Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[drifblim70]

I'm not sure if you're saying that the miracles described in the Bible's Old Testament ever actually took place, pmjc, but really, it's irrelevant whether you believe it or not. I, for instance, don't believe it (unless J-man can prove me wrong, I'm still waiting). Yet our discussion can still take place.
Orwell referenced the concept which currently applies here as "doublethink:" the mental process by which humans are able to hold two contradictory beliefs and accept them both simultaneously. The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God is an example: any rational observer knows from empirical observation of the human world that needless, undeserved suffering certainly exists to the present day, contradicting the Christian notion of a God who saves. The idea of humans needing to "earn" or "seek" salvation is purely nonsense, for the previously stated reasons that an omniscient God would neither conduct experiments nor "test" anyone: he would know the answers beforehand.
Anyway, there's more I want to say, but I have to leave soon/now, so ah, happy hypthesizing. Doublethink, focus on doublethink! And perhaps... could doublethink be a good thing (in some cases)?

 

[pmjc]

Your hypothetical situation is impossible. Even if the laws of the universe were different to what they are now, they'd still be consistent because we define the laws of the universe based on observation. We would have a system of describing the universe, but it would be different to the one we have now.

I should've rephrased that better. I mean that laws governing the universe still existed, but those laws would be meaningless, because they would be violated regularly by "miracles".

That all said, we know why this attitude of religious revisionism came about; because by the time of the enlightenment, religious institutions had already become one of the wealthiest and most powerful groups in history. Indeed, the Catholic Church still has the highly-sought benefit of their own sovereignty. They are afforded taxation and other legal benefits. The benefits of running a religion are obvious. Why would the religious institutions who had held such power over the masses for centuries want to willingly give it up?

That's not what I was trying to bring up here. I was trying to bring up how religions evolved from being falsifiable to non-falsifiable, and how ardent believers in religion currently like their non-falsifiable system of belief. Basically, I was showing how modern-day religion is indistinguishable from atheism, except modern religions rely on the "belief that you ought to believe", while atheists tend to prevent that kind of mistake by the usage of empiricism.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the miracles described in the Bible's Old Testament ever actually took place, pmjc, but really, it's irrelevant whether you believe it or not.

I do not believe that the events of the Old Testament ever took place, but I was illustrating how, in the context of biblical mythology, their belief was supposed to be clean, scientific observation.

EDIT: I'm slightly embarrassed that my writing was so unclear that the point was lost. I'm sorry, but writing is not one of my strong suits, and is a skill that I still need to improve.

 

[mtr]

I've met, attended talks by, and read about people who "found Jesus" in college. Its fairly common in the United States. In some cases, like my roommate, a turn towards faith begins in frustration with what people perceive as the debauchery of a life filled with Britney Spears, beer pong, and casual sex. The born-agains aren't participating in all this, and faith is how they reassure themselves that they will be rewarded. That, for the most part, describes people born-again in college.

As for the rest of the "holier-than-thou" crowd, they go to a Christian ministry or whatever, find an issue, then make it their mission to bitch about it. A good example is human trafficking. My roommate dragged me to a talk about it led by some saliently Christian scholar, and it reeked of stuff like the white man's burden, and had a subtext of bigotry throughout it.

Now to give an answer to the question "why are born-agains so attached to their dogma"? One reason is that they cannot conceive of simple spirituality. All they've seen of religion are all the trappings and dogma of it, and they simply can't see religion without it. When they make the decision to 'become born-again', they just play a role of becoming a dogmatic Christian. Its like joining a cult: the people join the cult, and are caught up in groupthink. They start to play the role of a cult member, deindividuating themselves, and so on. I guarantee that most born-again Christians are, at least in part, playing a role of a dogmatic zealot.

 

[drifblim70]

heh, never mind, I'm back. mtr, you've got it: religion becomes cult when its followers do not question it enough. But then, atheism, I would submit, has in many ways become just as cult-like. Indeed, I'd argue that one of this world's greatest problems is that people treat things as religion that they ought not to, but that would take too long... Rather, what I'll say is that while fundamentalist Christians are fanatics, athesists can be just as well. When quizzed as to how they believe the world came to be their response becomes "it just is, deal with it"--ok, fine.
But how is "the world doesn't need any reason to be, it exists" any different from "God doesn't need any proof of existence, he exists?" It only differs in one way--that the physical world does, empirically, exist. But atheists cannot explain why. They can analyze the how for all they like, but when it gets right down to it, they cannot explain why. I believe that a person matures--becomes independent, confident, etc--when they realize this: that they have no explanation for why matter itself exists, period.
Do I believe in "God?" What a silly question. Define "God." --That's the line of thought that should take place whenever someone wants to believe. I haven't found a definition of God that satisfies me yet--the "Dust" that Philip Pullman dreamed up is the closest thing I've found. Anyone else want to share their definition, if they have one? If you don't have one, feel free to explain physical existence instead, because I love a good story.

I sure sound like a douche. :) but hey, I'm bored, who's with me?

 

[J-man]

Ack, I've been swamped. this is no fun fighting it out alone. But that doesn't mean i quit. Get ready, cause here i go:

I think you must have misunderstood what I was saying. If god created only being that never desired evil then there would be no evil, which is clearly not the case.

God created a being that could choose between Good and evil. Said being knew full well that it was wrong to disobey God. Therefore, to unfortunately contradict what i have said... Mankind knew what evil was... They knew it when God commanded them not to eat the fruit (because at that time, mankind through Adam had chosen to obey and love God, therefore they knew disobeying him was wrong). They understood the consequences, as aptly pointed by Eve. And consequently, man did fall. This happens when you have a choice, and Adam decided to screw God and go with what he wanted, and he takes all the responsibility for it no matter what kind of foreknowledge God had. In fact God offered Adam a way out, twice.

I didn't mean have the opportunity to choose right I meant have the desire to choose right. why would god not only create people who desire good and righteousness so that there would be no evil. Brain expanded on this idea in one of his previous posts, but something tells me you either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Adam and Eve had the opportunity to choose and desire what was right through their free will.
What good is it having mindless slaves for your Glory? Yes, i say our purpose of existence is solely for God's Glory. I'll expand on this, because this tripped me up also when i considered it. Just imagine you painted a beautiful picture, like next closest thing to perfect beauty. What do you do with it? Keep it locked up so no one can see it and it's beauty wastes away? No, most likely you show it to some people so that they can admire it as you can. In the same light, God is like the painting.

so god creates people that will invariably desire evil and then punishes them with suffering and hell for doing evil. I cannot imagine a greater injustice.

of course, that would be totally unjust and uncalled for if that was a God that i'm arguing for. But i'm not. God created man with the free will to choose right or wrong (knowing right and wrong). He told them to not eat the fruit or die. Since man had the decision, he gets the consequences of that decision. Now we are helpless to try and obtain our salvation, because now AFTER the fall we are unable to do spiritual good. Hope that cleared things up.

No I'm not.

Eve did not understand the punishment at all. How could she? Nothing had ever died during their stay in the garden. They had no idea what death was. If your parents told you that they would "babasnootch" you if you stole a cookie you would probably still steal a cookie because the punishment wouldn't register in your head.

Secondly, God had never warned Eve not to talk to serpents. How could he blame Eve for falling for the serpent's trick? He never gave her a warning. That would be like blaming a child for falling into a pedophile's trap when you never warned him not to take candy from strangers, and when your child had no knowledge of adult deception.

It is clearly God's fault in this case. He never warned Eve, and gave Eve no real way of knowing that disobeying him was wrong.

Also I want you to answer one of Brain's posts that was in the evolution thread. I feel that it fits very well in this thread.

This clearly came from your head and has no biblical backing WHATSOEVER. See 1 Corinthians 1:25 please. The reason i point this out, is you try and argue with man's logic and come to your conclusions solely based on what you think with absolutely no backing. In essence you are virtually stating a blatant opinion. In a theological debate of this kind, you will not and can not defeat me unless you use The Bible as your backing. To me and many others, The Bible overrides you, you can not win unless you beat me at my own game.

Oh, and thank you for the quote.

don't know if you realize this, but all of human language is a framework of logic. All of it. "Existence" is a logical predicate. "Benevolence" is a logical predicate. So when you read the Bible and then assign properties to God based on what the Bible says, what do you think you're doing, genius? You're using man's logic, that's what you are doing. That's what we are all doing all the fucking time. "God is as defined in the Bible" is a proposition made within a framework of human logic, it's not some sort of magical fairy of a proposition that can just be true regardless of the logical constraints imposed by semantics.

Do you know what i'm going to say here? I'm not even going to mention as you very well know what verse i'd so much like to respond with. But here's another one for you:

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

In essence, Mind is saying that no matter what, when man defines God, it comes from man's logic. This scripture verse contradicts what he is saying. The Bible may have been written by man, but it is from God, God breathed as it states. God Authored the Bible. I get my definition of God straight from His word. Therefore, i am not contradicting myself, as i'm not defining him with man's logic, but the foolishness that his wiser than man's wisdom.

If I can't use logic, then you can't either, and thus you should not ascribe a single property to God. Your current position is a double standard.

Here, Mind is trying to trap me, as i have been attacking the sole use of Man's logic. I have not outlawed logic itself, as then there would be no point in debating. What i have attacked, as stated more above, is the use of Man's logic to define God and come to conclusion without even having scripture to back it up.

A further point to Obsessed's: If the Serpent was capable of fucking everything up, why did God create it in the first place?

First off, it wasn't the serpent. It was the devil taking the form of the serpent. Next up, Satan (AKA Lucifer) was just like man. He had his will to choose, and he tried to rebel against and overthrow God to elevate himself. Didn't work out too hot. Just like you, i don't understand why God did it. But what i do know, is that God WILL vanquish satan.

Why did he create the two trees of life and knowledge if he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat it? If he had to create them, why didn't he make it impossible for them to eat it, by putting it outside the Garden, or making them too high to get the fruit?

Now you're just desperate. These are things that frankly i don't care why they happened. well... The Tree of life i don't care much about. It has no effect on my salvation. The Tree of Knowledge we all know was made to test man's love for God.

And why did he punish the rest of humanity for Adam and Eve's crime?

Because Adam was the covenant head of mankind. He was in charge of creation. When he fell, as our representative, we fell. Sin entered the world. It is passed down as a disease from generation until generation.

Romans 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

To be honest, I can't understand why we're arguing with J-Man; it is clear he doesn't understand formal logic. He has contradicted himself multiple times in his last long post, simultaneously claiming that he is sinful, but that sin has been vanquished by Jesus' ressurection.

I'm still learning, so this is what you'll have to deal with. Contrary to popular atheist belief, I have not contradicted my self. You see, Christ's death was a sacrificial one. In this death, he bore the wrath of God that was meant to be our judgment. By doing so, the effects of sin on us were dealt to him. By resurrecting, he also defeated death, so that it could not claim us for the punishment we deserve. For those who truly believe this happened and trust in him as his/her savior, his perfect and law fulfilling life is imputed on us so it is as if we had never sinned. The effects of sin our essentially null and void. Unfortunately, we still live in a fallen world, and live in fallen bodies that are still corrupted with sin. Thankfully, through the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to resist the Devil's temptation and be able to have Faith in Jesus. This is not contradicting to the fact that Man has no spiritual free will, as The Holy Spirit is solely from God alone. Without it, we are a fallen person that desires to hate God.

Predicted Jman responses:

1. As part of the test.

2. At part of the test.

3. Blah Blah Blah don't question god, that ridiculous punishment is justified, his anger and wrath are justified. Humanity failed him 6000 years ago, so humanity must be punished forever. Blah Blah Blah

Well of course he fails at logic. Logic has no use to him despite the fact that he uses it in order to understand the Bible even though you can't apply logic to the Bible...

At this point I am hoping Jman is just a troll. The sad thing is that he probably isn't.

His sense of justice is also fucked up beyond belief.

Show me that post, and i'll give you a cookie. I bet you can predict what verse is in my mind while i read this. Of course, you speak the truth. You can't apply man's faulty logic with God's Wisdom. Everything get's screwed up.

btw, your suspicions are correct. I'm not a troll. I'm defending my faith, which was questioned by the OP and then attacked by your kind. Also explain to me how my sense of justice is whack?

And, you're wheel is defeated as well. The snag of the so called "endless cycle" stops at "The Bible is Infallible". We can start that debate at your command.

Interesting then, that you have not. Unless you have access to godly omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience, why have you not reached the logical conclusion that we hold?

Because i have access to The Bible- Authored by Him who is omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent. My belief and logic are rooted in it and only it.

Also, that our logic is faulty means we cannot logically conclude anything. If I observe myself sitting in a room, then, logically I am in a room. But if that is wrong, then I am not in the room, even though I see myself sitting here. Another example: you read the bible, logically you realize it contradicts with things in the real world ( evolution, genetics, geology in general, fossils, current animal species, astronomy, etc.) and conclude it to be literally un-true, and to be taken metaphorically. But if you say our logic is wrong, you may conclude the bible must be true, but then you realize that if you cannot logically conclude that you are in a room, who's to say you are even reading the real bible? Or that the bible even exists? Or that anything exists for that matter.

I suspose i'll have to apologize for being the 2nd rate debater and clarify things. When i say "man's faulty logic" i'm stating that you are defining God from you own logic without any scriptural backup. He, naturally loving evil due to the fall, will try to excuse himself from having to own up to God. An example is using God's attributes to define him in such a way that it contradicts what Scripture says.

And those passages relate to God's omniscience exactly how?

The second doesn't. The first one is Jesus (God) telling his disciples that he has to and how he will die. Either he knows what is going happen, or he took one huge lucky guess. You can also see many verses in the gospels where Jesus (God) Knows the evil thoughts of the pharisees. These two examples are a blatant display of Omniscience. I am willing to provide even more examples of God's Omniscience if you want.

It is totally late. I need my sleep.

 

[drifblim70]

no worries J-man my man, we've all got a little doublethink in us, methinks. I don't know about everybody else, but thanks for providing someone to argue this at all with. Stories don't work without conflict, and neither does a good discussion. don't give up.

 

[Jomei]

Rather, what I'll say is that while fundamentalist Christians are fanatics, athesists can be just as well. When quizzed as to how they believe the world came to be their response becomes "it just is, deal with it"--ok, fine.
But how is "the world doesn't need any reason to be, it exists" any different from "God doesn't need any proof of existence, he exists?" It only differs in one way--that the physical world does, empirically, exist. But atheists cannot explain why. They can analyze the how for all they like, but when it gets right down to it, they cannot explain why. I believe that a person matures--becomes independent, confident, etc--when they realize this: that they have no explanation for why matter itself exists, period.

I think the problem is you assume there needs to be a why. To ask the question, "Why is there matter?" takes for granted that there is a purpose, and this presupposes an intelligence behind everything. You're begging the question of God.

Atheists don't need to supply an answer to why there is matter. How matter came to be is a question of interest, but seeking the purpose for its existence seems like a fruitless endeavor.

 

[drifblim70]

Yep, I agree with what you just said... basically. We don't need to know "why" if there is a "why," which we don't even know if there is in the first place. The problem I see is that the job of scientists is largely to describe "why" in every other matter, but what about physical matter's very existence (i.e. its tangibility/perceptibility etc)?. Ex: the relative position of anything is dictated by point of origin + movement since then, as far as I know (maybe I'm not highly educated enough, but whatever). --meh, ignore that train of thought, it's irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that people do suffer existentialist crises--wondering why they're alive, why they're even trying to exist. If any explanation satisfies them, one that does not harm others, I say they have a right to that explanation, and that includes the Christian God, however much of a "doublethought" he might be. Atheists say that people don't need a reason to exist; existentialists need a reason. So if the existentialists have a reason and decide to exist, and the atheists don't need a reason to exist and still decide to exist... isn't that enough? Can't we all just get along?

All of that presupposes that the arbitrary reason to exist is not one that will end up causing pain/restricting happiness (ex: "god hates (BAN ME PLEASE)," "a good wife obeys her husband", all that bullshit). Those beliefs should be undermined by proper education.

 

[Jomei]

Atheists say that people don't need a reason to exist; existentialists need a reason. So if the existentialists have a reason and decide to exist, and the atheists don't need a reason to exist and still decide to exist... isn't that enough? Can't we all just get along?

There are atheist existentialists. They aren't mutually exclusive. I think most atheists would agree that people like to have purpose in their lives, but they would stipulate that purpose is something individuals have to choose for themselves, not something objective imposed by a deity (such as glorifying God, getting to Heaven, whatever).

 

[Brain]

But how is "the world doesn't need any reason to be, it exists" any different from "God doesn't need any proof of existence, he exists?" It only differs in one way--that the physical world does, empirically, exist. But atheists cannot explain why. They can analyze the how for all they like, but when it gets right down to it, they cannot explain why. I believe that a person matures--becomes independent, confident, etc--when they realize this: that they have no explanation for why matter itself exists, period.

"Why" is an inquiry about purpose. Purpose is an inherently subjective assessment: something has a purpose as seen from the point of view of someone or something else. Unlike "how", which only supposes the existence of the object being analyzed, "why" requires us to suppose the existence of an additional object, a vantage point from which "why" can be made sense of. Of course, the problem is that one may wonder "why" this additional object exists, but in doing so one would be positing the existence of yet another object, and so on ad infinitum.

Essentially, it is logically necessary for at least one existing entity to exist for no reason. Conversely, if one considers the universe as being the set of everything which exists (so, to make things clear, if God exists, God is part of the universe by that definition), then the universe exists for no reason, not out of some metaphysical assumption, but out of logical necessity. And as I have just done, we can derive this necessity solely from the semantics of the word "why".

The way it is usually framed, to ask why the physical universe exists is a logical fallacy called begging the question: by asking "why", you suppose the existence of an external entity who would have purposely made the universe. Thus you set yourself up for a religious or supernatural explanation, because only such an explanation can answer the question you have asked (even though the question itself might be inappropriate!) But you can't reason like that - "why" is only a valid question to ask in so far that you have already identified from which perspective to determine a purpose. First, you must identify God and make a case for his existence, and only then can you try to figure out "why" he did what he did.

 

[lati0s]

J-man, you seem to have accepted that every bit of the bible must be true as a priori, I am curious as to why you have done this. In other words, why do you believe that the bible is infallible?

If you respond with a bible verse, which past history indicates is likely, you clearly don't get it. You cannot accept that something is true because it says it is true or that something is the word of because it says it is the word of god. Imagine if you found a piece of paper on which was written "this is a message from god, it is all true, 1+1=44" would you accept that 1+1=44? or would you question whether or not the paper was truly a message from god, or just a hoax? If you would do the second, which I expect you would, one has to question why you so readily accept the bible.

Also, could you please respond to these points, you seem to have missed them and I am curios as to what you think about them

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. - 1 John 4:16

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the lord and his majesty. 2nd Thessalonians 1:9

There is no way that an all loving god would create hell and send people there for eternity. Please do not respond by saying that the everyone desrves hell or that people chose hell. It is absurd to think that any finite amount of sins that could be one in a life qualifies someone for deserving eternal suffering. You also cannot seriously say that people are seriously choosing hell just because they have different beliefs than you, everyone I know that "chooses hell" by not accepting jesus does so because they truly believe that god does not exist as you think he does, if anything this is a failure on gods part by failing to make himself known to the world.

That is a faulty comparison, people choose their representatives in the senate, whereas no man had any say in god choosing Adam and Eve as man's representatives. So basically, god chooses adam and eve as mankind's representatives knowing all the while that they will fail in the situation he puts them in, then he faults all mankind with this failure and condemns them all to suffering for it. Injustice defined.

A better comparison would be if the CIA created super robot meant to spread peace in the world, but then before they launched him they became aware of a fault in his programming that would eventually cause him to become corrupted and reign terror on the world. then the CIA, instead of destroying him, or better, fixing his flaw, chose to still launch him to the world. I would say that the CIA is fully at fault for the terror caused by the robot.

And I have one last question, if god knows everything then he must know what all my future actions and thoughts are going to be, and something that is undetermined cannot be known, so all my future thoughts and actions must be determined, but then how can I have any free will?

 

[viol and bass]

And I have one last question, if god knows everything then he must know what all my future actions and thoughts are going to be, and something that is undetermined cannot be known, so all my future thoughts and actions must be determined, but then how can I have any free will?

The idea that something that is undetermined cannot be known seems faulty to me. If you run a computer program that is designed to calculate the answer to a specific problem, and you have run the same program multiple times and gotten the same answer, and you are in the process of running it again without having altered it in the slightest, the answer is undetermined yet it is known.

Edit: And "free will" is a contradiction in terms. If an occurrence is determined based on your will alone, then it is not free. You are bound by yourself, by what you do, by your nature. Whereas "free" means random. Some people might say that "free" means "determined by you alone". But this is false because if you're determining it then someone's determining it for you and that person is you. It is not free.

 

[lati0s]

The answer is not undetermined in that scenario. You know what the computer is going to do and you know what answer it is going to get so how can you say that it is undetermined?

 

[viol and bass]

When I say undetermined I mean that the entity responsible for deciding the answer to a problem, the next course of action, etc. has not currently decided what that answer or course of action is.

What do you mean by undetermined?

 

[MrIndigo]

I should've rephrased that better. I mean that laws governing the universe still existed, but those laws would be meaningless, because they would be violated regularly by "miracles".

Then they're not laws of the universe. The laws of the universe would be written to describe the universe that existed, including miracles.

If you change one of the foundational rules (i.e. by permitting miracles), then your laws are no longer what you thought they were, they are different. There would still be a statement of the laws of the universe that would incorporate the changes.


The laws of physics are a description, not a limitation imposed.

 

[lati0s]

By undetermined I meant multiple results are possible, which is clearly not the case if the result is known, which it always would be if god knew everything

 

[Obsessed]

This debate cannot be won guys. Look at all his past posts. When he can't come up with an actual counter he cites Corinthians and says "logic can't be used here."

He then ignores the fact that he too is using man's logic to interpret, and defend the Bible.

Do you know what i'm going to say here? I'm not even going to mention as you very well know what verse i'd so much like to respond with. But here's another one for you:

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

In essence, Mind is saying that no matter what, when man defines God, it comes from man's logic. This scripture verse contradicts what he is saying. The Bible may have been written by man, but it is from God, God breathed as it states. God Authored the Bible. I get my definition of God straight from His word. Therefore, i am not contradicting myself, as i'm not defining him with man's logic, but the foolishness that his wiser than man's wisdom.

Yes you are defining god with man's logic. It is like you didn't bother to try and understand the points Brain made. When you read the sentence "God is omnipotent" you think: "well the Bible is the word of God, and God is perfect so God doesn't lie, so God must be omnipotent!"

That is man's logic. You are using man's logic to reach the conclusion that God is omnipotent.

Also you said the wheel ends at "The Bible is Infalliable." How so? Let me ask you a series of three questions, one after the other.

Why should we believe the Bible?

How can you be sure the Bible is the word of God?

How do you know the Bible is infalliable?

Please answer each one if possible. I would love to see your answers.

 

[viol and bass]

If undetermined means multiple results are possible then it means random. If you have to make a major decision and next year you reflect on that decision, you will realize that one choice was made. Now it's arguable whether you had the freedom to choose that one choice or not, but regardless you can't say that either one may have happened. It's one or the other.

 

[lati0s]

If you will definitely make one choice and never the other then you cannot be said to have free will in that decision because you were "forced" by your nature to choose as you did.

I realize that there is confusion stemming from the fact that free will doesn't really make any sense no matter how you look at it

 

[viol and bass]

Trudat.

 

[MrIndigo]

God created a being that could choose between Good and evil. Said being knew full well that it was wrong to disobey God. Therefore, to unfortunately contradict what i have said... Mankind knew what evil was... They knew it when God commanded them not to eat the fruit (because at that time, mankind through Adam had chosen to obey and love God, therefore they knew disobeying him was wrong). They understood the consequences, as aptly pointed by Eve. And consequently, man did fall. This happens when you have a choice, and Adam decided to screw God and go with what he wanted, and he takes all the responsibility for it no matter what kind of foreknowledge God had. In fact God offered Adam a way out, twice.

I have a question here, not based out of logic, but out of a confusion on my part: I was under the impression that the tree of knowledge imparted the knowledge of good and evil (or right and wrong, equivalently); prior to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and so they were truly innocent.

If this is the case, that would imply that Adam and Eve were not (initially) capable of evil and hence their eating the food could not have been an evil act.

However, you seem to suggest that this is not the case. If Adam and Eve were capable of evil before eating the fruit, what knowledge did the fruit of the tree impart?

This is not a critical argument, I'm just not aware of the details.

Adam and Eve had the opportunity to choose and desire what was right through their free will.
What good is it having mindless slaves for your Glory? Yes, i say our purpose of existence is solely for God's Glory. I'll expand on this, because this tripped me up also when i considered it. Just imagine you painted a beautiful picture, like next closest thing to perfect beauty. What do you do with it? Keep it locked up so no one can see it and it's beauty wastes away? No, most likely you show it to some people so that they can admire it as you can. In the same light, God is like the painting.

So God wanted to show himself off to his people? Wouldn't that be considered Pride, a deadly sin? Or is Pride only a sin for man because they are not as God? Again, this is a query on details, not an argument.

Regardless, most people would consider this aspect not to be benevolence. God's not doing anything for our sake, he's doing it for his own gratification.

of course, that would be totally unjust and uncalled for if that was a God that i'm arguing for. But i'm not. God created man with the free will to choose right or wrong (knowing right and wrong). He told them to not eat the fruit or die. Since man had the decision, he gets the consequences of that decision. Now we are helpless to try and obtain our salvation, because now AFTER the fall we are unable to do spiritual good. Hope that cleared things up.

If this is the case, why worship at all if we're incapable of spiritual good? Doesn't it mean we're all irredeemably damned and thus there is no reason to follow the code laid down by dogma?

This clearly came from your head and has no biblical backing WHATSOEVER. See 1 Corinthians 1:25 please. The reason i point this out, is you try and argue with man's logic and come to your conclusions solely based on what you think with absolutely no backing. In essence you are virtually stating a blatant opinion. In a theological debate of this kind, you will not and can not defeat me unless you use The Bible as your backing. To me and many others, The Bible overrides you, you can not win unless you beat me at my own game.

So, to restate the question asked by lati0s and by myself previously, how do you pick your sources? You have chosen to take the Bible as true a priori (which is the same as assuming your conclusion a priori, but that's besides the point), but we have presented logical processes founded on observation of the world around us. Why do you choose the Bible as opposed to other sources, be they ours, or alternative religious doctrines like the Qu'ran?

Do you know what i'm going to say here? I'm not even going to mention as you very well know what verse i'd so much like to respond with. But here's another one for you:

2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

In essence, Mind is saying that no matter what, when man defines God, it comes from man's logic. This scripture verse contradicts what he is saying. The Bible may have been written by man, but it is from God, God breathed as it states. God Authored the Bible. I get my definition of God straight from His word. Therefore, i am not contradicting myself, as i'm not defining him with man's logic, but the foolishness that his wiser than man's wisdom.

He is saying that even if the definition is given by God, it is in Man's language and using Man's logic. Hence the argument that you use to say that it is Man's logic at fault for the inconsistent description of God can also be used to say that any description of God the religious give is also null and void. You cannot describe God using man's language, either to describe him as good and existing or as evil or nonexisting.

First off, it wasn't the serpent. It was the devil taking the form of the serpent. Next up, Satan (AKA Lucifer) was just like man. He had his will to choose, and he tried to rebel against and overthrow God to elevate himself. Didn't work out too hot. Just like you, i don't understand why God did it. But what i do know, is that God WILL vanquish satan.

In that case, surely it was Satan's fault that Eve fell, since he convinced her to eat the fruit? So then my question is, why did God allow Satan to be in the garden? Why hadn't he already destroyed him? Why hasn't he vanquished him now? These things should all be within God's power for he is all-powerful, and yet he has not.

This is the fundamental problem with ascribing the trait of omnipotence to God. If you give him the ability to stop all of these outcomes that are apparently unfavourable, you simultaneously give him the responsbility for making sure these outcomes do not stop.

Ultimately, the attribute of omnipotence ascribed to God MUST be incorrect, whether it's because God does not/cannot exist, or because man lacked a word to translate God's truth accurately.

Because Adam was the covenant head of mankind. He was in charge of creation. When he fell, as our representative, we fell. Sin entered the world. It is passed down as a disease from generation until generation.

So, let's look at a hypothetical situation: let's say I, without your permission or knowledge, became the head of mankind: every person alive and who ever would be alive was under my responsibility, and then I failed a test so that every person alive and who ever would be alive would spend their entire life in torture, and their would be no end or afterlife. If I failed, would you consider your personal torture justified, despite the fact you had no connection to me?

I'm still learning, so this is what you'll have to deal with. Contrary to popular atheist belief, I have not contradicted my self. You see, Christ's death was a sacrificial one. In this death, he bore the wrath of God that was meant to be our judgment. By doing so, the effects of sin on us were dealt to him. By resurrecting, he also defeated death, so that it could not claim us for the punishment we deserve. For those who truly believe this happened and trust in him as his/her savior, his perfect and law fulfilling life is imputed on us so it is as if we had never sinned. The effects of sin our essentially null and void. Unfortunately, we still live in a fallen world, and live in fallen bodies that are still corrupted with sin. Thankfully, through the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to resist the Devil's temptation and be able to have Faith in Jesus. This is not contradicting to the fact that Man has no spiritual free will, as The Holy Spirit is solely from God alone. Without it, we are a fallen person that desires to hate God.

So when Jesus was sacrificed and reborn, what sin did he expunge for us, if our bodies and world are still laced with it? What death did he defeat if we all still die? What difference did Jesus' sacrifice make? I'm not clear on this point.

And, you're wheel is defeated as well. The snag of the so called "endless cycle" stops at "The Bible is Infallible". We can start that debate at your command.

Okay, then, consider this the command. How do you know the Bible is infallible? How do you know it is authored by God, and how do you know God spoke the truth? (This is a restatement of the question asked above, about how you choose which sources to assume to be true a priori)

I suspose i'll have to apologize for being the 2nd rate debater and clarify things. When i say "man's faulty logic" i'm stating that you are defining God from you own logic without any scriptural backup. He, naturally loving evil due to the fall, will try to excuse himself from having to own up to God. An example is using God's attributes to define him in such a way that it contradicts what Scripture says.

As pointed out before, this means that any logic that comes to a conclusion you don't like you just label as Man's logic and thus claim it's invalid. So again, it boils down to the question of "How do you know the Bible is infallible?"

The second doesn't. The first one is Jesus (God) telling his disciples that he has to and how he will die. Either he knows what is going happen, or he took one huge lucky guess. You can also see many verses in the gospels where Jesus (God) Knows the evil thoughts of the pharisees. These two examples are a blatant display of Omniscience. I am willing to provide even more examples of God's Omniscience if you want.

It is totally late. I need my sleep.

You can't show omniscience by examples; all that shows is that they knew one particular thing. Furthermore, since the Bible was written AFTER the events that were predicted in prophecy, if you cannot prove the Bible is infallible, then you don't know that the prophecy occurred before the event it predicted anyway.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Because i have access to The Bible- Authored by Him who is omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent. My belief and logic are rooted in it and only it.

And a Muslim has access to the Qur'an, a Buddhists to the teachings of Buddha, a Hindu priest (Brahman I think thet're called) to the Vedas, and Jews to the Torah.

What makes your bible a more accurate description of reality then any of their writings? Or observation of reality itself for that matter?

 

[-FUCK-]

*Gigantic post*

Okay seriously, your entire argument is basicaly this:



"Hey guys, I'm santa clause"


"really? How do we now that?"


"Because I fucking said so"



Just replace the phrase "I'm santa clause" with "The bible is the word of god", the second sentence with every question people tried challenging you with, and the "I" in the last sentence with "The Bible". Thats this entire debate in a nutshell, and its quite lulzy.

 

[Brain]

If you will definitely make one choice and never the other then you cannot be said to have free will in that decision because you were "forced" by your nature to choose as you did.

I realize that there is confusion stemming from the fact that free will doesn't really make any sense no matter how you look at it

When you say "you were 'forced' by your nature to choose as you did", you are implicitly saying that "you" and "your nature" are different entities, which, when you think about it, doesn't really make any sense. On the other hand, if one equates someone with their nature, then you would be stating that "you were 'forced' by yourself to choose as you did" - which is technically circular reasoning, but seems to drive the point that it was indeed your choice.

If we define the free will of an entity as its capacity to act free from external influences, there's an objective way to evaluate it: for instance, observe a robot's actions and compare the uncertainty of its behavior when information about the environment is withheld to the uncertainty of its behavior when its internal state is withheld. So in a way, the problem of free will is more of a problem about the definition of self: if the "self" is seen as some sort of disembodied entity, then all the physical universe is external to the self. Under that definition, we lack free will, obviously. But it is arguably a stupid definition - if we defined someone's self as their brain, a fully deterministic notion of free will could be meaningfully applied to them.

 

[MrIndigo]

I agree with Brain. When people say they believe in free will, they usually implictly mean that they believe that there is some aspect of an individual consciousness that goes beyond the basic atoms and cells and wave energy in the person's brain.

Thus, my interpretation of lati0s' statement is that when he says "you were forced by your nature", he means that external component of the consciousness was invariably directed to a particular outcome by either external consciousnesses, or by limitations based in the biological hardware of the brain.

My personal belief is that there is no such external component. Consciousness and personality are deterministic based on the physical composition and status of the brain, and any external self is simply an illusion created by the hardware running it's processes. (Consequently, I don't have a belief that God can't be omnipotent on that basis; I don't believe in God because of other contradictions and irrationalities).