Because that's not really following the spirit of free will. If not believing in god made your life suck how fair would that be?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
God vs Science
- Thread starter Fuzznip
- Start date
Because that's not really following the spirit of free will. If not believing in god made your life suck how fair would that be?
If not believing in God made your afterlife suck how fair would that be?
Not fair at all. But that's not how it is.
See man was never meant to go to Hell or heaven. Man was supposed to live on earth in the garden of eden. Man sinned in the garden causing him to die. Because man is not perfect when he dies he cannot go to heaven and be with god. So now man is doomed to go to hell when he dies.
But God decided to make a way for man to make it to heaven by paying for mans sin through Jesus.
God isn't the tyrant pirate captain demanding that you bow to him or be thrown in the ocean, he's the captain throwing the drowning man a rope and letting him choose if he wants to use it or not.
Why throw them a rope when you could freeze a portion of the water? Or is God unable to freeze the water?
Remember that the rope is not fair. Some people are unable to reach it, or see it no matter how hard they try.
But he makes all the rules...ALL of the rules...so why make a rule that man cannot join him in Heaven when you sin and don't repent?
And just for the record, it is a little too convenient that all one must do is ask for forgiveness to get it. Obvious Example: I kill somebody, visit my church the next day, and repent. Assuming I haven't sinned any more, I go to Heaven? That just...it's just stupid. Makes the three or four people who got to heaven on their own good spirit just a little bit angry.
And just for the record, it is a little too convenient that all one must do is ask for forgiveness to get it. Obvious Example: I kill somebody, visit my church the next day, and repent. Assuming I haven't sinned any more, I go to Heaven? That just...it's just stupid. Makes the three or four people who got to heaven on their own good spirit just a little bit angry.
The rope is fair. Everyone can reach it.
God is a fair god. He isn't going to send people to hell just because they have never heard about Jesus. God is a fair judge and he will take things like that into account when judging people.
To answer your first question:
Go does not apologize for being God. He set up a system in place before man was even created. To exist with him in heaven you must be perfect, untainted by sin. Like I said before Man was not meant to be in heaven or hell. Man screwed up and caused himself to die. When you die you either exist with god (Heaven) or separated from God (Hell) because God does not tolerate imperfection but at the same time loved us and did not want us to be separated from him he made a way for us to be "perfect".
Second part:
Nobody is perfect. The best person on the earth isn't perfect. Nobody gets into heaven on their own spirit. We all have sinned and we all have fallen short.
Jesus didn't just die for the people who mostly lived a good life. He died for everyone. Murders included.
God is fair. That's why all the fish and ducks got to live during the flood, but the poor land animals had to die (except a couple). Thats why of all the myriad ways people can act, and the wide continuum that can exist between good and bad people, there are only two places that we can get sent. That's why the only evidence of himself that he leaves is a thousands of years old book that by all appearances was just written by a bunch of desert people, but he punishes us with eternal damnation if we choose not to believe. That's why we all have to endure every single thing that sucks about life because the first woman ever ate a fruit (don't ask what happened to the fruit, death didn't exist yet). That's why all of the detestable things that happen in the name of God in the Old Testament are obviously just, because if God is a fair God then they must be.
@ topic: Where is Richard Dawkins when you need him?\
I reccomend to everyone who is interested in this topic to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
What actually defines evil? Is based it a collective morality of a society, or is it founded in a universal truth established by a religion? Or is it even an instinctual drive instilled in us through evolution to prolong our species? The notion that the right to act freely itself suggests the possibility of any moral shading, whether "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". An example is slave-master morality discussed by Nietzsche. An example of a struggle between opposing moralities is that between Western morality and the morality of extremist Muslims both of which have many contributing factors.
See above post addressing the source of morality. A soul is not tangible and therefore is unlikely to manifest itself through tangible actions that define morality.
As a theologian(lol) might say, it is because that is not true freedom. Freedom of actions is not that of the freedom of the mind. That would cause us to live in fear of immorality and that is not the motivation behind a benevolent God. His motivation is that of "love" in which if we do not do bad things we are rewarded with "eternal paradise"(lol again).
Guilt is a negative reinforcement instilled in most people.
Another answer to this question is that God does not exist at all and therefore has the inablitity to do anything.
(For the record, I agree with your points^)
I reccomend to everyone who is interested in this topic to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
What actually defines evil? Is based it a collective morality of a society, or is it founded in a universal truth established by a religion? Or is it even an instinctual drive instilled in us through evolution to prolong our species? The notion that the right to act freely itself suggests the possibility of any moral shading, whether "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". An example is slave-master morality discussed by Nietzsche. An example of a struggle between opposing moralities is that between Western morality and the morality of extremist Muslims both of which have many contributing factors.
See above post addressing the source of morality. A soul is not tangible and therefore is unlikely to manifest itself through tangible actions that define morality.
As a theologian(lol) might say, it is because that is not true freedom. Freedom of actions is not that of the freedom of the mind. That would cause us to live in fear of immorality and that is not the motivation behind a benevolent God. His motivation is that of "love" in which if we do not do bad things we are rewarded with "eternal paradise"(lol again).
Guilt is a negative reinforcement instilled in most people.
Another answer to this question is that God does not exist at all and therefore has the inablitity to do anything.
(For the record, I agree with your points^)
You might want to edit your post. You are embarrassing yourself. Scoopapa is an Atheist. His post was entirely sarcastic. Maybe that is why it sounded so ridiculous to you.
We should start a tally of arguments that involve an omnipotent God having limits. Christians go to great lengths to say life is all about God, and that the purpose of life is serve God, know God, etc. Surely God has a hand in how life works? Also, your argument doesn't really apply because everything I mentioned is a specific, direct act of God, not something that other people or the natural state of the universe/world causes..
And yes, the post was sarcastic. People do think that God is fair, and they do think all of those things happen / happened, but they apparently don't draw the lines or see the conflict.
i read this and thought "oh crap, here comes the sartre-skinner debate...."
that never came to pass for some reason. if you really want to argue free will, recommend looking it up.
It's called guilt.
I'm sorry but you are being a complete douche. What makes you think that you, or anyone else in this thread, has the winning part of the argument? You only think its right because that is the way your moral principles have worked for the most part of your life. Of course by presenting well thought arguments you think that you're on the winning side, and so does your opponent.
Do you actually think you're changing anything when you say "religion will be proven obsolete"? Nothing will stop people from thinking man did not go on the moon, even if you provide them with proven facts; the same applies to religion. Man might've not even went to the moon! No one can have the 100% correct winning side in an argument such as this (remember, this was just analogeous).
If you act good all your life, God will not punish you, even if you don't believe in him. You can be an atheist and go to heaven if you haven't sinned; but, you shouldn't thrash God and expect to go to heaven because you haven't sinned. Huge difference there, buddy. This is probably because you were in a state of "loss" from God, so he will not punish you as he will to someone who cursed at his name.
Now, of course, I expect you to thrash me, ridicule me etc. Just get this in your mind (for both sides): This debate is completely futile and will only end in people hating each other over some moral principles that differentiate us humans. Your "logic" will not effect the common believer or the atheist because it is their choice to follow what they want.
First, man did go to the moon ;)
Anyway, I am an atheist, do not believe that God exists. However, I do agree with The Grammaa Police's point that this entire argument is basically futile. Think about it: you have two completely contradictory points of view. The people belonging to both sides all have very strong opinions on their beliefs (or lack of them), and this debate has been raging for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. With all that history behind it, I do not believe that this argument will ever be resolved.
However, Police also makes a valid point in stating that insulting and flaming people on the oppostite side will make no progress in persuading them of your opinion. For one, it makes your argument sound illogical and unreasoned, and gives the appearance of being based solely upon insulting those that do not share your opinion. Although Police did use some of the same tactics tha I have just described. For the purposes of any argument, allowing emotion to cloud reasoning is usually not a good move (not in all cases, however). Just the humble opinion of an outside observer.
Anyone who watched the thunderf00t (lol) discussion with Ray Comfort saw the moment of pwnage for the "our morals come from God" argument. Ray kept trying to find the example that would put thunderf00t's "morality, whether intrinsic or learned, is based on the good of the society / race" argument. Pedophillia came up, and thunderf00t asked Ray Comfort if pedophillia would be ok if the bible said it was. He openly refused to answer the question, saying it was ridiculous... clearly Ray thinks pedophillia is wrong whether or not God tells him so (which hopefully all of us do).
If you're going to jump into this same discussion on youtube, I recommend Aron Ra's videos
If you're going to jump into this same discussion on youtube, I recommend Aron Ra's videos
From that very same article
Richard Dawkins was not slammed by a veteran philosopher. He was labeled a secularist bigot by a man who didn't even read The God Delusion in its entirety. Nice try Pokey. Perhaps you should actually read the articles you link to next time, rather than just reading the title.
Perhaps everyone can reach it but everyone cannot see it, what good is a rope if you are unaware of it, god could make a better system (one that saves more people) by making the rope more obvious (revealing his presence in an undeniable form to nonbelievers) or by teleporting everyone out of the water and not using a rope (saving everyone regardless of belief).
It is clear to see that god did not use the optimized system, and since he is god and can do anything we can conclude that god does not want everyone to go to heaven, and thus wants some people (billions of people) to go to hell. Therefore he is not all loving.
romans 1:20
For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]
The bible states that nonbelievers have no excuse for not believing.
Can God make a rock so big he himself cannot lift it? Either way, there is something God cannot do, so God cannot be omnipotent. The Bible says that God is omnipotent, so the Bible was wrong and is not infallible.
You're right, "pain" was poor word choice. What I meant more of was a "fuck your own mom" kind of sense, where it's not exactly pain, and you're choices aren't being restricted, but it's in a way where no sane person actually would want to. You're not being forced, but you're in a situation where you simply won't choose it. Of course, that's not completely free will, but you don't lose anything from completely free will, and you will have a lot less suffering in your life.
Isn't this similar to the immovable object/unstoppable force paradox? It's still an intriguing way to explore the limits of "all-powerful" God...
