time proportional for whatever he did - that's appropriate. If I put him in time out for the rest of his life - that's not appropriate.

If I put him in time out and tell him he can leave once he decides to apologize to his sister for hitting her - that's appropriate. If he refuses to apologize right away then he'll be determining the length of his punishment.

I'm not sure if you have children - but they can be pretty stubborn. The only people I've met that can be more stubborn are ... adults.

[That_guy]

Well - I feel the exact same way.

If I put my child in time out for an amount of time proportional for whatever he did - that's appropriate. If I put him in time out for the rest of his life - that's not appropriate.

If I put him in time out and tell him he can leave once he decides to apologize to his sister for hitting her - that's appropriate. If he refuses to apologize right away then he'll be determining the length of his punishment.

So you think there's a "get out of hell free" loophole you can use once you get there?

[Yoink]

I can certainly imagine an omnipotent god who makes a universe in which people have free will to make choices that will result in either eternal bliss or eternal damnation. (Well, I can imagine it in a "God moves in mysterious ways" kinda way--I can't actually see how omnipotence can be squared with other being's free will, but let's leave that for another argument).

The real problem, though, is that I can't imagine why a loving God would bother with this. In the Christian mythology, God is running a kind of experiment. Eventually he'll shut the experiment down (apocalypse) and then for the rest of eternity we'll have a hell full of people in torment (those who failed the experiment) and a heaven full of people basking in God's eternal love (those who succeeded in the experiment). Well, why not cut to the chase? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he already knows before he begins who the blessed souls will be, what their characters will be etc etc--why not just create them ex nihilo in that blessed state and skip creating the suffering ones? Why run the experiment when you know the outcome and it causes needless pain?

[cyborg]

Here's some questions for you:

What do you call a parent who never gives a child a chance to make a choice for themself?

What do you call a parent who tries to force the child to make the right choice everytime?

In Christianity's case that would be a parent trying to prevent their child GOING TO HELL!

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't accept this argument, but even if it's true, the magnitude of evil that's possible is completely unacceptable.

We don't need 9 year olds being raped and buried alive in order to live a decent life. We don't need pain to be so agonizing, or prolonged, in order to live a decent life.

I've always said all along, to a similar issue, that it may be in the nature of such a god to create humanity, it does not follow that one puts them in a universe where they could harm each other.

To which the argument runs -- magnitude, we don't need no stinkin' magnitude!

What is magnitude? We have no high cliff from which to stand and judge good and evil -- they are merely relational terms. What magnitude? There is good and there is evil -- for all we know, all that other stuff we call evil is really good compared to what could happen, it's just not as good as the other stuff we call good. How could we really judge magnitude?

OK, then, try this one on -- it has a couple of very big whopper assumptions in it, but it's a nifty argument nonetheless.

Let us assume that existence trumps non-existence independent of the actual experience within that existence.

If that is the case, then an all-good God would want to maximize the good -- so, maximize existence.

Suppose that this is only one of infinite universes.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there must be some difference amongst the universes for them to actually 'be' -- otherwise they are merely the same thing and it isn't clear what space *is* in a scenario in which infinite universes exist.

In this scenario there will be exactly one perfect universe and one perfectly horrible/evil universe and an infinite number of universes in-between.

If God want to maximize the good, He will create this infinite number of universes so as to maximize the number of existents. A natural consequence will be that most universes will contain a mixture of good and evil to varying degrees, with some very, very good and some very, very evil.

We happen to live in one of the intermediates.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you think there's a "get out of hell free" loophole you can use once you get there?

I suppose loophole is what you can call it - I call it repentence. That is what remedial punishment is for - to change behavior. What I don't know is whether, even if there is that option, people in that situation would even want to take it. There's plenty of responses here in this forum where people blatantly say (facetiously I'm sure since they are discussing something they don't believe in) they'd prefer hell to any heaven they can imagine - because hell would be more fun, or more realistic, or less boring, or what have you.

[drkitten]

What do you call a parent who never gives a child a chance to make a choice for themself?

What do you call a parent who tries to force the child to make the right choice everytime?

In both cases, I call them "not God."

[That_guy]

I suppose loophole is what you can call it - I call it repentence. That is what remedial punishment is for - to change behavior. What I don't know is whether, even if there is that option, people in that situation would even want to take it. There's plenty of responses here in this forum where people blatantly say (facetiously I'm sure since they are discussing something they don't believe in) they'd prefer hell to any heaven they can imagine - because hell would be more fun, or more realistic, or less boring, or what have you.

Even granting that you believe hell isn't eternal, but some sort of "naughty chair," don't you think it seems a rather harsh punishment? Would you tell your child "Believe in the Easter Bunny and get candy, but refuse to believe and I'll set you on fire... but only until you believe."

[A Christian Sceptic]

Even granting that you believe hell isn't eternal, but some sort of "naughty chair," don't you think it seems a rather harsh punishment? Would you tell your child "Believe in the Easter Bunny and get candy, but refuse to believe and I'll set you on fire... but only until you believe."



I think Sheol (OT), Gehenna, Hades and Tartaroo (those are the words to describe this concept) are metaphors for something that takes place and the place (state?) - often the punishment. How literally you want to take those metaphors are going to be up to you.

If you think God has to be a tyrant - then you'll take them probably quite literally. ;)

[That_guy]

I think Sheol (OT), Gehenna, Hades and Tartaroo (those are the words to describe this concept) are metaphors for something that takes place and the place (state?) - often the punishment. How literally you want to take those metaphors are going to be up to you.

If you think God has to be a tyrant - then you'll take them probably quite literally. ;)

You forgot "lake of fire," but that's beside the point. It sounds like there's no losing in your peculiar brand of Christianity, so why even argue the point? If your god is real, and hell is actually a slap on the wrist, I'll live my life my way and "repent" when it's been proven to me. Sounds like a plan.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You forgot "lake of fire," but that's beside the point. It sounds like there's no losing in your peculiar brand of Christianity, so why even argue the point? If your god is real, and hell is actually a slap on the wrist, I'll live my life my way and "repent" when it's been proven to me. Sounds like a plan.

I hope you do when He does.

[Safe-Keeper]

I never understood Christians who think rape, murder, natural disasters, physical abuse and so on have to exist, because 'otherwise we wouldn't have free will'. Either we are 100% free, or we are 100% mindless robots. It's such a black-and-white world view that it's almost scary. I also don't understand people who apparently really can't understand for the life of them how their omnipotent God would end evil.

I'd rather live in a world with no rape, murder, dictatorships or natural disasters and have otherwise completely free will... than to have completely free will and live in a world where these things happen. I've never understood how rape and dictatorships are so important to Christians, but apparently they for some reason are.

[Mister Agenda]

Tell me how.

Refrain from allowing people who will choose to do evil from being conceived. Oh, and stop letting people, especially children, die in slow and agonizing ways. Really, why should we need to experience or become inured to awful suffering for the sake of heaven? Is it not as nice a place as advertised, perhaps?

[Mister Agenda]

I suppose loophole is what you can call it - I call it repentence. That is what remedial punishment is for - to change behavior. What I don't know is whether, even if there is that option, people in that situation would even want to take it. There's plenty of responses here in this forum where people blatantly say (facetiously I'm sure since they are discussing something they don't believe in) they'd prefer hell to any heaven they can imagine - because hell would be more fun, or more realistic, or less boring, or what have you.

They're just putting on a brave front. Under torture they'll say whatever God wants to hear.

[Dr H]

Congratulations on making your god meek and powerless. If your god as as might as you claim, he should be able to eradicate evil without violating free will.
Tell me how.

Wouldn't that be within the abilities of an omnipotent God?

You should ask Him.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you talking about Evil men do?
I spelled out very clearly what I'm talking about. Please re-read my post. It is entirely possible not to believe that people can be "evil" in the way you're using it, yet the existence of evil (meaning pain and suffering) is undeniable.

How should he eradicate it?
You tell me. I don't believe in such a thing as an omnipotent and all-compassionate God.
At what point should he eradicate it? Should he smite an evildoer into non-existence?
You're still using a different definition of evil.
For a moment, forget about evil-doers. Consider the suffering caused by a natural disaster or the suffering caused by disease or old age. Do you believe God has the ability to eradicate these? If he does, but chooses not to, how can you consider him all-compassionate? If he can't, then how can you consider him all-powerful?


At what point in a person's life should he smite them? The first time they do a small bad deed? Or only when they cross a certain threshold and do a bid bad deed? Should it be when they think of it? At what point does a bad deed become evil? Or once they do it? Or as they are doing it?
Again, you're still operating under a different concept of evil. Try using instead "pain and suffering" instead of "evil" since you can't seem to grasp this usage. Then it's obvious that smiting someone would actually cause more pain and suffering, not eliminate it.

How can there be evil without free will? If there is no free will - then what's the agony over evil you have? People are only reacting to previous causes set in motion since the beginning. That a certain action happens to you that you feel is evil is simply the way it was going to happen anyway without any choice on your side or the other persons. You just happened to be in the path of that deed because of all the previous causes before you. Or rather - the choice each of you made was bound to happen no matter what - because there is no free will to make a different choice if you could go back in time and relive the exact same moment.
You're confusing two different arguments. The free-will argument that the OP was talking about is a different argument than Epicurus'.

The free will problem is more of an incompatibility between various characteristics attributed to God (that he is omniscient, all-compassionate, and doles out reward and punishment, notably) on the one hand and human free will on the other. IF he knows ahead of time every decision you will make, then you really don't have free will. He really made you exactly the way you are. It wouldn't be very compassionate to judge you and punish or reward you based on actions you weren't really free to do any different.

If you actually have free will, and your future actions aren't pre-determined, then the judging and rewarding and punishing makes sense, but then God is not omniscient since he doesn't know in advance what you are going to do.

The OP said he spotted a fallacy in this argument, but he did not. He just said that since God makes all the rules, a fallacy is OK. In other words, kedo1981 did not show how free will and omniscience are logically consistent, but just observed that God doesn't have to be logically consistent. (Again, kedo1981 didn't spot a fallacy, he's only saying that God can be inconsistent or self-contradictory since he makes the rules.)

This is not the same argument as Epicurus' argument regarding the problem of evil.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I spelled out very clearly what I'm talking about. Please re-read my post.


My post was posted simultaneously as your description of what you meant by evil.


You're still using a different definition of evil.


No - I'm not. There are two types of so called evil. Evil men do to each other, themselves, and their environment. Things they do.

And natural evil (if it can even be called evil in the same way or sense) - a rock falls on you, you get sick, earthquakes, etc - weaknesses and consequences that befall you from the environment - the material world that's not a person.)


For a moment, forget about evil-doers.


OK


Consider the suffering caused by a natural disaster


What makes it a disaster?


or the suffering caused by disease or old age.


What specifically is happening with a disease or old age or an injury?

I suppose if we were all a bit looser on the atomic level - than that rock would fall through us without doing harm or that knife would not leave a cut through us when a person tried to stab us - we'd be more like ... ghosts. Of course then we couldn't touch each other and hug each other and play catch. But maybe it could've been where only hurtful things would cause our atoms to temporarily seperate so we wouldn't be harmed - but we'd have to be careful not to throw the ball too hard or miss the ball.

Can you imagine playing catch with a toddler who's just learning how to catch:

Dad: OK - ready - catch. (Throws the ball)

Kid: (Misses the ball - the ball goes through the kids head and bounces down the hall.) Sorry Dad. (The kids runs and gets the ball)

Dad: OK - try again. (Throws the ball)

Kid tries to catch the ball - it goes through his hands and lands on the floor.

Kid: Dad - you threw it too hard again.

Dad: Dang it.

Of course - that assumes only humans atoms would seperate to stop the damage. But what if all atoms did it anytime damage would be done to any object? That ball might not bounce down the hall once it passed through the kid's head - it might bounce through the floor and through the earth and out into space.

-------------

But maybe not giving us nerves would have been better. No pain or suffering (or pleasure for that matter).

Think about that world.

Jon: Hey Bob.

Bob: Hey Jon

Jon: You need some help?

Bob: Why?

Jon: You've got an xbox controller stuck in your $%^%

Bob: Is that where it went? I was wrestling with the kids ... Hey by the way Jon You've got a kitchen knife stuck in your forehead.

Jon: Yeah - Me and the missus are having issues.

[New Ager]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.

Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?


Most life doesn't experience evil.

But, with freewill comes responsibility to make one's own choices. If ones chooses to go against God, that is one's choice.

[New Ager]

Apparently God is so good that he gives us freewill to choose to love him. Of course, if we choose not to, when we die we BURN IN HELL!



Actually, many faiths do not believe this.



As to your question, my money is on God having a laugh from all the suffering. He probably has a TV set in the throne room where he can watch wacky videos of humans falling to their death or getting hurt in various other ways.

Actually, that is what mankind does.

[New Ager]

The general answers are:

If there is only good, then there is no choice to be made, so free will is meaningless.

To which you can ask, well how about different types of good? Can't we just choose amongst different good things?

To which they will answer -- good and evil make sense only in their reflection of one another. Without good there is no evil, without evil there is no good. Good and evil cannot be defined without each other.

To which you should respond, So? Who cares if they are defined? If you have choices, then you have choices, plain and simple. Why do you need evil?



Actually, you are correct. We don't evil. Mankind chose that path, but they didn't have too.

Others haven't.

[Wings]

Actually, many faiths do not believe this.

Okay FINE! :( The Christian God is so good that he gives us freewill to choose to love him. Of course, if we choose not to, when we die we BURN IN HELL!

Ya happy? :D

Actually, that is what mankind does.

Oh u.

[New Ager]

Theodicy, is it? Let's see.

Free will allows us to make that great big leap of faith.

Evil is to test our faith.

If we pass the test, keep our faith, we get into heaven, a reality where there is no evil.

Why faith is so important... I have no idea.

Hmmm.

The most basic premise in xtian theology -- is God likes to be believed in. Desperately. He doesn't seem to have faith that we have faith, so God allows evil, which makes us think maybe God isn't good, and tests our faith.

If we think too much, we lose our faith, which pisses God off like you wouldn't believe.

If, however, we stop thinking and accept God is just yanking our chains, nothing personal you know, keep the faith -- God won't fry us on J-Day.

Sure it's *********** up, but apparently God loves us so much that if we don't love Him back He pretty much loses it, sort of like Fatal Attraction, except male, and almighty (and salt-n-pepper brunette).

Always, always loving us. Always watching us. God... is... a stalker?

While we have the free will to love Him back no matter how evil things get. And a reminder we'd better use it, or else.

Actually, you are arguing against Biblical christianity, not God.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My post was posted simultaneously as your description of what you meant by evil.
Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that.

So does it make sense now?



No - I'm not. There are two types of so called evil. Evil men do to each other, themselves, and their environment. Things they do.

And natural evil (if it can even be called evil in the same way or sense) - a rock falls on you, you get sick, earthquakes, etc - weaknesses and consequences that befall you from the environment - the material world that's not a person.)

Sounds like you've enumerated three. I'd lump what you call "natural evil" and what you call "the things evil people do" into one category. That's the definition of "evil" as used in Epicurus' the Problem of Evil argument.

Again, if it helps, substitute "pain and suffering" for "evil".

I don't care for your category of "the things evil people do" because, as you pointed out, reasonable minds can disagree on the existence of "evil" as pertaining to the nature of a person. Even if that sort of evil didn't exist, those actions (rape, murder, torture, etc.) are still done and still cause grievous pain and suffering.



What makes it a disaster?

What specifically is happening with a disease or old age or an injury?

How are these questions relevant? Do you know what a natural disaster is? Do you know what disease, old age and injury mean? I'm just using these terms in their normal conventional meaning.

If God is omnipotent, he could prevent all these things, but chooses not to, therefore he is malevolent.

If God is not malevolent, then he cannot prevent these things, in which case he's not omnipotent.



I suppose if we were all a bit looser on the atomic level - than that rock would fall through us without doing harm or that knife would not leave a cut through us when a person tried to stab us - we'd be more like ... ghosts.
Again, this is an irrelevant observation. That isn't the way reality is.



Of course then we couldn't touch each other and hug each other and play catch. But maybe it could've been where only hurtful things would cause our atoms to temporarily seperate so we wouldn't be harmed - but we'd have to be careful not to throw the ball too hard or miss the ball.

So God can't make the world such that pain and suffering doesn't exist without giving up good things too. I'd accept that. It sounds like a pretty good argument that the all-powerful and all-good God is a logically inconsistent idea.


But maybe not giving us nerves would have been better. No pain or suffering (or pleasure for that matter).

Again, it sounds very much like you're arguing that this is something God cannot do (that is, he cannot create or give us a world with good but not evil--or with pleasure but not pain to use your terminology). I agree. There is no such thing as an omnipotent and benevolent God.

ETA: You keep asking how this would be possible, and that is precisely what Epicurus asked. The point is that it's not possible and the concept of a God who is omnipotent and supremely benevolent is self-contradictory given the existence of evil (i.e. pain and suffering).

[kedo1981]

The bible implies that in heaven you will have a fulfilling (after) life and freewill and not have the opportunity to sin (sin is tossed into the lake of fire), so you can according to the bible, both free will and no chance to sin, (is the bible fibbing)
But the reality now is suffering, looks like a big “plot hole” to me.

[A Christian Sceptic]

How are these questions relevant? Do you know what a natural disaster is?


Is an avalanche or earthquake on mars a natural disaster?


Do you know what disease


A malfunctioning?


old age a


A stopping?


and injury mean?


Semi-permenant and sometimes permenant severing of atomic bonds?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is an avalanche or earthquake on mars a natural disaster?
A malfunctioning?
A stopping?

I don't see any relevance. (And I'm not even going to bother with "injury" defined as severing of atomic bonds.)

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Does this question have anything to do with what we've been talking about? If so, please explain how.

To me, the weakest part of Epicurus' argument is a point you haven't mentioned: the assumption that a compassionate God would eradicate evil. Generally, Christian apologists have focused on that premise. Maybe for a non-human like God "compassion" or "benevolence" has a different meaning.

The reply is that the words "compassion" and "benevolence" only have the meaning we conventionally agree on. In the way they're conventionally used, a benevolent being who could prevent suffering would. Otherwise, you might as well make up a new term to describe God and admit that that word has nothing in common with the conventional meaning of words like "compassion" or "benevolence". Why not say God is "all-glumptious." All-glumptious means that God does whatever he does, and normal human motives don't apply to him. If you made that argument, Epicurus wouldn't be able to show a contradiction between omnipotence and all-gluptiousness in the face of the existence of evil.

In fact, though, most Christians do say God is all-good or all-benevolent, as if these words bear some relation to their conventional meanings.

[New Ager]

If god creates the reality, then could not there be a way to have free will and no suffering.



Sure there is. By making the right choices.




We can not, perhaps, imagine a reality where that is the case, I freely do the “right thing” but not have “wrong thing” to choose from.



Then, there would not be free will. It would just be a robot.

[New Ager]

Okay FINE! :( The Christian God is so good that he gives us freewill to choose to love him. Of course, if we choose not to, when we die we BURN IN HELL!



Actually, that's not what Christians believe.

Although, I don't believe their beliefs anyway.



Ya happy? :D



Always. I have God in my life.

[Yoink]

New Ager: could I ask you to answer the question I posed earlier in the thread: why does God need to create Earth at all? If the point of Earth is to allow people to find their way either to Heaven or to Hell, why not simply create a Heaven that is full of the souls who will eventually get there in any case. I mean, if God is omnipotent and omniscient he knows from the beginning of time who will end up in Heaven. If he is omnipotent then he can create them ex nihilo in that final state, and doesn't need to run them through the experimental maze of their time on earth to discover if they're really "good" or not. And then he can avoid all the sorry business of both life on earth AND of the eternal sufferings of the damned.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, what possible purpose does life on Earth serve? It's only a blip, after all, in the fast sea of eternity that will follow the apocalypse. It seems hard to reconcile all this needless suffering (including the eternal suffering of the damned) with such a God.

[Safe-Keeper]

Then, there would not be free will. It would just be a robot.Again, what is it with you guys and not being able to see shades of grey?

It's like me complaining that my new car doesn't need an air conditioner since I live in freaking Norway, and you go, 'yeah, we could strip it of all its features, engines and all, but then it'd be useless, right?'.

Seriously, it's getting annoying.

[New Ager]

New Ager: could I ask you to answer the question I posed earlier in the thread: why does God need to create Earth at all? If the point of Earth is to allow people to find their way either to Heaven or to Hell, why not simply create a Heaven that is full of the souls who will eventually get there in any case. I mean, if God is omnipotent and omniscient he knows from the beginning of time who will end up in Heaven. If he is omnipotent then he can create them ex nihilo in that final state, and doesn't need to run them through the experimental maze of their time on earth to discover if they're really "good" or not. And then he can avoid all the sorry business of both life on earth AND of the eternal sufferings of the damned.



There is no hell.

People were created to expand life and God.



If God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, what possible purpose does life on Earth serve? It's only a blip, after all, in the fast sea of eternity that will follow the apocalypse. It seems hard to reconcile all this needless suffering (including the eternal suffering of the damned) with such a God.

God showed people the way in the beginning and many followed, but some didn't. Those that followed the divine path never did experience pain or suffering.

Sadly, most of us made bad choices and we find ourselves here still trying to make our way back to God.

And the suffering is caused by mankind. God has never harmed anyone. God gives people the energy and life to create and mankind has decided mostly to create negativity and evil and so that's what they experience.

So what goes around, then comes around, is not only a saying, it is a divine truth that no one on this Earth can escape.

There are only two choices. Return to God and the divine or keep on suffering life after life as a human.

[Silentknight]

If God did not want people to sin, then he could have defined sin as something which violates the laws of the universe. For example, God could have made it a sin for people to walk through walls, kill others using psychic powers, teleport, bilocate, or levitate under their own power. This would have made it easy for God to prevent people from sinning, while still allowing them to act as they choose. One can also see how anyone who really possessed these powers would be very dangerous indeed, so it's quite reasonable to define them as sins.
You also forgot:
Is God currently dealing with evil?
Then ____________________

Is God currently dealing with evil one person at a time?
Then ____________________

The answer to both would be that God is not omnipresent; i.e. he can't be in all places at all times. While this gets him off the hook as far as being evil, it still goes to show that the concept of God only makes sense if you set limits on it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Tell me how.

For starters, humans could have a natural inclination towards goodness stronger than we have now which would no more violate free will than our inclination to eat and breathe. We could not be plagued with diseases and famines and floods genetic disorders and malformed babies. We could have a clear, concise, and non-self-conflicting holy book which outlines god's wishes and instructions with divine perfection.

An omnipotent, good, and all-knowing god would not have created this universe.

Free will did not create harlequin babies, plague, or blight. It did not create sparsity and hunger. How you absolve your allegedly omnipotent creator of its responsibility for the world you claim it has made.

[New Ager]

Again, what is it with you guys and not being able to see shades of grey?

It's like me complaining that my new car doesn't need an air conditioner since I live in freaking Norway, and you go, 'yeah, we could strip it of all its features, engines and all, but then it'd be useless, right?'.



I have a big knowledge of God and life, but little about car repair. Rephrase the question and I'll see if I can answer it.

[New Ager]

Again, what is it with you guys and not being able to see shades of grey?

It's like me complaining that my new car doesn't need an air conditioner since I live in freaking Norway, and you go, 'yeah, we could strip it of all its features, engines and all, but then it'd be useless, right?'.



I have a big knowledge of God and life, but little about car repair. Rephrase the question and I'll see if I can answer it.

[Safe-Keeper]

And the suffering is caused by mankind.Classic answer. Look around you. There are landslides, volcanic eruptions, illnesses, aging, the list goes on.

Have humans created landslides and cancer? That's one cheery belief, there.

[Blodwin]

The whole Christian idea of a god allowing free will doesn't make any sense anyway. It's just another one of those things they got wrong because they didn't understand the science when they invented the stories.

For over a century now we've known that time is not an absolute, it's just another property of our universe which must have been created by this omnipotent "God" character whenever he/she/it created everything else. That means that this God is no more bound by time than he/she/it is bound by gravity, or arthritis, or the weather. To say that God set the universe running and then sat back to see what would happen is completely meaningless as God is outside time. From God's point of view the entire universe from the beginning until the end of time is laid out in front of him/her/it like a 4 dimensional map, because that's the way he/she/it created it. There's nothing special about what we call the beginning, it's just one point on this 4D map. So the things we do, we do because that's the way God made us do them.

Now, there's no reason why there should only be one timeline within this universe. To simplify things, imagine that there is only one person in this universe, and that there is one point in this person's life where they are free to make a choice beteen "good" or "evil". Because God created the entire universe from beginning to end, then the only way that person can be said to make a genuine choice is if both branches emanating from this decision point actually exist (if only one route existed then there wouldn't be a choice to make). But if both branches exist then there is one version of time where the person made the "good" choice, and another version where they made the "bad" choice. So it just depends which branch you happen to be considering as to whether the person behaved properly or not. So where does free will come in?

[New Ager]

Classic answer. Look around you. There are landslides, volcanic eruptions, illnesses, aging, the list goes on.

Have humans created landslides and cancer?


Yes, mankind has created all negativity on this earth. It's why there doesn't need to be a devil. Mankind is evil enough in itself.



That's one cheery belief, there.

And believing there is no God and no purpose for living is cheery?

[Yoink]

There is no hell.

People were created to expand life and God.



God showed people the way in the beginning and many followed, but some didn't. Those that followed the divine path never did experience pain or suffering.

Sadly, most of us made bad choices and we find ourselves here still trying to make our way back to God.

And the suffering is caused by mankind. God has never harmed anyone. God gives people the energy and life to create and mankind has decided mostly to create negativity and evil and so that's what they experience.

So what goes around, then comes around, is not only a saying, it is a divine truth that no one on this Earth can escape.

There are only two choices. Return to God and the divine or keep on suffering life after life as a human.
Great--no hell. I like it. But why bother creating us to suffer? You do believe in heaven, right? Why not just create the beings who eventually make it to heaven. If you believe God is omnipotent then you believe he has the power to run the whole earth experiment purely in his mind. He could then nod his head (or wiggle his ears or whatever) and "bip" all the people who would ever have lived on earth and successfully turned to him would be there in heaven and eternally blissful. Why bother to actually create the world in which people suffer--unless god is not actually omnipotent, but just a kind of demon or very-powerful-space-alien who has to actually run the experiment in order to select the "heaven-worthy" souls?

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing that some theists will claim that their god is all-powerful and then.....

[thaiboxerken]

So god is all-powerful but has limitations?

[A Christian Sceptic]

How are these questions relevant? Do you know what a natural disaster is? Do you know what disease, old age and injury mean? I'm just using these terms in their normal conventional meaning.


I was pointint out that a natural disaster is only a natural disaster when it hurts humans in some way - usually on a large scale.

An avalanche is only natural when it's an avalanche.

If that avalanche kills lots of people or destroys homes then we call it a natural disaster.

We build our houses on earthquake faults and get mad at God when an earthquakes happens on those faults and the buildings collapsing kills people.

We build a city below sea level and when man made dikes brake we get mad at God when water flows to the lowest point like water does.

We build cities at the foot of active volcanoes and we get mad at God when that volcano erupts and the city is destroyed. (Watch what people say when Vesuvius erupts and destroys Naples.)

[Yoink]

I was pointint out that a natural disaster is only a natural disaster when it hurts humans in some way - usually on a large scale.

An avalanche is only natural when it's an avalanche.

If that avalanche kills lots of people or destroys homes then we call it a natural disaster.

We build our houses on earthquake faults and get mad at God when an earthquakes happens on those faults and the buildings collapsing kills people.

We build a city below sea level and when man made dikes brake we get mad at God when water flows to the lowest point like water does.

We build cities at the foot of active volcanoes and we get mad at God when that volcano erupts and the city is destroyed. (Watch what people say when Vesuvius erupts and destroys Naples.)
So if a meteor hits your home and kills your family its your fault for building in a galaxy in which meteors present a real risk?

After all, you could have just hopped into your rocket ship and found a less meteor-y galaxy.

Oh, and if you get an inherited genetic disease and die screaming in agony, I guess that's your fault for just choosing bad parents, right? I mean, you could have just hopped into your time machine and told them not to procreate.

Look, nobody's saying you're not allowed to believe in a loving God, but try to be intellectually honest about the problem.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So if a meteor hits your home and kills your family its your fault for building in a galaxy in which meteors present a real risk?


No - that's probably God. ;)



Oh, and if you get an inherited genetic disease and die screaming in agony, I guess that's your fault for just choosing bad parents, right? I mean, you could have just hopped into your time machine and told them not to procreate.


I haven't even talked about diseases - I was talking about natural disasters.
And no - the consequences of natural disasters aren't always our own fault - but a large percent is - don't you think? At least - that's what my geology professor taught, and I tend to agree.

[New Ager]

For starters, humans could have a natural inclination towards goodness stronger than we have now which would no more violate free will than our inclination to eat and breathe.



They did in the beginning.



We could not be plagued with diseases and famines and floods genetic disorders and malformed babies. We could have a clear, concise, and non-self-conflicting holy book which outlines god's wishes and instructions with divine perfection.



We do and we did way back when. But, many of mankind when shown the proof that so many of you crave today still did not listen, so God withdrew and let mankind see how could survive with less of his blessings.



Free will did not create harlequin babies, plague, or blight. It did not create sparsity and hunger.



Free will that chose the human over God did.

[New Ager]

For over a century now we've known that time is not an absolute, it's just another property of our universe which must have been created by this omnipotent "God" character whenever he/she/it created everything else. That means that this God is no more bound by time than he/she/it is bound by gravity, or arthritis, or the weather.



For God, there is no time nor space. Those things only exist on the human level.



To say that God set the universe running and then sat back to see what would happen is completely meaningless as God is outside time. From God's point of view the entire universe from the beginning until the end of time is laid out in front of him/her/it like a 4 dimensional map, because that's the way he/she/it created it. There's nothing special about what we call the beginning, it's just one point on this 4D map.



God is always acting and never just sits back.

And there is no beginning nor end for God. Always been and always will be.



So the things we do, we do because that's the way God made us do them.



I hope that's not the excuse you are going to give when you leave this Earth.

You comment is just silly and illogical.

God never made us do anything. But, he does encourage.



Now, there's no reason why there should only be one timeline within this universe. To simplify things, imagine that there is only one person in this universe, and that there is one point in this person's life where they are free to make a choice beteen "good" or "evil". Because God created the entire universe from beginning to end, then the only way that person can be said to make a genuine choice is if both branches emanating from this decision point actually exist (if only one route existed then there wouldn't be a choice to make). But if both branches exist then there is one version of time where the person made the "good" choice, and another version where they made the "bad" choice. So it just depends which branch you happen to be considering as to whether the person behaved properly or not. So where does free will come in?

You're arguing against God with alternate timelines?!?!

You've been watching too much Sci-Fi. :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was pointint out that a natural disaster is only a natural disaster when it hurts humans in some way - usually on a large scale.

An avalanche is only natural when it's an avalanche.

If that avalanche kills lots of people or destroys homes then we call it a natural disaster.

We build our houses on earthquake faults and get mad at God when an earthquakes happens on those faults and the buildings collapsing kills people.

We build a city below sea level and when man made dikes brake we get mad at God when water flows to the lowest point like water does.

We build cities at the foot of active volcanoes and we get mad at God when that volcano erupts and the city is destroyed. (Watch what people say when Vesuvius erupts and destroys Naples.)
So?

An omnipotent God still has the power to prevent those things from happening, yet doesn't. Therefore, he is either omnipotent, but malevolent, or he is not omnipotent (or more accurately, there no omnipotent and all-compassionate God exists).

You don't seem to be grasping the basic point of Epicurus' argument.

It doesn't matter whether the evil is man-made or natural. (Would you consider a parent who let his infant child play with razor blades not guilty of negligence because it was the baby's fault for cutting himself? For that matter, if he could, a good parent would stop a teenager from blowing his own brains out with a gun because he wants to commit suicide.) The point is that an omnipotent God can prevent it, but doesn't. Therefore a benevolent and omnipotent God doesn't exist. (Note: Epicurus' argument leaves open two possibilities that most theists reject as not fulfilling the definition of God: a malevolent omnipotent God could exist or a benevolent but not-omnipotent God could exist.)

I only asked you to think about natural disasters, disease, aging and so on just to get you off of associating evil with sinfulness. The rape, murder, torture and so on are also "evils" in this usage. (It just doesn't matter whether you consider the doers of this stuff to be evil people or not--that's the other usage of "evil", not the one Epicurus is talking about. The rape and murder and so on is undeniable. It exists.)

This is a slightly archaic usage of the term "evil". It's the same usage as in Jesus' statement in Matthew 6:34:
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Basically, it means, don't worry about tomorrow; we've got enough problems to worry about today. This is the kind of "evil" that an omnipotent and all-compassionate God could and would remove.

[New Ager]

Great--no hell. I like it. But why bother creating us to suffer?



He didn't. Mankind chose that path.


You do believe in heaven, right? Why not just create the beings who eventually make it to heaven. If you believe God is omnipotent then you believe he has the power to run the whole earth experiment purely in his mind. He could then nod his head (or wiggle his ears or whatever) and "bip" all the people who would ever have lived on earth and successfully turned to him would be there in heaven and eternally blissful. Why bother to actually create the world in which people suffer--unless god is not actually omnipotent, but just a kind of demon or very-powerful-space-alien who has to actually run the experiment in order to select the "heaven-worthy" souls?

This isn't an experiment. God created us to expand life. We are all creators and that's what we are here for to expand, life and God.

But, sadly, some of us chose a different path. And with free will, God has let us "experiment" what it's like to turn from the divine path.

But, even after 4½ million years, his patience and mercy still enfold us and we are still given chance after chance to recognize that only with God can we make it.

Without God, we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.

[JoeEllison]

The whole "God" thing is pretty ****** stupid. If we posit a "God" who can do anything, any flaw in his creation, from "Satan" to the creation of the common cold,is a demonstration of the fact that the whole "God" thing is obviously the invention of very creative and very profoundly ignorant people. It contradicts itself, in ways that pretty much any school-aged child would avoid.

[Blodwin]

New Ager, rather than just trot out your unsubstantiated beliefs, please would you try to understand what people are saying and actually answer their arguments? This is a sceptics forum and we use logical arguments based on reality. I realise that you're probably not used to examining your beliefs to see if they stand up to logical scrutiny, but unless you start doing so there's no point posting. You're just preaching, which doesn't work here.

[arthwollipot]

Not really meant to be a discussion good or evil or sin, none of that is relevant to my question.My apologies. That was my fault for bringing up Epicurus.

[arthwollipot]

If I put my child in time out for an amount of time proportional for whatever he did - that's appropriate. If I put him in time out for the rest of his life - that's not appropriate.Then you agree that it's not "appropriate" (whatever that means) for God to send people to Hell for sinning during life - a fate, by the way, that standard Christian theology (as I understand it) says is eternal and unchangeable).[/quote]

Actually, that's not what Christians believe.

Although, I don't believe their beliefs anyway.

Always. I have God in my life.Tell me. Do you believe that God is omnipotent?

[charlie-d]

They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.


If I'm not mistaken Martin Luther didn't believe in free will. The Catholic theology is also very deterministic. Free will is kind of begrudgingly granted, because how could we be responsible for our choices if we don't have it. The idea of sinfulness is very much the idea that we can't control our choices very well and have to struggle to do so.

Personally I think free will is an overgeneralizaiton. We have free will in our choices of how to serve our biological motivations, but we do not have free will to change our motivations or choose between them. Otherwise we would be something other than the animals we are. And it is the choices between motivations which are the moral choices. Religion walks this thin line between recognizing our out-of-conscious-moral-control animal nature and the idea that moral progress is possible and that we can transform ourselves, through faith, into something better than we are. From the point of view of a confirmed rationalist believer in free will it doesn't make a lot of sense, but as an emotional response to the human condition as we live it it's understandable.

To me good and evil are not dualistic rational concepts, but merely the perceived emotional feedback of our motivations and choices. A good world is one in which only our more inspiring fuzzy empathetic compassionate social compulsions exist and all our drives for dominance and territoriality, which mediate the need to compete with our own for nature's limited bounty, are banned from existence. The understanding of good and evil in the garden of Eden is merely the recognition of man's unique ability to conceive of alternatives, to imagine a better reality than the one we are given. Our cousins live in the "what is". We live in the "what if". Much like the rationalist delusion that we can just decide to be better, religion is a futile attempt to alter the "what is"; to persue the good through the metaphor of the all powerful personification of our better compulsions.

[fuelair]

I never understood Christians who think rape, murder, natural disasters, physical abuse and so on have to exist, because 'otherwise we wouldn't have free will'.
.
Even though I have played arguments on free-will, it really boils down to this. The religious believe in a god - for whatever reason (usually upbringing).
Rape, murder, torture etc. are clearly present in the world. How do you believe in a god that supposedly loves his followers and yet "allows" evil? Your brighter shed tools come up with an argument with no outside demonstrable applicability BUT which explains the otherwise inexplainable. The totally unrealistic concept of free-will vs. no free-will , a purely philosophical construct that exists purely to explain away a problem for those who are religious.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Then you agree that it's not "appropriate" (whatever that means) for God to send people to Hell for sinning during life - a fate, by the way, that standard Christian theology (as I understand it) says is eternal and unchangeable).

I think it's perfectly appropriate. You forgot to quote this that I wrote:

If I put him [my child - added for clarification] in time out and tell him he can leave once he decides to apologize to his sister for hitting her - that's appropriate. If he refuses to apologize right away then he'll be determining the length of his punishment.


And yes - someone may be able to stubbornly refuse to repent for eternity. I'm not a Christian Universalist (yet?). :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism

[ImaginalDisc]

I think it's perfectly appropriate. You forgot to quote this that I wrote:


And yes - someone may be able to stubbornly refuse to repent for eternity. I'm not a Christian Universalist (yet?). :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism

You're dodging. Do you think it is good for god to punish people forever for the crimes of their brief lives?

[A Christian Sceptic]

You're dodging. Do you think it is good for god to punish people forever for the crimes of their brief lives?

Well - I wasn't intending on dodging.
I believe God's punishment is perfectly proportional to your life lived. But you have to pay the utmost farthing. And if you refuse to ever come back to Him for whatever reason He'll honor your wishes.

Will people refuse him forever? I don't know.

Will everyone accept him? I don't know.

ImaginalDisc - you might really find this writing interesting. It's one of the most original (and inspiring) writings about God's Justice I've come across. Written by George MacDonald.

http://christian-universalism.blogs.com/GM_Justice.pdf

[Radrook]

The fallacy of the God and freewill argument.
Ask a believer, why is there evil? Why is there sin?
Why allow Adam and Eve to fall from grace?
They will invariably answer, “So mankind can have freewill”.

Not all believers invariably respond that way and the ones who do might just very well lack proper understanding of the issues. Mankind had free will prior to sinning. So sinning was not necessary fort mankind to have free will. Actually, the Bibl e teaches that sin constitutes the MISUSE of free will not its attainment. Adam, through whom we inhgerit sin was not deceived.
So his choice was one in full perfect awareness of what he was doing and the disapproval and personal consequences involved.

1 Timothy 2:14
....Adam was not deceived....

But you’re the creator of reality itself, the laws of physics, you made um, the laws of math, you made um, like wise the rules of morality, and everything else (according to the nearest believer at least).

Made things in their original state-yes-but did not make them exactly as they are now.

So why not make a reality where your creation has freewill but not experience evil?


Because perhaps that is tantamount to squaring a circle?

BTW

It wasn't absolutely necessary for Adam and Eve to experience evil. If they did it was because they chose to.

[thaiboxerken]

Why does your god need to punish anyone at all, Christian? Real people punish their children in order to teach them the error of their ways because that's one of the only ways to really cement the importance of the lesson. However, a god wouldn't need to do this a god could simply make a person know, the lesson could be bestowed upon them without the need of punishment. Why is it that your god is all-powerful, but has many of the same limitations of humans?

[thaiboxerken]

1 Timothy 2:14
....Adam was not deceived....


Well, according to mythology, neither was Eve... well, they weren't deceived by the serpent, I mean. Their god, however, outright lied to them by telling them that eating from the tree of knowledge would kill them that day. The serpent's "evil" deed was to tell Eve the truth.

The garden of eden myth is funny, that way. It tries to teach that the creator/overlord is a good guy and that A&E were the first sinners, when in fact, the first lie ever told in the entire biblical mythology is by the creator/overlord.

Bringing up verses from your book of mythology really won't help your case.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Here's some questions for you:

What do you call a parent who never gives a child a chance to make a choice for themself?

What do you call a parent who tries to force the child to make the right choice everytime?


Here are some questions for you:

What do you call a parent who's supposedly omnipotent yet continously testing his children in an environment which he created and controls? Remember that this parent also created a powerful, supernatural, and evil adversary to tempt and torment his children.

What do you call a parent creates and controls the diseases and disasters that afflict and kill his own children?

What do you call a parent who commands that you fall down and worship him and prostrate yourself in his presence?

What do you call a parent who impregnates an unmarried virgin and produces a son for the express purpose of allowing him to be tortured and killed 30+ years later?

What do you call a parent who teaches his children that men are more worthy than women and people who satisfy his ego are more deserving than those who don't?

What do you call a parent for whom no one, not even his own children, can provide any shred of evidence other than "I have a feeling about him".

What do you call a parent who teaches his children that any and all good in the world comes only from and through him?

What do you call a parent who teaches his children that they are all born as evil, sinful, wretched beings and must strive to atone for this for the rest of their lives?

What do you call a parent who sends bears to violently kill the neighborhood kids for teasing you about your baldness?

What would you do if your father commanded you to kill your own innocent son for the sole purpose of proving your obedience and showing just how much you love and trust dear old dad? It doesn't matter that your dad relents in the nick of time; the fact that he made you choose showing your obedience over a the life of your own innocent child is the important part. If you were truly willing to (and almost did) kill your little boy, you have committed murder "in your heart", and, according to the other stuff your dad says, that's pretty darn bad.

And finally:

What do you call a parent whose ultimate reward for his good little children is that they will worship him for Eternity?

What do you call a parent who's ultimate punishment for his bad little children is Eternal Torment?





The Christian God is simply not comparable to a human parent. You demean and diminish your own God by attempting to do so. You need to find a better analogy to make whatever point it is that you're trying to make. Or, you could dispense with analogy and rhetoric altogether and simply state your view.

[Radrook]

Why does your god need to punish anyone at all, Christian?

For the same reason that governments need to have punitive laws which atheists are glad to abide by because they are essential to law and order.


Real people punish their children in order to teach them the error of their ways because that's one of the only ways to really cement the importance of the lesson. However, a god wouldn't need to do this a god could simply make a person know, the lesson could be bestowed upon them without the need of punishment.

Because that would entail programing or hardwiring as is done with insects and humans weren't meant to function that way. If they did they would then cease to be human and would become something akin to the fictional Borgs.

Why is it that your god is all-powerful, but has many of the same limitations of humans?

Because power is irrelevant to moral issues. Morality places limits on the application of power and not al;l moral issues can be resolved via the application of power no matter how limitless that power might be.

[thaiboxerken]

For the same reason that governments need to have punitive laws which atheists are glad to abide by because they are essential to law and order.

Not a good answer because we know the government exists and can actually dole out justice. We don't even know if your god exists at all.


Because that would entail programing or hardwiring as is done with insects and humans weren't meant to function that way. If they did they would then cease to be human and would become something akin to the fictional Borgs.The reason parents punish children is to program into them that the action they did was wrong.



Because power is irrelevant to moral issues. Morality places limits on the application of power and not al;l moral issues can be resolved via the application of power no matter how limitless that power might be.Wrong. Power is very relevant to such issues. If I had the power to stop all violent crime in the world, I would do so, it would be immoral not to. However, I only have the power to stop such crimes that are of my knowledge and in my presence, and even then I risk myself to do so. You clearly are trying to make excuses for the god in your bible and it's not really helping.

[Radrook]

Well, according to mythology, neither was Eve...

According to scripture Eve WAS decceived!

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In short, you haven't read the Bible and are making things up as you happily go along.

The garden of eden myth is funny, that way.

Your personal understanding of it is what makes it comical and absurd. I could just as easily take any book in existence, sit down, give it my own interpratatinsal twist ad then guffaw to my heart's content. Which of course would prove NOTHING excepot that I need to guffaw so I misinterprete a cetrain book to do so.


....
well, they weren't deceived by the serpent, I mean. Their god, however, outright lied to them by telling them that eating from the tree of knowledge would kill them that day. The serpent's "evil" deed was to tell Eve the truth.

Siiiigh! Again!

The day you mention God saw as a thousand years. Adam and Eve died before that duration of time had passed. So they died during that thousand year day. In short, the liar was the Devil-not God as you wish to conclude.

It tries to teach that the creator/overlord is a good guy and that A&E were the first sinners, when in fact, the first lie ever told in the entire biblical mythology is by the creator/overlord.

All criminals see laws as burdensom,lawkeepers as overlords, and fellow criminals as good.
Nothing unusual about that.


Bringing up verses from your book of mythology really won't help your case.

I don't have a personal case as you choose to imagine I do. In any case, your misrepresentatrion of what you choose to call myth doesn't help YOUR case. It demonstrates ignorance of subject matter and utter disregard for the intelligence of anyone reading your supposedly researched assertions.

[thaiboxerken]

According to scripture Eve WAS decceived![.quote]

By your god.

[quote]In short, you haven't read the Bible and are making things up as you happily go along.

Wrong. Reading it was at the very beginning of my journey to skepticism.


Your personal understanding of it is what makes it comical and absurd.

Wrong. I read it as it's written, without placing outside interpretation into it and apologetics.


The day you mention God saw as a thousand years.

He failed to mention to A&E that a day meant a thousand years. This is a form of deception, another way to lie. It's like telling someone you'll repay them for a loan tomorrow, and then not telling them that tomorrow means 20 years from now. Your excuses and apologetics really aren't impressing the hell out of me.


All criminals see laws as burdensom,lawkeepers as overlords, and fellow criminals as good.

So now I'm a criminal? Gee thanks. That's ok, I don't abide by your overlord's rules because they are both unjust and are upheld by a mythical being. Your god doesn't scare me in the slightest, I'm just pointing out the absurdities in your belief system.


I don't have a personal case as you choose to imagine I do. In any case, your misrepresentatrion of what you choose to call myth doesn't help YOUR case. It demonstrates ignorance of subject matter and utter disregard for the intelligence of anyone reading your supposedly researched assertions.

Wrong. You've decided to place your interpretations into the "literal" translation of the garden of eden story, by using the excuse that the terms you god laid out were figurative. That's just plain silly. Your god lied to his creation, according to the mythology, and your apologetics have failed to account for it.

[Radrook]

Not a good answer because we know the government exists and can actually dole out justice. We don't even know if your god exists at all.

In short, no answer will suffice no matter how relevant or logical because you will then hide behind an atheistic barricade in order to avoid having to reach conclusions demanded by logic. Which makes all further dialogue useless.

The reason parents punish children is to program into them that the action they did was wrong.


Wrong. Power is very relevant to such issues. If I had the power to stop all violent crime in the world, I would do so, it would be immoral not to. However, I only have the power to stop such crimes that are of my knowledge and in my presence, and even then I risk myself to do so. You clearly are trying to make excuses for the god in your bible and it's not really helping.

Do you even know what the issues are much less how power is related to them. I doubt it since your understanding of the Genesis account is based on your own ideas regardless of what the Bible tells us about those issues. I could do something similar to any book. Disregard what it tells me about what is written and substitute my own version. But that would be tagged as unethical and defective scholarship unworthy of any serious consideration and a complete waste of valuable time.

BTW
You can't help those who refuse to be helped. So please divest yourself of the illusion that I believe that the helpless can be helped-they can't.

[thaiboxerken]

In short, no answer will suffice no matter how relevant or logical because you will then hide behind an atheistic barricade in order to avoid having to reach conclusions demanded by logic. Which makes all further dialogue useless.

Perhaps you should actually use some logic in your answers. All of the answers you've given contradict the premise that your god is all-powerful. Once you stop contradicting this premise, then we can move on to the next premise contradicted.


Do you even know what the issues are much less how power is related to them.

I know exactly what the issues are. If I have the power to save a human life that is being murdered right before my very eyes, I would be wrong to just turn my back to the murder and go away. In some places, there are even laws about that.

I doubt it since your understanding of the Genesis account is based on your own ideas regardless of what the Bible tells us about those issues.

Wrong. My understanding of Genesis is based on reading Genesis, without looking for further "interpretations" from apologists and priests. You've been programmed by other believers to read a "day" as "a thousand years" and have therefore failed to use any critical thought process about the interpretation of Genesis that people have taught you.

I could do something similar to any book. Disregard what it tells me about what is written and substitute my own version. But that would be tagged as unethical and defective scholarship unworthy of any serious consideration and a complete waste of valuable time.

You're like the pot calling the china black. I'm not disregarding anything in the bible itself, I'm disregarding apologist interpretation and reading it for myself. You're the one guilty of making the story say what you want it to believe.


You can't help those who refuse to be helped.

Are you saying that every innocent person who's ever died refused help? I'm pretty damn sure that a great many people have prayed to your god to help save their lives and died anyway.

So please divest yourself of the illusion that I believe that the helpless can be helped-they can't.

I thought your god was all-powerful, yet he can't help the helpless...

Why do you try to convince people your god is all-powerful and then tell us the limitations to his powers?

[Radrook]

By your god.

That's not what the "myth" says! Or are you now making up your own myth?


Wrong. Reading it was at the very beginning of my journey to skepticism.

Then you have a very poor memory or else prefer to concoct your own personal mythology as you go along.


Wrong. I read it as it's written, without placing outside interpretation into it and apologetics.

That's not what you are doing since you ignore what the myth tells you and substitute your own ideas. Like Eve wasn't deceived idea you just came up with and the God liar one which goes contrary to the myth you claim to have read. : )



He failed to mention to A&E that a day meant a thousand years. This is a form of deception, another way to lie. It's like telling someone you'll repay them for a loan tomorrow, and then not telling them that tomorrow means 20 years from now.

That was cutting him a break. I'm sure Adam wasn't complaining like you are.


Your excuses and apologetics really aren't impressing the hell out of me.

Not intended.


So now I'm a criminal? Gee thanks. That's ok, I don't abide by your overlord's rules because they are both unjust and are upheld by a mythical being. Your God doesn't scare me in the slightest, I'm just pointing out the absurdities in your belief system.

1. All of us are criminals.

2. Scaring wasn't intended.

3. Pointing out without being qualified to point out anything.



Wrong. You've decided to place your interpretations into the "literal" translation of the garden of Eden story, by using the excuse that the terms you God laid out were figurative. That's just plain silly. Your God lied to his creation, according to the mythology, and your apologetics have failed to account for it.

Not at all. The Bible explains itself.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Your problem is the biblical-fragmentation concept you feel you must assume in order to denigrate.

BTW

The Hebrew "yom" for day isn't necessarily restricted to 24 hours.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well - I wasn't intending on dodging.
I believe God's punishment is perfectly proportional to your life lived. But you have to pay the utmost farthing. And if you refuse to ever come back to Him for whatever reason He'll honor your wishes.

Will people refuse him forever? I don't know.

Will everyone accept him? I don't know.

ImaginalDisc - you might really find this writing interesting. It's one of the most original (and inspiring) writings about God's Justice I've come across. Written by George MacDonald.

http://christian-universalism.blogs.com/GM_Justice.pdf

Just to be clear, you believe that it is fair and just for your god to torment people forever for their crimes of their brief lives, where they were plagued by the need to consume other living things, prone to diseases of the flesh and the mind, in a world of scarcity and want, with feeble minds and guided only by holy books which contradict themselves endlessly?

[Radrook]

Perhaps you should actually use some logic in your answers. All of the answers you've given contradict the premise that your god is all-powerful. Once you stop contradicting this premise, then we can move on to the next premise contradicted.


It's common knowledge among all politicians that all problems aren't' amenable to be solved via the application of brute force. Inability to see that simply means that a conceptual deficiency prevents or interferes with what should be easy understanding.


I know exactly what the issues are. If I have the power to save a human life that is being murdered right before my very eyes, I would be wrong to just turn my back to the murder and go away. In some places, there are even laws about that.

But you are ignoring consequentialist ethics.


Wrong. My understanding of Genesis is based on reading Genesis, without looking for further "interpretations" from apologists and priests.

You mean apologists like the Apostle Peter who wrote under divine inspiration that a thousand years were view by God as one day? Or like the inspired writer of Psalms who essentially said the same? Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with current events but neither of them was an apologist or a priest. One was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and considered by the RCC as the first Pope and the other was a king. Another mistake on your part which serves to show that you know nothing about the book you choose to pontificate about negatively.,


You've been programmed by other believers to read a "day" as "a thousand years" and have therefore failed to use any critical thought process about the interpretation of Genesis that people have taught you.

The process of interpretating a literary work such as the Bible involves respecting context-something that you are either totally unaware of or simple disregard because it suites your purposes.

You're like the pot calling the china black. I'm not disregarding anything in the bible itself, I'm disregarding apologist interpretation and reading it for myself. You're the one guilty of making the story say what you want it to believe.

You are reading it for yourself and interpreting it wrongly all by yourself due to being stubborn.



Are you saying that every innocent person who's ever died refused help? I'm pretty damn sure that a great many people have prayed to your God to help save their lives and died anyway.

Sorry to disappoint you but that is not a biblical teaching.



I thought your God was all-powerful, yet he can't help the helpless...

Helpless in the sense of refusing to accept help., King Saul is an example.

1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.



Why do you try to convince people your God is all-powerful and then tell us the limitations to his powers?

Not trying to convince anyone. Only exposing you to an opposite viewpoint. What happens in your brain after that is totally your decision.

Not all problems are amenable to power application. Some require diplomacy, the allowance of the unpalatable for the greater good of the majority involved. Basic ethical consequentialist considerations of that kind.

BTW

It's been an interesting dialogue.

[thaiboxerken]

That's not what the "myth" says! Or are you now making up your own myth?

Just reading it how it's written in the book of mythology called Genesis.

Feel free to find where it says a "day is a thousand years" in the book of Genesis.


That's not what you are doing since you ignore what the myth tells you and substitute your own ideas. Like Eve wasn't deceived idea you just came up with and the God liar

Wrong, I'm reading it as it's written, without your apologetic interpretations. While the god in that story thinks the serpent deceived the children, it's clear that the serpent merely told the children the truth and then the god gets angry with the serpent for telling these children the truth while saying that the serpent lied. Overlords do such things, they punish anyone that disagrees with them and have a special wrath for those who expose the truth.


That was cutting him a break. I'm sure Adam wasn't complaining like you are.

So now you're saying that he really meant a day, but changed his mind after A&E ate the fruit?


1. All of us are criminals.

I'm not.


2. Scaring wasn't intended.

The whole damned religion is based on scaring little children into believing in a god.

3. Pointing out without being qualified to point out anything.

I'm more than qualified to read a book and give an opinion about it.



Not at all. The Bible explains itself.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

These passages are in reference to the POV of this god, it's not saying that a day really is a thousand years, or that when the god says "day" that it really means "thousand years." It's mean to convey the meaning that the god is eternal. Also, these passages are written LONG after Genesis and I highly doubt that A&E read them before their god warned them about eating the fruit.

Your problem is your fragmentation viewpoint of the book which you feel you have to assume in order to denigrate.

Wrong, I'm reading the book, as it's written. You are retrofitting and re-arranging meanings so that the book will support your idea that your god is infallible, all-loving and all-powerful.


The Hebrew "yom" for day isn't necessarily restricted to 24 hours.

How's that sit with your "a day is a thousand years" argument?

[JoeEllison]

Here's a question for you: What do you call a parent who incinerates their child for not saying "Yes sir."?

Jehovah?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here are some questions for you:



Oh - fun! I have to you warn you - I have more questions then answers myself - so you'll probably be frustrated by me. But here goes:


What do you call a parent who's supposedly omnipotent yet continously testing his children in an environment which he created and controls?


Omnipotent means all powerful. But what does that mean - apperently to you it means using his power like a thermostat. And at times he appears to - at other times he seems to let things go with the motions and laws in place.
Why? He has his reasons. Not good enough answer - why not? Because your idea of God is too small apparently - you can't trust that it will all work out in the end for good.


Remember that this parent also created a powerful, supernatural, and evil adversary to tempt and torment his children.


I haven't done much study on Satan, but Christian tradition is Satan was actually one the best - good angels and then he rebelled. Apparently even Angels have free will. Is it any surprise a Being who falls into evil, who was once favored of God (if that's even the right word), would be jealous of humans who are seeking after God? Is it also any surprise that Being would also try to tempt and torment (to whatever extent it's possible) to hurt both God and humans?


What do you call a parent creates and controls the diseases and disasters that afflict and kill his own children?


I can't see clearly enough which diseases and disasters are due to God and not mankind. It seems to me that humans are out of whack with each other, the environment, and God. When you remove the consequences of all our doing - then you can see what is God's doing and question (or blame him) for it. If you feel you are in such a position - go ahead. I can't and I've been through my share of tragedies due to dieases. I've seen death due to them and healing despite them.


What do you call a parent who commands that you fall down and worship him and prostrate yourself in his presence?


A Parent that's a King. But really - He doesn't have to command to do that - I want to, I'm moved to. His commands upon you I can't answer about or why.


What do you call a parent who impregnates an unmarried virgin and produces a son for the express purpose of allowing him to be tortured and killed 30+ years later?


Jesus willingly went to his death. He knew it was coming. Could reconciliation with God have happened if he wasn't killed? I don't know - that's interesting speculation. The early Christians felt it was both Jesus Life and Death (His very Incarnation) that was important - not just his death. If you want some interesting reading on the role of scapegoats in society and religion (Because that's what happened to Jesus - so, perhaps by the very nature of His message his death was inevitable) you should read Violence and the Sacred by Rene Girard and The Scapegoat by Rene Girard. Then you might want to read a theologians applications of Rene Girard Sociology theories in the book Saved From Sacrifice by S. Mark Heim.


What do you call a parent who teaches his children that men are more worthy than women and


God doesn't teach this - Men do. To God all are equal - Men and Women, Free and Slave. I'm just reading The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Sociologist Rodney Stark. You probably don't want to read that book as he makes the case that it was because of Christianity the world got Reason and eventually Science and eventually Freedom.


people who satisfy his ego are more deserving than those who don't?


Deserving of what? Love? He's already sending it to you. Heaven? The door's wide open - waiting for you. What? You don't want to show him affection by obeying him to love others? He's your creator and your parent and you're free to treat him that way if you want - His desire for you to come to him isn't about Ego - forcing you to do it (as some here in this very thread seem to wish He had done) is all about Ego. You may want Him to be a Tyrant (It's much easier to resist a Tyrant) but He's not. Unless you can see things so perfectly clear - all you (and I) should say is "I don't understand".


What do you call a parent for whom no one, not even his own children, can provide any shred of evidence other than "I have a feeling about him".


I won't get into this - as I started a thread solely to try to find out what people mean by "evidence". My conclusion: Everyone needs something different. I also think you don't mean "evidence" you mean - "a smoking gun proof". But the thing with Big things (and probably really Small things) is you have a whole bunch of pieces and then you infer - and sometimes you get a very big Piece and once they are all added together you can make your choice - or not, it's up to you. Read up on those threads if you want.


What do you call a parent who teaches his children that any and all good in the world comes only from and through him?


Pure Good. The Standard.


What do you call a parent who teaches his children that they are all born as evil, sinful, wretched beings and must strive to atone for this for the rest of their lives?


Well - here again you are convoluting a bunch of different teachings. We all commit sins - some bigger then others unfortunately. Whether that sin is against God, nature, yourself, or another person the only way to fix it is to atone for it - that's reality. Feel free to live a life where you do not atone your sins with anyone and see what happens. Chances are though, you don't live that way - you do apologize to people you hurt, you do try to make things right when you make them wrong. Christianity teaches you are responsible for your own choices both to the person wronged and to God. Feel free not to own up to that responsibility though.


What do you call a parent who sends bears to violently kill the neighborhood kids for teasing you about your baldness?


I wasn't there - I don't think I need to believe anything about this event other than whoever wrote it down felt it was important to record whatever happened and there probably is a lesson to learn. Who knows? Maybe I'll study about that some time.


What would you do if your father commanded you to kill your own innocent son for the sole purpose of proving your obedience and showing just how much you love and trust dear old dad? It doesn't matter that your dad relents in the nick of time; the fact that he made you choose showing your obedience over a the life of your own innocent child is the important part. If you were truly willing to (and almost did) kill your little boy, you have committed murder "in your heart", and, according to the other stuff your dad says, that's pretty darn bad.


Well - since you believe God is either a Tyrant or doesn't exist you would probably view that even alot differently then Abraham. To bad what he was thinking wasn't recorded. Don't parents tell children things that the children don't or won't understand until much later if at all?


What do you call a parent whose ultimate reward for his good little children is that they will worship him for Eternity?

What do you call a parent who's ultimate punishment for his bad little children is Eternal Torment?



See my above posts.



The Christian God is simply not comparable to a human parent.


Nope - He's better. Humans words and experiences are but a shadow of what He's like.


You demean and diminish your own God by attempting to do so. You need to find a better analogy to make whatever point it is that you're trying to make. Or, you could dispense with analogy and rhetoric altogether and simply state your view.

It's not my analogy - It's Jesus's.

I think the bottom line is this:

You and others (often Christians) for some reason can't fathom a God that's not a Tyrant. Therefore you won't believe in Him and if he is there you'll refuse to believe in him - because to your standards your better than He is.

So - you present two options: God's there but He's an Ass. or He's not there and this reality is the best it gets - in the end Fatalism (Although not many live out that - they try to enjoy themselves while they can).

Given those two options (and not taking into considerations any of my lifes experiences and "evidence") I refuse both of them. I believe, regardless of how I perceive somethings, that God is Good - because there is such a thing - a standard - of Goodness. Because I believe God is Good and because I trust Jesus and accept Jesus's analogy theat God is a Father (a Parent) I believe that's how He views you and I and interacts with us when He does. I'm optimistic that in the end in some manner it will all work out.

Since you don't believe it - what's it matter? What do you care what I believe? (You here is now a general inclusive YOU) I suppose now you can feel better about yourself by feeling better, more rational, more superior to me. Because, fundamentally, that's what most of these Anti-Religiou threads are all about - aren't they? Laughing and wondering and gawking at the backward Hicks who believe in all this rubbish. Look at Francis Collins - a brilliant scientist who's now looked down on because he believes. He's become less. If you were content in your unbelief you wouldn't care what others believe unless those people demanded something from you. You wouldn't care about trying to disprove something you don't believe in You wouldn't care about proving God isn't there. You wouldn't care about proving determinism is real and there is no free-will.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Just to be clear, you believe that it is fair and just for your god to torment people forever for their crimes of their brief lives, where they were plagued by the need to consume other living things, prone to diseases of the flesh and the mind, in a world of scarcity and want, with feeble minds and guided only by holy books which contradict themselves endlessly?

Just to be clear - I meant what I said. He'll be proportional to what each individual requires. He'll be Fair and Just. He can see a person's life and circumstances perfectly - better than you or I can.

Got another sarcastic rhetorical question for me?

[thaiboxerken]

It's common knowledge among all politicians that all problems aren't' amenable to be solved via the application of brute force.

Perhaps you should tell this to your god who supposedly plans the most brute force of all to those who don't believe in it.


But you are ignoring consequentialist ethics.

WTF does that mean?


You mean apologists like the Apostle Peter who wrote under divine inspiration that a thousand years were view by God as one day?

Yes, he would be one apologist of many.

Or like the inspired writer of Psalms who essentially said the same?

Now you're taking poetry as literal?

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with current events but neither of them was an apologist or a priest.

One was an apologist, the other a poet. Neither of them really addressed the topic at hand, did they? When talking of a day and thousand years, they were conveying a message of their god's eternalness, not saying that when their god says "day" it means "a thousand years."


One was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and considered by the RCC as the first Pope and the other was a king.

Irrelevant.


The process of interpretating a literary work such as the Bible involves respecting context-something that you are either totally unaware of or simple disregard because it suites your purposes.

Yes, respecting context, that's exactly what I'm doing. Did your god explain to Adam and Eve that a day meant a thousand years? If so, then I will concede that you are correct. If not, then your god was being dishonest and told the very first lie in the bible.

Helplesss in the sense of refusing to accept help., King Saul is an example.

Again, you are telling me the limitations of your "all powerful" god, which is a contradiction.


Not trying to convince anyone. Only exposing you to an opposite viewpoint. What happens in your brain after that is totally your decision.

I know your viewpoint. I'm exposing you to a skeptical viewpoint, one based on logic and reason.


Not all problems are amenable to power application. Some require diplomacy, the allowance of the unpalatable for the greater good of the majority involved. Basic ethical consequentialist considerations of that kind.

So your all-powerful god is subject to consequences for it's actions? Sounds like another limitation.

[ImaginalDisc]

Just to be clear - I meant what I said. He'll be proportional to what each individual requires. He'll be Fair and Just. He can see a person's life and circumstances perfectly - better than you or I can.

Got another sarcastic rhetorical question for me?

I am not being sarcastic and you are not using Christian doctrine. What crime could possibly warrant an eternity of suffering?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I am not being sarcastic and you are not using Christian doctrine. What crime could possibly warrant an eternity of suffering?

I can think of some. How about:
- Not repenting for eternity
- Not forgiving yourself for all eternity
- Self-Flagellation for all eternity
- Being content with Hell for all eternity

Can you think of any others?

[ImaginalDisc]

I can think of some. How about:
- Not repenting for eternity
- Not forgiving yourself for all eternity
- Self-Flagellation for all eternity
- Being content with Hell for all eternity

Can you think of any others?

Excuse me, but the Bible is quite clear that one is cast down into Hell, so forgiving one's self is irrelevant, it is the allegedly good god who must forgive. And why must one repent to be forgiven? Years ago, when I was eight years old, I forgave my two year old sister when she bit me viciously. She neither understood why it was wrong, nor that I forgave her.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Excuse me, but the Bible is quite clear that one is cast down into Hell, so forgiving one's self is irrelevant, it is the allegedly good god who must forgive. And why must one repent to be forgiven? Years ago, when I was eight years old, I forgave my two year old sister when she bit me viciously. She neither understood why it was wrong, nor that I forgave her.

There are 2 parties when forgiveness is needed - the Forgiver and the one being Forgiven.

The Forgiver can withhold forgiveness (many people absolutely refuse to forgive others - no matter what, even if the person is sorry and asks for forgiveness.) Also - a person may still need to Forgive for unintentional (or not-understood) behavior. You didn't have to forgive your sister - and she didn't understand and so couldn't apologize herself (or turn from the biting behvior). I doubt your relationship with her would have been healthy if you still held a grudge against her now for what she did then because of your refusal to forgive.

The person forgiven needs to accept forgiveness. (It's possible to refuse to accept someone's forgiveness - it could be because you don't think you need it, or maybe you don't want it, it could also be you don't think you deserve it.)

A person can also do something wrong and never forgive themselves - it doesn't have to have been an intentional wrongdoing for them to internally blame and torment themselves. It very well could cause them to never accept other people's (or God's) forgiveness - how could they accept someone elses forgiveness when they can't even forgive themself?

You can see examples of all these amongst other people if not in your own life.

So I might ask:
God's forgiven you in general - why haven't you accepted it?

God's ready to forgive you for specifics - why haven't you apologized?

By the way - those two questions I just asked are between you and God. You don't need to post those answers. They were solely for a point.

[New Ager]

New Ager, rather than just trot out your unsubstantiated beliefs,...



Atheism is unsubstantiated.



..please would you try to understand what people are saying and actually answer their arguments?



I understand I thought I was answering their arguments.

Where did I lose you?



This is a sceptics forum and we use logical arguments based on reality.



I'm well aware what the Randi board is. And I guess it depends on your point of view what logical and reality are.



I realise that you're probably not used to examining your beliefs to see if they stand up to logical scrutiny...



I've spent decades analyzing the whole world and many beliefs. And I'm a big skeptic. I just happen to believe in God and I think I everything I believe is logical.

I think atheism is illogical.



..but unless you start doing so there's no point posting. You're just preaching, which doesn't work here.

Rather funny to say when mostly you have atheists here preaching their lack of belief. Is that working?

[thaiboxerken]

Atheism is unsubstantiated.

This is a meaningless phrase. Atheism need not be substantiated, it is merely the doubt of the claim "there is a god."

[thaiboxerken]

Hey, Radrook. Let's grant that your god meant "a thousand years" when he said "day" to Adam and Eve.

You shall die "a thousand years after" you eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Wow, if your translation is correct, it makes the story even dumber than how it was written.

[thaiboxerken]

The Bible Explains itself

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2008/03/09/just-not-the-same-threat.png

[Silentknight]

Omnipotent means all powerful. But what does that mean - apperently to you it means using his power like a thermostat. And at times he appears to - at other times he seems to let things go with the motions and laws in place.
Why? He has his reasons. Not good enough answer - why not? Because your idea of God is too small apparently - you can't trust that it will all work out in the end for good.
No, the reason this answer isn't sufficient is because simply saying that God has his reasons, without qualifying what those reasons are, makes God's motivations meaningless to the humans he promises to serve. It goes without saying that you can claim the Lord works in mysterious ways to justify any turn of events imaginable. The problem is that this makes God arbitrary and inaccessible, which is a direct contradiction of a God concerned with and operating according to human affairs.
I can't see clearly enough which diseases and disasters are due to God and not mankind. It seems to me that humans are out of whack with each other, the environment, and God. When you remove the consequences of all our doing - then you can see what is God's doing and question (or blame him) for it. If you feel you are in such a position - go ahead. I can't and I've been through my share of tragedies due to dieases. I've seen death due to them and healing despite them.
Is there any problem with acknowledging that diseases have nothing to do with God's will or human free will, and everything to do with natural selection and competition between species? What's wrong with removing God from the picture in these situations? Not only does it allow you to regard diseases and natural disasters rationally, and perhaps come up with real solutions, it's also much fairer to God because he can't be blamed for using them to punish people.
Jesus willingly went to his death. He knew it was coming. Could reconciliation with God have happened if he wasn't killed? I don't know - that's interesting speculation. The early Christians felt it was both Jesus Life and Death (His very Incarnation) that was important - not just his death.
I think the point to be made here was that worshiping the death of Jesus, and its supposed redeeming power, is taking the wrong lesson from his life. Consider that focusing on the death of Jesus has lead people to kill each other over blame for his death. Had it not been for the way he lived, and what he accomplished while he was alive, his death would have been meaningless and insignificant regardless.
God doesn't teach this - Men do. To God all are equal - Men and Women, Free and Slave. I'm just reading The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Sociologist Rodney Stark. You probably don't want to read that book as he makes the case that it was because of Christianity the world got Reason and eventually Science and eventually Freedom.
Reason, science, and freedom existed before Christianity came along. It was during the medieval era of philosophy that theologians tried to monopolize reason, in their belief that the sole purpose of reason ought to be in seeking faith. But reason does not belong only to Christianity. There were certainly many great thinkers who were also Christian, but the same could be said for any belief or lack thereof, and it only goes to show that there was no one else to do the job. All of the accomplishments in the world prior to the 20th century were done by people who had no understanding of the genetic basis for life, but that doesn't mean the old way of thinking necessarily had merit.
Deserving of what? Love? He's already sending it to you. Heaven? The door's wide open - waiting for you. What? You don't want to show him affection by obeying him to love others? He's your creator and your parent and you're free to treat him that way if you want - His desire for you to come to him isn't about Ego - forcing you to do it (as some here in this very thread seem to wish He had done) is all about Ego. You may want Him to be a Tyrant (It's much easier to resist a Tyrant) but He's not. Unless you can see things so perfectly clear - all you (and I) should say is "I don't understand".
If admitting a lack of understanding of God's ways is the reasonable position, then how can one draw such definitive conclusions about God's love, heaven, creation, or his role as parent? I don't disagree with the last thing you said, but it contradicts the certainty of your previous statements.
Well - here again you are convoluting a bunch of different teachings. We all commit sins - some bigger then others unfortunately. Whether that sin is against God, nature, yourself, or another person the only way to fix it is to atone for it - that's reality. Feel free to live a life where you do not atone your sins with anyone and see what happens. Chances are though, you don't live that way - you do apologize to people you hurt, you do try to make things right when you make them wrong. Christianity teaches you are responsible for your own choices both to the person wronged and to God. Feel free not to own up to that responsibility though.
That's not the point. The point was that mainstream Christianity teaches people that we are all born into sin, can't resolve this inherently sinful nature on our own, and that the only way to redeem ourselves is to worship the death of Jesus. Yes, everyone makes mistakes and does immoral things or things we regret from time to time, but nobody would disagree with what you said about taking responsibility for your own actions and working to solve your own problems. The objection was aimed specifically at the dogma that teaches that there's something wrong simply with being born human (Scientology says pretty much the same thing) which is nonsense.
Well - since you believe God is either a Tyrant or doesn't exist you would probably view that even alot differently then Abraham. To bad what he was thinking wasn't recorded. Don't parents tell children things that the children don't or won't understand until much later if at all?
Isn't it also possible that Abraham simply used God as an excuse for his actions, rather than taking responsibility for nearly killing his own son?
Nope - He's better. Humans words and experiences are but a shadow of what He's like.
I think the point was that the parental analogy fails when it comes to rationalizing what God has done in relation to humans. God uses punishments that are far more severe than any good human parent would, is more distant and detached than most human parents, and often acts for reasons that can't relate to us in any meaningful way. If your son was disobediently playing in the street after you told him not to, would you chop off his arm to punish him? Would you then try to justify your punishment by claiming that it's far better than if he'd been struck by a car and died? Of course not.
I think the bottom line is this:

You and others (often Christians) for some reason can't fathom a God that's not a Tyrant. Therefore you won't believe in Him and if he is there you'll refuse to believe in him - because to your standards your better than He is.

So - you present two options: God's there but He's an Ass. or He's not there and this reality is the best it gets - in the end Fatalism (Although not many live out that - they try to enjoy themselves while they can).
Actually it's theoretically possible for God to not be a tyrant, although as I pointed out earlier, he would have to have other limitations set on him in order for this to make sense. If God isn't responsible for the diseases, disasters, and all the punishments that humans invent and inflict on each other, then nobody could accuse him of being a tyrant, but he'd have to be in a position where he has no choice but to allow these things to happen. Mind you, I agree that God isn't responsible for anything bad that happens (for different reasons).

Would you have any objection to accepting a God that is good yet limited? In other words, God wouldn't be controlling everything (good or bad) but rather he'd be trying to do the best he can with what limited power he has?

[Yoink]

He didn't. Mankind chose that path.
You're saying that there is some viable choice we could make that would eliminate suffering? All suffering? You are saying that everybody who dies screaming in agony chose the cancer that is killing them, or the wild beast that attacked them, or the earthquake that dropped a house on them? Really?

This isn't an experiment. God created us to expand life. We are all creators and that's what we are here for to expand, life and God.
Why does he need to? He already knows all the possible forms that life could "expand" into. Unless you're saying that he's not actually omniscient. He knows the endgame before its begun. Again--why bother to create a world in which suffering is inevitable--no matter what "paths" you choose to go down--if the only desired goal of living on earth is to end up in heaven for all eternity? Why not just skip to the heavenly eternity? What possible purpose does the pain of earthly existence serve?

But, sadly, some of us chose a different path. And with free will, God has let us "experiment" what it's like to turn from the divine path.
You're not answering the question. What purpose does this free will serve? God knows already what we will do with our free will. Why not just create the perfected beings who will bask in his eternal love in heaven. What purpose does the suffering of life serve? If you are saying that God can't know what a perfected soul will be like, or that he can't make one then you are saying that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Is that your claim?

But, even after 4½ million years, his patience and mercy still enfold us and we are still given chance after chance to recognize that only with God can we make it.
Great--but why does he bother? He knows already the exact moment when we will take that chance and turn to him. So why bother letting those souls stumble around in the dark and suffer? Why not wink the ones who will never turn to him out of existence and take the ones who will up into heaven in exactly the form that they would be in after they finally turned to him. Again--if you say that isn't possible for him, you're denying him the defining attributes of deity.

Without God, we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.
Perhaps--but then without God (in your view) we would none of us exist and therefore we would none of us ever have suffered.

[A Christian Sceptic]

No, the reason this answer isn't sufficient is because simply saying that God has his reasons, without qualifying what those reasons are, makes God's motivations meaningless to the humans he promises to serve. It goes without saying that you can claim the Lord works in mysterious ways to justify any turn of events imaginable. The problem is that this makes God arbitrary and inaccessible, which is a direct contradiction of a God concerned with and operating according to human affairs.


See the bolding - it's not that I know the reasons and won't tell you - it's that I don't know the reasons, but I trust that He has reasons. So I can't tell you - I don't know.

Again - it seems that the two options many people want is 1) Not believe or 2) Know everything and then believe. I just happen to think 3) Believe without knowing everything is perfectly fine too.


Is there any problem with acknowledging that diseases have nothing to do with God's will or human free will, and everything to do with natural selection and competition between species? What's wrong with removing God from the picture in these situations? Not only does it allow you to regard diseases and natural disasters rationally, and perhaps come up with real solutions, it's also much fairer to God because he can't be blamed for using them to punish people.


For all I know it might be just like you say - I was responding to the explanation that because there are diseases and disasters there can't be a God.


I think the point to be made here was that worshiping the death of Jesus, and its supposed redeeming power, is taking the wrong lesson from his life. Consider that focusing on the death of Jesus has lead people to kill each other over blame for his death. Had it not been for the way he lived, and what he accomplished while he was alive, his death would have been meaningless and insignificant regardless.


I think they're both important. Christians probably shouldn't ignore either or focus only on one. I might add that His ressurection was very important too -- that's where much of the optimism of the Christian Faith comes from - that He has triumphantly conquered death, sin, and the devil.


Reason, science, and freedom existed before Christianity came along. It was during the medieval era of philosophy that theologians tried to monopolize reason, in their belief that the sole purpose of reason ought to be in seeking faith. But reason does not belong only to Christianity. There were certainly many great thinkers who were also Christian, but the same could be said for any belief or lack thereof, and it only goes to show that there was no one else to do the job. All of the accomplishments in the world prior to the 20th century were done by people who had no understanding of the genetic basis for life, but that doesn't mean the old way of thinking necessarily had merit.


You should check out that book I'm reading. It's facinating - but I haven't finished it yet to fully comment much more.


If admitting a lack of understanding of God's ways is the reasonable position, then how can one draw such definitive conclusions about God's love, heaven, creation, or his role as parent? I don't disagree with the last thing you said, but it contradicts the certainty of your previous statements.


It's not "Lack of understanding of God's ways" but "Lack of understanding of some of God's way". I don't know if it's even possible to ever understand everything about everything - let alone all His ways.

I know all this is bound to confuse the issue more - but I'll attempt it. I'm not sure how much more I go on about all this.

I accept the idea that God is the God of more and that He's the Standard that all moral values are measured against. He is True Good - and so everything is measured against Him - some things are closer to the True Good - these are called good and others are completely opposite bad (or evil).

I don't think man can be better than God - God is always better. So - think of the best good person you can think of - Gahndi, Mother Theresa, Your Mom - it doesn't matter - God is better than that person (even though they may be awfully close).

Time after time I hear people say "Well - I wouldn't do that, so God must be an evil Bastard because he does". Well - with the Parent analogy (which can only go so far because there are lots of dimension to God) it's who I believe God fundamentally is. The closest relationship explanation in human terms is Parent - Father. So - people are correct when they say "Well - as a parent I wouldn't do this or I wouldn't do that " Well - if they wouldn't (and assuming what they would or wouldn't do is actually Good) then because God is better He won't either.

He won't Punish without purpose - no parent would. He won't abandon his child anymore than you would your child, but ... if your child actually has the power to refuse (and all children grow up and get that power) regardless of how much it hurts the parent to watch their child make mistakes - the parent will have to let their grown child make the mistakes. Your example of a child in the street isn't exactly accurate - unless you say the parent tries to save the child and the child runs off in the opposite direction into danger. (God knows that's scary when a toddler does that, those little guys are fast).


That's not the point. The point was that mainstream Christianity teaches people that we are all born into sin, can't resolve this inherently sinful nature on our own, and that the only way to redeem ourselves is to worship the death of Jesus. Yes, everyone makes mistakes and does immoral things or things we regret from time to time, but nobody would disagree with what you said about taking responsibility for your own actions and working to solve your own problems. The objection was aimed specifically at the dogma that teaches that there's something wrong simply with being born human (Scientology says pretty much the same thing) which is nonsense.


Well - I again haven't studied this much. But here's my guess - I think it's not being born that makes you sinful (but we are still physical beings and will still have to go through physical death - that's just reality). It's the first time you do a sin that makes you sinful in a specific sense - what age can a human do that? I don't know - it probably varies with each person. I doubt it's a newborn though. I think Eastern Orthodox faiths don't believe in Original Sin in the sense you're talking about - I haven't read much on what they believe.


Isn't it also possible that Abraham simply used God as an excuse for his actions, rather than taking responsibility for nearly killing his own son?


I was replying in context of the recorded story. Abraham loved God and had Faith in Him. What He thought when that situation happened I don't know, but he apparently trusted that God meant it for good or for a reason somehow. It could be if Abraham had refused nothing would have happened except Isaac wouldn't have been saved from being sacrificed and all the implications it had.


I think the point was that the parental analogy fails when it comes to rationalizing what God has done in relation to humans. God uses punishments that are far more severe than any good human parent would, is more distant and detached than most human parents, and often acts for reasons that can't relate to us in any meaningful way.


It's definitely limited analogy - all analogies will be. But I don't think the limiting in the analogy means God is worse - but better.


Actually it's theoretically possible for God to not be a tyrant, although as I pointed out earlier, he would have to have other limitations set on him in order for this to make sense. If God isn't responsible for the diseases, disasters, and all the punishments that humans invent and inflict on each other, then nobody could accuse him of being a tyrant, but he'd have to be in a position where he has no choice but to allow these things to happen. Mind you, I agree that God isn't responsible for anything bad that happens (for different reasons).

Would you have any objection to accepting a God that is good yet limited? In other words, God wouldn't be controlling everything (good or bad) but rather he'd be trying to do the best he can with what limited power he has?

I think He has limited Himself - He's apparently powerless to Human Will. How He has limited Himself with nature? I'm not sure- it appears He has in many ways - I think the Deists are partially correct that He appears to be hands off - of course, that could be because we expect hands on to mean something it's not.

[Radrook]

Just reading it how it's written in the book of mythology called Genesis.

Just be careful not to write your own myth while you are at it by adding and subtracting. : )



Feel free to find where it says a "day is a thousand years" in the book of Genesis.

Sorry but the book of Genesis alone does not constitute the book called the Bible. The book called the Bible, which is one book with many writers but one divine author is composed of 66 books-all interrelated. It has a central theme, the fall and redemption of mankind. The book is interweaved by so that one part sheds interpretational light on other parts.

If we ignore this, then we will be isolating one section of the one book, demanding that it be understood out of context. Something I'm sure you would never attempt with any other book. Such an approach is flawed, and inevitably leads to erroneous conclusions. Thast's wshy you are having trouble wiuth the thousand years statement.




Wrong, I'm reading it as it's written, without your apologetic interpretations. While the God in that story thinks the serpent deceived the children, it's clear that the serpent merely told the children the truth and then the God gets angry with the serpent for telling these children the truth while saying that the serpent lied.

Reading it as what??? There are no children involved in the Genesis account of mankind's fall from perfection. The Bible clearly calls Adam a man-not a boy.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

neitherwas Eve called a girl:


1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

So again you are writing your own mythology. Neither did the serpent say anything since animals can't talk. Who the serpent is told to us repeatedly in the Bible.

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Overlords do such things, they punish anyone that disagrees with them and have a special wrath for those who expose the truth.

If the Devil told the truth then you wouldn't need to be making plans for your own funeral nor looking at the future as a dead end in the short span of approx. 80 some years. Ironically, you are defending the very one responsible for you own future death. How sad!


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



So now you're saying that he really meant a day, but changed his mind after A&E ate the fruit? I'm not.

No change of mind at all, simply within his judicial right to pass judgment that way. Human Judges do that all the time and no one even yawns-including you.

The whole damned religion is based on scaring little children into believing in a god.

Sorry if that's what happened in your case as a child. Someone attempted to scare me as well via using the Bible. But such persons don't represent the true purpose of the Bible which is to provide us with hope for the future via God's promises of a new world.

I'm more than qualified to read a book and give an opinion about it.

Not everyone is qualified to evaluate a literature. Especially those who approach literature with biased agendas.

These passages are in reference to the POV of this God, it's not saying that a day really is a thousand years, or that when the God says "day" that it really means "thousand years." It's mean to convey the meaning that the God is eternal.

Not at all. When eternity is meant eternity is said. Here are some examples:

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is thy refuge,

Psalm 93:2
Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Habakkuk 1:12
Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One?

Also, these passages are written LONG after Genesis and I highly doubt that A&E read them before their God warned them about eating the fruit.


That's the beauty of the inspired Word of God. It spans centuries and yet is totally harmonious within its pages. One section illuminates sections that were written later and sections written later illuminate parts written earlier. Proving that it really has one divine author.


Wrong, I'm reading the book, as it's written.

Reading and understanding are not necessarily the same things. Your vehement refusal to accept the Bible as one book is causing the difficulties.


You are retrofitting and rearranging meanings so that the book will support your idea that your God is infallible, all-loving and all-powerful. How's that sit with your "a day is a thousand years" argument?

As I previously pointed out, Thai, the Apostle Peter and the book of Psalms written under inspiration by king David are the ones which indicate that this is the way Genesis should be understood-not me. If you disagree, then you are essentially disagreeing with them. Which is OK as long as you don't say that it's me you are disagreeing with.

BTW

Since sin is crime and we all sin we are all criminals.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[Radrook]

Hey, Radrook. Let's grant that your god meant "a thousand years" when he said "day" to Adam and Eve.

You shall die "a thousand years after" you eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Wow, if your translation is correct, it makes the story even dumber than how it was written.

As I previously explained but you continue to ignore-the Hebrew word "yom" which is translated "day" in English is used in the Bible to refer to periods longer than a twenty-four- hour day as well.

BTW
Unfortunately, this has turned-as expected-into the exceedingly annoying "Yes is! with the expected "No ain't!" scenario which I usually try to avoid at all costs due to its time wastage consequences. So let's just leave at that and say we simply disagree.

bye!

[JoeEllison]

Just to be clear - I meant what I said. He'll be proportional to what each individual requires. He'll be Fair and Just. He can see a person's life and circumstances perfectly - better than you or I can.
So, you can absolutely tell us what "God" is thinking?

[Blodwin]

Atheism is unsubstantiated.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god. The starting position is one of assumed ignorance, we don't know what's behind the existence of the universe so we have to look for signs we can be reasonably sure of, what we call evidence. Atheism is just acknowledging that we don't know what's behind everything. Atheism is saying that we can see no evidence for this god[s], but we do see lots of evidence that humans will latch onto other supernatural beliefs that we know aren't true, so we're going to give it no more credibility than a belief in witches or leprechauns unless some convincing evidence is presented.

A god is just one of a practically infinite number of different possible hypotheses, the only reason it seems like a special case to you because it happens to have a high profile in society and you happen to believe in it. If you are proposing the existence of a god then it's up to you to give convincing reasons why we should accept that idea, in the same way that you would want evidence if I claimed to know that we're all living in a computer simulation, or that our universe is the cosmic equivalent of a tropical fish tank in the living room of an alien in a meta-universe, or that only I exist and everything else is just a figment of my imagination.

I understand I thought I was answering their arguments.
Where did I lose you?

I haven't noticed anything in your posts that actually addresses other peoples' arguments using logic, you just come out with statements of your belief. In effect you might as well be saying "You're wrong because I believe something different". Actually read what they are saying, try to understand the point they are making, and if you disagree use logic to explain what's wrong with it in a way that might convince an impartial spectator.

I'm well aware what the Randi board is. And I guess it depends on your point of view what logical and reality are.

I don't agree. Logic has allowed us to sort out the wheat from the chaff in many belief systems. There certainly appears to be an underlying reality that applies to everybody and is predictable, even though we don't know everything about it. Believing you can fly unaided doesn't allow you to jump off tall buildings without suffering the all too real and predictable consequences of smashing into the ground at the base. The use of logic enabled the Greeks to work out an amazing amount about the reality of our world thousands of years before we had the technology to demonstrate the existence of atoms or the ability to go into space and see our planet as a sphere.

I've spent decades analyzing the whole world and many beliefs. And I'm a big skeptic. I just happen to believe in God and I think I everything I believe is logical.

I think atheism is illogical.

I'm sure you do, but to convince other people of that you have to say why, and actually construct an argument rather than make flat statements of belief.

Rather funny to say when mostly you have atheists here preaching their lack of belief. Is that working?

On the whole I'd say yes, it is working. I don't agree that most of the atheists on here are preaching. To me, preaching is just stating beliefs as though they are truths without honestly examining them to see if they have any sound basis. Most of the atheists who post here give logical reasons for the things they say. Just because the arguments may be expressed forcibly, or because they show some contempt for religious ideas, doesn't relegate them to the same status as religious preaching, only the lack of a logical basis would do that.

Below I've quoted a few of the replies you've made to people's posts in order to illustrate the fact that you have just been making unsubstantiated statements of belief rather than pursuing logical arguments. They are all very definite statements of things you say you know, yet there's no reason given for how you could possibly have any evidence for them. Things you've made up in your head don't count as evidence.

People were created to expand life and God.


God showed people the way in the beginning and many followed, but some didn't. Those that followed the divine path never did experience pain or suffering.


I have a big knowledge of God and life


But, many of mankind when shown the proof that so many of you crave today still did not listen, so God withdrew and let mankind see how could survive with less of his blessings.


God is always acting and never just sits back.


God never made us do anything. But, he does encourage.


This isn't an experiment. God created us to expand life. We are all creators and that's what we are here for to expand, life and God.


But, even after 4½ million years, his patience and mercy still enfold us and we are still given chance after chance to recognize that only with God can we make it.

[thaiboxerken]

As I previously explained but you continue to ignore-the Hebrew word "yom" which is translated "day" in English is used in the Bible to refer to periods longer than a twenty-four- hour day as well.

Ok, let's say it does mean a thousand years.

Unfortunately, this has turned-as expected-into the exceedingly annoying "Yes is! with the expected "No ain't!" scenario which I usually try to avoid at all costs due to its time wastage consequences. So let's just leave at that and say we simply disagree.

Not really. I've proven that you're "interpretation" is irrational and unfounded. The book of Genesis was written long before Timothy and Psalms, you fail to realize that the bible is a collection of myths and parables and not a book written in one long session. You've also completely ignored how STUPID the threat from god would be if he really meant "a thousand years" instead of a day.

"Thou shalt die a thousand years after you eat from the tree of knowledge."

Ooooh.. scary............ and stupid. For you to defend the "day = 1000yrs" after this is really stupid.

[Blodwin]

Anyway, to get back to the original topic of free will...

For God, there is no time nor space. Those things only exist on the human level.
<SNIP>
And there is no beginning nor end for God. Always been and always will be.

That's precisely my point. An omnipotent, omniscient god that is outside our human concept of time would see the human universe as a whole from it's beginning to it's end (if it has one). According to most monotheistic beliefs this god actually created that universe and everything in it, which means that at every instant in time (from our point of view) the universe is exactly the way this god created it. Our actions are a part of that universe and as such must have been created by this god. To say that we can do something that the god doesn't approve of is ridiculous, it is effectively saying that this god doesn't approve of that particular part of the universe that it itself created.

Look at it this way:
We'll lose a couple of dimensions for clarities sake and imagine our universe as a 2D map. Now this map represents the entire universe from beginning to end, so lets say that the bottom edge represents the beginning of time, the top edge represents the end of time, and we have just one space dimension which is side to side. One person's life time would be represented by a short wiggly path somewhere in the middle of the map. From our point of view inside the universe we only see a narrow slice across the map because we're stranded in the present, we follow our short wiggly path up the map as time moves forward and feel like we're making choices as to which route we take. But the god sees the entire map with our whole lives laid out on it, it's not stuck in the present and waiting to see which route we take. It knows what the route is because that's the way it drew the map. If it had drawn the map differently our routes across it would have been different so our lives would be different. It's no good the god pointing at one particular point on our life path and tut-tutting because it doesn't like the route. If it doesn't like the route then it should have drawn it differently.

The reason I brought in alternative timelines is because religious folk will chime in at this point and say that this god gives us a choice of routes. But as I pointed out, for those alternative routes to provide a genuine choice they must both actually exist on the map, which means this god must have created both routes and is able to see them simultaneously on the map. That means that both the "good" and "evil" versions of our route exist, and it just depends which one god is looking at as to whether we made the right choice.

[Radrook]

Ok, let's say it does mean a thousand years.

Ok!


Not really. I've proven that you're "interpretation" is irrational and unfounded.

In your own head.


The book of Genesis was written long before Timothy and Psalms, you fail to realize that the bible is a collection of myths and parables and not a book written in one long session.

That's YOUR convenient interpretation of it based on your
unfamiliarity with what you are presumptuously attempting to criticize.

You've also completely ignored how stupid the threat from God would be if he really meant "a thousand years" instead of a day.

You mean, God's advice?

Adam wasn't aware of that kind loophole provided for his own benefit if he should happen to make an ass of himself as he did.

"Thou shalt die a thousand years after you eat from the tree of knowledge." Ooooh.. scary............ and stupid
For you to defend the "day = 1000yrs" after this is really stupid.

That's because you are perceiving God's motives as being coercive when all he was doing was providing instructions on how they could remain perfect and enjoy eternal life Thai!

Please consider that if he wanted to really scare them into obedience he could have done so in an infinitely much more effective way than the way you accuse him of trying to.

BTW
Namecalling indirectly or or otherwise might lead to termination of dialogue.

[thaiboxerken]

Oooh... God threated Adam and Eve that they would die a thousand years after they eat from the tree of knowledge. If that's what you want to believe, that's fine. It's even dumber than what's written, but it's your belief.

[Radrook]

Oooh... God threated Adam and Eve that they would die a thousand years after they eat from the tree of knowledge. If that's what you want to believe, that's fine. It's even dumber than what's written, but it's your belief.

Obviously they were unaware of that loophole Thai! A loophole that would lead to our birth and a chance for us to be saved from sin and death via the ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

BTW
Your ideas seem equally as dumb to me. The difference is that I try to refrain from telling you directlly as best as I can in order to make calm continued dialogue possible.

[thaiboxerken]

Obviously they were unaware of that loophole Thai! A loophole that would lead to our birth and a chance for us to be saved from sin and death via the ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What loophole? Adam and Eve still did not die from eating the fruit. The god did not explain to them that eating from the tree of knowledge would result in "spiritual death" over the course of "a thousand years." IF he did, that would make the story a bit more consistent with what you're trying to say it does, but it would also make the story really, REALLY stupid. No, the god in the bible tells A&E that they would die the day the eat from the fruit. He doesn't mention a thousand years or "spiritual death" or any of the other BS you christians try to insert into the meaning. It doesn't make any sense the way you interpret it.

[Blodwin]

I hope that's not the excuse you are going to give when you leave this Earth.

You comment is just silly and illogical.

God never made us do anything. But, he does encourage.

Well, for one thing, it's you that believes in a god, not me, so I'm not the one who's worried about having to make excuses. For another, if your omnipotent, omniscient god really did turn out to exist then it would be a perfectly valid excuse that this god would have to accept.

You're arguing against God with alternate timelines?!?!

You've been watching too much Sci-Fi. :)

No, I was arguing against the notion of god-given free will with alternative time lines. That's what I meant when I said you should read people's posts properly and try to understand them before replying. If you're having trouble getting your head around the implications for free will of the "god outside time" scenario, then look at it purely from the conventional point of view:

1. God created the universe and everything in it, including us.
2. God gave us free will so that we could choose whether to believe in him/her/it, and to behave in a "good" or "evil" way.
3. The tools God gave us to exercise this free will are our intellects, which we use to analyse the world around us and predict the consequences of our actions, and a sense of guilt, which allows us to distinguish right from wrong.

Now, by using my intellect and listening to my consience, I've come to the conclusion that it's highly improbable that god exists. Yet I've been using the tools that this god supposedly gave to the best of my ability (that ability must have been given to me by the god as it created everything). The only way I could adopt a belief in this god is by being dishonest with myself and deliberately ignoring the result I got using the tools god gave me for that purpose. Who's fault is this? I'd put it down to the omnipotent being that you say gave me the intellect and the conscience in the first place, especially as it's omniscience means it knew that that's what was going to happen anyway. With power comes responsibility. If you create something and it doesn't do what you want then it's stupid and dishonest to blame the creation, it's your own fault for screwing up the design. Seems to me your god has too many petty human failings. If you're going to invent a god, why not at least make it something we could look up to?

[Lurker]

I never understood Christians who think rape, murder, natural disasters, physical abuse and so on have to exist, because 'otherwise we wouldn't have free will'. Either we are 100% free, or we are 100% mindless robots. It's such a black-and-white world view that it's almost scary. I also don't understand people who apparently really can't understand for the life of them how their omnipotent God would end evil.

I'd rather live in a world with no rape, murder, dictatorships or natural disasters and have otherwise completely free will... than to have completely free will and live in a world where these things happen. I've never understood how rape and dictatorships are so important to Christians, but apparently they for some reason are.


I think we can all agree that virtues are good, right? Let's take the virtue of generosity. If there were no such thing as shortages, how could we have the virtue of generosity? If everyone had everything they wanted, nobody could be generous.

Extrapolate that into all aspects fo life. You cannot have true freewill by putting limitations on it.

[Blodwin]

You cannot have true freewill by putting limitations on it.

And you can't have true free will when you have an omnipotent, omniscient creator who made everything including us. Surely you must be able to see that by this stage in the discussion. For us to have free will you have to put limitations on your creator, and then it's no longer the god you believers seem to be advocating.

And another thing. The believers always claim that we have free will, but they never say how they know. I don't think there is any way of knowing, the world would seem exactly the same to us whether everything we do is purely deterministic, or whether there is a genuine element of choice in the decisions we make. Shouldn't you first give evidence for the existence of free will before building a god belief that includes it?

[rocketdodger]

You cannot have true freewill by putting limitations on it.

I want to fly. I want to be able to start fires with my mind. I want to be able to speak with animals. I want to know what sex feels like for a woman. I want to be able to breathe water. These things, and a great many others, are acts that I want to be able to do yet I cannot.

According to you, does this mean I do not have true freewill?

[Lurker]

And you can't have true free will when you have an omnipotent, omniscient creator who made everything including us. Surely you must be able to see that by this stage in the discussion. For us to have free will you have to put limitations on your creator, and then it's no longer the god you believers seem to be advocating.

I am not advocating a creator that is or is not necessarily omnipotent. I don't know.


And another thing. The believers always claim that we have free will, but they never say how they know. I don't think there is any way of knowing, the world would seem exactly the same to us whether everything we do is purely deterministic, or whether there is a genuine element of choice in the decisions we make. Shouldn't you first give evidence for the existence of free will before building a god belief that includes it?

We certainly are limited by our consciousness. I acknowledge that proof of frewill could go either way but I prefer the notion that we have freewill.

[Lurker]

I want to fly. I want to be able to start fires with my mind. I want to be able to speak with animals. I want to know what sex feels like for a woman. I want to be able to breathe water. These things, and a great many others, are acts that I want to be able to do yet I cannot.

According to you, does this mean I do not have true freewill?


Good point. I will hjave to amend my position that within the framework of the physical laws of our universe, freewill exists.

Freewill does not equal omnipotence, as you seem to be heading down that path of argument.

[rocketdodger]

The idea that people need to be able to choose between good and evil in order to grow spiritually is valid.

Under the current system, however, evil includes prematurely ending the spiritual growth of others.

How can this be reconciled under the theistic god?

It can't. The theodicy is incomplete. Try again.

[rocketdodger]

Good point. I will hjave to amend my position that within the framework of the physical laws of our universe, freewill exists.

Freewill does not equal omnipotence, as you seem to be heading down that path of argument.

Then why not simply make it a physical law that a human can't kill another human?

[Nogbad]

The same thing you do.

A bit strict? :rolleyes:

[Lurker]

Then why not simply make it a physical law that a human can't kill another human?

Hmm, I'm not sure that would be a good prohibition under our current ethical systerm. I can come up with numerous examples of when we might want to kill a fellow human.

I am reminded of the Asimov's Zeroeth Law of Robotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

[Nogbad]

Hmm, I'm not sure that would be a good prohibition under our current ethical systerm. I can come up with numerous examples of when we might want to kill a fellow human.

I am reminded of the Asimov's Zeroeth Law of Robotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Eh!

Why would one want to kill other humans who themselves were incapable of killing other humans?

[Lurker]

Eh!

Why would one want to kill other humans who themselves were incapable of killing other humans?

Directly or indirectly?

SCENARIO: Only by killing Human A can we save Humans B, C, D, ...Z.

I made it general but a good imagination can fill in the details. Again, I am reminded of Asimov's Zeroeth Law of Robotics and how it trumps the 1st Law of Robotics (not allowing a robot to kill a human).

[Lurker]

The idea that people need to be able to choose between good and evil in order to grow spiritually is valid.

Under the current system, however, evil includes prematurely ending the spiritual growth of others.

How can this be reconciled under the theistic god?

Very good point and I do not have an explanation on why some people have their lives snuffed out (as we perceive it) prematurely. The death of a baby is very problematic for theists as there seems to be no discernable purpose. Surely a baby cannot choose good or evil yet. One could argue for reincarnation as a way to get around that I suppose.

My concept of God is him being pretty hands off though.

[Radrook]

What loophole? Adam and Eve still did not die from eating the fruit. The God did not explain to them that eating from the tree of knowledge would result in "spiritual death" over the course of "a thousand years." IF he did, that would make the story a bit more consistent with what you're trying to say it does, but it would also make the story really, REALLY stupid. No, the God in the bible tells A&E that they would die the day the eat from the fruit. He doesn't mention a thousand years or "spiritual death" or any of the other BS you Christians try to insert into the meaning. It doesn't make any sense the way you interpret it.

I don't see why you consider God's viewing of the day as a thousand years stupid.

1. Is it because you don't believe it happened?
2. You don't agree with that decision?
3. You feel that Adam was treated unfairly?

If so, how is Adam being treated unfairly by being allowed to live longer than he had expected? If I had expected to die immediately and was allowed to live almost a thousand years I would be thanking my lucky stars. Actually, most condemned criminals would. In fact, many fight for an extension of their sentence so they can live a few years more.


Those in charge might or might not allow that extension. But it is legally within their jurisdiction to either do so or refrain, No one I know of argues that this authority should be denied such officials and when their decision is made it is generally respected and abided by-by you as well I'm sure. So the problem seems not to be the extension of Adam's life per se. The real problem seems to be that you are seeking some way to find contradictions and accepting the 1000 year sentence would mean that your alleged contradiction disappears.

If indeed this isn't the cause, then show me how God is in any way harming Adam by letting him live longer than he had expected.

[Blodwin]

Are you seriously arguing about the details of the Adam and Eve story as though it's true? I didn't think even many Christians believed that was anything more than metaphorical.

Anyway, what about the free will thing? It's what the OP was asking about and it's far more interesting.

[Radrook]

Are you seriously arguing about the details of the Adam and Eve story as though it's true?

Yes.


I didn't think even many Christians believed that was anything more than metaphorical.

There are presently millions of Christians who believe the Genesis account as it was intended to be understood-as a historical document. Of course you might not consider millions of Christians as many-but I suppose that can be a matter of perspective or preference if you will.

Anyway, what about the free will thing?

OK, what is it you wish to discuss about it?


It's what the OP was asking about

Yes, I noticed but was deflected by questions an objections not pertinent to it to which I was forced to respond as decency requires.

.....and it's far more interesting.

I find both equally interesting but would rather stay on thread topic unless I am approached with objections and non-topic questions which demand a response.

[thaiboxerken]

1. Is it because you don't believe it happened?

No. I like JR Tolkien books, but I don't think those events happened that he wrote about. Believing that the story in the Bible happened is stupid, but that's another subject.


2. You don't agree with that decision?

What decision? The god told A&E that they would die the day that they ate from the fruit. He apparently changed his mind, or (according to you) meant other than what he said. Do you think A&E understood that "day" meant a thousand years? Why does Genesis define day as sun rise to sun set? Is the thread of dying after a thousand years really a consequence worth considering? If you tell me I could a thousand years die after eating the fruit, I'd probably eat the fruit without a care in the world.


3. You feel that Adam was treated unfairly?

This has nothing to do with fairness or treatment of A&E. It has to do with the context of what your god told A&E in the story. If your god meant "a thousand years" instead of "day" then the story makes even less sense than as written. Sure, it makes your god not a liar, but it also makes him a buffoon.

If I had expected to die immediately and was allowed to live almost a thousand years I would be thanking my lucky stars.

Me too! However, I'd consider that the god was wrong or lied about the fruit as well. The way it's written in the book, your god warned A&E not to eat the fruit, as if it's a deadly poison that would kill them within the day. When they find out he's wrong, they get kicked out of Eden.

The real problem seems to be that you are seeking some way to find contradictions and accepting the 1000 year sentence would mean that your alleged contradiction disappears.

It makes the "alleged lie" that your god appear to be honest talk.. at the expense of making your god look like a total moron.

If indeed this isn't the cause, then show me how God is in any way harming Adam by letting him live longer than he had expected.

What? This has nothing to do with justice and treatment. It has to do with the fact that the god in Genesis either lied about the fruit, was mistaken about the fruit or used idiotic meanings when he spoke of the fruit.

[Radrook]

No. I like JR Tolkien books, but I don't think those events happened that he wrote about. Believing that the story in the Bible happened is stupid,....

I know what you are seeking with your constant insults
but it's not going to happen. Bye!

[Silentknight]

I want to fly. I want to be able to start fires with my mind. I want to be able to speak with animals. I want to know what sex feels like for a woman. I want to be able to breathe water. These things, and a great many others, are acts that I want to be able to do yet I cannot.

According to you, does this mean I do not have true freewill?
Good point. As I pointed out earlier, there are many things people wish they were able to do but can't, and it's easy to see how it would be very dangerous if they had these abilities. My examples were more along the lines of supernatural powers that could be used to harm others, and it would be perfectly reasonable to define these acts as "sins." If God didn't want people to sin, why couldn't he have defined sins as things beyond human capability?
Hmm, I'm not sure that would be a good prohibition under our current ethical systerm. I can come up with numerous examples of when we might want to kill a fellow human.

I am reminded of the Asimov's Zeroeth Law of Robotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
I was actually thinking about the robots argument recently. Can humans be analogized to robots? On one hand, some religionists will argue that we weren't created as robots because we have free will. A race of robots programmed never to sin may solve the problem of evil, but it would take away their free will. On the other hand, these same people will argue that humans are very much like machines that were designed and built, in order to make their argument from design.

What do you think?

[Lurker]

I was actually thinking about the robots argument recently. Can humans be analogized to robots? On one hand, some religionists will argue that we weren't created as robots because we have free will. A race of robots programmed never to sin may solve the problem of evil, but it would take away their free will. On the other hand, these same people will argue that humans are very much like machines that were designed and built, in order to make their argument from design.

What do you think?


Well, I was bringing up the Robot Laws to demonstrate that it is acceptable to kill if a greater good is promoted.

On your point though, I agree that we would be simple automatons if not given freewill. And freewill does not exist if we can only choose the "acceptable" choice. Humans as evidence for design is an argument for design, yes. Not necessarily great evidence but evidence nonetheless.

[rocketdodger]

Good point. As I pointed out earlier, there are many things people wish they were able to do but can't, and it's easy to see how it would be very dangerous if they had these abilities. My examples were more along the lines of supernatural powers that could be used to harm others, and it would be perfectly reasonable to define these acts as "sins." If God didn't want people to sin, why couldn't he have defined sins as things beyond human capability?


Well, the most obvious answer would be because there is no theistic God.

[kedo1981]

And RocketDodger shots and scores.
The only logical conclusion is that all these concepts are made up by humans.

[Blodwin]

Yes.

Wow. Have to admit I find that rather creepy.

There are presently millions of Christians who believe the Genesis account as it was intended to be understood-as a historical document.

That's even creepier. The Christians in these parts are mostly Anglicans who regard the bible as metaphorical, that's if they think about it at all. They mainly seem to go along with the faith for a spot of comfort and out of habit. More of a social club really. The only bible literalists one meets are either Jehova's Witnesses (even other Christians tend to think they are complete fruitcakes) and the occasional person who, to put it politely, doesn't have too firm a grip on reality. But anyway, that's a discussion for another thread.

OK, what is it you wish to discuss about it?

To me, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient god (the kind Christians usually say they believe in) can give it's creations free will is an obvious logical contradiction. To claim that this god will then punish it's creations if they exercise that free will in a way it doesn't like is heaping gross unfairness on top of logical impossibility. I often wonder how Christians make the pieces fit together in their heads in such a way that their brains don't explode. I haven't received a plausible explanation yet. Christians who I ask for an explanation either just dodge the question or waffle meaninglessly about god moving in mysterious ways that we can't possibly expect to understand, although they seem very certain about lots of other things about this god and what it wants and why it wants it. This thread seems to be no exception.

As the topic of the thread is supposed to be free will, I was hoping that a Christian might take a serious stab at explaining how they think it works. Please, no dodging, and no waffling.

[Dr H]

...only I exist and everything else is just a figment of my imagination.

Damn... YOU'RE the one!

[Dr H]

I want to fly. I want to be able to start fires with my mind. I want to be able to speak with animals. I want to know what sex feels like for a woman. I want to be able to breathe water. These things, and a great many others, are acts that I want to be able to do yet I cannot.

According to you, does this mean I do not have true freewill?

Aw hell, you're just not trying hard enough. :-)

[Nihilus]

The idea that people need to be able to choose between good and evil in order to grow spiritually is valid.
Not within the parameters of a deity for whom special pleading is a daily occurrence.

There is no logical interpretation of the judeo-christian concept of 'free will' that is not, in reality, fanciful coercion.

[TeslaPRG]

I suppose loophole is what you can call it - I call it repentence. That is what remedial punishment is for - to change behavior. What I don't know is whether, even if there is that option, people in that situation would even want to take it. There's plenty of responses here in this forum where people blatantly say (facetiously I'm sure since they are discussing something they don't believe in) they'd prefer hell to any heaven they can imagine - because hell would be more fun, or more realistic, or less boring, or what have you.

Tell me where in the Bible it says any of this...
The best part of Christianity is that you can make up your own stuff to cover the obvious answer. The Old Testament clearly says that you will end up in a garbage dump (Hades) outside of Jerusalem forever. Now I think that a believer in ancient texts should stick with the literal rewrite/translation/interpretation/book designed by committee no matter what.

So what if the modern world gives us the actual value of pi to a billion decimal points. The Bible says three - so it be three.

That is what I call free will!

[Radrook]

So laws are invariably coercion?

If indeed their is so much aversion to freedom under laws, then why is it that Americans are constantly touting themselves as being free and the nation as being a paragon of freedom? Why instead not apply the same objections about True Freedom put forth here? Why not demand freedom without laws? In short, why not be consistent instead of being insincerely and conveneintly self-contradictory?

[megaresp]

Is god...neither able nor willing [to prevent evil]?
Then why call him god?

This last one seems flawed to me.

If some powerful entity comes along and insists that I call it god, and can dish out severe consequences if I don't, I'll call it god and thank it for letting me do so.

It's ability to live up to its claims/promises is irrelevant. It needs nothing more than my belief that it can live up to its threats.

In the god business, it's the smiting that counts.

[Lurker]

To me, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient god (the kind Christians usually say they believe in) can give it's creations free will is an obvious logical contradiction. To claim that this god will then punish it's creations if they exercise that free will in a way it doesn't like is heaping gross unfairness on top of logical impossibility.

What would we call a parent that insisted on making all of their child's choices for them from cradle to grave? We'd call that child abuse as the parent is not allowing the child to become independent and learn their own way.

When a child errs, do we do nothing? No, we punish the child.

[Blodwin]

So laws are invariably coercion?

Of course they are. Do what we say or we'll punish you. If there's no threat of some sort of sanction for disobedience then a law is meaningless and tends to be ignored.

If indeed their is so much aversion to freedom under laws, then why is it that Americans are constantly touting themselves as being free and the nation as being a paragon of freedom? Why instead not apply the same objections about True Freedom put forth here? Why not demand freedom without laws? In short, why not be consistent instead of being insincerely and conveneintly self-contradictory?

A society has to use coercion to get it's members to behave in a certain way because it's not omnipotent, and it didn't create every last detail of the individuals it's trying to control.

Also, the term "freedom" when touted by American politicians is rhetoric. It's not about being able to do whatever you want, it's about getting voters to support one particular power base in society rather than another. It also tends to be used as a code word for American nationalism. Are you comparing your god to a human politician who has very limited means at their disposal and employs rhetorical tricks in order to gain votes?

Oh, and I'd still be interested to hear how you can make the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent, omniscient god who allows free will to stand up to scrutiny.

[Blodwin]

What would we call a parent that insisted on making all of their child's choices for them from cradle to grave? We'd call that child abuse as the parent is not allowing the child to become independent and learn their own way.

When a child errs, do we do nothing? No, we punish the child.

You are playing the same trick as Radrook. You are comparing a fallible human who has to make use of their limited knowledge and abilities, to an omnipotent being who created everything. A parent is human, a god is... well, whatever you want it to be as far as I can tell. You're being disingenuous. Stop it.

[Blodwin]

To me, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient god (the kind Christians usually say they believe in) can give it's creations free will is an obvious logical contradiction. To claim that this god will then punish it's creations if they exercise that free will in a way it doesn't like is heaping gross unfairness on top of logical impossibility.

What would we call a parent that insisted on making all of their child's choices for them from cradle to grave? We'd call that child abuse as the parent is not allowing the child to become independent and learn their own way.

When a child errs, do we do nothing? No, we punish the child.

Oh, and you haven't even attempted to answer my main point even though that's what you quoted.

How come free will is not a logical contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient creator?

[rocketdodger]

Not within the parameters of a deity for whom special pleading is a daily occurrence.

There is no logical interpretation of the judeo-christian concept of 'free will' that is not, in reality, fanciful coercion.

Yes I agree with you here, but attacking the argument from that position is nearly impossible due to their ignorance, as we have seen time and time again on this very forum.

So I choose to present the simplest flaw, which is that allowing one spirit to grow freely necessarily includes the possibility that other innocent spirits will have their growth prematurely terminated. That idea is so easy to understand even the theists can't ignore the question. Except for radrook.

[rocketdodger]

What would we call a parent that insisted on making all of their child's choices for them from cradle to grave? We'd call that child abuse as the parent is not allowing the child to become independent and learn their own way.

When a child errs, do we do nothing? No, we punish the child.

What would we call a parent who insisted on letting their child murder, rape, torture..... in the interest of letting them become fully independent and learn their own way?

This is why that theodicy is such bullsh**. The problem of evil isn't about the fact that people have bad days, or that people sometimes scam each other out of money. The problem is that people murder, rape, and torture each other.

There is no consistent way to rationalize the presence of such things -- except by saying that there is no theistic god. As soon as one tries to fit it into a theistic framework, other parts of the framework no longer fit. It is so simple, I find it hard to believe that a species capable of producing the iPhone can't figure it out.

[Belz...]

Obviously they were unaware of that loophole Thai! A loophole that would lead to our birth and a chance for us to be saved from sin and death via the ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What loophole ? Why are you continuously making things up ?

I don't see why you consider God's viewing of the day as a thousand years stupid.

Because it could be a million years, or a hundred, or six weeks, or two hours. "A thousand years" is arbitrary and entirely your invention.

If so, how is Adam being treated unfairly by being allowed to live longer than he had expected?

It's about God lying and the serpent telling the truth, in this case. Who'd figure.

I know what you are seeking with your constant insults
but it's not going to happen. Bye!

I see you consider yourself to be the bible itself. Otherwise how could you interpret calling the bible stupid an insult ?

[rocketdodger]

You are probably already on ignore for somehow insulting the type of soil under the old house of the great great grandmother of a friend of radrook's, Belz.

[thaiboxerken]

Believer tend to take it personally when you criticize or insult their ridiculous beliefs. I don't know why. I tend not to see people in this forum get upset when believers come in and say evolution, materialism, atheism or skepticism is stupid. I guess it's the difference between knowledge and belief.

[Belz...]

I guess without their faith they are nothing, so insulting their faith equals insulting them.

[Silentknight]

I know I'm probably already on Radrook's ignore list for messing up the tidy little box he thought was the universe. Given that I don't fit the common stereotypes of atheists, since my own ideas are fairly unique even among skeptics, he was unable to pigeonhole me into his prejudiced definition of atheists. This did not sit well, since he was trying to argue that all atheists are people who assert (with absolute certainty) that there is no God. So, just as he has accused others of doing when it comes to the bible, he ignored everything that clashed with his world view, whined I was being insulting, and pranced off to declare victory.


...And by the way, the following biblical figures are gay: King David, Saul of Tarsus, Jesus, and God himself. (And probably a few others I missed.) :D

[Nihilus]

I guess without their faith they are nothing, so insulting their faith equals insulting them.

For theists, their faith is not just an activity or choice, but a lifestyle. Something absorbed into their persona, because of how many personal emotional gaps it fills.

On top of that, the 'strength' of faith is directly proportionate to how incapable the individual is to dissociate themselves from it, once adopted.

Many cannot conceivably separate themselves from it, after a while, and those that can do not wish to, for fear of desecrating their faith.

[Radrook]

Strange, but I find that to be the exact way in which evolutionist atheists respond to criticism and the very same emphasis that they give their cherished belief in their lives. In fact, my experience with atheistic evolutionists has shown me that they tend to get far more emotional than theists do whenever their pet ideas are challenged.

Something that really was a surprise since I previously had thought that only certain charismatically-inclined theists responded that way. But contrary to my expectations the opposite turned out to be true.

Actually, I recently researched this interesting phenomenon and found that this extreme aversion to anything religious and the attending strong inclination towards the atheistic has been positively correlated to negative religious childhood experiences.

Long exposure to well-meaning but overbearing parents who strove to force religion down their throats, for example, or who employed physical punishment to induce compliance, or who's overly-strict restrictions ruined both childhood and adolescence were cited as causes.

Once reaching adulthood, of course, these individuals' response to religion tends to be exceeding emotional and irrational. In some cases it results in an atheistic anti religious vendetta mentality which facilitated emotional steam venting in forums such as this one.

BTW
Actually, it sometimes reminds me of these two fellows who regularly attended the neighborhood chess club. They constantly hurled insults at each other as they played speed chess, slammed the pieces against the table while rapidly and loudly slapping the time clock with the free hand. The whole commotion shook the table generally disturbing everyone else who wanted to play a quiet game. A fellow once suggested they go to a gymnasium. But, to no avail of course since they obviously needed the cathartic and no one was going to deprive them of it.

[arthwollipot]

Actually, I recently researched this interesting phenomenon and found that this extreme aversion to anything religious and the attending strong inclination towards the atheistic has been positively correlated to negative religious childhood experiences.

Long exposure to well-meaning but overbearing parents who strove to force religion down their throats, for example, or who employed physical punishment to induce compliance, or who's overly-strict restrictions ruined both childhood and adolescence were cited as causes.

Once reaching adulthood, of course, these individuals' response to religion tends to be exceeding emotional and irrational. In some cases it results in an atheistic anti religious vendetta mentality which facilitated emotional steam venting in forums such as this one.Allow me to provide a dissenting data point for your study. I am an atheist, and this does not describe me in any way at all. My parents were non-religious, and not overly strict, and I had no particular negative experiences with religion in my early life. And I still turned out atheist.

[Nihilus]

Strange, but I find that to be the exact way in which evolutionist atheists respond to criticism and the very same emphasis that they give their cherished belief in their lives. In fact, my experience with atheistic evolutionists has shown me that they tend to get far more emotional than theists do whenever their pet ideas are challenged.
You're arguing the methodology, without regard for how sound the accepted conclusions are.

If you have blonde hair, how long after I incessantly (and without evidence) tell you your hair is actually black will your replies, affirming your blonde-headedness, start becoming pithy and impatient, presumably mimicking this "emotional" state you mention above?

[Nihilus]

Long exposure to well-meaning but overbearing parents who strove to force religion down their throats, for example, or who employed physical punishment to induce compliance, or who's overly-strict restrictions ruined both childhood and adolescence were cited as causes.

Once reaching adulthood, of course, these individuals' response to religion tends to be exceeding emotional and irrational. In some cases it results in an atheistic anti religious vendetta mentality which facilitated emotional steam venting in forums such as this one.

You are talking about what I refer to as antitheists: atheists for whom the path to atheism has been one of emotional vindication.

While you'll find these sorts are much easier to address when trying to denounce the sensibility of atheism as a logical viewpoint, they do not count for (in my experience) even half of its total populace.

[Radrook]

You're arguing the methodology, without regard for how sound the accepted conclusions are.

Yep!

If you have blonde hair, how long after I incessantly (and without evidence)

Evidence acceptability is subjective. Much of what I see provided as evidence falls flat
on its face but is touted as evidence anyway. Much of what I see as legitimate evidence is rejected arbitrarily and inconsistently. Which is off topic but since you bring it up....

....tell you your hair is actually black will your replies, affirming your blonde-headedness, start becoming as pithy and impatient, presumably mimicking this "emotional" state you mention above?

I never said anyone was mimicking anyone else. The atheist reactions to challenges to their beliefs are genuine reactions and do not constitute mimicking.


BTW
I am merely responding to the accusation that emotional irrational responses are invariably
religiously motivated. As I said before, my experience has convinced me otherwise. In fact. I have reason to conclude that atheists are far more likely to respond in that manner emotional way than theists do. As for the irate arguer's argument's content, that is not what I am speaking about-obviously.

[Radrook]

deleted

[Nihilus]

Evidence acceptability is subjective. Much of what I see provided as evidence falls flat
on its face but is touted as evidence anyway. Much of what I see as legitimate evidence is rejected arbitrarily and inconsistently.
Even at the lowest common denominator, materialism is night and day above theism in the evidence department. The entirety of full universal sensory experience attests to this.



I never said anyone was mimicking anyone else. The atheist reactions to challenges to their beliefs are genuine reactions and do not constitute mimicking.
I think you missed my point. you seem to be mistaking the degree of assurance evident in the tone of a typical atheist response as indicative of emotional investment, rather than logical incredulity.

My analogy was meant to illustrate this, not imply you were suggesting mimicry.

[ImaginalDisc]

Strange, but I find that to be the exact way in which evolutionist atheists respond to criticism and the very same emphasis that they give their cherished belief in their lives. In fact, my experience with atheistic evolutionists has shown me that they tend to get far more emotional than theists do whenever their pet ideas are challenged.

Something that really was a surprise since I previously had thought that only certain charismatically-inclined theists responded that way. But contrary to my expectations the opposite turned out to be true.

Actually, I recently researched this interesting phenomenon and found that this extreme aversion to anything religious and the attending strong inclination towards the atheistic has been positively correlated to negative religious childhood experiences.

Long exposure to well-meaning but overbearing parents who strove to force religion down their throats, for example, or who employed physical punishment to induce compliance, or who's overly-strict restrictions ruined both childhood and adolescence were cited as causes.

Once reaching adulthood, of course, these individuals' response to religion tends to be exceeding emotional and irrational. In some cases it results in an atheistic anti religious vendetta mentality which facilitated emotional steam venting in forums such as this one.


Let's assume that it is true that all atheists have had bad personal experiences with religion and religious people.

Does that prove your religion or any other religion to be true?

[Nihilus]

Does that prove your religion or any other religion to be true?

I'll take False Dilemma for $400, please, Alex.

[Radrook]

Let's assume that it is true that all atheists have had bad personal experiences with religion and religious people.

Does that prove your religion or any other religion to be true?

Of course not.

[Radrook]

Even at the lowest common denominator, materialism is night and day above theism in the evidence department.The entirety of full universal sensory experience attests to this

Let's just say that we disagree in the evidence and universal sensory experience department.

....you seem to be mistaking the degree of assurance evident in the tone of a typical atheist response as indicative of emotional investment, rather than logical incredulity. .....

I am quite capable of differentiating between the twain.

[arthwollipot]

Of course, Radrook, once you started noticing people who fit your definition of atheist, you started noticing more of them, and not noticing those who didn't fit.

I never noticed how many Priuses there were on the road until I got one myself. It's classic confirmation bias. Almost a... textbook case. :)

[Hokulele]

...And by the way, the following biblical figures are gay: King David, Saul of Tarsus, Jesus, and God himself. (And probably a few others I missed.) :D


And John of Patmos had serious issues with Rome.

Or was really fond of, er, substances.

Or both.

[Blodwin]

So, back to free will. Are there really no Christians here who are willing to explain how it's not a logical contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient creator to give it's creations free will? How about Radrook, fancy having a bash? Or anybody?

[thaiboxerken]

Strange, but I find that to be the exact way in which evolutionist atheists respond to criticism and the very same emphasis that they give their cherished belief in their lives.

Wow. This is absurd and hilarious! I have yet to meet anyone who has become upset because a creationist made fun of evolution. When I encounter a creationist that makes fun of evolution, I laugh because I realize how stupid they are.

[Belz...]

Strange, but I find that to be the exact way in which evolutionist atheists respond to criticism and the very same emphasis that they give their cherished belief in their lives.

Cherished beliefs ? What beliefs ? Opinions based on evidence are not beliefs, Rad, no matter how much you need your tu quoques to justify yours.

In fact, my experience with atheistic evolutionists has shown me that they tend to get far more emotional than theists do whenever their pet ideas are challenged.

You're preaching, now, Rad.

Actually, I recently researched this interesting phenomenon and found that this extreme aversion to anything religious and the attending strong inclination towards the atheistic has been positively correlated to negative religious childhood experiences.

Then you've done your research exactly like I'd expect a faith-based theist to. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Once reaching adulthood, of course, these individuals' response to religion tends to be exceeding emotional and irrational.

Religion IS emotional and irrational. You are, again, trying to make your ridiculous faith seem reasonable by classifying any and all other opinion as faith, as well.

For your information, atheism is not a "rebellion" against god(s) but a simple lack of belief.

I am merely responding to the accusation that emotional irrational responses are invariably religiously motivated.

Smells of straw, this one.

[Lurker]

You are playing the same trick as Radrook. You are comparing a fallible human who has to make use of their limited knowledge and abilities, to an omnipotent being who created everything. A parent is human, a god is... well, whatever you want it to be as far as I can tell. You're being disingenuous. Stop it.

I fail to see how the analogy does not stand up. It seems you are holding God to a different set of rules than you hold humans, in this case.

The fallibility of the parent is of no concern to my argument. So again I ask, what would you say to a parent that insists on making his child's decisions for him at all times? You would call that child abuse. (note, the fallibility or infallibility of the parent is immaterial to this argument)

[Lurker]

Oh, and you haven't even attempted to answer my main point even though that's what you quoted.

How come free will is not a logical contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient creator?

Why would it be? Unless you are using the term omniscient to include knwoledge of the future (which I find anathema). Perhaps God is limited in not knowing the future and is therefore not omniscient, in the strictest defn of the word.

[Lurker]

What would we call a parent who insisted on letting their child murder, rape, torture..... in the interest of letting them become fully independent and learn their own way?

You have to take the good with the bad when you have free will. One cannot have free will without having evil.

This is why that theodicy is such bullsh**. The problem of evil isn't about the fact that people have bad days, or that people sometimes scam each other out of money. The problem is that people murder, rape, and torture each other.
I'm not sure I would want to live in a world that does not have free will though.

There is no consistent way to rationalize the presence of such things -- except by saying that there is no theistic god. As soon as one tries to fit it into a theistic framework, other parts of the framework no longer fit. It is so simple, I find it hard to believe that a species capable of producing the iPhone can't figure it out.
Your opinion is noted although it it is not altogether shared by me. I agree that there are problems.

[Lurker]

So, back to free will. Are there really no Christians here who are willing to explain how it's not a logical contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient creator to give it's creations free will? How about Radrook, fancy having a bash? Or anybody?

I see the only contradiction being if God can see the future versus free will. If God already knows our choices, is our will actually free? I find the thought quite distasteful and therefore my defn of God does not include being able to see the future.

[Belz...]

If god is omnipotent he is, by definition, omniscient. Of course, omnipotence is logically inconsistent, so an omni-whatever god cannot logically exist.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So, back to free will. Are there really no Christians here who are willing to explain how it's not a logical contradiction for an omnipotent, omniscient creator to give it's creations free will? How about Radrook, fancy having a bash? Or anybody?

Here's a few:
- He sees all possibilities of future events including the most likely
- Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
- He is capable of seeing the future events, but doesn't allow himself to see it until after we've made the choice
- He exists in a different timeline/dimension apart, above, seperate from ours
- He's capable of overpowering us, but chooses not to

I'm sure smarter people then me can think of even more.

[Egg]

I see the only contradiction being if God can see the future versus free will. If God already knows our choices, is our will actually free? I find the thought quite distasteful and therefore my defn of God does not include being able to see the future.

I don't see a contradiction. Knowing what someone will choose to do would have no more effect on that choice being free than knowing what choices somebody made in the past.

[uruk]

Free will is over rated.

Especially considering the price we have to pay for it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Here's a few:
- He sees all possibilities of future events including the most likely

In this case, God is malevolent.

- Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

In this case, god has paradoxically limited his infinite power and knowledge.

- He is capable of seeing the future events, but doesn't allow himself to see it until after we've made the choice

Then he either weak, or he is cruel.

- He exists in a different timeline/dimension apart, above, seperate from ours

Mostly meaningless, but if you're implying that limits his power, then he isn't god.

-He's capable of overpowering us, but chooses not to

I'm sure smarter people then me can think of even more.

I'm capable of overpower my little sister, but if she's about to say, eat an apple of good and evil which would condemn her and all her children forever to lives of misery and torment, I'd say "Hey, watch out!"

Overpowering isn't the only option.

[rocketdodger]

Here's a few:
- He sees all possibilities of future events including the most likely
- Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
- He is capable of seeing the future events, but doesn't allow himself to see it until after we've made the choice
- He exists in a different timeline/dimension apart, above, seperate from ours
- He's capable of overpowering us, but chooses not to

I'm sure smarter people then me can think of even more.

Not really, because such people know that even the ones you present here don't work in the context of theism.

- He sees all possibilities of future events including the most likely

This doesn't include seeing which of those possibilities will happen, which means non-omniscience/omnipotence.

- Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Again, non-omniscience/omnipotence.

- He is capable of seeing the future events, but doesn't allow himself to see it until after we've made the choice

If so, then he has nothing resembling a "plan" for us, which I think most believers find to be a quite unattractive idea.

- He exists in a different timeline/dimension apart, above, seperate from ours

Doesn't address the issue of freewill vs. omniscience.

- He's capable of overpowering us, but chooses not to

Doesn't address the issue of freewill vs. omniscience.

[rocketdodger]

I don't see a contradiction. Knowing what someone will choose to do would have no more effect on that choice being free than knowing what choices somebody made in the past.

The definition of free will that theists use includes the concept of "non-determinism." The only way god could possibly know what choice a person will make is if that choice is completely determined. Hence the contradiction.

It has nothing to do with any actions or inactions on god's part.

[Belz...]

- He sees all possibilities of future events including the most likely

If he sees all possibilities, then he sees the ONLY one that will happen.

- He is capable of seeing the future events, but doesn't allow himself to see it until after we've made the choice

In which case it's no longer future.

- He's capable of overpowering us, but chooses not to

He DOES, since he supposedly passes judgment.

[Jekyll]

What would we call a parent that insisted on making all of their child's choices for them from cradle to grave? We'd call that child abuse as the parent is not allowing the child to become independent and learn their own way.

I though standing idly by, watching when you could intervene as your child is brutally raped and murdered was child abuse.

Most parents can find a middle ground between the two options, and in comparison with the inaction of your vicarious child abusing god, what you worry about is little more than an annoyance.

[Jekyll]

Ok. Here's something I don't get.

We have Hannibal Lector, God and a victim in a room.

If Lector smites the victim and eats their liver, that's fine from a free will perspective.
The victim dies (doesn't get to choose) but its all fine.

Now if God smote Hannibal first, he dies (doesn't get to choose) and it's not ok. But this time the victim lives, and their "I don't want to die" wish/prayer is fulfilled.

From a free will perspective, what's the difference? Two people disagreeing about who dies and who doesn't. They can't both have free will, so why must God always side with the psychopath with superior weaponry?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This doesn't include seeing which of those possibilities will happen, which means non-omniscience/omnipotence.


You mean out of all the known options the one chosen won't be in there? Strange.



If so, then he has nothing resembling a "plan" for us, which I think most believers find to be a quite unattractive idea.


Oh come now - you seem to be pretty creative. You can't think of any scenarios where God may hope you'll take a certain path, may encourage you to take a certain path (His plan for you) but respect your choice to not take that path?



Doesn't address the issue of freewill vs. omniscience.


Sure it does - think in terms of a book.


Doesn't address the issue of freewill vs. omniscience.

You said Omnipotent also. All-Powerful. But that's fine, let just talk Free Will.

How come you don't want Free-Will to be possible? Why don't you want there to be a way for God to allow Free-Will? Why do you think Free-Will means there even needs to be a God? Do you live like you have Free-Will? Is it possible to live like you don't have Free-Will?

Feel free to respond, but I doubt I'll answer since I've already had that discussion on here and come to my own conclusions.

[ImaginalDisc]

A"Christian" "Skeptic," I don't think you quite grasp that free will does not in any way address the problem of Evil. Granted, there are evils that human commit, but there are also evils the universe inflicts and requires.

Does free will explain why there is scarcity of resources, requiring us to struggle and compete?Does free will explain cancer? Does free will explain birth defects? Does free will explain fires, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes?

If we entertain the idea that god made humans capable of commiting evil in order to allow good (which is not logically sound, but let's accept it for the second) that fails to explain all other sources of evil.

[Radrook]

excerpt

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


malevolence

NOUN: A desire to harm others or to see others suffer: despitefulness, ill will, malice, maliciousness, malignancy, malignity, meanness, nastiness, poisonousness, spite, spitefulness, venomousness, viciousness. See ATTITUDE.

In order to classify any given behavior as malevolent, one needs to know the motive. A behavior can have negative effects. But that alone doesn't justify the classification malevolence as a motivating factor. If the person involved in the behavior admits or confesses that his behavior was to do harm, then malevolence can be concluded. However, if the person involved denies that his actions were malevolently intended-then we can accuse the person of being perhaps misguided-but not malevolent. In fact, the explanation given might even convince us that instead of being malevolent-the behavior had our eternal welfare in mind. In short, the motive was benevolent instead.

Here is an example:

During W.W.II, the British had broken the Nazi secret code. Preventinmg the Nazis from finding out was considered necessary for shortening the war and saving millions of lives. During that time it became known that the Nazis intended to bomb a certain British city. An immediate evacuation would have tipped-off the Nazis that their code had been broken leadng to the formulation of a new code which they might be unable to crack.

So the British high command decided not to warn the people of that city. In short, the few were sacrificed for the good of the many. It's called consequentialist thinking.

Now, was the motive of the British High command malevolent? It can be classified that way if the bombing had been permitted for fun. But the motives involved prevents us from justifiably tagging the people involved or their motives as such.

[Egg]

The definition of free will that theists use includes the concept of "non-determinism." The only way god could possibly know what choice a person will make is if that choice is completely determined. Hence the contradiction.

It has nothing to do with any actions or inactions on god's part.

Determinism isn't necessary to see the future if God is outside of our time line.

Think in terms of time being a video tape. God, as the viewer is able to pause, forward and rewind the tape and view it at any point. This would have no bearing on the choices made by those in the video. As the video is being filmed, you can make whatever choice you like.

[A Christian Sceptic]

A"Christian" "Skeptic," I don't think you quite grasp that free will does not in any way address the problem of Evil. Granted, there are evils that human commit, but there are also evils the universe inflicts and requires.

Does free will explain why there is scarcity of resources, requiring us to struggle and compete?Does free will explain cancer? Does free will explain birth defects? Does free will explain fires, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes?

If we entertain the idea that god made humans capable of commiting evil in order to allow good (which is not logically sound, but let's accept it for the second) that fails to explain all other sources of evil.

Before we head into a discussion about natural evil (if I care to go down that route) please in all honesty answer these questions:
If there is no God why do you call those events Evil? Are they also evil if they happen to animals? Are they evil if they happen to a single cell organism? What makes those events Evil?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Determinism isn't necessary to see the future if God is outside of our time line.

Think in terms of time being a video tape. God, as the viewer is able to pause, forward and rewind the tape and view it at any point. This would have no bearing on the choices made by those in the video. As the video is being filmed, you can make whatever choice you like.

Not quite as poetic as a book. And not quite as up to date as a DVD. ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

Before we head into a discussion about natural evil (if I care to go down that route) please in all honesty answer these questions:
If there is no God why do you call those events Evil? Are they also evil if they happen to animals? Are they evil if they happen to a single cell organism? What makes those events Evil?

Because The Problem of Evil is a millenia old dilemma coined by Epicurus, this entire discussion is merely a continuation of that, and Epicurus defined Evil as unneeded pain and suffering. In a universe with an omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent diety, it is impossible for Evil to exist. If you were to claim that humans must be able to do evil in order to have free will, you are claiming god was unable to make humans both free and good, which contradicts the premise that god is all powerful.

[Egg]

Not quite as poetic as a book. And not quite as up to date as a DVD. ;)

:D Well, it was over 20 years ago that I came up with the analogy.

That said, in a book the characters' actions are dictated by the author, and the tape idea presents a "time line" in a slightly clearer way than a DVD does.

Perhaps we should imagine time to be on blue ray :p.

[uruk]

I don't see a contradiction. Knowing what someone will choose to do would have no more effect on that choice being free than knowing what choices somebody made in the past.

The problem comes along when if go along with the idea that god created us individualy. In his omniscience he would know exactly what all our choices will be at the moment of our creation. Would that mean that he has a hand in what our choices are?

If god created us and we made all our choices at that moment ( sort of like god throwing dice or running a random number generator) there would be a point where god does not know what the outcome would be. That would violate his omniscience.

But if god knows at all times what our choices will be when he creates us, then he knowingly creates us with those choices already made. In essence, he made us with pre-built in choices. Kind of like an artist creating a work knowing what the outcome will be based on the medium he is working with. More so when he conciously chooses the media.

That would mean that god creates you knowing full well in advance all the actions and choices, good and bad, that you will make.

So he knew Hitler and Dahmer and Bundey and Stalin and all those other would do exactly what they did because he, in many ways. made them that way. And yet he did nothing.

You could argue that gave them oppurtunities to change themselves. But he would have known in advance that they would not take those oppourtunities.

So you have to ask the question: Why would god knowingly create or allow these type of people to exist, let them go along the path he knows they will not deviate from

Whay does he do this? To test us? What for? He already knows what the outcome will be.

He allows it because its all part of his plan? Why does his plan need to include suffering?

The greater good? The suffering in this life is to make us worthy of the next? Why does he have to make us worthy in this manner? Why doesn't he just "make" us worthy from the get go? No fun that way? Does it some how mean more to him when we are suffering? What kind of person is that?

And above all this, he punishes us for an eternity knowing in advance of our creation that we will fail him.

The only way free will can be truely free is if god does not have omniscience. That would make alot of the excuses and explinations make sense.

[A Christian Sceptic]

:D Well, it was over 20 years ago that I came up with the analogy.

That said, in a book the characters' actions are dictated by the author, and the tape idea presents a "time line" in a slightly clearer way than a DVD does.

Perhaps we should imagine time to be on blue ray :p.

Oops - I meant - a book where the author is the person in the book, not the reader of the book. I do like the visual of a video recording though.

I haven't pondered it as Blue Ray. haha.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Because The Problem of Evil is a millenia old dilemma coined by Epicurus, this entire discussion is merely a continuation of that, and Epicurus defined Evil as unneeded pain and suffering. In a universe with an omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent diety, it is impossible for Evil to exist. If you were to claim that humans must be able to do evil in order to have free will, you are claiming god was unable to make humans both free and good, which contradicts the premise that god is all powerful.

Please answer those questions I posed - not what Epicurus thought, but what you think.

[ImaginalDisc]

Please answer those questions I posed - not what Epicurus thought, but what you think.

I happen to agree with the dead frugal greek philosopher.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I happen to agree with the dead frugal greek philosopher.

So please answer those questions. Why do you consider natural evil - evil? Is it only evil for humans? Animals? All animals? Some Animals? Single cell organisms?

[ImaginalDisc]

A "Christian" "Sceptic," the Epicurian dilemma doesn't require an atheistic solution. Epicurus himself believed in gods, he simply believed they were immortal, remote, and utterly unconcerned with human affairs. That is also a logical possibility. Your god, however, is not.

[ImaginalDisc]

So please answer those questions. Why do you consider natural evil - evil? Is it only evil for humans? Animals? All animals? Some Animals? Single cell organisms?

I'm sorry, I thought the definition was clear. I will repeat it because I am not able to make it clearer.

Evil is unneeded pain and suffering.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm sorry, I thought the definition was clear. I will repeat it because I am not able to make it clearer.

Evil is unneeded pain and suffering.

On only humans? On all living things? Can this evil happen to non-living things?

[ImaginalDisc]

On only humans? On all living things? Can this evil happen to non-living things?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Those things which can feel can experience pain and suffering.

[Lurker]

If god is omnipotent he is, by definition, omniscient. Of course, omnipotence is logically inconsistent, so an omni-whatever god cannot logically exist.


Agreed. Can God create a rock that he cannot move? Logically impossible if he is omnipotent. Of course, that has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Just whether an omnipotent God exists.

[Lurker]

Ok. Here's something I don't get.

We have Hannibal Lector, God and a victim in a room.

If Lector smites the victim and eats their liver, that's fine from a free will perspective.
The victim dies (doesn't get to choose) but its all fine.

Now if God smote Hannibal first, he dies (doesn't get to choose) and it's not ok. But this time the victim lives, and their "I don't want to die" wish/prayer is fulfilled.

From a free will perspective, what's the difference? Two people disagreeing about who dies and who doesn't. They can't both have free will, so why must God always side with the psychopath with superior weaponry?

Free will does not mean you get what you want.

[Lurker]

Does free will explain why there is scarcity of resources, requiring us to struggle and compete?Does free will explain cancer? Does free will explain birth defects? Does free will explain fires, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes?

If we entertain the idea that god made humans capable of commiting evil in order to allow good (which is not logically sound, but let's accept it for the second) that fails to explain all other sources of evil.

It is logically sound because good cannot exist without evil, else how do you define good?

As to the more "natural" evils that you question, I acknowledge it is a good point and I do not have a ready answer. Scarcity of resources can be easily explained by the need for the virtue of generosity.

[Lurker]

Determinism isn't necessary to see the future if God is outside of our time line.

Think in terms of time being a video tape. God, as the viewer is able to pause, forward and rewind the tape and view it at any point. This would have no bearing on the choices made by those in the video. As the video is being filmed, you can make whatever choice you like.


That kind of makes sense to me and provides me some relief to my concern of freewill vs omniscience.

[ImaginalDisc]

It is logically sound because good cannot exist without evil, else how do you define good?

As to the more "natural" evils that you question, I acknowledge it is a good point and I do not have a ready answer. Scarcity of resources can be easily explained by the need for the virtue of generosity.

If you claim that good and evil are coupled and cannot be unlinked, please demonstrate that logically.

[Lurker]

Before we head into a discussion about natural evil (if I care to go down that route) please in all honesty answer these questions:
If there is no God why do you call those events Evil? Are they also evil if they happen to animals? Are they evil if they happen to a single cell organism? What makes those events Evil?

Good point. A rockslide is only evil if it harms humans. That's some hubris these atheists have. ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Those things which can feel can experience pain and suffering.

I think without a God of any sort (even the most basic God) or even a supernatural realm or even simply free will - all this talk about natural evil is just silly.

A tree falls - what do you expect it to do? Not fall?

A fire burns - what do you expect it to do? Not burn?

Cells, due to various variables, grow too fast - what do you expect them those cells to do?

Bears eat fish? What do you expect them to do?

You have nerves and feel pain when cut. So? - that's what nerves do.

All you are doing is saying nature does what nature does - why can you say it's evil?

You don't believe in God, you don't believe in anything beyond the material world, you don't believe in free will - how can there even be evil? How can there even be such a thing as good or bad? There are only natural laws and the matter that is following those laws - all put in motion at the Big Bang.

A tree falls on your leg - it breaks it - so? What natural laws were broken here - none? Why is it evil for that tree to break a leg and not a small branch in the same way?

Both the leg and the branch are the same thing essentially - atoms - and even more fundamentally - protons, neutrons, and electrons, and even more fundamentally ...

You're making a ridiculous statement: There is evil so there is no god.

See - there is only evil if there is Something More then a pure determined material world. Unless you think there is Something More the Problem of Evil is wasted time because it doesn't exist in your world.

The Problem of Evil can only really be pondered if there is Something More. And then, all it proves, is the Something More is not acting as you want it to or expect it to or perceive it to or insist it must. The Problem of Evil when applied to God is not a question of His existence (or argument against), but a question of trying to understand Him better if possible.

[ImaginalDisc]

Good point. A rockslide is only evil if it harms humans. That's some hubris these atheists have. ;)

I'm sorry, but I believe I made it clear that the Epicurian definition of evil is unnneded pain and suffering. Ergo, if a landslide crushes a rabbit and that rabbit expeirences pain and suffering, it is evil.

Please don't misrepresent my words.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think without a God of any sort (even the most basic God) or even a supernatural realm or even simply free will - all this talk about natural evil is just silly.

A tree falls - what do you expect it to do? Not fall?

A fire burns - what do you expect it to do? Not burn?

Cells, due to various variables, grow too fast - what do you expect them those cells to do?

Bears eat fish? What do you expect them to do?

You have nerves and feel pain when cut. So? - that's what nerves do.

All you are doing is saying nature does what nature does - why can you say it's evil?

You don't believe in God, you don't believe in anything beyond the material world, you don't believe in free will - how can there even be evil? How can there even be such a thing as good or bad? There are only natural laws and the matter that is following those laws - all put in motion at the Big Bang.

A tree falls on your leg - it breaks it - so? What natural laws were broken here - none? Why is it evil for that tree to break a leg and not a small branch in the same way?

Both the leg and the branch are the same thing essentially - atoms - and even more fundamentally - protons, neutrons, and electrons, and even more fundamentally ...

You're making a ridiculous statement: There is evil so there is no god.

See - there is only evil if there is Something More then a pure determined material world. Unless you think there is Something More the Problem of Evil is wasted time because it doesn't exist in your world.

The Problem of Evil can only really be pondered if there is Something More. And then, all it proves, is the Something More is not acting as you want it to or expect it to or perceive it to or insist it must. The Problem of Evil when applied to God is not a question of His existence (or argument against), but a question of trying to understand Him better if possible.

I will have to repeat myself, again and again. If Evil is "unneeded pain and suffering" that definition does not require any form of supernatural entity to operate. In fact, the pressence of Evil logically precludes the Christian god.

[Lurker]

If you claim that good and evil are coupled and cannot be unlinked, please demonstrate that logically.

The very defn of P requires some reference to Q. They are clearly coupled.

A good thing is to be generous. One cannot define generosity without having the antonym, greed.

[ImaginalDisc]

The very defn of P requires some reference to Q. They are clearly coupled.

A good thing is to be generous. One cannot define generosity without having the antonym, greed.

This is not a logical proof.

If Evil is "unneeded pain and suffering" then how does the definition couple irreconciably with good?

[Lurker]

I'm sorry, but I believe I made it clear that the Epicurian definition of evil is unnneded pain and suffering. Ergo, if a landslide crushes a rabbit and that rabbit expeirences pain and suffering, it is evil.

Please don't misrepresent my words.

What about the plant that had started to grow but now the rockslide has blocked it off from the sun and it has died. Clearly the plant has suffered. Evil rockslide?

[A Christian Sceptic]

I will have to repeat myself, again and again. If Evil is "unneeded pain and suffering" that definition does not require any form of supernatural entity to operate. In fact, the pressence of Evil logically precludes the Christian god.

Your entire deifinition requires Something More.

Where do you get the idea there is such a thing as "need"? The entire universe without Something More is neither needed or unneeded. It just is.

That rockslide killed a rabbit - so? It just is.

That burgler stole your computer - so? It just is.

That meteor smacked into Jupiter - so? It just is.

That star exploded - so? It just is.

By the way - at what point is pinching a parapalegics numb legs Evil? If you pinch his leg and he neither feels pain or suffers from it - is it still Evil?

[Lurker]

I will have to repeat myself, again and again. If Evil is "unneeded pain and suffering" that definition does not require any form of supernatural entity to operate. In fact, the pressence of Evil logically precludes the Christian god.

Or at least how we are defining the Christian God. Although I consider myself a Christian, I have a rather loose defn of God that only tenuously clings to the Biblical version.

[Lurker]

This is not a logical proof.

If Evil is "unneeded pain and suffering" then how does the definition couple irreconciably with good?


How did you define that term in quotes "..."? you used the term "pain" and "suffering". How can we know what "pain" and "suffering" are without them existing?

[ImaginalDisc]

What about the plant that had started to grow but now the rockslide has blocked it off from the sun and it has died. Clearly the plant has suffered. Evil rockslide?

Yes, according to the definition of Evil provided. The universe causes pain and suffering to beings. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevelont deity could not logically create such a universe.

[ImaginalDisc]

Your entire deifinition does.

Where do you get the idea there is such a thing as "need"? The entire universe without Something More is neither needed or unneeded. It just is.

The definition of "need" is not tied to the existence of a supernatural entity in any dictionary of which I am aware. There is nothing in the definition of Evil as "unneeded pain and suffering" which requires a god.



By the way - at what point is pinching a parapalegics numb legs Evil? If you pinch his leg and he neither feels pain or suffers from it - is it still Evil?

That depends on whether or not he suffers from your mocking his debilitated condition. Then again, the fact that he is debilitated could easily constitute Evil under the definition provided.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The definition of "need" is not tied to the existence of a supernatural entity in any dictionary of which I am aware. There is nothing in the definition of Evil as "unneeded pain and suffering" which requires a god.


It requires there to be Something More than simply a predetermined material universe.

Otherwise - all everything is are simply atoms interacting with atoms - what's it matter how it looks at an emergent level? At the subatomic level - a cut or wound is simply molecules and atomic bonds being severed. A burgler is simply a bunch of atoms taking (I mean predetermined) to bond with other atoms that make a computer. And - by the way - how can atoms even own other atoms? What gives you (a bunch of atoms emergent as ImaginalDisc) the idea that those atoms (that happen to form a computer) are yours? Who are you to complain when another mass of atoms takes those other atoms which you call yours?

Pain? What's that? Atoms in your nerves wiggling and sending electrons along other atoms to tell some other atoms that something happened. Those atoms may perceive (uh - I'm at a loss to how atoms can perceive) that the action is painful and not pleasureable.

Mental Anguish? - ludicrous - what's the mind? Simply atoms wiggling and interacting to create the illusion of consciousness and the mind.

[Nihilus]

Knowing what someone will choose to do would have no more effect on that choice being free than knowing what choices somebody made in the past.
It does if the viewer is the one who has created that someone, with full awareness of what they will choose throughout the course of their lives.

[Nihilus]

Think in terms of time being a video tape. God, as the viewer is able to pause, forward and rewind the tape and view it at any point. This would have no bearing on the choices made by those in the video. As the video is being filmed, you can make whatever choice you like.
This almost sounds plausible until we realize that god himself actually created the DVD (and everything that would happen or be likely to happen in it), thereby making 'coerced will' null.

I say 'coerced will' also because no logical interpretation of the regulations set forth by the judeo-christian god would yield a "free" assessment.

[Safe-Keeper]

It requires there to be Something More than simply a predetermined material universe.There is. There are humans and other species able to observe and judge joy and suffering, and to determine for themselves what to work against and what to work for.

This may come as a shock to you, ACS, but I think the majority of people in the world actually realize it's wrong to hurt other people, and don't feel a need to explain why to each others. Only a minority utterly fails to understand why murder and rape are still wrong if you remove the Appeal to Authority fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) Christian ethics are.

[A Christian Sceptic]

There is. There are humans and other species able to observe and judge joy and suffering, and to determine for themselves what to work against and what to work for.


I thought we can't determine things.

Added:
Is it possible for us to determine things apart from free will?

[A Christian Sceptic]

This may come as a shock to you, ACS, but I think the majority of people in the world actually realize it's wrong to hurt other people, and don't feel a need to explain why to each others. Only a minority utterly fails to understand why murder and rape are still wrong if you remove the Appeal to Authority fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) Christian ethics are.

Actually - it's not a shock to me. What's more - I think the Universality of Morality is rather interesting - especially when you realize that underneath the cultural differences the rules seem to be rather conisistently the same. Don't worry though - it doesn't have anything to do with the fact there might be Something More, but rather purely natural causes. The Scientists are working on it. ;)

[rocketdodger]

You mean out of all the known options the one chosen won't be in there? Strange.

No, I mean that doesn't fullfill the definition of omniscience. I know that when I roll a die it will end up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. That alone doesn't make me omniscient -- I need to know which number will turn up. In fact, I also need to know which number I will know will turn up, and so on ad infinitum, until my entire being is nothing but an infinitessimal thought that encompasses all of my existence, but that doesn't seem to bother the religious.


Oh come now - you seem to be pretty creative. You can't think of any scenarios where God may hope you'll take a certain path, may encourage you to take a certain path (His plan for you) but respect your choice to not take that path?

Of course I can. I can also think of some scenarios where god, respecting the choice of others, lets them murder me (which is clearly not respecting my own choice) and prematurely end my own path. Don't you see why that is f*** bullsh**? This whole theodicy is mired in contradiction that can only be resolved using trained ignorance.

Sure it does - think in terms of a book.

No it doesn't -- think in terms of logic. "Non-determined" is not inseparable from temporality. If free will is possible, then it must also be outside of space and time, and be non-determined at whatever level god inhabits as well.


How come you don't want Free-Will to be possible?

I used to, until I really thought about it, at which point I realized the idea of free will is utter nonsense (at least to our current human brains). The fact that not a single person on earth can even give a definition of it should be evidence enough. How can one discuss a concept that can't even be defined?

Why don't you want there to be a way for God to allow Free-Will?

Why don't you want there to be a way for a circle to have corners? Why don't you want there to be a way for A == !A?

Why do you think Free-Will means there even needs to be a God?

I don't. I think that if there is free will, then it is incompatible with omniscience.

Do you live like you have Free-Will?

Yes.

Is it possible to live like you don't have Free-Will?

No.

Feel free to respond, but I doubt I'll answer since I've already had that discussion on here and come to my own conclusions.

The only conclusion that can be reached, as we have demonstrated over and over in other threads, is that according to our current minds all events must be 1) determined, 2) random, or 3) a combination of the two. If you think differently, then feel free to actually define what it means to be non-random AND non-determined.

[That_guy]

I thought we can't determine things.

Added:
Is it possible for us to determine things apart from free will?

I'm pretty sure the point here isn't that there's no free will, but that free will and the standard definition of the Christian god are incompatible.

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually - it's not a shock to me. What's more - I think the Universality of Morality is rather interesting - especially when you realize that underneath the cultural differences the rules seem to be rather conisistently the same. Don't worry though - it doesn't have anything to do with the fact there might be Something More, but rather purely natural causes. The Scientists are working on it. ;)

What Universality of Morality are you talking about? Universality across the planet? Are you aware that children are ruotinely sold into sex slavery on a daily basis? Are you aware that religiously modivated busy bodies quotes the holy writ you profess to believe in in order to villify and oppress homosexuals, while incongruously avoding those texts that prescribe the same for eaters of lobster? Are you aware that slavery and sexism were previously embraced as part of your religion, but that your own religion has changed its moral stance?

It is clear that moral standards across the planet have changed over time and are still incredibly diverse. There is no uniformity across distance or time, only some vauge commonalities. Why would the god you profess to believe in actually make things worse by providing a moral guide that contradicts itself?

[rocketdodger]

It requires there to be Something More than simply a predetermined material universe.

Otherwise - all everything is are simply atoms interacting with atoms - what's it matter how it looks at an emergent level? At the subatomic level - a cut or wound is simply molecules and atomic bonds being severed. A burgler is simply a bunch of atoms taking (I mean predetermined) to bond with other atoms that make a computer. And - by the way - how can atoms even own other atoms? What gives you (a bunch of atoms emergent as ImaginalDisc) the idea that those atoms (that happen to form a computer) are yours? Who are you to complain when another mass of atoms takes those other atoms which you call yours?

Pain? What's that? Atoms in your nerves wiggling and sending electrons along other atoms to tell some other atoms that something happened. Those atoms may perceive (uh - I'm at a loss to how atoms can perceive) that the action is painful and not pleasureable.

Mental Anguish? - ludicrous - what's the mind? Simply atoms wiggling and interacting to create the illusion of consciousness and the mind.


Yeah, it does -- luckally, low level physics has been suggesting for years that randomness infuses the universe, so it really isn't predetermined. And thats all we need... just some little non-determined seeds... the rest follows easily.

[Belz...]

You mean out of all the known options the one chosen won't be in there? Strange.

But he KNOWS which one you'll pick, so what's the point ?

Oh come now - you seem to be pretty creative. You can't think of any scenarios where God may hope you'll take a certain path, may encourage you to take a certain path (His plan for you) but respect your choice to not take that path?

Explain Hell, then.

How come you don't want Free-Will to be possible?

It's not a matter of want. It's a matter of definition. By definition omniscience is incompatible with free will, at least for God.

Feel free to respond, but I doubt I'll answer since I've already had that discussion on here and come to my own conclusions.

In other words your mind is made up and nothing can change it, ever.

[That_guy]

Explain Hell, then.


ACS doesn't believe in Hell (except as a celestial time-out; say you're sorry and you can go play again.)

[rocketdodger]

:D Well, it was over 20 years ago that I came up with the analogy.

That said, in a book the characters' actions are dictated by the author, and the tape idea presents a "time line" in a slightly clearer way than a DVD does.

Perhaps we should imagine time to be on blue ray :p.

In that 20 years you should have been able to realize that free-will is actually an atemporal issue and the only reason people speak in terms of "seeing the future" is because it is easiest to illustrate in a temporal manner, thus rendering your analogy invalid.

[Belz...]

Your entire deifinition requires Something More.

Where do you get the idea there is such a thing as "need"? The entire universe without Something More is neither needed or unneeded. It just is.

Your neurons are again firing off randomly. "Need" also "just is".

[Belz...]

It requires there to be Something More than simply a predetermined material universe.

Otherwise - all everything is are simply atoms interacting with atoms - what's it matter how it looks at an emergent level? At the subatomic level - a cut or wound is simply molecules and atomic bonds being severed. A burgler is simply a bunch of atoms taking (I mean predetermined) to bond with other atoms that make a computer. And - by the way - how can atoms even own other atoms? What gives you (a bunch of atoms emergent as ImaginalDisc) the idea that those atoms (that happen to form a computer) are yours? Who are you to complain when another mass of atoms takes those other atoms which you call yours?

Pain? What's that? Atoms in your nerves wiggling and sending electrons along other atoms to tell some other atoms that something happened. Those atoms may perceive (uh - I'm at a loss to how atoms can perceive) that the action is painful and not pleasureable.

Mental Anguish? - ludicrous - what's the mind? Simply atoms wiggling and interacting to create the illusion of consciousness and the mind.

You're just being silly now. Those definitions exist whether they have a spiritual meaning or not. You're misrepresenting materialism.

[Blodwin]

Well, I'd like to thank the Christians who have tried to answer, but none of you have come close to making any sense of the logical contradiction of god-given free will. Here's my take on it. Rather than answer each post individually I'll just run through the salient points, although I realise I'm repeating some of the answers given by others.

If free will is made sense of by assuming that god doesn't know the future, then he's not omniscient (all knowing), which goes against one of the central tenets of Christianity. If he does know the future then he knew exactly how we were all going to behave when he created us, so free will doesn't make sense.

But this talk of the whether god knows the future or not implies that he is bound by time just like us. However time is just another property of our universe and should have been created by god when he created our universe. So did god make time and then trap himself in it? That's a bit like saying he made gravity and then discovered he'd got himself stuck in black hole. Or did time already exist and god was already subject to it? If so, who/what did make it? Either he's not omnipotent (all powerful), or he didn't create everything in our universe, which goes against two other central tenets of Christianity.

So, if god is omnipotent and omniscient and created everything, then he must effectively exist outside of time, so he sees everything that has ever happened, and will ever happen, from the beginning of the universe till the end (if there is an end). The video tape/DVD is a good analogy up to a point, but you have to realise that god is not looking at a recording of what turned out to happen, he sees the actual events as they happen/have happened/will happen, and he's looking at all the individual frames at once. The tape/DVD actually is the universe as made by god, it's not a recording of things after the event. Now god is supposed to have created the entire universe, so from his position outside time he created everything on the tape/DVD, which must include our actions during our lives. So there's still no free will evident.

Now I've noticed that Lurker has pulled the old "But that's not what my god is like" stunt to try to avoid the inescapable conclusion, but, as is common with that tactic, he's failed to say what he does believe his god is like. If he doesn't know what his god is like then how does he manage to believe in it? It just seems to be a way of wriggling out of an uncomfortable position by keeping ones beliefs as vague as possible so they can be adjusted to fit the arguments. Oh, and it also goes against any description I've ever heard of god put forward by a Christian.

Either we have free will and god is limited in his power and/or knowledge, or god is all-powerful and all-knowing and we don't have free will. And there's also the problem that "omnipotent" is a self-contradiction all on it's own as somebody else has already pointed out. Of course given that there's precisely zero evidence for a god anyway, it's seems much more reasonable to assume there isn't one, it saves having to believe in impossible things.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm pretty sure the point here isn't that there's no free will, but that free will and the standard definition of the Christian god are incompatible.

Whoops - I had this discussion previously (with many of these same people) and the conclusion seemed to be that we are all simply Atoms moving with certain Laws and blah, blah, blah.

For all I know, God might not be Omniscient even though He could be. He might be Omnipotent even though He could be. Then again - since He created everything I'm sure He's smart enough to work around any and all paradoxes to avoid any and all contradictions. In addition - He doesn't seem to have the same Time-Constraints and Physical Constraints we have.

[A Christian Sceptic]

What Universality of Morality are you talking about? Universality across the planet? Are you aware that children are ruotinely sold into sex slavery on a daily basis? Are you aware that religiously modivated busy bodies quotes the holy writ you profess to believe in in order to villify and oppress homosexuals, while incongruously avoding those texts that prescribe the same for eaters of lobster? Are you aware that slavery and sexism were previously embraced as part of your religion, but that your own religion has changed its moral stance?

It is clear that moral standards across the planet have changed over time and are still incredibly diverse. There is no uniformity across distance or time, only some vauge commonalities. Why would the god you profess to believe in actually make things worse by providing a moral guide that contradicts itself?

Did you read what I said? Don't get stuck on cultural specifics.

[Nihilus]

If he does know the future then he knew exactly how we were all going to behave when he created us, so free will doesn't make sense.
In addition, he would be responsible for each of our actions as he, during creation, placed the exact percentage of predisposition to disbelief and sin that would eventually lead to such actions/decisions.

Unless the theist wants to argue that god puts a blindfold on while adding some random X number to the variable chances of his creature being prone to naughty things...but what sort of sadist allows for that to happen if he's only going to castigate the creature later on for that very element even being there?

[A Christian Sceptic]

ACS doesn't believe in Hell (except as a celestial time-out; say you're sorry and you can go play again.)

I wish I had that much faith to believe exactly as you describe. But let's not go down that direction again. :)

[That_guy]

Whoops - I had this discussion previously (with many of these same people) and the conclusion seemed to be that we are all simply Atoms moving with certain Laws and blah, blah, blah.

That's one philosophical view, possibly even backed up by science (in that genetics may play a role in some of the choices we make,) but there's hardly enough evidence at this point to reach any "conclusion" other than "that's what I think."


For all I know, God might not be Omniscient even though He could be. He might be Omnipotent even though He could be. Then again - since He created everything I'm sure He's smart enough to work around any and all paradoxes to avoid any and all contradictions. In addition - He doesn't seem to have the same Time-Constraints and Physical Constraints we have.

Once again, your interpretation of all things Christian is at odds with mainstream belief, and therefore pointless to debate.