What is a God?

[John A. Broussard]

So in other words John,

If i tell you to go down the street and lie to the clerk, and you go down the street and lie to the clerk, it was me who really did the lying ?

Likewise if I told you to go down the street and kill a man, and you wnet down the street and killed a man, then the police are goign to come and arrest me because I killed the man ??

How did I ever manage to not understand such a clear and obvious truth that I really killed the man !! I mean the police are surely goign to buy that one eh ?

Isn't it funny how the standard is always stretched when it doesn't fit what we want it to be ?

I AGREE.

When god sends a delusion, he doesn't send a delusion.

"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion" means that he didn't send the strong delusion.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you said that the verse claimed that god sent a delusion, but I now realize that what you meant is that he sent a delusion.

Now, it's perfectly clear.

[AZSuperman]

First off we have not determined anythign in regards to what is hell, so your statement that God wants these peoel to go to hell cannot be quantified.
Whatever Hell is, it's where you'll go, or what you'll go through if you make the wrong choices. And God, by sending delusions and lying spirits, is trying to get as many people there as possible.

Secondly God desires that all men might be saved, but He is not goign to force anythign upon you. You are responsible and accountable for your choices. He will simply seal up that which you have chosen for yourself to be and serve. We each will receive and be given accordingly.
So no one is allowed to change their mind? No one can convert. No one can leave the fold and find their way back... Afterall, if God has already locked them into their decision, then they can't truely change their mind... and again, they're sent to Hell.

Lamp, you are really making God look like a swell guy.

[Copper Scroll]

And Yahzi. There's some stuff I wrote you I don't recall getting responses on.

There's good-for-nothing kid out there who, with very good parents, claims that his parents ain't shit because they won't do his homework, they give him chores, and they won't buy him a new iPod after he broke his.

How are we unlike this brat when we demand that God make the world better?

What if a Tsunami destroyed a new city every single day? What if genocide happened on every continent all the time? What if we were on WWVII by now? Things could be better; things could be worse. It's our responsibility to fix our problems.

You could name all the tragedies and I can name all the comedies, but neither of us really has a reliable measuring stick for the level of "goodness" and "badness" in this world.


You're saying that pain can be categorically called "excessive" when it kills the person who is in pain? What about people who die without any pain other than the pinch of a needle? The pinch of the needle is too much pain. (God! Why o why does this needle have to pinch me soooo?!! BooHooo!!) What about people who suffer agonizing pain for months or years and never dies? Then, the pinch of a needle is too much for one person while years of agony is not too much for another?



If I saw somebody getting raped, I'd act. I'd be wrong not to.

With God, it's different. If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.

You'd written: "I don't expect God to stop all the crime in the world. I'm more than willing to do my share." If I follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you must want God to stamp out not just crime but anything we might consider "bad". If you have the training (which you said you do have), I hope you are doing your share. How do you fairly determine what your share is and what's God's?

You wrote "I don't expect a miracle. Just an anyonymous phone call.
Why do you think that is too much to ask?"

A phone call from God is a miracle. If pimples were our biggest problem and you were socialized in a world where pimples is the number one global crisis, you'd ask God clear one up. Just one face, please. (Preferably, mine)

What say you on these points?

[Sultanist]

So in other words John,

If i tell you to go down the street and lie to the clerk, and you go down the street and lie to the clerk, it was me who really did the lying ?

I dunno, Lamp. But I gotta tell you that if before this you'd tossed a stone tablet down from heaven which says "Thou shalt not lie", then I would be a little uneasy about you. That I would.

[John A. Broussard]

Wait--I thought I wasn't speaking to you. Why are you talking to me? If you're not addressing me, then it is not entirely fair to take something I wrote and run out of bound with it. (But who cares about "fair" when you have such a passion for running straight out of bounds?)
Thank you for your sensitive and thoughful reply to my post.

I was unaware that there are rules that state we can only comment on posts which are directed to us.

Thank you for calling my attention to that regulation.

[Sultanist]

Well in that case I want to apologize for post #272. And about 85% of the rest of my posts. :D

[AZSuperman]

With God, it's different. If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.
So in Heaven, no one is going to be good, right? We'll all be mindless, obiedient drones.

Or will there still be rape, murder, burglary, and exploitation in Heaven?

[John A. Broussard]

Well in that case I want to apologize for post #272. And about 85% of the rest of my posts. :D

Hey!!!

How can you apologize for commenting on posts not addressed to you by commenting on a post not addresed to you in your apology?

[Lamp Of Light]

Again, is this really any better? God is deceiving people, whether directly or through his one of his "slaves."


Well we have not looked past the one example, but God surely hasn't deceived people in the example we are examining. God didn't deceive anyone.



If I send someone to kill your mom, it may be true that I "never killed anyone," but am I any less guilty than the person who carried out my orders? Does it make me innocent?


Except that isn't how the example played out is it ? What we discovered is that it wasn't Gods idea at all to send the deceiving spirit. Rather it was a deceiving spirit altogether that offered the suggestion. So it would be more like you coming up to me and saying "Hey can I lie to harry" and i say "sure, go ahead and lie to harry, meanwhile I will tell harry the truth."


On the same note, if God sends a lying spirit, or a deception, (consequently leading people away from eternal life, toward Hell)... isn't he just as guilty as the spirit speaking the lies?


As long as you think if harry asks me "can I lie to bob", and I say sure go ahead, that it subsequently means all the lies harry spoke to bob are then my lies, sure, I guess you are correct. Yet you have to discount the fact t hat I told harry the truth specifically myself. I frankly don't see it like you, nor do I think you would in such a circumstance fidn it agreeable, nor do i think a court of law would think like that either.

[Copper Scroll]

So in Heaven, no one is going to be good, right?

Good question, Superman. (Can I call you Superman?)

Heaven is not really a place or a future event, though this is how it is often referred to. Heaven is eternal communion with God; it is eternal life.

In order to have eternal life, we must fufill God's will and participate in God's plan freely. We can't do it freely if God wipes out all "bad" and gives us no options but to be "good" like Godself.

Outside of our intersubjective experience within time and space, "good" and "bad" don't really exist. They are mutually dependent attributes of our present circumstance.

[John A. Broussard]

Well we have not looked past the one example, but God surely hasn't deceived people in the example we are examining. God didn't deceive anyone.

Right.

When god sends a delusion, he isn't doing any deceiving.

Of course, the people who are deluded are deceived by the delusion, but that's their fault, not god's.

[AZSuperman]

What we discovered is that it wasn't Gods idea at all to send the deceiving spirit. Rather it was a deceiving spirit altogether that offered the suggestion.

So... the Bible says it was God who sent the deception.

And the Bible says it was God who sent the lying spirit.

But what the Bible meant was that God allowed the deception, and the lying spirit... That's a big difference.

I think this boils down to the good old argument: "That's what it says, but not what it means."

You know, we get more people upset at us for simply pointing out what the book actually says. Obviously, in order to be Christian you need to accept that (although it's inerrent) the Bible can't be trusted. :rolling:

[John A. Broussard]

Outside of our intersubjective experience within time and space, "good" and "bad" don't really exist. They are mutually dependent attributes of our present circumstance.

Got it!

Some child dying of break-bone fever is suffering from an intersubjective experience within time and space.

There's really no good or bad involved.

It's just a mutually dependent attribute of that child's present circumstance.

[Copper Scroll]

Well in that case I want to apologize for post #272. And about 85% of the rest of my posts. :D

John B has one of two (or both) habits.: (1) lying about what I write and/or (2) misinterpreting what I write out of ignorance.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't respond to comments addressed specifically to others. I reminding John that I was not going to respond to anything else he wrote unless he apologizes for lying on me (about Santa Claus and other silly issues) and admits that he lied without sarcasm or phony "thank you for the clarification"s.

[AZSuperman]

Good question, Superman. (Can I call you Superman?)
I prefer Clark, or Mr. Kent. :D

Heaven is not really a place or a future event, though this is how it is often referred to. Heaven is eternal communion with God; it is eternal life.

In order to have eternal life, we must fufill God's will and participate in God's plan freely. We can't do it freely if God wipes out all "bad" and gives us no options but to be "good" like Godself.
So in other words, eternal life is being converted to a robot, or a drone, incapable of personal thought or action, limited to doing only that which God wills...

How is this a good thing?
Outside of our intersubjective experience within time and space, "good" and "bad" don't really exist. They are mutually dependent attributes of our present circumstance.
That explains a lot. If good and bad are limited to our time and space, it explains how God can command someone to "kill every man, woman, and suckling child" without it being considered evil... To God, existing outside of time and space, evil doesn't exist... He's free to do as he wishes, and command others to do as he wishes.

So rape, murder, burglary, etc may exist in the afterlife... but they won't be considered evil... they'll be Gods will... and we'll be reduced to God's action figures.

[John A. Broussard]

As long as you think if harry asks me "can I lie to bob", and I say sure go ahead, that it subsequently means all the lies harry spoke to bob are then my lies, sure, I guess you are correct. Yet you have to discount the fact t hat I told harry the truth specifically myself. I frankly don't see it like you, nor do I think you would in such a circumstance fidn it agreeable, nor do i think a court of law would think like that either.
As you may suspect, I don't agree with most of your views. However, in this case, you are dealing with a significant aspect of changing Christianity.

It's important, from the viewpoint of Christians, to get god off the hook. To do that, many Christians postulate a "hit man," Satan, as the source of lies, evil, suffering--anything humans hate, or fear, or want no part of.

It isn't easy, even when the bible says so, to believe that god is a deceiver.

That's where the hit man comes in. Satan does the dirty work. That way, the believers know who to blame, god's benign visage is saved unsullied, and human beings can feel better even while they're feeling worse.

[John A. Broussard]

John B has one of two (or both) habits.: (1) lying about what I write and/or (2) misinterpreting what I write out of ignorance.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't respond to comments addressed specifically to others. I reminding John that I was not going to respond to anything else he wrote unless he apologizes for lying on me (about Santa Claus and other silly issues) and admits that he lied without sarcasm or phony "thank you for the clarification"s.

Again, thank you for your kind words.

I haven't decided yet whether to be an ignoramus or a liar, but I'll give it some thought.

And I am truly sorry about lying to you about Santa Claus. That's something I feel is a bad thing to do.

Oops. I see you also gave me the alternative of just being phony. I'll have to think about that.

Again, will you consider this an apology about lying to you about Santa Claus?

I'd thank you, but you might think that was being phony.

[Sultanist]

Guys we're all in this pickle together. Remember the words of that great American crackhead: "why can't we all just get along".
We need to get pissed at God, not ourselves. God wrote the drivel in that book
knowing it would cause controversy and division amongst us. He did so to keep us fighting with each other. Because he knew if we ever became united, we would track his ass down and render some eye for eye on him.
So don't let him get the upper hand in this. He's had that for far too long now. We need to unite and fight him from the halls of Tripoli to the shores of Montezuma if that's what it takes.
Are you with me? Or are you against me?

Now that that's settled, I want to begin this reconciliation by throwing out an olive branch to you, Lamp. And to you, 911. And to you, Copper.
I know it's difficult for you to face the truth. I know you all three have invested an enormous amount of yourselves into believing in this thing. And because of that it's not as simple as deciding to switch from vanilla to chocolate.
So what can I do to help you to find your way? You name it. Sultan is at your command.

[John A. Broussard]

Now that that's settled, I want to begin this reconciliation by throwing out an olive branch to you, Lamp. And to you, 911. And to you Copper.
I know it's difficult for you to face the truth. I know you all three have invested an enormous amount of yourselves into believing in this thing. And because of that it's not like deciding to switch from vanilla to chocolate.
So what can I do to help you to find your way? You name it. Sultan is at your command.

You know--much of the entertainment value of this part of the forum comes from having theists post here. But neither you nor I are very encouraging to them. I admit it's hard to not point out the fallacies in their thinking, the flaws in their logic, the absurdities in their conclusions.

But what will we do if we don't have theists (especailly Christian theists) to kick around anymore?

[Sultanist]

Hey, don't put me in that camp. As I've said before I don't rule out the possibility that there is a God and that he is that insane. I can't rule that out. Not when all I have to do is look around me.

[north]

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."
-- Joseph Campbell


really then why does this, god, act so Human. i mean, why would ,god, get mad at Eve(thanks Eve by the way) for taking a bite of the apple? being a god, surely he would have known this was going to happen. would he not as a god respond to Eve's bite as, i knew that!! no he got, well humanly mad, an emotional response. perhaps the search for the first evidence of freewill is with Eve. after all she defied a god!! and maybe that was what god is really mad about, Eves blatant freewill!! Hmmm.......

god never saw it coming:D

[Sultanist]

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."
really then why does...
That's the Catch 22 about "what transcends human thought", north.
Whenever we try to think of it as being anything other than "what transcends human thought", I'm afraid it then becomes human thought. ;)

[Lamp Of Light]

It's important, from the viewpoint of Christians, to get god off the hook. To do that, many Christians postulate a "hit man," Satan, as the source of lies, evil, suffering--anything humans hate, or fear, or want no part of.

It isn't easy, even when the bible says so, to believe that god is a deceiver.

That's where the hit man comes in. Satan does the dirty work. That way, the believers know who to blame, god's benign visage is saved unsullied, and human beings can feel better even while they're feeling worse.


Well you seem to acknowledge then that there is evil and satan. Most people don't understand that satan serves God. It seems you apparently recognize it, but for some reason think it should dispel my faith. As a matetr of fact you are solidifying my faith. I already am aware God made satan first, and obviously being all knowing He knew already how satan would be. Frankly, that God is all knowing should tell you quite plaininly then that God knows all. Satan could never conceive of somthign that God didn't already conceive of first. The difference is, conceiving and acting upon are two different things.

Evil exists in the world because God wants you to know good and evil, so that you can choose accordingly by the experience, and be without excuse, when you choose other then truth and life.
What ? Would you say that God is unfair ? He gave each man a coin, his soul, his life, to spend as he chooses. If the man squanders it on qickedness, then he shall reap what he sows. It is that simple really. It is all about sin. If abusing people and tearign them down is what makes you feel good, expect to get your recompense somehat probably a perfect measuring in accordance of that which you measured out. SO if you think abusing someone and tearing them down feels good, for example, then I imagine you will be in for a perfect measurement of feelign good upon the great judgement day.


May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever !! :)

[north]

That's the Catch 22 about "what transcends human thought", north.
Whenever we try to think of it as being anything other than "what transcends human thought", I'm afraid it then becomes human thought. ;)

not quite sure your point here.

[Sultanist]

not quite sure your point here.
Don't worry. You're not alone. I've been preaching this "unknowable" bullshit on the Internet for going on three years now. And you're not the first one who's struggled with trying to grasp what it's all about. I guess for some it's like what that fucking algebra is for me.

You see we're limited to what our minds are capable of. I like to call that our
"intellectual capacity". That includes our ideas, word concepts, and everything else which together comprises human thought.
The interesting thing though, is that we can also conceive of that which we are not capable of knowing with human thought. We cannot define it, we cannot describe it, we cannot understand or comprehend it, because by definition ("unknowable"), we cannot "know" it.
But we can conceive of the possibility of it's existence.

What Campbell is saying is that what we want to think we understand as being "God", is actually that "unknowable". That "God" is what "transcends human thought".
Campbell is saying what I am ("unknowable"). Only using different terminology ("transcends thought").

Does that help?

[north]

Don't worry. You're not alone. I've been preaching this "unknowable" bullshit on the Internet for going on three years now. And you're not the first one who's struggled with trying to grasp what it's all about. I guess for some it's like what that fucking algebra is for me.

You see we're limited to what our minds are capable of. I like to call that our
"intellectual capacity". That includes our ideas, word concepts, and everything else which together comprises human thought.
The interesting thing though, is that we can also conceive of that which we are not capable of knowing with human thought. We cannot define it, we cannot describe it, we cannot understand or comprehend it, because by definition ("unknowable"), we cannot "know" it.
But we can conceive of the possibility of it's existence.

What Campbell is saying is that what we want to think we understand as being "God", is actually that "unknowable". That "God is what "transcends human thought".
Campbell is saying what I am ("unknowable"). Only using different terminology ("transcends thought").

Does that help?


yes. i think so

then i disagree with Joseph. what he failed to notice is that this ,god, does not transend Human emotion let alone Human thought. this god is just as vunerable to freewill or the unpredictive Nature of ourselves and of the Universe as we are.

[Sultanist]

yes. i think i do.

then i disagree with Joseph. what he failed to notice is that this ,god, does not transend Human emotion let alone Human thought. this god is just as vunerable to freewill or the unpredictive Nature of ourselves and of the Universe as we are.
You could be right about Campbell, north. I honestly have no clue. I know nothing about him outside of that quote I posted. Although I probably should google and find out more about him if I'm going to continue to use that quote.

But no matter. It's what I'm wanting to communicate to you that matters.
And for me, when I read a statement like: "God can be defined as what transcends all human thought", I interpret it to have a specific meaning. For me it's saying that the entirety of religion can be explained
as an attempt to know what cannot be known.

[alienward]

Can an "experience" of any sort be precise? Precise with regards to what? It's accounts or descriptions of the experience that can be precise or not.
Again we're talking about: “When religions claim they have prophets who had religious experiences that there really is just one God and Jesus is just as human as everyone else, and others that Jesus is part of a three-in-one God, and others with human male and female flesh and bones gods, we know that at least two of the religious experiences are wrong.�

More games? Well, I must admit, it is actually fun sometimes. (You never answered my question about your win/loss record with regards to all these games theists have forced you to play.)
I said it’s a game theists play. I’m not a theist.

In the case where I find no such compliment, the other person's experience could be genuine, but I don't know.
And he doesn’t know if yours is either.

This is a standard you set. How did you arrive at this standard? Is there no indication of distance that would have been too vague or wishy washy? What if J said "Go north a little ways and go east a little further"? Has he given you some sense of distance? He probably thinks so, but you probably don't. How can he give you some sense of distance without using actual measurements? Must he estimate the distance in terms of some unit of distance you both understand?If I became a manager at MapQuest.com and discovered you were a software developer working for them, I’d fire you on the spot.

No, it might mean that the prophet's description or account of the experience is wrong.

Like I said, religious experiences are at least usually not about how or what God is or isn't. They are usually about things people should say or do. In the process, we also learn about who God is. (and I never got a response on this.)
Again we're talking about: “When religions claim they have prophets who had religious experiences that there really is just one God and Jesus is just as human as everyone else, and others that Jesus is part of a three-in-one God, and others with human male and female flesh and bones gods, we know that at least two of the religious experiences are wrong.�

Answers: (1) No they are not necessarily paintings of two different fruit bowls. One painter is sitting on one side of the bowl (where no grapes can be seen) and the other is sitting on the other side (where no oranges can be seen). Two different (spatial) contexts led to two different paintings (accounts of the experience of watching the fruit bowl). Notice also the differences in artistic style and technique. That can be blamed on the fact that the two painters are two different people (substitute: prophets). …
Let’s adjust your analogy to what we’re talking about. One of the prophets has a religious experience where God says “I am a bowl, some grapes and some oranges.� The prophet other has a religious experience where God says “I am just a bowl.�

[Sultanist]

Either I have a problem with my vision or you're both nuts. I see the night sky as black.

But where in the name of sense has this discussion taken us? Have we figured out what God is yet?

[Copper Scroll]

Again we're talking about: “When religions claim they have prophets who had religious experiences that there really is just one God and Jesus is just as human as everyone else, and others that Jesus is part of a three-in-one God, and others with human male and female flesh and bones gods, we know that at least two of the religious experiences are wrong.�

This is not necessarily what we're talking about. This is what you want to talk about instead of answering my questions (about the four analogies I described).

To answer what you want to talk about: Religious experiences don't usually go this way....

"Hey, Copper. My name is God. I am one of a kind, take my word for it. Have you heard of Jesus? Well, I'm sorry but he's just a human just like you. Spread the word. Peace out."

or "What's up, Copper? They call me the Almighty God. There's only one of me, but there's three of me. Now, figure that out. Are you bugging yet? I'm out, bitch."

or "Hi, Copper. Everyone say hello to Copper. Copper, I am a god and all these guys and girls behind me are gods and goddesses. Now, we must be going. We have other silly mortals to meet."

By my estimation, these are not typical religious experiences. Like I said, religious experiences are about what the people who experience them (let's call them "prophets") should act after the experience. They are not centrally theological experiences usually.

Oddly and sadly though, society (much like yourself) does not appear to be as interested in the lesson learned through the experience as it is in "Big (theological) Questions". A prophet might be inclined to tell people about what she or he learned from God, but people usually want questions like "What does God look like?" "What's God's real name?" "What is the nature of God?" "Are you sure there's just one?" "Is Jesus a god or a human?" "Does God know everything?" "Tell me the future, man." "What's Heaven like?" "Where is Heaven?" etc. etc. etc. (It's like the celebrity who goes on a talk show to talk about the new movie he's starring in but keeps getting questions about who he's dating and who his stylist is.)

Now, based on her or his encounter, a prophet may have some (likely vague) idea or theory about God even though God never really told the prophet God's true name or anything about God's nature or any other answers to any of the above questions. So the prophets provides the answers demanded of her or him, based on a vague theological experience.

Now, I know that the above questions are what this thread is about. What I'm trying to explain here is that just because two "prophets" describe God differently after their experiences doesn't mean that the experiences were contradictory. They just chose to describe God differently based partly on their religious experience and partly on their personal-sociocultural background.

So, though she or he may have never been told explicitly these by God: one prophet says "one God" and another says "three-in-one" and another "mad of 'em". Based on my own experience, my own reasoning, and, yes, my personal-sociocultural background (personal and cultural contexts), One True God is what makes the most sense.

One of the prophets has a religious experience where God says “I am a bowl, some grapes and some oranges.� The prophet other has a religious experience where God says “I am just a bowl.�

Again, religious experiences are not about what or who God is. This is not really a response to what I wrote. Do you have one? I'd like to hear it.

And he doesn’t know if yours is either.

That's fine. What's important is that we learn from our experiences and do what is right.

If I became a manager at MapQuest.com and discovered you were a software developer working for them, I’d fire you on the spot.

Neither me, nor J, nor I are looking for jobs at MapQuest. We just regular folks.

You didn't answer my questions on this issue. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[Copper Scroll]

Have we figured out what God is yet?

Since there is more than one lonely theist here now, I propose letting the believers try at least some working definition in one concise statement. Concise disclaimers about the limitations of any definition offered should follow that definition.

I offer:

God is.

(no disclaimers.)

[Copper Scroll]

Since there is more than one lonely theist here now, I propose letting the believers try at least some working definition in one concise statement. Concise disclaimers about the limitations of any definition offered should follow that definition.

I offer:

God is.

(no disclaimers.)

My point here is that defining God is problematic (as I wrote in my first post). Definitions are for objects--to describe their essences, uses, purposes, and limitations. How does one define the one who is not an object?

We don't typically find definitions for individual people in dictionaries for this reason. When there are entries for individual people, definitions are not really provided--but concise descriptions. Encyclopedia entries provide long descriptions of people--not definitions.

Ask Joey's mother who Joey is, and you get one description. Ask his brother who Joey is, you get another. Ask his wife who Joey is, and you get something very different.

With God, the situation is even more difficult because God's got, like, mad relatives and friends and stuff.

Definitions like "God is" "God is Truth" "God is real" "God is reality" "God exists" "God is everything" raise the least objections among theists. Getting more specific, disputes arise. Those disputes are natural, because different people in different contexts take different perspectives on God.

[alienward]

Again, religious experiences are not about what or who God is. This is not really a response to what I wrote. Do you have one? I'd like to hear it.
Again, we’re talking about religious experiences about what or God is. Please go read the title of this thread and try and stay on topic. And again: “When religions claim they have prophets who had religious experiences that there really is just one God and Jesus is just as human as everyone else, and others that Jesus is part of a three-in-one God, and others with human male and female flesh and bones gods, we know that at least two of the religious experiences are wrong.�

Neither me, nor J, nor I are looking for jobs at MapQuest. We just regular folks.

You didn't answer my questions on this issue. I'd like to hear what you have to say.
What part of “go east and go north� and “go east a little way and go north a little way� are both almost useless as directions do you not understand?

[Copper Scroll]

Again, we’re talking about religious experiences about what or God is. Please go read the title of this thread and try and stay on topic. And again: “When religions claim they have prophets who had religious experiences that there really is just one God and Jesus is just as human as everyone else, and others that Jesus is part of a three-in-one God, and others with human male and female flesh and bones gods, we know that at least two of the religious experiences are wrong.�

I wrote: "Just because two "prophets" describe God differently after their experiences doesn't mean that the experiences were contradictory. They just chose to describe God differently based partly on their religious experience and partly on their personal-sociocultural background.

One prophet says "one God" and another says "three-in-one" and another "mad of 'em". Based on my own experience, my own reasoning, and, yes, my personal-sociocultural background (personal and cultural contexts), One True God is what makes the most sense."

Let me add that different people in different contexts have different revelations for different reasons. Ideas about God's nature have functional values--but these values depend on context context context.

What part of “go east and go north� and “go east a little way and go north a little way� are both almost useless as directions do you not understand

(I guess you did imply an answer in your remark about MapQuest.) So "Go east a little ways" is not a good enough direction either, you say? There is distance information in it. You said correct directions need to provide "some sense of distance." It's vague but its there.

Some questions remain unanswered: "How did you arrive at this standard [that "correct" directions need to provide distance information]? How can he give you some sense of distance without using actual measurements? Must he estimate the distance in terms of some unit of distance you both understand?"

[Sultanist]

My point here is that defining God is problematic
Problematic? I'll say.
911 has narrowed it down to "everything". I guess that's a start. :rolling:

[Alf]

That's not addressing what we don't know, Alf.
We don't know why we exist and why our existence is such that it is. We are creatures who have naturally conceived the idea of "purpose".

We are able to plan ahead - a good survival trait and that has a side effect of us having a purpose to things we do and so in anthropomorphic thinking we expect to find "purpose" in the world around us - especially since we from early days were convinced that it was an angry man up there hurling lightning at us and yelling at us when it was thunder. Obviously, this man had to have a purpose just like ourselves, right?

Later we have found out that there was no man up there but some people still cling to that there is some man out there somewhere. He is no longer in the clouds but he is now an abstract non-physical entity outside of the universe and outside of time and space. Yet, he still have a purpose and this purpose must be visible in the universe, so we ask "what is the purpose of all this?".

What I am getting at is that it is US projecting purpose unto the world without any form of justification that there really is any. We forgot to ask the important initial question "Is it meaningful to at all ask if there is a purpose to the universe?". Of course, some people don't like to ask that question because they feel uncomfortable if the answer turned out to be "no" and so they insist the answer must be "yes".

I believe there is purpose to my life. I can plan ahead and I can set myself goals. I believe there is purpose to all sentient beings. However, I don't consider the universe as a whole to be a sentient being and so I don't expect and I don't see signs of purpose in the universe as a whole - it just is.


And yet we have no clue if there is a "purpose" to existence.

I don't see any reason why we should presume there should be one.


And much more significantly, we have no capacity to even know if our concept of "purpose" has any relation to what it is we don't know.

Speculations on what we don't know can never really be anything more than just "speculations". Some times you can strike gold and come up with something that can actually be tested and be a new idea but most of the time you are wasting your time.


We instinctively ask ourselves: "what in the hell is this all about?",

Maybe instinctively but it doesn't make much sense to me. I have a purpose to my life and I presume you have a purpose to your life but I don't feel it make sense to ask what is the purpose to life in the universe as a whole or what is the purpose "outside of myself" or my "objective purpose" whatever that is supposed to mean. I wasn't born to do a task here, I was born because my parents humped in bed and then as I grew up I got myself purposes and goals in life and they are MY purposes and goals and I have changed them. I also think it is a sad day if you one day find that you have completed your goals and you have no more goals to strive for, if that is the case you are essentially dead already even if you are still alive. So part of the clue is to always make sure you have some goal that you haven't yet attained. If you ever reach that goal, set yourself new goals!


knowing that our intellectual products "what" and "all about" may have no relationship to what it is that we do not, and likely cannot ever know.

As I said, speculations on what we don't know is generally a waste of time.


Why are we such that we can have a lifelong companion who suffers through a sometimes unimaginably horrible and painful death? While we're there to experience the horror of it ourselves. And then once that horror has ended, another horror of mourning and loneliness and despair and despondency begins.

Life sucks? Hey, cheer up, life can also be fun and joyous! Life can be so much. Yes, you can mourn when a loved one dies or suffer. This is natural. It is empathy and is another survival trait we have developed as social animals. However, if you lock yourself in a room and mourn and do little else, you are doing yourself a disfavor and are also not honoring the life of the person you mourn properly. Go out and enjoy yourself! Breathe the fresh air! Say hi to your neighbour and perhaps learn that you and him have things in common you never knew. Maybe you share an interest in stamp collection or whatever!

Yes, I have a wife and it is possible I might die before her or she might die before me. Either way, I will mourn and honor her if she dies first but I won't lock myself up in a room and mourn until I starve to death. I will go out and sit in a park and feed the birds and I will log on to the internet and read IIDB still. Life goes on even if a loved on dies. This does not mean I disrespect my wife in any way - indeed I doubt she would want me to rot inside a room doing nothing but mourning.


During all of that we are constantly asking "why and what in the hell is this all about?".

My answer is: You decide for yourself. Whatever you think the answer is - IS the answer for you.


When, as I said, we do not even have the capacity to know if that question has any relationship whatever to what it is that we do not, and again likely cannot ever know.

I see no point in talking about that which I don't know - because I don't know it.


As hell bent as you are to want it to happen, Alf, the discoveries of science will not likely ever be able to replace those human feelings. They are who and what we are.

As long as you realize they are just emotions. We ask for a purpose not because there is a purpose but because we project our purpose driven self unto the universe around us in an antropomorphic way that has been with us ever since we invented the first primitive spirits and gods in our image.


And that's just for openers. Give me a month and I'll put the rest of it in a lengthy book for you if need be. Open your eyes, Alf.
I have my eyes open right now. Still I don't see what you are trying to tell me. I see things slightly differently I think.

Alf

[Alf]

So in other words, eternal life is being converted to a robot, or a drone, incapable of personal thought or action, limited to doing only that which God wills...

Oh, I think I get what heaven is supposed to be like now.

God is an ant queen and we when we die if we get to heaven we get reincarnated as ants. No harp singing and Satan comes every morning and mess up our ant hill - Satan is an elephant. Hopefully Gabriel - one of the soldier ants - will manage to get him. You know if Satan shakes his head and we all fall off and one ant is left up there and we can call to him "Strangle him Antony!" or maybe it was Gabriel. :rolling:

Alf

[Sultanist]

We are able to plan ahead - a good survival trait and that has a side effect of us having a purpose to things we do and so in anthropomorphic thinking we expect to find "purpose" in the world around us - especially since we from early days were convinced that it was an angry man up there hurling lightning at us and yelling at us when it was thunder. Obviously, this man had to have a purpose just like ourselves, right?

Later we have found out that there was no man up there but some people still cling to that there is some man out there somewhere. He is no longer in the clouds but he is now an abstract non-physical entity outside of the universe and outside of time and space. Yet, he still have a purpose and this purpose must be visible in the universe, so we ask "what is the purpose of all this?".

What I am getting at is that it is US projecting purpose unto the world without any form of justification that there really is any. We forgot to ask the important initial question "Is it meaningful to at all ask if there is a purpose to the universe?". Of course, some people don't like to ask that question because they feel uncomfortable if the answer turned out to be "no" and so they insist the answer must be "yes".

I believe there is purpose to my life. I can plan ahead and I can set myself goals. I believe there is purpose to all sentient beings. However, I don't consider the universe as a whole to be a sentient being and so I don't expect and I don't see signs of purpose in the universe as a whole - it just is.


I don't see any reason why we should presume there should be one.


Speculations on what we don't know can never really be anything more than just "speculations". Some times you can strike gold and come up with something that can actually be tested and be a new idea but most of the time you are wasting your time.


Maybe instinctively but it doesn't make much sense to me. I have a purpose to my life and I presume you have a purpose to your life but I don't feel it make sense to ask what is the purpose to life in the universe as a whole or what is the purpose "outside of myself" or my "objective purpose" whatever that is supposed to mean. I wasn't born to do a task here, I was born because my parents humped in bed and then as I grew up I got myself purposes and goals in life and they are MY purposes and goals and I have changed them. I also think it is a sad day if you one day find that you have completed your goals and you have no more goals to strive for, if that is the case you are essentially dead already even if you are still alive. So part of the clue is to always make sure you have some goal that you haven't yet attained. If you ever reach that goal, set yourself new goals!


As I said, speculations on what we don't know is generally a waste of time.


Life sucks? Hey, cheer up, life can also be fun and joyous! Life can be so much. Yes, you can mourn when a loved one dies or suffer. This is natural. It is empathy and is another survival trait we have developed as social animals. However, if you lock yourself in a room and mourn and do little else, you are doing yourself a disfavor and are also not honoring the life of the person you mourn properly. Go out and enjoy yourself! Breathe the fresh air! Say hi to your neighbour and perhaps learn that you and him have things in common you never knew. Maybe you share an interest in stamp collection or whatever!

Yes, I have a wife and it is possible I might die before her or she might die before me. Either way, I will mourn and honor her if she dies first but I won't lock myself up in a room and mourn until I starve to death. I will go out and sit in a park and feed the birds and I will log on to the internet and read IIDB still. Life goes on even if a loved on dies. This does not mean I disrespect my wife in any way - indeed I doubt she would want me to rot inside a room doing nothing but mourning.


My answer is: You decide for yourself. Whatever you think the answer is - IS the answer for you.


I see no point in talking about that which I don't know - because I don't know it.


As long as you realize they are just emotions. We ask for a purpose not because there is a purpose but because we project our purpose driven self unto the universe around us in an antropomorphic way that has been with us ever since we invented the first primitive spirits and gods in our image.


I have my eyes open right now. Still I don't see what you are trying to tell me. I see things slightly differently I think.

Alf

You might want to know that you're slowly and gradually winning me over to your way of thinking. After 56 years I'm about ready to find an escape exit from this torture I put myself through asking these goddamn "why" questions over and over and over. Frankly, I'm sick of giving a shit.

It's going to require a few more confrontations between me and you through. So consider yourself my virtual shrink. I like your rates. ;) :)

[John A. Broussard]

My point here is that defining God is problematic (as I wrote in my first post). Definitions are for objects
How do we define virtual particles, the pain in my left toe, depression (both individual and economic), cyberspace.

I have a lot more that need defining or whatever your substitute is for defining.

Thanks.

[John A. Broussard]

You might want to know that you're slowly and gradually winning me over to your way of thinking. After 56 years I'm about ready to find an escape exit from this torture I put myself through asking these goddamn "why" questions over and over and over. Frankly, I'm sick of giving a shit.

It's going to require a few more confrontations between me and you through. So consider yourself my virtual shrink. I like your rates. ;) :)
My suggestion is for you to enjoy your suffering. And it's also free entetainment.

On the other hand, your continual asking of why causes the theists a lot of suffering on this post, so you can enjoy their suffering to.

Much as I hate the expression, you have a win/win situation at your disposal.

[Sultanist]

My suggestion is for you to enjoy your suffering. And it's also free entetainment.

On the other hand, your continual asking of why causes the theists a lot of suffering on this post, so you can enjoy their suffering to.

Much as I hate the expression, you have a win/win situation at your disposal.I wonder if I could be the anti-christ and not be aware of it. Does the book say he'll necessarily know he's it?

[John A. Broussard]

I wonder if I could be the anti-christ and not be aware of it. Does the book say he'll necessarily know he's it?
Nope. Feel free.

[Sultanist]

Nah, I don't think it's gonna work. I just realized I don't know what a anti-christ is sposed to do.
I'm not cut out for all that. I best just go back to suffering and asking why.
It's a bitch. But hey, I guess it's sorta like a guy who works a dead end job for most of his life. Like selling siding or insurance or something. It's all I really know.

[John A. Broussard]

Nah, I don't think it's gonna work. I just realized I don't know what a anti-christ is sposed to do.
I'm not cut out for all that. I best just go back to suffering and asking why.
It's a bitch. But hey, I guess it's sorta like a guy who works a dead end job for most of his life. Like selling siding or insurance or something. It's all I really know.
Maybe we can get some of these theists to pray for you. Would that help? It works, you know.

Some woman I read about asked her prayer group to pray for a TV soap opera character who was pregnant and was going to get an abortion.

Guess what.

The prayers changed her mind and she gave birth to a beautiful baby boy.

Now, if prayer can do that, why can't it solve your problems.

Only, don't blame me if you end up giving birth to a beautiful baby boy.

[AZSuperman]

My point here is that defining God is problematic (as I wrote in my first post). Definitions are for objects--to describe their essences, uses, purposes, and limitations. How does one define the one who is not an object?
If God is not an object, what is he?

We don't typically find definitions for individual people in dictionaries for this reason. When there are entries for individual people, definitions are not really provided--but concise descriptions. Encyclopedia entries provide long descriptions of people--not definitions.
That's great, you can describe the personality traits, and the actions performed by God later... Right now I want you to explain what he is.

Ask Joey's mother who Joey is, and you get one description. Ask his brother who Joey is, you get another. Ask his wife who Joey is, and you get something very different.
This is an entirely different question. If I asked Joey's mother/brother/sister/wife/cousin/friend/aunt/uncle/or second cousin three times removed what Joey is, they would all tell me he's human. If I asked them to describe a human, their descriptions would all be pretty much the same.

The question of what God is has nothing to do with personality traits, or actions performed. It is simply asking: "What are these traits being attributed to?"

We'll deal with who God is later.

Definitions like "God is" "God is Truth" "God is real" "God is reality" "God exists" "God is everything" raise the least objections among theists.
I believe that's because these definitions are of no substance. They don't do anything to increase our understanding of what God is.

Getting more specific, disputes arise. Those disputes are natural, because different people in different contexts take different perspectives on God.
Disputes arise when others suddenly start to make claims that go against what you believe. It doesn't matter that you have nothing to back up your claims, you know you're right... which means they must be wrong.

[AZSuperman]

Oh, I think I get what heaven is supposed to be like now.

God is an ant queen and we when we die if we get to heaven we get reincarnated as ants. No harp singing and Satan comes every morning and mess up our ant hill - Satan is an elephant. Hopefully Gabriel - one of the soldier ants - will manage to get him. You know if Satan shakes his head and we all fall off and one ant is left up there and we can call to him "Strangle him Antony!" or maybe it was Gabriel. :rolling:

Alf

I don't think most theists really dig into their theology very far... This is a perfect example:

Evil and pain exist because God gave us free-will.
God gave us free-will so we won't mindlessly do everything he wants.
The reward is life in heaven, where we will be mindlessly doing Gods will.

Not only can no one explain what God is, or what his purpose in creating life is, but they can't explain why God would create free-will, when the end result has the "winners" losing it anyway!

If sin is defined as "any lack of conformity to the will of God," and there is no sin in heaven, then no one can perform any act which is not first (or simultaniously) willed by God.

Meaning:

You can't do anything God doesn't will you to do.
You can't think any thought God doesn't will you to think.
You can't enjoy anything God doesn't will you to enjoy.

In short, all personal identity is lost. You become a mindless drone, incapable of any personal thoughts, feelings, preferences, or beliefs.

What is your personality, really? You know, the part of you that theists believe survives the grave, what is it?

It's your will, your choices, your thoughts and feelings, your likes and dislikes, all the things that make you an idividual, all the things that make you different from everyone else.

If those are removed, and you're forced to simply do the will of God, then you will cease to exist... even if God wills the same decisions as you would've made, once you lose the ability to make those decisions yourself, you no longer exist... or as I am fond of saying, you become one of God's action figures. :down:

[Yahzi]

And Yahzi. There's some stuff I wrote you I don't recall getting responses on.
Sorry. Greyline keeps me quite busy these days. ;)

didn't mean to imply that we don't know that the wages of sin is death; I meant only to imply that we do not always have clear, unmistakable knowledge of God's will in every situation.
This is incredible. You are saying it's ok to know that if we disobey the boss, we will be killed; but we can't know what the boss wants us to do.

This is like a man with a gun screaming at you in Spanish. You know he will shoot you if you don't follow his orders, but you don't know what he wants you to do.

Playing guessing games with God's will with death as the booby-prize if you guess wrong? How can you consider this even remotely sane, let alone fair or just?

Would you raise a child like this? Would you elect a government like this?

If we did (knowing also that the wages of sin is death), we would be coerced into acting in full accordance with God's will... like angels.
Simply knowing that we will die is coerecion. We just don't know what we are coereced too. I fail to see how that is morally superior.

"Angels are like God's slaves" is a simile, not a definition.
Why does so much of theology depend on equivocation?

We human beings uphold a number of ethical principles that only apply to us. To use the example of slavery: even though it is unethical and immoral, we do enslave animals. I would say, "Wait. Let me back up, it's unethical and immoral for human beings to be enslaved." Angels are not human beings.
We don't enslave animals. You can only "enslave" moral agents; that is, conscious beings. Enslaving humans is wrong not because they are human, but because they are capable of understanding they are enslaved and resenting it.

In the Bible, it asks, what right does the clay have to ask the potter? And the answer is, anything that can ask for its rights deserves them. This is how one establishes oneself as a moral agent: by being capable of and understanding moral agency, and by respecting the moral agency of other moral agents.

Your notion that because the Angels aren't human, we can ignore every expression of grief and despair they exhibit at their enslavement is indistinguishable from the justification used to excuse the enslavement of black people, who were also classed as non-human so that good Christians could feel good about owning people.

Moral agency is not race-based, nor is it is species-based; moral agency is the ability to be a moral agent. You have already asserted that the Angels are capable of understanding and resenting their status, and capable of making moral decisions (after all, Satan made a decision). Thus, enslaving them because they aren't white - oops I meant because they aren't human - is wrong. Thus, your God is wrong.

Unless you are trying to define God as the ultimate racist.

Maybe I should have written a different simile: "Angels are like God's livestock and pets".
It's the same objection: you cannot treat a moral agent as an object.

Ignorance = virtue? Where did I write that?
In the previous paragraph, where you extolled the virtues of not understanding God's will. Or, in the following paragraph.

Yes, our ignorance allows us to be free and our freedom is required for virtue, so we can say that ignorance is required for virtue.... but the exact same thing can be said of knowledge.
But I don't want the freedom to make mistakes. Nobody does. We use freedom because it is the best way to not make mistakes, but absolutely no one would ever tell you, "If you see me about to do something really, really stupid; don't tell me. Because I want to be free."

Ignorance is a brute fact of our universe, but that doesn't mean we would recreate it if we had the choice about how to construct our universe.

Also, consider this: by your logic, God has no freedom. Which makes him less than us. Does God know you think you are better than him?

How is God committing murder when God offers us (all of us) eternal life? If we don't accept it, we die. How is that murder?
I have hired a hit-man to come and shoot you. But I have told the him that if you utter the secret password, he should give you a sack of money instead. How is that murder?

You just got through explaining that God does not make His will clear, and that disobeying His will is death; and yet you want to absolve God of killing people.

If you keep your dog on a leash but feed and provide for him, are you being fair to your dog?
You think food and comfort are a fair exchange for freedom?

I don't know what you're talking about.
Magic Eye (http://www.magiceye.com/3dfun/stwkdisp.shtml)

How are we unlike this brat when we demand that God make the world better?
It hasn't got anything to do with us demanding anything. It has to do with God's responsibility to exercise his power.

Imagine a heavily armed, huge muscled policeman standing idly by while your house is robbed. How are you unlike the brat when you demand the police officer prevent you from being robbed?

The sole moral imperative is ability: You are required to do what you can. Conversely, you are not required to do what you cannot. Now it might be problematic deciding in any given instance whether you can or cannot do something, but God is omnipotent. That means he can always do something. Yet God does less than policemen - in fact, He does nothing at all. How does having infinite power make not using any power moral?

If I follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you must want God to stamp out not just crime but anything we might consider "bad".
Making phone calls is equivalent to "stamping out?"

If you have the training (which you said you do have), I hope you are doing your share.
Was this questioning of my integrity relevant to the argument? Did it advance any of your positions, illuminate any complexities, or resolve any contradictions? Was it really necessary?

How do you fairly determine what your share is and what's God's?
By how much power one has. Just as when I lift a heavy cabinet with my wife, my share of the load is greater than hers. One does what one can. I don't think you have any objections to this principle.

Unless one is God, in which case suddenly you think that being able to do everything excuses doing nothing.

A phone call from God is a miracle.
But it is one that does not constrain another's free will. Asking God to physcially restrain a person could reasonably be interpreted as a limitation of his free will. But how is asking God to answer a few questions a restriction on your free will?

If we subpeona a person to the witness stand and demand that they answer a few questions, have we constrained their free will of the person on trial?

Your reason that God does not do miracles is to allow us to do things ourselves. I object to this position, but for the sake of argument I will accept it at the moment. But your reason that God does not make it possible for us to do things by telling us what we need to know is just bizarre. I cannot accept that it is morally justifiable for God to remain silent in the face of sincere and earnest questioning, and yet be regarded as loving, just, and good.

If pimples were our biggest problem and you were socialized in a world where pimples is the number one global crisis, you'd ask God clear one up. Just one face, please.
Will we have pimples in Heaven?

Were there pimples in the Garden?

For a person who claims to be devoted to obtaining eternal perfect bliss, you don't seem to think too much of it. No chance for personal growth, after all. No freedom. Are you really, really sure you want to go to heaven?

[Copper Scroll]

If God is not an object, what is he?

If God is not an object, stictly the word "what" is inapplicable. The word "who" is applicable, because (I hold) God is a person.

Human persons are both object and subject. As objects, we are finite and can be manipulated. Neither of these apply to God.

[Copper Scroll]

So in other words, eternal life is being converted to a robot, or a drone, incapable of personal thought or action, limited to doing only that which God wills...How is this a good thing? .




Another good question, Clark. I believe that eternal life is a depersonalized experience, because outside of time and space (eternity) we shed our material "finiteness" or object-ness and thus our individuality. We are not robots or drones, because robots and drones (1) are material and finite objects and (2) have no (free) will. Our decision to commune with God is free. We become, in a sense, one with God freely. Our wills unite and become one. We are not a group of wills being determine by one; we are one.

That explains a lot. If good and bad are limited to our time and space, it explains how God can command someone to "kill every man, woman, and suckling child" without it being considered evil... To God, existing outside of time and space, evil doesn't exist... He's free to do as he wishes, and command others to do as he wishes.

I guess that quote comes from the Old Testament. I'm not going to look it up. The Bible should not be taken literally or out of context.

So rape, murder, burglary, etc may exist in the afterlife... but they won't be considered evil... they'll be Gods will... and we'll be reduced to God's action figures

Depersonalized, we cannot rape or murder one another. We cannot do anything to one another. We are not objects that can be manipulated. We have no material possessions that can be stolen.

[Yahzi]

God is a person.
Persons are objects with particular qualities (such as consciousness and free will).

If your God is not an object, then He is not a person.

I believe that eternal life is a depersonalized experience
So you think that the eternal after-life of a person is as a non-person?

Depersonalized, no free will, no sense of time, no change... how is this different from being dead?

When you cease to exist, you are also depersonalized, without identity, will, desire, hope, fear, pain; and eternity stretches on, unnoticed and unchanging.

How is your heaven distinguishable from the non-existance of your personality?

[Yahzi]

I guess that quote comes from the Old Testament. I'm not going to look it up. The Bible should not be taken literally or out of context.
Then maybe you should look it up and read the context. Hint: refusing to read your holy book because the atheists have read more of it than you have is not really going to impress very many people.

If the Bible should not be taken literally, then please explain why you think it is literally true that Jesus will save you from eternal death.

[John A. Broussard]

I realize that the following problem is difficult to deal with, and if you can't answer it, that's OK.

On the off chance that you missed it, I'm repeating it for your benefit.

Originally Posted by Copper Scroll
My point here is that defining God is problematic (as I wrote in my first post). Definitions are for objects

JAB: How do we define virtual particles, the pain in my left toe, depression (both individual and economic), cyberspace.

I have a lot more that need defining or whatever your substitute is for defining.

Thanks.

[Sultanist]

Some woman I read about asked her prayer group to pray for a TV soap opera character who was pregnant and was going to get an abortion.

Guess what.

The prayers changed her mind and she gave birth to a beautiful baby boy.
Go on. Tell me you're yankin my chain. I'll bet if I go on snopes they'll tell me that's a urban myth. Or a rural myth. Or some kinda myth.
No way.

[Copper Scroll]

This is incredible. You are saying it's ok to know that if we disobey the boss, we will be killed; but we can't know what the boss wants us to do.
Playing guessing games with God's will with death as the booby-prize if you guess wrong? How can you consider this even remotely sane, let alone fair or just?
The fact that we don't have knowledge of God's will so clear and so complete that we have clear knowledge of the right thing to do in every situation all the time does not mean that we cannot ever know what the right thing to do is or that we cannot figure out what the right thing is for whatever situation we are in. ("Right thing to do" here refers to what God wills us to do.)

It's fair and just, because we have ethics and we have God's revelation (in the Gospels, for instance, which supports our ethical sense.) We must uses these to figure out what's right when it's not obvious. It's not always obvious because we have other motivations that are tied to being material individuals--like fortune, fame, glory, rest, etc.

Simply knowing that we will die is coerecion. We just don't know what we are coereced too. I fail to see how that is morally superior.
God is not depriving us of knowledge. Finite and within time and space, we cannot know everything. We have basic principles (ethical standards, moralities) to guide us; they just won't specifically tell exactly what to do all the time. Also, we must seek God's will out of the pile of all of our motivations. We can always find it if we always seek it.

Why does so much of theology depend on equivocation?
Because, strictly, definitions don't apply to God.

We don't enslave animals. You can only "enslave" moral agents; that is, conscious beings. Enslaving humans is wrong not because they are human, but because they are capable of understanding they are enslaved and resenting it.

God gives angels clear, unmistakable, one-size-fits-all knowledge of God's will. Knowledge of this level of clarity forces the angels to act a certain way.
This is the same knowledge that you complain that we do not have. Which way do you want it?

Your notion that because the Angels aren't human, we can ignore every expression of grief and despair they exhibit at their enslavement is indistinguishable from the justification used to excuse the enslavement of black people, who were also classed as non-human so that good Christians could feel good about owning people.
Angels express grief and despair?

Let's remind ourselves that slavery is an analogy here for the angels' condition. Now, "good" slave-making Christians are not God; they are finite and fallible human persons. They have no moral authority or any "superior" status over any other human person. God, on the other hand, is infinite and omniscient. (Remember, we are talking analogously) This gives him the moral right to " own slaves ". (You are now viewing an analogy.) In reality, I would say "slavery" happens when one finite and fallible "moral agent" seeks and takes domination over the life of another finite and fallible "moral agent". I don't think God seeks specifically to control the angels. Its the angels' omniscience that forces their actions in favor of God's will. God gave the devil(s) the same knowledge but did not pursue it (them) when they disobeyed God (like a "runaway slave", to use the above analogy). (Us) black folk were hunted down and re-enslaved when we ran away. If God is an all-powerful "slave master", then God would easily do the same to the devil(s).


In the previous paragraph, where you extolled the virtues of not understanding God's will. Or, in the following paragraph.
If I wrote "ignorance = virtue" then I would also write "knowledge = virtue".

But I don't want the freedom to make mistakes. Nobody does.
That's what freedom is. If you could not make mistakes, then you would not ever be free to do the alternative correct thing. Mistakes are options.

There were some (of us) black folk who wanted to stay slaves, because we were fed and clothed and kept out of harsh weather (especially the ones that stayed in the house with the master). They didn't want the freedom of making mistakes or of having to solve their own problems. Thankfully, most of us did.

Ignorance is a brute fact of our universe, but that doesn't mean we would recreate it if we had the choice about how to construct our universe.
Knowledge is indistinguishible without ignorance. Its another consequence of being finite.

Also, consider this: by your logic, God has no freedom. Which makes him less than us. Does God know you think you are better than him?
No, because it's not true. God does as God wills.

I have hired a hit-man to come and shoot you. But I have told the him that if you utter the secret password, he should give you a sack of money instead. How is that murder?
Using your present analogy: We can know the password if we seek it or figure it out from the sufficient knowledge we do have. God doesn't send the hit man. Everything materially constructed perishes.

You just got through explaining that God does not make His will clear, and that disobeying His will is death; and yet you want to absolve God of killing people.
Its not that God makes it unclear. Its not always clear to us because we have our minds on other things.

You think food and comfort are a fair exchange for freedom?
For a dog it is. We discovered above the limited applicability of the analogy I wrote.

Magic Eye (http://www.magiceye.com/3dfun/stwkdisp.shtml)
If you're saying that a better understanding of God requires being able to step back (while trying to conceive of what eternity might mean), then I agree. Looking too closely doesn't unmask an illusion but it is an incomplete view of the reality. (I'm not sure if I completely understand the issue as you originally raised it.)


It hasn't got anything to do with us demanding anything. It has to do with God's responsibility to exercise his power.
You determining what God's responsibility is essentially is the same thing as demanding God to do something.

Imagine a heavily armed, huge muscled policeman standing idly by while your house is robbed. How are you unlike the brat when you demand the police officer prevent you from being robbed?

The sole moral imperative is ability: You are required to do what you can. Conversely, you are not required to do what you cannot. Now it might be problematic deciding in any given instance whether you can or cannot do something, but God is omnipotent. That means he can always do something. Yet God does less than policemen - in fact, He does nothing at all. How does having infinite power make not using any power moral?
I've answered this question already:

"The difference is that my [the policeman's] sphere of influence is not all of reality. If I saw somebody getting raped, I'd act. I'd be wrong not to.

With God, it's different. If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.".... unfree.

At some points in your posts you favor freedom (like on the slave issue) and at other points you seem to prefer being relieved of responsibility the responsibilities of freedom. We can't have it both ways.

Making phone calls is equivalent to "stamping out?"
Following your reasoning to the logical conclusion, it does. Granted, if crime was eliminated today by God, most every living person (maybe even criminals) would be extremely thankful--so thankful, I doubt any body would ask God to do anything else (that day). Let a generation pass though. What used to be minor inconveniences and hangups now become global problems. Someone in that generation would probably stand up and say "If there is a God, he would pick out a good man for me!" or "he would get rid of my worts" or "he give me a new car!" Why would someone be so bratty? Because that someone has been socialized in a world with no rape, murder, robbery, extortion, etc. Worts would be a bigger issue than it is to us.

Was this questioning of my integrity relevant to the argument? Did it advance any of your positions, illuminate any complexities, or resolve any contradictions? Was it really necessary?
I didn't mean to question your integrity here. If you took offense, I do apologize sincerely. Judging from your posts, you are doing your share in making the world better, and for that I congradulate and thank you.


By how much power one has. Just as when I lift a heavy cabinet with my wife, my share of the load is greater than hers. One does what one can. I don't think you have any objections to this principle.
If God is all-powerful, by your standard, God's share is doing away with all evil. It's within God's power to re-"enslave" the devil(s) and flush out "badness" (and thereby "goodness") and thus make us "slaves". The standard you set is a fine one between us mortal human beings. God would tip the scale infinitely.

But it is one that does not constrain another's free will. Asking God to physcially restrain a person could reasonably be interpreted as a limitation of his free will. But how is asking God to answer a few questions a restriction on your free will?
God goes answer quite a few questions. If God answers them all... well, we've discussed that.

If we subpeona a person to the witness stand and demand that they answer a few questions, have we constrained their free will of the person on trial?
No. You want to subpoena God? That won't happen, thankfully. Instead subpoena all the people you know who are not doing their share in making the world better. (This, by the way, sums up God's will pretty well.) That can happen.

Your reason that God does not do miracles is to allow us to do things ourselves.
God does miracles but not everywhere all the time. This allows us to be free.

I object to this position, but for the sake of argument I will accept it at the moment. But your reason that God does not make it possible for us to do things by telling us what we need to know is just bizarre.
God does make it possible. God reveals and guides. What we "need to know" in order to do God's will is the content and meaning of the Gospels (but this is not the only place it can be found). The life of Jesus does provide a decent enough model of righteousness for us to follow. What we don't necessarily know is how to apply what we know of righteousness to every situation and at all times. This is because we are distracted and influenced by other (usually material) motivations and considerations. God has answered enough questions, I think. You want God to tell you how to apply the answers to suit you situation (and others.) That's for you, me, and others to figure out. (Or you want God to fix these situations entirely.) Telling us would be akin to forcing us to do it.


Will we have pimples in Heaven?
Are you really addressing the issue I raised with this question? No pimples in Heaven. No skin or faces at all.

Were there pimples in the Garden?
I don't know (wasn't there personally). I have no real belief (or care) about it.

For a person who claims to be devoted to obtaining eternal perfect bliss, you don't seem to think too much of it. No chance for personal growth, after all.
Personal growth is a idea, procedure, or tool we use during our material lives.

No freedom.
Incorrect.

Are you really, really sure you want to go to heaven?
Yes.

[Copper Scroll]

Persons are objects with particular qualities (such as consciousness and free will).
Obviously we're working with different definitions of "person". This is fine, as long as we know what those definitions are. The way I used "person" as consciousness and/or will... subject--not necessarily the object with it.

So you think that the eternal after-life of a person is as a non-person?
No, as a non-object.

Depersonalized, no free will, no sense of time, no change... how is this different from being dead?
Being dead is being non-existent.

When you cease to exist, you are also depersonalized, without identity, will, desire, hope, fear, pain; and eternity stretches on, unnoticed and unchanging.
But depersonalized doesn't mean that you are not alive.

[Copper Scroll]

Then maybe you should look it up and read the context..
I don't need to. Since you used it you should.

Hint: refusing to read your holy book because the atheists have read more of it than you have is not really going to impress very many people.
How are you assuming how much of the Bible I've read? This is like a personal jab or something. No response.

If the Bible should not be taken literally, then please explain why you think it is literally true that Jesus will save you from eternal death
Jesus already has. I strive to accept the gift. It's difficult when the material world is filled with so many distractions.

[Copper Scroll]

I'm repeating it for your benefit.

You're repeating it for your benefit.... and it's not at all difficult to deal with.

The things you name are... things. They are objects. They have meanings and limitations and can be manipulated. So, they can be defined.

[Sultanist]

At this point I'm going to need some therapy again, Alf. The last one didn't take well enough. I'm going to need some more reassurance that this human reason deal is the be all and end all that you say it is. That these questions which keep popping into my head as I read this thread can be made quick work of with this human reason thing. And if they can't then convince me that I should pretend they're not in my head cause they weren't worth asking anyway.

The latest one has me stumped. It's why, in the face of all the "human reason" presented in this thread, and there's been one helluva lot of it, that some participants are still choosing to completely ignore it? And still wanting to firmly hang onto whatever little is left of any concept of "God".
If "reason" is so capable of replacing "God", then why isn't it doing so, Alf?
It's not doing it in this thread. This very thread which has shown him to be the ludicrous two thousand year old myth that he is. This thread which has indisputably removed any doubt that he is totally lacking anything which even resembles common sense. Or that he offers any value whatsoever for the lives of human beings.
And yet in the face of all this, we still cling to him like our lives depended on it.
I'm backsliding, Alf. I'm seeing reason not being up to the monumental challenge God presents. Not being able to replace that uncertainty of what is not known. An uncertainty which is overpowering reason and everything else which gets in it's way.

Help me, Alf. Help me get back on the reason bandwagon. Give me the ammunition I need to fight the unknowable and whip it into submission. So reason can emerge victorious.

[AZSuperman]

Cooper, you seem to want it both ways... on one hand you seem to say bad things are required in order to have freedom and free-will, that somehow we lose our freedom as soon as God steps in.

If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.".... unfree.

Then you say Heaven is a complete loss of free-will...

I believe that eternal life is a depersonalized experience, because outside of time and space (eternity) we shed our... individuality... Our wills unite and become one. We are not a group of wills being determine by one; we are one.

You're arguing both sides of the debate. Essentially you're saying: "God can't prevent evil because that would eliminate our personal freedom... Heaven is the complete loss of personal freedom."

Let me ask you this Cooper... If Heaven involves sheding our individuality, what is the purpose of Hell? :huh:

Think about it for a moment before you answer.

If a mass murderer were to shed his individuality and become "one with God," he would be no different than the most pious Christian... In fact everyone would be the same. They would all become "one with God." They would be incapable of evil thoughts or actions. They would be "depersonalized."

Suddenly Hell has no purpose. If someone's individuality can be stripped, then their past sins are of no consequence... and there is no benefit to punishing them for eternity.

So which is it? Is free-will what you want, or what you want to be rid of?

If we have no free-will in Heaven, then what's the purpose of creating us with free-will, only to take it away?

Being dead is being non-existent.
If your individuality no longer exists, then you are "non-existent." If you are depersonalized, then you (meaning your personality, your consiousness, your will) is non-existent.

If your individuality were stripped, how would you know if you continued to exist or not?

FYI - A dead body is also depersonalized, and it's individuality has been stripped. God created the decomposition process, so when they body becomes "one with God" it starts to decompose, and rot away.

A dead body meets your criteria for "eternal life."

You may be on to something.

I guess that quote comes from the Old Testament. I'm not going to look it up. The Bible should not be taken literally or out of context.

You should look up quotes before accusing others of taking the Bible out of context. :banghead:


1 Sam 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."


It's very difficult to take a genocide order out of context.

(There are several other verses in which God commands "his chosen people" to utterly destroy entire cities.)

[John A. Broussard]

You're repeating it for your benefit.... and it's not at all difficult to deal with.

The things you name are... things. They are objects. They have meanings and limitations and can be manipulated. So, they can be defined.
Got it.

Anything that has meaning can be defined.

So god can be defined.

Is that correct?

[John A. Broussard]

Go on. Tell me you're yankin my chain. I'll bet if I go on snopes they'll tell me that's a urban myth. Or a rural myth. Or some kinda myth.
No way.
Is it true? I have no way of knowing. I simply pass something along to you that I've heard. It may well be an urban legend.

On the other hand, after having dealt with theists for some time now, I'm quite ready to believe that the story is true. If they can believe that their god can make the sun stand still when it isn't even moving, why it's a small step from there to asking the divine being to manipulate soap opera characters.

Which brings up your fatal flaw. You just are not fully convinced yet that (to paraphrase Aristotle) man is an irrational animal.

Logic, reason, whatever you want to call it, is totally ineffective as a method of changing people's minds. An aluminum bat is far more effective.

So, as long as you keep having a glimmer of hope that human beings will respond positively to reasonable arguments you are going to continue to be tormented by your limited vision.

Sorry.

[AZSuperman]

At this point I'm going to need some therapy again, Alf. The last one didn't take well enough. I'm going to need some more reassurance that this human reason deal is the be all and end all that you say it is. That these questions which keep popping into my head as I read this thread can be made quick work of with this human reason thing. And if they can't then convince me that I should pretend they're not in my head cause they weren't worth asking anyway.

The latest one has me stumped. It's why, in the face of all the "human reason" presented in this thread, and there's been one helluva lot of it, that some participants are still choosing to completely ignore it? And still wanting to firmly hang onto whatever little is left of any concept of "God".
If "reason" is so capable of replacing "God", then why isn't it doing so, Alf?
It's not doing it in this thread. This very thread which has shown him to be the ludicrous two thousand year old myth that he is. This thread which has indisputably removed any doubt that he is totally lacking anything which even resembles common sense. Or that he offers any value whatsoever for the lives of human beings.
And yet in the face of all this, we still cling to him like our lives depended on it.
I'm backsliding, Alf. I'm seeing reason not being up to the monumental challenge God presents. Not being able to replace that uncertainty of what is not known. An uncertainty which is overpowering reason and everything else which gets in it's way.

Help me, Alf. Help me get back on the reason bandwagon. Give me the ammunition I need to fight the unknowable and whip it into submission. So reason can emerge victorious.

Three little words can set you free... "I don't know."

If people could just admit that there are questions to which they don't have the answers, then they would have no need to hold to an irrational belief in an invisible superhero in the sky.

[Sultanist]

Three little words can set you free... "I don't know."

Dear god in heaven above (figure of speech), I had just about given up all hope that anyone else in this world understood. All of these months, all of these posts, all of these sessions of reading and writing and pulling my hair out trying the best way I know how to express it in some way which might communicate. If only to finally be able to see this one post, it has all been worth it.

Today there are two of us, Superman. Tomorrow, who knows what is possible.

[Sultanist]

Yea I know. Tomorrow there will likely still be two of us.
But one can dream.

[Copper Scroll]

Got it.

Anything that has meaning can be defined.

So god can be defined.

Is that correct?

Chose not to see "can be manipulated" and "limitations"? hm?

[Sultanist]

Is it true? I have no way of knowing. I simply pass something along to you that I've heard. It may well be an urban legend.

On the other hand, after having dealt with theists for some time now, I'm quite ready to believe that the story is true. If they can believe that their god can make the sun stand still when it isn't even moving, why it's a small step from there to asking the divine being to manipulate soap opera characters.

Which brings up your fatal flaw. You just are not fully convinced yet that (to paraphrase Aristotle) man is an irrational animal.

Logic, reason, whatever you want to call it, is totally ineffective as a method of changing people's minds. An aluminum bat is far more effective.

So, as long as you keep having a glimmer of hope that human beings will respond positively to reasonable arguments you are going to continue to be tormented by your limited vision.

Sorry.


"If they can believe that their god can make the sun stand still when it isn't even moving". There's just something about humor like that which is almost poetic in nature. You have a wondrous way with words, John. ;)

[Yahzi]

I don't need to. Since you used it you should.
You are the one that suggested it was out of context, but you weren't going to bother to look it up. I already have looked it up; I know what context it is in.

How are you assuming how much of the Bible I've read?
It was the natural conclusion to your comment, "I guess that quote comes from the Old Testament." That statement implies you don't know; i.e., you haven't read that part.

Jesus already has. I strive to accept the gift. It's difficult when the material world is filled with so many distractions.
Um. That's not actually an answer to my question. I asked how you knew one part of the Bible was literally true and another part was not.

We must uses these to figure out what's right when it's not obvious.
So the worship of God is a puzzle game?

We can always find it if we always seek it.
Now you seem to be implying that it is the setting aside of our desires in favor of God's that is the goal. But how is that test helped by making God's desires difficult to ascertain?

What are we supposed to be doing - guessing God's will, or setting our desires aside in favor of his will?

Because, strictly, definitions don't apply to God.
Is this a fancy way of saying you don't know what you are talking about?

Let's remind ourselves that slavery is an analogy here for the angels' condition
Another way of saying we don't actually know what we are talking about?

This gives him the moral right to "own slaves"
Since the words "own" and "slaves" are merely allegorical in this sentence, I am afraid it does not contain enough content for me to respond to.

However, I will point out that you explained that the amount of knowledge of God's will that the Angels have robs them of their freedom. Presumabely this a bad thing, since God does not do it to us. Furthermore, you described Satan as suffering from the perception of his lost freedom. All of this adds up to God mistreating the Angels.

Why aren't you upset that God has done this to this innocent beings?

The difference is that my [the policeman's] sphere of influence is not all of reality.
Again with the "infinite power = zero responsiblity." I don't understand this math.

Why would someone be so bratty?
One of the most disgusting aspects of Christianity - the idea that you can profit from other people's suffering. All those children in Rwanda were hacked to death so that we could avoid becoming bratty. :mad: If this is the gift Jesus has given us, then I reject it with all my heart. If the price of no more child torture and rape is that I become a shallow brat, then I accept that price with every ounce of nobility I could ever have.

The idea that children in Rwanda have to suffer for your moral growth also makes a mockery of Jesus' sacrifice. Apparently his blood was not enough, after all.

God reveals and guides.
But my complaint is that God is not revealing. Your counter-argument is that all God has to do is reveal the Gospels, and he's done. But how does that help the children suffering right now?

I don't understand how my limited power requires me to exert all of it to prevent and eradicate harm, but God's infinite power requires him to exert none of it so that harm will always be with us.

You want God to tell you how to apply the answers to suit you situation
No, I don't. I explictly said what I wanted God to tell me: the address at which any child abuse is currently occurring. I will decide what to do about it, I will accept responsibilty for what I do. I don't want instructions from God, or personal attention, or advice, or His blessing... I just want an address.

God giving me an address would not infringe on anyone else's free will. Therefore, the free will defense does not apply. Therefore, you must explain why God not only allows these terrible crimes, but actively participates in covering them - exactly the same way that anyone else who had knowledge of these crimes would be charged with conspiracy or at least obstruction of justice.

Incorrect
So you are saying we won't have unambigous knowledge of God's will in heaven? The Bible describes heaven as being in the very presence of God, as if face-to-face. And you are saying God won't answer questions even then?

[Sultanist]

Boys and Girls, at this juncture I think it only fitting that you let Matt and Trey preach to you for just a moment (for those who have not already had the privelege).

This is their 912th sermon. It's entitled "Trapped in the Closet".
It's appropriate for this discussion because it delivers a message which should be experienced by you all. A message of enlightenment and revelation. A glimpse into what a god is actually made of. Revealed to you as only Matt and Trey can reveal. Using their own inimitable style.
I present to you this message which should, if not will, set you free.

Real Player version...
http://www.lermanet.us/SPEpisode912TrappedintheCloset.rm

Windows Media Player version...
http://www.xenutv.com/southpark-closet.wmv

[AZSuperman]

Yea I know. Tomorrow there will likely still be two of us.
But one can dream.
The biggest dissappointment for me, is knowing I will not live to see the end of the Christian religion.

All religions eventually come to an end, however I don't believe the Christian faith will dissappear within my lifetime. :banghead:

[John A. Broussard]

Chose not to see "can be manipulated" and "limitations"? hm?
Got it! It's nice to see you're willing to further explore this matter.

Let's work with "limitations" first.

God can't be defined because god has no limitations!

That then means that your god can do anything, since being unable to do so would mean that your god has limitations.

Am I presenting your view correctly, here?

If so, we can move on.

If not, then let's work on this particular problem.

Thank you for replying to my post.

[911]

Got it! It's nice to see you're willing to further explore this matter.
Let's work with "limitations" first.
God can't be defined because god has no limitations!
That then means that your god can do anything, since being unable to do so would mean that your god has limitations.
Am I presenting your view correctly, here?
If so, we can move on.
If not, then let's work on this particular problem.
Thank you for replying to my post.

I would like to comment on this even though I know full well it might be sent ~elsewhere~

Surely if I say God is everything - does it not define God WITHOUT the limitations?

[Sultanist]

I don't believe the Christian faith will dissappear within my lifetime. :banghead:
I would think that's a gross understatement. Of course I don't have a clue what the typical lifespan is for a superhero. So I may be wrong. :D

[911]

If you think that I am talking gross rubbish - please do not reply or comment on my posts and I will get the hint.

When you reply or comment I think you are interested.

[John A. Broussard]

I would like to comment on this even though I know full well it might be sent ~elsewhere~

Surely if I say God is everything - does it not define God WITHOUT the limitations?
My post was directed to CS, but I don't mind having you comment.

The only problem is that I already know your view about god, while I don't fully know CS's view of same.

If I remember correctly, you believe that god is god. Or, to put it another way, god is god.

If god is god, then I fully agree with you that god is god. In fact, I agree with you even if god is god.

Or, to put it another way and in order to clarify your position, I would definitely say that god is god.

[911]

My post was directed to CS, but I don't mind having you comment.
The only problem is that I already know your view about god, while I don't fully know CS's view of same.
If I remember correctly, you believe that god is god. Or, to put it another way, god is god.
If god is god, then I fully agree with you that god is god. In fact, I agree with you even if god is god.
Or, to put it another way and in order to clarify your position, I would definitely say that god is god.

God is God

This statement is meant for those who says God is Allah or God is Jesus or God is Jehovah or God is Krishna

To say God is so and so immediately turns God into an idol.

A name is limited by the meaning accorded the name

God is everything

To say God is Good immediately turns God into an idol

It means that God cannot be Evil

Just because you cannot comprehend that Good and Evil can exist simultaneously does not mean it cannot

Before quantum physics; an electron cannot be in 2 places at the same time

What you believe then becomes the truth

When new evidence comes in; doubt either emerges or your believe is strengthened

Go with your believe - abandon what you believe not

Trust what you believe for what you believe is truth

=====================

Why do I have the strange feeling that the above will send me to ~elsewhere~ again

Please if you people think I am so looney tunes; don't reply to my posts and I will get the hint.

Here I am thinking that it is relevant and meaningful because I am having a conversation and before I know it ~elsewhere~

[911]

BTW the powers that be controlling this forum thinks I am preaching... am I?

[John A. Broussard]

BTW the powers that be controlling this forum thinks I am preaching... am I?
If you were standing on a street corner saying, over and over again, "god is god" I would say you were preaching.

Since you are saying it over and over again in a forum that encourages discussion, I wouldn't call that preaching.

I'd call it something else.

[Barefoot Bree]

911, so long as you stick around and actually engage in conversation - that is, ask questions and answer those put to you, back and forth - you are welcome. It's when a poster refuses to answer anything, or back up what they are saying, but only repeats the same few phrases over and over that they find themselves ~Elsewhere~.

IOW, stick around, you're doing fine. And welcome to II!

[Copper Scroll]

Cooper, you seem to want it both ways... on one hand you seem to say bad things are required in order to have freedom and free-will, that somehow we lose our freedom as soon as God steps in.
You raise a decent point here. My problem with its that don't see Heaven necessarily as the loss of freedom you conclude it is based on descriptions I've given. I don't have time to answer this at this moment. (I'm not sure if you guys really understand the amount of effort it takes for Public Enemy No. 1 [me] to word issues in a way that is least likely to raise unnecessary objections.) I will try to return to this issue when I have more time.

Then you say Heaven is a complete loss of free-will...
Not really.

Let me ask you this Cooper... If Heaven involves sheding our individuality, what is the purpose of Hell?
Heaven is eternal life. Hell, I suppose, is eventual and inevitable death--nonexistence.

If a mass murderer were to shed his individuality and become "one with God," he would be no different than the most pious Christian... In fact everyone would be the same. They would all become "one with God." They would be incapable of evil thoughts or actions. They would be "depersonalized."
Assuming the mass murderer is redeemed?

Suddenly Hell has no purpose. If someone's individuality can be stripped, then their past sins are of no consequence... and there is no benefit to punishing them for eternity.
I don't think anyone is literally punished for eternity. Evil deeds die.

So which is it? Is free-will what you want, or what you want to be rid of? If we have no free-will in Heaven, then what's the purpose of creating us with free-will, only to take it away?

Free will is a fact, whether I want it or not. It's not lost in Heaven. It might be the only thing you take with you, in a sense.



If your individuality no longer exists, then you are "non-existent."
I disagree with this but don't have time to explain at the moment.

If you are depersonalized, then you (meaning your personality, your consiousness, your will) is non-existent.
Personality, perhaps. We are more than our personalities.

FYI - A dead body is also depersonalized, and it's individuality has been stripped. God created the decomposition process, so when they body becomes "one with God" it starts to decompose, and rot away.

A dead body meets your criteria for "eternal life."
Once the dead body dissolves, it's gone. The "body" no longer exists, just the matter and energy that once comprised it.

You should look up quotes before accusing others of taking the Bible out of context. :banghead:


1 Sam 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

I have no responsibility to look anything up. Here is why: I never used any Bible verses to support any of my claims on this thread ever. The most I have done is make anecdotal reference to the Gospels, and these references are not central to my argument. I'll even stop mentioning them at all here, if that's what it takes to get you guys to quit pulling out the Old Testament. I've even said that the Bible is flawed myself. I'm sure the atheists on this thread agree. If you do agree, there is absolutely no point in bring up the Bible with me.

I have a question: If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you use it in your argument? Is is some kind of diversionary tactic? Are you backed up into a corner and lashing out with examples of Biblical genocide in an attempt to dishearten me? It's not working.

We can have a Bible verse war, but I choose not to engage in that here. The topic of this thread is defining God. I never used Bible verses to define God. You don't believe in the Bible, so leave it alone.

[lenrek]

God is God

This statement is meant for those who says God is Allah or God is Jesus or God is Jehovah or God is Krishna

It is still meaningless! Allah, Jesus, Jehoveh, Krishna or whatever, are simply superstitious labels. In the end, people will still ask: So? What is god?

To say God is so and so immediately turns God into an idol.

God cannot be defined?

A name is limited by the meaning accorded the name

A name is limited by our knowledge, not by its meaning.

God is everything

Oh... Whatever... Read here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146070) and here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146163).

Just because you cannot comprehend that Good and Evil can exist simultaneously does not mean it cannot

We know there are things that is considered as good, and there are things that is considered as evil. However, I doubt it prove god. In fact, the problem of evil (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html) refute the existence of god.

Before quantum physics; an electron cannot be in 2 places at the same time

:huh:

This just meant we manage to improve our knowledge and understanding, not our believes.

What you believe then becomes the truth...

Truth is not for us to believe. If there is indeed a Truth, it is for us to learn and understand.

[Yahzi]

(I'm not sure if you guys really understand the amount of effort it takes for Public Enemy No. 1 [me] to word issues in a way that is least likely to raise unnecessary objections.)
Feel free to ignore the unecessary objections. Or to pick a few posters and reply only to their posts. Or engage in a formal debate with only one person.

If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you use it in your argument?
Without the Bible, you would have zero knowledge of Jesus. Jesus is clearly quite central to your argument. Therefore, the Bible is central to your argument.

You want to introduce all these truths that you got from the Bible, but you don't want to defend the Bible as a truthful document. You just want to pick and choose the passages you like, and repudiate the rest. We could actually accept this if you would just tell us how you make this determination.

But instead, you want us to recognize the truth of a miraculous claim - such as Jesus rising from the dead - while dismissing the truth of (sadly) rather ordinary claims - such as accounts of genocide. You want the Bible to be the voice of God when it says what you want it to say, but when it says what you don't want it to say, suddenly it's irrelevant and flawed.

To put it another way: if the Bible is so flawed that it records God ordering genocides, then how do you know it is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?

We are not backed into a corner. We are attacking your argument at its heart: how you gain knowledge of God. I realize this might not be what you expected. But there are many old hands on this board, who have been through these discussions a lot, and we tend to cut to the chase.

If you wish to repudiate the Bible, then you are going to have to give us some other source for your knowledge of God. If you want to use the Bible as your source of knowledge, then you are going to have to defend it. If you wish to defend only parts of the Bible and not others, then you have to explain (and probably defend) the method you use to make this determination. This is not a diversionary tactic: it is the heart of the issue.

It might help to realize that many of us are less concerned with what you know than with how you came to know it. We are concerned with the process, not the product; because we are committed to accepting whatever product results once the correct processes are followed. This is a good thing: this means if you can use a valid process to establish your claim, all of us will be forced to agree with you, regardless of our personal desires. This is what makes us open-minded: we tell you exactly how to change our mind, and commit ourselves to changing when you acheive that.

"The rationalist starts with a process and accepts whatever conclusion it produces; the zealot starts with a conclusion and accepts whatever process produces it." - Yahzi Coyote

[Copper Scroll]

You are the one that suggested it was out of context, but you weren't going to bother to look it up. I already have looked it up; I know what context it is in.

I'll tell you like I told them: "I never used any Bible verses to support any of my claims on this thread ever. The most I have done is make anecdotal reference to the Gospels, and these references are not central to my argument. I'll even stop mentioning them at all here, if that's what it takes to get you guys to quit pulling out the Old Testament. I've even said that the Bible is flawed myself. I'm sure the atheists on this thread agree. If you do agree, there is absolutely no point in bring up the Bible with me.

I have a question: If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you use it in your argument? Is is some kind of diversionary tactic? Are you backed up into a corner and lashing out with examples of Biblical genocide in an attempt to dishearten me? It's not working.

We can have a Bible verse war, but I choose not to engage in that here. The topic of this thread is defining God. I never used Bible verses to define God. You don't believe in the Bible, so leave it alone."


I asked how you knew one part of the Bible was literally true and another part was not.
I never said that one part was literally true.


So the worship of God is a puzzle game?
No more than reason and ethics are puzzle games. We use reason and ethics to "figure out" how to do things, don't we?


Now you seem to be implying that it is the setting aside of our desires in favor of God's that is the goal. But how is that test helped by making God's desires difficult to ascertain?
You see someone drop money on the ground. They don't appear to notice and keep walking. What should you do? Your "desire" might be to keep the money. That's natural. The right(eous) thing to do would be to give the money back to the person that dropped it. That, I think, would be God's will. Is it difficult to ascertain?

What are we supposed to be doing - guessing God's will, or setting our desires aside in favor of his will?
I never said "guess". I person with no (ethical or rational or common) sense might have to guess. I don't.

Is this a fancy way of saying you don't know what you are talking about?
Did you mean to offend me here? It appears so, but I'll answer anyway. God is not an object. Definitions are for objects--things that can be manipulated and that have limitations.

Hey, there's a question I never recall getting a response on: "You're saying that pain can be categorically called "excessive" when it kills the person who is in pain? What about people who die without any pain other than the pinch of a needle? The pinch of the needle is too much pain. (God! Why o why does this needle have to pinch me soooo?!! BooHooo!!) What about people who suffer agonizing pain for months or years and never dies? Then, the pinch of a needle is too much for one person while years of agony is not too much for another?"

Another way of saying we don't actually know what we are talking about?
"Analogy" is in the dictionary.


Since the words "own" and "slaves" are merely allegorical in this sentence, I am afraid it does not contain enough content for me to respond to.
That's fine.

However, I will point out that you explained that the amount of knowledge of God's will that the Angels have robs them of their freedom.
A person can only robbed of something that they own or have a right to.

Presumabely this a bad thing, since God does not do it to us.
If it was "done to" us, then we wouldn't be us. At the risk of sounding like my li'l homie 911, angels are angels, and we are us.

Furthermore, you described Satan as suffering from the perception of his lost freedom. All of this adds up to God mistreating the Angels.
No, it adds up to the devil(s) being jealous and spiteful. If you live next to someone poorer than you and he "suffers from the perception" that he should have what you have, does he have the right to rob your house?

Why aren't you upset that God has done this to this innocent beings?
You put your arms and fingers to work when you type. You force them to do what they do. Should I feel bad for your arms and fingers? (I wrote also that angels are like God's appendages.)


Again with the "infinite power = zero responsiblity." I don't understand this math.
God fulfills God's responsibility to you. God offers you love and eternal life.


The idea that children in Rwanda have to suffer for your moral growth also makes a mockery of Jesus' sacrifice. Apparently his blood was not enough, after all.
I've never said that thing about "moral growth". You are bringing up major tragedies in an attempt to show me (and possibly others) that I am insensitive... instead of addressing the issue: In sum, suffering is relative. (The world could be better, and it could be worse.) I'll repeat: " If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.".... unfree.

"At some points in your posts you favor freedom (like on the slave issue) and at other points you seem to prefer being relieved of responsibility the responsibilities of freedom. We can't have it both ways.

"Granted, if crime was eliminated today by God, most every living person (maybe even criminals) would be extremely thankful--so thankful, I doubt any body would ask God to do anything else (that day). Let a generation pass though. What used to be minor inconveniences and hangups now become global problems. Someone in that generation would probably stand up and say "If there is a God, he would pick out a good man for me!" or "he would get rid of my worts" or "he give me a new car!" Why would someone be so bratty? Because that someone has been socialized in a world with no rape, murder, robbery, extortion, etc. Worts would be a bigger issue than it is to us."

But my complaint is that God is not revealing. Your counter-argument is that all God has to do is reveal the Gospels, and he's done. But how does that help the children suffering right now?
God gives us to tools to fix our problems... our problems.

I don't understand how my limited power requires me to exert all of it to prevent and eradicate harm, but God's infinite power requires him to exert none of it so that harm will always be with us.
See above (the ooolldd paragraphs I quoted that you never responded to).

No, I don't. I explictly said what I wanted God to tell me: the address at which any child abuse is currently occurring. I will decide what to do about it, I will accept responsibilty for what I do. I don't want instructions from God, or personal attention, or advice, or His blessing... I just want an address.God giving me an address would not infringe on anyone else's free will. Therefore, the free will defense does not apply.
Would God be unfair in not giving anyone else an address to where another child is being abused?

Therefore, you must explain why God not only allows these terrible crimes, but actively participates in covering them - exactly the same way that anyone else who had knowledge of these crimes would be charged with conspiracy or at least obstruction of justice.
That's ridiculous. Time and space (distance, physical objects) cover up the crimes you're referring to. Not God. You want Heaven on earth without having to work for it.

Respond to what I have written and quoted repeatedly, please.

So you are saying we won't have unambigous knowledge of God's will in heaven? The Bible describes heaven as being in the very presence of God, as if face-to-face. And you are saying God won't answer questions even then?
Heaven is not a future event or a place.

God has answered enough questions.

[Lamp Of Light]

To put it another way: if the Bible is so flawed that it records God ordering genocides, then how do you know it is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?


All I can say is that if God ordered genocide, then it must have been the right and good and true thing, even if I cnanot understand it. In other words, there must have been somthign God knows that I didn't know or accept. Perhaps there really is a life after death, and life here is not the end all be all that alot of people think it is. Likewise if death was their lot, and they were not guilty, then surely they will find recompense on the other side... and frankly, how do you know what is on the other side isn't a WHOLE LOT better then what is on this side ? I mean people get so attached to life and things of this world, when the reality just might be that on the other side, even the worst day is better then the best day here. So in such a case, death in itself would be a reward. Likewise we do not know all that God knows, perhaps all those poepel did need to die for some reason. The bottom line is God knows and God is trustworthy. Yet all has now been revealed to us, there is no need to establish or reveal Himself or His word. It has been revealed entirely.

That means that God isn't goign to order such things anymore, or order the deaths of people by other people. There is no need. All has been revealed. So in other words, in answer to John A Broussards question : If God asked you to kill for Him, would you ? My answer would be yes, I would hope that I would do whatever God asks of me, hoever, if a voice appeared to me and said "I am GOD, and I demand you to kill so and so, or such and such group of people", then I would immediatly know it wasn't God, because I know and understand Him, and He has no need to do this. Why did He do it in the past ? Surely for His own reasons(all of which would be right and good and true), and I can tell you at least part of it was towards the establishment of His kingdom and the revelation of HImself to mankind by establishment of His word through witnesses.

[Copper Scroll]

Without the Bible, you would have zero knowledge of Jesus. Jesus is clearly quite central to your argument. Therefore, the Bible is central to your argument.
Jesus in not really central to my argument. I said I wouldn't mention the Gospels any more if that keeps the Old Testament out of my face on this thread. (You do, btw, understand the difference between the Gospels and the Old Testament, right?)

You want to introduce all these truths that you got from the Bible, but you don't want to defend the Bible as a truthful document. You just want to pick and choose the passages you like, and repudiate the rest. We could actually accept this if you would just tell us how you make this determination.
The Bible (you know this already, I hope) is not a monolithic document. It was not written at one time and place by the same person. It is not a document (truthful or otherwise) at all, really; it's a collection of documents. The "determination" is based off of historical context for the most part.

But instead, you want us to recognize the truth of a miraculous claim - such as Jesus rising from the dead -
I never asked you to accept that.

while dismissing the truth of (sadly) rather ordinary claims - such as accounts of genocide. You want the Bible to be the voice of God when it says what you want it to say, but when it says what you don't want it to say, suddenly it's irrelevant and flawed.
I can, because those are two different documents you're referring to. Jesus is in the Gospels, written in the second half of the first century by his disciples (or students of disciples), while those "accounts of genocide" are typically dated between 600 and 1,000 years earlier (presumably by somebody else).

To put it another way: if the Bible is so flawed that it records God ordering genocides, then how do you know it is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?
Personal experience, reason, historical knowledge.

We are not backed into a corner. We are attacking your argument at its heart: how you gain knowledge of God.
Personal experience (even apart from the Bible), reason.

[John A. Broussard]

All I can say is that if God ordered genocide, then it must have been the right and good and true thing, even if I cnanot understand it.
I think you've said it all in this one sentence.

[John A. Broussard]

Personal experience, reason, historical knowledge.


The above was an answer to the following question:

"To put it another way: if the Bible is so flawed that it records God ordering genocides, then how do you know it is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?"

Could you demonstrate what personal experience you've had which demonstrated that the bible "is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?"

Could you show the reasoning you used (either inductive or deductive) which shows that the bible "is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?"

Could you cite from the historical knowledge which shows that the bible "is not flawed when it records God promising eternal life?"

Thank you.

[Lamp Of Light]

Yes John indeed. It demonstrates somthing rather certainly.

It is called trust.

The same reason Abraham was willing to slay his own son. Trust.

I definitely trust God, even moreso then my own understanding.

[AZSuperman]

You raise a decent point here. My problem with its that don't see Heaven necessarily as the loss of freedom you conclude it is based on descriptions I've given. I don't have time to answer this at this moment. I will try to return to this issue when I have more time.
This is a major part of your argument. You're claiming eternal life is a "depersonallized" experience, in which we are "stripped of our individuality," and we are limited to performing only the will of God... yet you don't feel this is a loss of freedom? You'll need to explain exactly what you mean by this. How can a person/spirit/being/entity (take your pick) not lose their freedom when they lose their personal identity?

If a mass murderer were to shed his individuality and become "one with God," he would be no different than the most pious Christian... In fact everyone would be the same. They would all become "one with God." They would be incapable of evil thoughts or actions. They would be "depersonalized."
Assuming the mass murderer is redeemed?
I think you missed my point here. My point isn't whether or not a mass murderer would be redeemed. My point is that an individuals actions on earth would be of no consequence if we lose our individuality and become "one with God."

Heaven is eternal life. Hell, I suppose, is eventual and inevitable death--nonexistence.
You've yet to explain how loss of personal identity and depersonalization of our soul is any different than non-existence. In both scenarios, everything we use to identify an individual is lost.

Free will is a fact, whether I want it or not. It's not lost in Heaven. It might be the only thing you take with you, in a sense.
Whao! Wait a minute... you said "I believe that eternal life is a depersonalized experience, because outside of time and space (eternity) we shed our material "finiteness" or object-ness and thus our individuality... Our wills unite and become one. We are not a group of wills being determine by one; we are one."

If billions of people die, billions of individual wills DISAPPEAR... Only one will is left. Explain to me exactly how billions of wills becoming one DOESN'T result in the loss of free-will for someone.

If your individuality no longer exists, then you are "non-existent."
I disagree with this but don't have time to explain at the moment.
This IS your argument. If you expect to have meaningful dialogue, you will need to explain your arguments.

If you are depersonalized, then you (meaning your personality, your consiousness, your will) is non-existent.
Personality, perhaps. We are more than our personalities.
So we will lose our body, and our personality, and all of our individuality... In what way will we continue to exist? How will it continue to be us, when all of our individual characteristics have been stripped away?

Once the dead body dissolves, it's gone. The "body" no longer exists, just the matter and energy that once comprised it.
Exactly, it becomes depersonalized. It continues to exist (the matter is not destroyed, only changed) yet it's individuality has been stripped. How is this different from your idea of our souls being absorbed into "God?" Our soul will no longer exist, only the energy that once comprised it.

I have no responsibility to look anything up. Here is why: I never used any Bible verses to support any of my claims on this thread ever.I never claimed you used any Bible verse. I actually used this verse to prove your point. You said Outside of our intersubjective experience within time and space, "good" and "bad" don't really exist. I quoted the genocide order from the OT to show that you must be right... because in a world where good and evil do exist, there are very few people who would consider a genocide order "good." However, God could issue such an order, and it would neither be "good" or "bad" because those terms have no meaning for him (seeing how he exists outside of time and space).

The most I have done is make anecdotal reference to the Gospels, and these references are not central to my argument. I'll even stop mentioning them at all here, if that's what it takes to get you guys to quit pulling out the Old Testament.
Great, ok... The Bible is off limits... So now, where did you get your information about God?

I have a question: If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you use it in your argument?...Are you backed up into a corner and lashing out with examples of Biblical genocide in an attempt to dishearten me?
Easy answer. If you're Christian, then the Bible is your main source for information regarding God. If I quote from the Qu'ran, you'll say I'm wrong because the quote is from a book you don't believe in. Same if I quote from the Book of Mormon, or the Vedas. Quoting from a source you don't accept as reliable is pointless. It's far from a diversionary tactic, and I'm definately not backed into a corner. I'm attempting to understand God the way you do, by using the same texts you do.

But, you've said the Bible is off limits. Great! (I never really liked the book anyway.)

Would you like to:

Suggest an alternative religious text?
Throw out the Jesus story in favor of a generic God?
Ignore teachings found in the Bible, including: eternal life, Hell, salvation, damnation, sin, repentance, baptism, etc?
Provide some other source for obtaining knowledge of the items listed above?

We can have a Bible verse war, but I choose not to engage in that here.
The only purpose of a verse war is to show how contradictory the Bible is... I would gladly go head to head with you if you were arguing that the Bible is inerrent. Since you accept the Bible as flawed, a verse war would serve no purpose.
I never used Bible verses to define God. You don't believe in the Bible, so leave it alone.
So what do you use to define God?

Jesus in not really central to my argument. I said I wouldn't mention the Gospels any more if that keeps the Old Testament out of my face on this thread. (You do, btw, understand the difference between the Gospels and the Old Testament, right?)
Please don't assume we're stupid. We all understand how the Bible was compiled, and we know the difference between the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings (OT), the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Revelation (NT).

All I can say is that if God ordered genocide, then it must have been the right and good and true thing, even if I cnanot understand it.

In otherwords... even though you can't conceive of any reason why God would order the murder every man, woman, "suckling child," ass, and ox... (repeatedly) you will accept that the story must be true, and trust that God musted deemed murder to be "good" at that point in time?

If God is all-powerful, couldn't he have accomplished the same task without the bloodshed?

If their death was needed, couldn't he have killed all of those people in their sleep (Exodus style) instead of having them hacked to pieces?

In what possible way could the genocide order, and the subsequent suffering, have been good?

:Cheeky: Oh wait a minute... I'm getting ahead of myself. You said the Bible is off limits, and that you don't believe it is historically accurate.

We're supposed to be ignoring it. Feel free to ignore the last part of this post.

[AZSuperman]

Yes John indeed. It demonstrates somthing rather certainly.

It is called trust.

The same reason Abraham was willing to slay his own son. Trust.

I definitely trust God, even moreso then my own understanding.
Wait a minute?! I thought the Bible was off limits! :banghead:

If we can't bring up the OT, neither can you. (No fair playing "Bible-a-la-carte")

You said you don't trust the Bible, yet you refer to it to make your point about trust? :confused:

If the Bible is flawed, it's entirely possible Abraham never existed.

So now that we've established your trust is not in the Bible, or the God described in the Bible. What do you trust? Where do you get your information about salvation, eternal life, etc?

[Copper Scroll]

In otherwords... even though you can't conceive of any reason why God would order the murder every man, woman, "suckling child," ass, and ox... (repeatedly) you will accept that the story must be true, and trust that God musted deemed murder to be "good" at that point in time?

If God is all-powerful, couldn't he have accomplished the same task without the bloodshed?

If their death was needed, couldn't he have killed all of those people in their sleep (Exodus style) instead of having them hacked to pieces?

In what possible way could the genocide order, and the subsequent suffering, have been good?

:Cheeky: Oh wait a minute... I'm getting ahead of myself. You said the Bible is off limits, and that you don't believe it is historically accurate.

We're supposed to be ignoring it. Feel free to ignore the last part of this post.
Clark, part of your response to me quoted another (theistic) poster. I hope you haven't gotten us mixed up.

Your response also contains a lot of "explain yourself"s. I can promise you that I will explain, when I have time to make sure it's organized and well-worded.

What we appear to be approaching in our discussion is the "nitty gritty". It must be approached with caution.

(Judging from your post--directly above this one. You have definitely mixed us theists up.)

[Vicar Philip]

Hi Copper,

Hope you'll let another atheist enter this "pileup" :D and burden you with yet another question.

If you researched the historicity of the Gospels and came to the conclusion that Jesus was in all likelihood mythical, would that affect your belief in god?

Thanks!
VP

[Copper Scroll]

Hi Copper,

Hope you'll let another atheist enter this "pileup" :D and burden you with yet another question.
It's real heavy right now, but your question is (or appears to be) easy to answer... and I think it's a good one:


If you researched the historicity of the Gospels and came to the conclusion that Jesus was in all likelihood mythical, would that affect your belief in god?
By "mythical", I'll assume you mean that What if I found out that the person referred to in the Gospels "in all likelihood" never really existed?.

I would still believe in God.

[911]

It is still meaningless! Allah, Jesus, Jehoveh, Krishna or whatever, are simply superstitious labels. In the end, people will still ask: So? What is god?
God cannot be defined?
A name is limited by our knowledge, not by its meaning.
Oh... Whatever... Read here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146070) and here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146163).
We know there are things that is considered as good, and there are things that is considered as evil. However, I doubt it prove god. In fact, the problem of evil (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html) refute the existence of god.
:huh:
This just meant we manage to improve our knowledge and understanding, not our believes.
Truth is not for us to believe. If there is indeed a Truth, it is for us to learn and understand.

A couple of things first and then a couple of things later

You believe based on knowledge and understanding do you not?

knowledge and understanding is another word for Evidence

knowledge and understanding that does not include the future, for instance is flawed;

knowledge and understanding that does not include the future, for instance is for you for now for the human species; the truth

knowledge and understanding that does not include the communication from God is flawed

God is everything

The past the future the present the seen the unseen good and evil and poo, if you like "and poo;" whether or not you like it God is poo

When you go to an idol - God is in the idol - you go to insufficient evidence

Is that the truth; yes based on all the evidence

When you go to God - God is everything - you go to full evidence

I am telling you what Buddha discovered; what Abraham discovered; what Jesus discovered; what Modhammed discovered all those years ago

I am telling you what many people discovered and simply passed from this earth

I am not telling you something new

If you want to quote any scriptures to me; go ahead

If you tell me that all the evidence points for you that God does not exist; God does not. That is your believe. You believe based on all the evidence in your possesion. That is the truth.

If you believe that all the evidence you posses is all the evidence there is; believe that with all your heart; that is how it works.

I am telling you now that all the evidence you posses is not all there is to it

For starters; your evidence does not include the future; what is in the future

God is everything

You can say: "God you must not be poo;" you can say whatever you want but it does not mean that it is so

You can say: "God you must not be evil;" you can say whatever you want but it does not mean that it is so

Until and unless God speaks to you you simply do not have all the evidence

If you believe based on what I say - it does you no good

I am here not only to give you new evidence as a direct witness

I am here to help you find the way

Yet it is not I; I am willing no doubt...

God is God

God is in you

Believe and believe is the truth

Why does not God simply give you irrefutable evidence and show you irrefutable evidence and show you all the evidence and show you the future and show you the past?

You must be God to be able to do that.

You are not God

Why then does God not show you his face?

When you look at poo you say: that is not God

I am telling you that poo is God

You want a miracle?

Bring a man from the past and show him "now" and he will say: what a miracle

Does not do anything for him

You will always want to see another miracle

You want to see the face of God and yet you are seeing the face of God

You want to see another face of God? It is pointless

It will be of no end. You will always want to see a new face of God

The end is when you hear God speaking to you

God is in you

God is everything

[AZSuperman]

(Judging from your post--directly above this one. You have definitely mixed us theists up.)
Oops! :worried:

Sorry about that...

[911]

If you were standing on a street corner saying, over and over again, "god is god" I would say you were preaching.
Since you are saying it over and over again in a forum that encourages discussion, I wouldn't call that preaching.
I'd call it something else.

You are so funny.
I believe you are from God
I believe God is in you
When I see you I see God
I see God is funny

ha ha ha

[Vicar Philip]

By "mythical", I'll assume you mean that What if I found out that the person referred to in the Gospels "in all likelihood" never really existed?.

I would still believe in God.Thanks. The reason I asked is because I got from your posts that an important aspect of your faith is belief in eternal life. Do you believe this is available to believers strictly because of the words attributed to Jesus? I don't recall a clear offer from god in the OT extending eternal life to us.

When I was a believer, heaven was a difficult concept for me, as I could never figure out how something could be so great while taking away all the things that make us human. For example, loving one's spouse. What if you had a wife who died, then you got remarried, what would happen in heaven, etc. Seems kind of childish, I admit, but still was something that puzzled me.

I read with interest your description of a non-physical existence in heaven. I see where you're coming from, but I personally would have a hard time giving up this wonderful physical world for an eternal life of semi-conscious.. er.. consciousness. A small quote from Mark Twain seems appropriate here:For there is nothing about man that is not strange to an immortal. He looks at nothing as we look at it, his sense of proportion is quite different from ours, and his sense of value is so widely divergent from ours, that with all our large intellectual powers it is not likely that even the most gifted among us would ever be quite able to understand it.

For instance, take this sample: he has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race- and of ours- sexual intercourse! -Mark Twain, Letters From the EarthTwain goes on to make a humorous analysis of our cherished beliefs in heaven; I hope you'll pardon my indulgence. Not to belabor my point here, but being physically human is all we know. Sounds like the biblical version, as well as your version, of heaven are decidely UN-human. How are we to relate to that kind of eternal life? I much prefer to be worm food.

[911]

It is still meaningless! Allah, Jesus, Jehoveh, Krishna or whatever, are simply superstitious labels. In the end, people will still ask: So? What is god?
God cannot be defined?


When people ask "So? What is God"

The definition from Answers.com works for me:

god (gÅ?d) pronunciation
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

[Middle English, from Old English.]


God is the universe
God is everything
All that you see
All that you touch
All that you hear
All that you believe
All the you feel

There is no need to come up with another name for everything

The minute you come up with another name you diminishes God

The new name you come up with is still God since God is everything

Every flavour of the definition found in Answers.com

1.
1.1
1.2
2
3
4
5
6

Is true;

God is everything

God is God is preferable

[lenrek]

You believe based on knowledge and understanding do you not?

knowledge and understanding is another word for Evidence

No! Evidence is evidence, knowledge is knowledge, understanding is understanding. :D

Evidence is the information or data itself, knowledge and understanding are we learned from them.

knowledge and understanding that does not include the future, for instance is flawed;

:huh:

Flawed? Please explain.

knowledge and understanding that does not include the future, for instance is for you for now for the human species; the truth

What? Can you elaborate?

knowledge and understanding that does not include the communication from God is flawed...

Huh? Why? Assertion with no substantiating argument is garbage.

God is everything

Another garbage... :rolleyes:

The past the future the present the seen the unseen good and evil and poo, if you like "and poo;" whether or not you like it God is poo

What? Can someone tell what on earth is this statement means?

...When you go to an idol - ... God is everything - you go to full evidence ...

Blank assertion = garbage.

I am telling you what Buddha discovered; what Abraham discovered; what Jesus discovered; what Modhammed discovered all those years ago

What? Whenever I see people talk like this, it is always a sign of confusion and misunderstanding.

I am a Buddhist, in fact, I consider myself as an Orthodox Buddhist. All religions may contain some similarities among them. However, similarity does not imply they are the same. If one look deeper into their details, he will know the differences.

I am telling you what many people discovered and simply passed from this earth

Blank statement = garbage.

If you want to quote any scriptures to me; go ahead

That is for you to decide.

If you tell me that all the evidence points for you that God does not exist; God does not. That is your believe. You believe based on all the evidence in your possesion. That is the truth.

If you believe that all the evidence you posses is all the evidence there is; believe that with all your heart; that is how it works.

If you can provide evidence that can change our mind, feel free to show it.

... your evidence does not include the future; what is in the future

:huh:

Until and unless God speaks to you you simply do not have all the evidence

:huh:

So, I guess god talks to you? I guess you now have all the evidence? :rolleyes:

I am here to help you find the way

:huh:

OK... Show us the way then... :rolleyes:

God is God

God is in you...

Blank assertion = garbage.

You want a miracle?

No

Bring a man from the past and show him "now" and he will say: what a miracle

If I am able to get into a time machine, and travel to the future, I will definitely be curious with all the advancement there maybe. However, I won't consider them miracle.


You want to see the face of God and yet you are seeing the face of God

:huh:

... God is in you

God is everything

I am speechless, after reading all these garbage... :banghead:

[lenrek]

When people ask "So? What is God"

The definition from Answers.com works for me:

Sure... If you like. However, they are definitions of god, not the proof of god. Thus, they are still useless.

God is everything

Blank statement = garbage.

God is God is preferable

Nah... Goddess is more preferable, especially the naked ones.

[911]

No! Evidence is evidence, knowledge is knowledge, understanding is understanding. :D
Evidence is the information or data itself, knowledge and understanding are we learned from them.
:huh:
Flawed? Please explain.
What? Can you elaborate?
Huh? Why? Assertion with no substantiating argument is garbage.
Another garbage... :rolleyes:
What? Can someone tell what on earth is this statement means?
Blank assertion = garbage.
What? Whenever I see people talk like this, it is always a sign of confusion and misunderstanding.
I am a Buddhist, in fact, I consider myself as an Orthodox Buddhist. All religions may contain some similarities among them. However, similarity does not imply they are the same. If one look deeper into their details, he will know the differences.
Blank statement = garbage.
That is for you to decide.
If you can provide evidence that can change our mind, feel free to show it.
:huh:
:huh:
So, I guess god talks to you? I guess you now have all the evidence? :rolleyes:
:huh:
OK... Show us the way then... :rolleyes:


I am showing you the way
You want to see only what you want to see
You want to hear only what you want to hear
You prefer opinions based on what you believe

What you believe is the truth

When I say evidence and truth here; I am refering to the preceedents set by the British judicial system

It will never end: preceedents set by the British judicial system
It will never end: according to the Holy Scripture
It will never end: according to the Holy Bible
It will never end: according to the Holy Koran
It will never end: according to the Buddhist Scripture

You cannot believe based on what I say
You can only take what I say and use it as an input to find your believe
If it is meaningless to you it is as meaning as

I am the way the truth the life for those who did not know the person who said it; but it is the foundation for a whole movement

The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path is meaningless for those who have not heard of it

It is meaningless for those who says it is garbage

It is the foundation for a whole movement

What you believe is the truth

God is everything
God is God


Blank assertion = garbage.
No
If I am able to get into a time machine, and travel to the future, I will definitely be curious with all the advancement there maybe. However, I won't consider them miracle.
:huh:
I am speechless, after reading all these garbage... :banghead:

God is in the future
God is everything

[911]

What? Whenever I see people talk like this, it is always a sign of confusion and misunderstanding.

I am a Buddhist, in fact, I consider myself as an Orthodox Buddhist. All religions may contain some similarities among them. However, similarity does not imply they are the same. If one look deeper into their details, he will know the differences.


There are no "Buddhist" in this world much less "Orthodox Buddhist."

after you have used the raft you abandon it

after you have absorb Buddha's teachings you abandon Buddha

after you abandon Buddha; do not call yourself a Buddhist; much less "Orthodox Buddhist."

[lenrek]

There are no "Buddhist" in this world much less "Orthodox Buddhist."

after you have used the raft you abandon it

after you have absorb Buddha's teachings you abandon Buddha

after you abandon Buddha; do not call yourself a Buddhist; much less "Orthodox Buddhist."

Your sign ignorant to Buddhism is complete. I welcome you to go Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=22) and express your opinion regarding Buddhism.

[911]

Your sign ignorant is complete. I welcome you to go Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=22) and express your opinion regarding Buddhism.

thanks for your invitation

it is not up to me

[lenrek]

I am showing you the way

The way has been shown? Goodness, it must have been a blurry map.

You want to see only what you want to see
You want to hear only what you want to hear

I see as what it is, I listen to what it says, and from both what is seen and heard, they are all blank statement, not different to garbage.

You prefer opinions based on what you believe

All of us have preferences, unless you don't? If one unable to see what is a personal opinion, what is an informed opinion, then there is no way he can understand those who act by knowledge and understanding.

What you believe is the truth

Yes, to you only.

When I say evidence and truth here; I am refering to the preceedents set by the British judicial system

Judicial system? What on earth are you talking about again?

It will never end: preceedents set by the British judicial system
... according to the Buddhist Scripture

:huh:

You cannot believe based on what I say

Of course I won't.

You can only take what I say and use it as an input to find your believe

:huh:

I do not contemplate on garbage statements.

I am the way the truth the life for those who did not know the person who said it; but it is the foundation for a whole movement...

Blank assertion = garbage.

The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path is meaningless for those who have not heard of it

If one simply state Four Noble Truth and Eightfold Path without explaining what they meant, what they signify, what are the implication and application, then they are both meaningless.

...God is everything
God is God

God is in the future
God is everything

Oh... Whatever... Read here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146070) and here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146163).

[lenrek]

Your sign ignorant is complete. I welcome you to go Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=22) and express your opinion regarding Buddhism.

thanks for your invitation

it is not up to me

Is not up to you? I guess you need whispering commands from god??

[Copper Scroll]

Sounds like the biblical version, as well as your version, of heaven are decidely UN-human. How are we to relate to that kind of eternal life? I much prefer to be worm food.
Thanks for the comments.

I guess a lot of what we're talking about has to do with what we mean when we say "I". I would argue that we tend to be referring to our own pattern of thoughts (as stirring in our corporeal brains) that inspire our actions and our actions themselves (as done by our corporeal bodies) mostly; these are how we affect the material world around us; these make us agents in this material world; these are our subject-ness.

Now, (and this is the sad part) we also have the tendency to be referring to how the material world around us affects us (the reverse): sights and sounds, material possessions, and the like; these are sensations mostly--good and bad; these are the world acting on us--our object-ness. There are many reasons why we should strive to exclude these from our self concepts. Making good sensations a part of our self concept could lead to hedonism and greed. Making bad sensations a part of our self concept could lead to depression and lethargy.

Now, there's one aspect of our material lives that tend to (or should) affect us in the same measure as we affect it; these are our interpersonal relationships. In a good relationship, each person profoundly affects the consciousness of the other--so much so, many of us would easily define ourselves according to our relationships. People we have relationships with are a part of us.

Our material bodies become worm food, and with it our ability to experience sensations and enjoy our material possessions. These however are only tools that we use. Who are we? The consciousness (including our relationships) and the thoughts and actions it inspires, which cannot become worm food.

[Alf]

Thanks for the comments.

I guess a lot of what we're talking about has to do with what we mean when we say "I". I would argue that we tend to be referring to our own pattern of thoughts (as stirring in our corporeal brains) that inspire our actions and our actions themselves (as done by our corporeal bodies) mostly; these are how we affect the material world around us; these make us agents in this material world; these are our subject-ness.

Now, (and this is the sad part) we also have the tendency to be referring to how the material world around us affects us (the reverse): sights and sounds, material possessions, and the like; these are sensations mostly--good and bad; these are the world acting on us--our object-ness. There are many reasons why we should strive to exclude these from our self concepts. Making good sensations a part of our self concept could lead to hedonism and greed. Making bad sensations a part of our self concept could lead to depression and lethargy.

Now, there's one aspect of our material lives that tend to (or should) affect us in the same measure as we affect it; these are our interpersonal relationships. In a good relationship, each person profoundly affects the consciousness of the other--so much so, many of us would easily define ourselves according to our relationships. People we have relationships with are a part of us.

Our material bodies become worm food, and with it our ability to experience sensations and enjoy our material possessions. These however are only tools that we use. Who are we? The consciousness (including our relationships) and the thoughts and actions it inspires, which cannot become worm food.

What is it that makes me me?

Is it my opinions that I have formed during a life time observing the world and interacting with the world? These are mostly opinions about a material world. They wouldn't be much useful in a non-material afterlife.

Is it my memories? I remember my family, friends etc. Even if I were to go to a heaven and if some of them would not, I would probably miss them. I would much prefer to become worm food and cease to exist than to live an eternity missing various people because they didn't make it to heaven while I did. Conversely, if some of them made it to heaven while I did not, I am sure many of them would miss me. Unless I could also come to heaven, they would feel a lack then? Again, also my memories are largely about a material world, I cannot see how any of it would actually be of any use in a non-material world.

If not my memories and not my opinions what then is it that were to continue to live after my body become worm food?

The point is that belief in an after life is non-sensical, silly *I believe because I want to believe and I don't like the idea of dying*. True, we have evolved with a wish to live - a survival instinct and for some this has become so strong that they cannot contemplate that they will ever cease to exist - tough luck. Personally, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so great about an afterlife. I believe if you live a full life you will find that one life is enough and you don't have to live another and certainly not one that would go on for an eternity.

Alf

[AZSuperman]

Our material bodies become worm food, and with it our ability to experience sensations and enjoy our material possessions. These however are only tools that we use. Who are we? The consciousness (including our relationships) and the thoughts and actions it inspires, which cannot become worm food.
What is our consciousness, once our individuality has been "stripped?" What is left for us to have relationships with once everyone has been "depersonalized?" :confused:

[Copper Scroll]

I've tried explicating my beliefs for the purposes of answering many of the thoughtful issues raised by my critics on this thread:

1. A conscious agent is the set of attributes without which she would cease being who she is.
2. Attributes without which a conscious agent would cease being who she is are her essence(s).
3. A conscious agent's essence(s) is (are) her soul.
4. A conscious agent is her soul.
5. A conscious agent would cease being who she is if she did not think as she thinks or acts as she acts.
6. A conscious agent's thoughts and actions are her essence(s).
7. A conscious agent's thoughts and actions are her soul.
8. A conscious agent is her thoughts and actions.
9. Conscious thoughts and actions cause events; thoughts cause actions, and actions have effects in the material world.
10. Events caused by a conscious thought and action are essentially a part of that thought and action, because they would not occur in the absence of that causal thought and action.

11. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal.
12. God's plan is for the material world and the conscious agents within it to be sustained by themselves in perfect peace.
13. God's plan must be fulfilled.
14. The fulfillment of God's plan is eternal.
15. God is God. (a tribute to my ace, 911)
16. Thoughts and actions that cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan are eternal.
17. Thoughts and actions that cause or contribute to the sustenance of the material world in perfect peace are eternal.
18. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions cause or contribute to the sustenance of the material world in perfect peace are eternal.
19. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions cause or contribute to the sustenance of the material world in perfect peace are eternal.
20. Thoughts and actions that do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease.
21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.
22. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan cease.
23. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan are eternal.
24. Souls of conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the sustenance of the material world in perfect peace cease.
25. Eternity is an option for every conscious agent.

[xaxxat]

I'll pass on the Borg - type heaven....

:down:

[John A. Broussard]

11. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal.

Good.

Now that all that is out of the way, let's get back to essentials.

Would you please critique the following:

Assumption one is that there exists an omniscient, sentient being.

Assumption two is that that being has written all that has happened, is happening and will happen in a large book. Since the book includes the entire universe, every quark and quasar, every real and virtual particle, every thought of every thinking creature--everything in fact--it is necessarily a rather large book. (This second assumption isn't vital to this discussion, since an omniscient sentient being would have all these events already written in its mind. The big book just makes for easier discussion)

The third assumption is self evident. Human beings either have or do not have free will.

Given assumptions one and two, let's assume that human beings do not have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer inevitably seems to be "no."

Given assumptions one and two again, let's assume that human beings do have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer seems necessarily to be also "no."

If the above reasoning is correct, then--given the existence of an omniscient, sentient being--it doesn't matter whether human beings do or do not have free will. Such a being simply makes free will irrelevant.

Thank you.

[Copper Scroll]

Would you please critique the following:.
You asked me about this already. The following assumption, I think, is wrong:
Assumption two is that that being has written all that has happened, is happening and will happen in a large book. ...with or without the "book". It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God. To clarify further, we can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known.

[Alf]

You asked me about this already. The following assumption, I think, is wrong:
...with or without the "book". It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God. To clarify further, we can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known.

If god cannot know the future it means that god have a concept of "NOW" that is identical to us humans' concept of "NOW". I.e. God must experience time. This is good because this allow god to act and do things. A god outside of time would have problems to do such things.

However, it also means that god is in this universe and cannot therefore have made it. He is a part of this universe and he couldn't have created a universe that he is himself a part of.

This is also good because we know that a creator of the universe type god also run into problems.

So yes, your god appear to have a higher survival chance than most theists. On the other hand, we may have problems figuring out what exactly makes this god "god"? In what manner is he different from any other advanced and smart life form that has managed to impress some primitive people at one time to believe in him if he even did that. Perhaps he created life on earth and then left without ever bothering with eart again? Perhaps he never created life on earth but instead created life on some other planet and have never been near earth? Perhaps he doesn't even exist? So while your god is at least POSSIBLE I have problems to see how we can identify him and figure out that he must necessarily exist. On the other hand, look at it from the brght side - your god is at least POSSIBLE which is a lot better than most theist's god which are often impossible and can be dismissed off hand.

Alf

[el creyente]

It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God........Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known.

Really??? Wow! Then can you please clear up the following for me? Thanks.

And when Peter protests his loyalty, Jesus says to him, "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."

[John A. Broussard]

You asked me about this already. The following assumption, I think, is wrong:
...with or without the "book". It's impossible to know what will happen in the future, even for God. To clarify further, we can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known.
That's why I brought it up again. You suddenly once more proclaimed that god is omniscient.

Check it out. Omniscient means knowing everything.

Since you are using the word in a very different fashion, you should either use a different phrase or clearly define the word the way you are using it.

Which, of course, throws your "omnipotence" into doubt. It means, in the way most of use the word, all-powerful. Limiting omniscience also limits omnipotence.

It's difficult to discuss anything with you, since you keep shifting the goal posts and makes many of your other points ridiculous.

For example. 13. God's plan must be fulfilled.

How can god know it's going to be fulfilled if the future is unknowable.

But, anyway, have fun.

[Copper Scroll]

If god cannot know the future it means that god have a concept of "NOW" that is identical to us humans' concept of "NOW". I.e. God must experience time. This is good because this allow god to act and do things. A god outside of time would have problems to do such things.
Thank you for your comments, Alf.

I would not dismiss the possibility however that God exists both within time (within Creation) and without it. I used "eternal" to mean that God's existence is not dependent upon the existence of space and time.

[Copper Scroll]

Really??? Wow! Then can you please clear up the following for me? Thanks.
In the Gospels, Jesus often (usually) speaks in myth, allegory, and parable. This may either be an instance of that or just a plain old prediction. Whenever we say something "will" happen, we are just making predictions. We cannot say what will happen with the same level of certainty that we can say certain things have happened or are happening.

Knowing the future is impossible, but if anyone has a "good idea" about what the future holds, it's God--because God knows everything that is happening and has happened everywhere.

Let this not begin a Bible verse show-&-tell. I don't think that would be very productive.

[Copper Scroll]

Check it out. Omniscient means knowing everything.

Since you are using the word in a very different fashion, you should either use a different phrase or clearly define the word the way you are using it..
I don't think the "fashion" I am using the word in is all that different from yours. You just appear to be saying it is possible to know the future. I disagree.

And I did define the word in order to clarify myself after you used the word differently. Should I go back and define every single word in my argument?

Which, of course, throws your "omnipotence" into doubt. It means, in the way most of use the word, all-powerful. Limiting omniscience also limits omnipotence.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done. I wouldn't say God can make the same planet turn left and right at the same time. By your definition, I assume, that means God is not omnipotent.

Instead of arguing about what these words mean, it's fine to go back and replace "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal." with "God can do anything that can be done, knows everything that can be known, and lives within and without time."

It's difficult to discuss anything with you, since you keep shifting the goal posts and makes many of your other points ridiculous.
I never changed my definitions of omniscience or omnipotence.

For example. 13. God's plan must be fulfilled.

How can god know it's going to be fulfilled if the future is unknowable
Granted (#11) God can do anything that can be done and (#12) God wills the self-sustenance of the material world and its conscious agents in perfect peace and (no #) the self-sustenance of the material world and its conscious agents in perfect peace is possible, God would not allow it not to happen (#13).

[John A. Broussard]

For example. 13. God's plan must be fulfilled.

JAB: How can god know it's going to be fulfilled if the future is unknowable

CS: Granted (#11) God can do anything that can be done and (#12) God wills the self-sustenance of the material world in perfect peace and (no #) the self-sustenance of the material world in perfect peace is what God wills, God would not allow it not to happen (#13).

Which, of course, does not answer the question.

[el creyente]

In the Gospels, Jesus often (usually) speaks in myth, allegory, and parable. This may either be an instance of that or just a plain old prediction.

Let's see. Jesus said that on that very night, before the cock crowed three times, Peter would deny him. And guess what? On that very night, before the cock crowed three times, Peter denied him. Where is the myth, allegory, and parable in this supposed historic event? If you are saying that this is a parable, what method do you use to differentiate what is a parable and what isn't a parable?

Whenever we say something "will" happen, we are just making predictions. We cannot say what will happen with the same level of certainty that we can say certain things have happened or are happening.

Who is the "we" you are talking about? The weatherman? Because that's the closest thing I can come up with, and even then my weatherman never says something "will" happen. He uses words like "expect". I don't talk like that. My friends don't talk like that. My family doesn't talk like that. In fact, if someone says to me "On this very night, before the cock crows three times, the following "will" happen: blah, blah, blah" the first sentence out of my mouth is usually the following: "How the hell do you know that?"

Let this not begin a Bible verse show-&-tell.

Why not?

I don't think that would be very productive.

Because you would lose the argument?

Let me just get this straight. Are you saying that when God sent his only begotten son to be born of a virgin birth, he had no way of knowing that he would eventually be crucified in order to save all of humanity? God sent Jesus and was hoping for the best? If Jesus had lived to 60 and died of old age would humanity still have the opportunity to be saved in the same way the cross and the blood of Jesus does so today?

[Copper Scroll]

For example. 13. God's plan must be fulfilled.

Which, of course, does not answer the question.
Because, of course, the question has been answered already:
"We can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known."

God's existence is another certainty about the future, but that is not an event. The fulfillment of God's plan is a certainty, but it's character as an event--when, how, by whom, and other journalistic issues (speaking of "journals", this reminds me of your imaginary book full of past, present, and future events)--cannot be known.

Btw, if the discussion with me becomes too "difficult", as you indicated earlier, I don't mind cutting it off. As I noted before, unlike other critics of mine on this thread, I don't really get anything of worth from you.

[AZSuperman]

1. A conscious agent is the set of attributes without which she would cease being who she is.
2. Attributes without which a conscious agent would cease being who she is are her essence(s).
3. A conscious agent's essence(s) is (are) her soul.
4. A conscious agent is her soul.
5. A conscious agent would cease being who she is if she did not think as she thinks or acts as she acts.
...
21. Conscious agents whose thoughts and actions do not cause or contribute to the fullfillment of God's plan cease.

Perfect! The attributes which make us who we are, or personalize us, are removed when when obtain eternal life. (You said eternal life is a depersonalized experience, that our individuality is stripped.)
Which means we cease being who we are or we cease to exist.

It looks like a tie to me.

11. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal.
Since you've established that you don't trust the Bible, what is your source for this information?

How do you know God exists at all, let alone that he/she/it knows all that is possible to know, can do all that is possible to do, and exists in and outside of time?

When you say God knows all that is possible to know, and that he/she/it can do all that is possible to do... Who decides what is knowable and what is possible? :huh:

You've determined that God can't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet. That's a great reason... the rest of us don't know the future, so God can't either.

God can't know what I think, because my thoughts are not vocalized. It is not possible to know what is happening inside the mind of another unless they tell you. No one else can listen to my thoughts, so why should I believe God is any different? Especially if God can only know that which is knowable?

What if I decide God can't know what happens in my house because the windows are closed? No one else can see me, why should I believe God can know what is not knowable for anyone else?

If God has knowledge not regularly obtained by ordinary people, how do you believe he/she/it obtains this knowledge?

If God is limited to doing only that which is possible, that would mean God couldn't feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, he/she/it couldn't flood the entire world, stop the sun in the sky, raise a person from the dead, turn water to wine, or cure a child of cancer.

The laws of nature have shown the above actions to be impossible, thus they are outside of the abilities of God.

If God can perform actions which are NOT normally considered possible, then why can't he/she/it perform other actions which are normally considered impossible (Such as making a planet turn right and left at the same time)?

How have you determined the limitations on what God can or can not do?

13. God's plan must be fulfilled.
14. The fulfillment of God's plan is eternal.
Again, without the Bible, how do you know?

[Copper Scroll]

You seem to be taking an unnecessarily harsh and confrontational tone with me. It's okay, but is there a reason for it?

Where is the myth, allegory, and parable in this supposed historic event? If you are saying that this is a parable, what method do you use to differentiate what is a parable and what isn't a parable?
The myth is that possibly (as you yourself indicate above) that this encounter may have never really (literally, verbatim) happened at all.

I personally don't think it is all that useful to differentiate what is parable from what isn't (in the Gospels). Why? Because it wouldn't really change the way I live my life or my perspective on God.

Who is the "we" you are talking about? The weatherman?
Are you saying that you never use the word "be" in the future tense ("will")?

Why not? Because you would lose the argument?
How do you type with that chip on your shoulder?

Let me just get this straight. Are you saying that when God sent his only begotten son to be born of a virgin birth, he had no way of knowing that he would eventually be crucified in order to save all of humanity? God sent Jesus and was hoping for the best? If Jesus had live to 60 and died of old age would humanity still have the opportunity to be saved in the same way the cross and the blood of Jesus does so today?
I don't think that God knew with certainty that the crucifixion was going to happen. If God did predict this, given the context, I think it was a good prediction. Jesus was a righteous man who lived under two corrupt authorities that crucified people for stealing. In order not to be crucified, Jesus would have to be silent, I suppose. But, in such a corrupted environment, how does a righteous man remain silent?

[AZSuperman]

I don't think that God knew with certainty that the crucifixion was going to happen. If God did predict this, given the context, I think it was a good prediction.
Since God can't know the future, that means none of the (supposed) OT prophecies about Jesus were really prophesies. God couldn't have know Jesus would be crucified... Heck, God didn't know if Jesus would survive Herod's infantcide order, since he didn't even know such an order would take place!

So all the verses Christians pull from the OT to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, are completely worthless as proof, since God can't know future events.

Of course, the entire book of Revelations can be torn from every Bible (since it's a book full of information which COULDN'T have come from God).

[Alf]

Thank you for your comments, Alf.

I would not dismiss the possibility however that God exists both within time (within Creation) and without it. I used "eternal" to mean that God's existence is not dependent upon the existence of space and time.

X cannot both be true and false at the same time. If he is both within time and without it at the same time you have a contradiction and since it is time we are talking about here you cannot say he is whtin time at one time and without time another time.

Since your god is a contradiction it doesn't exist period.

Sorry to break your bubble.

Alf

[John A. Broussard]

I don't think the "fashion" I am using the word in is all that different from yours. You just appear to be saying it is possible to know the future. I disagree.

That is the crux of our disagreement.

On the one hand, you say that god cannot know the future and yet you then say your god can make plans for that future.

The only conclusion I can reach is that your god could very well be completely wrong about the fulfilment of those plans.

In which case your god is definitely not omnipotent--unless you again want to define all-powerful as not being all-powerful.

[John A. Broussard]

X cannot both be true and false at the same time. If he is both within time and without it at the same time you have a contradiction and since it is time we are talking about here you cannot say he is whtin time at one time and without time another time.

Since your god is a contradiction it doesn't exist period.

Sorry to break your bubble.


You can't break it that easily.

CS is no ordinary theist. He allows a lot of "outs," like "I would not dismiss the possibility," or god knows everything that is "knowable," or god can make absolutely certain plans for the future but not know what that future will be.

CS allows himself a lot of wiggle room within his bubble.

Keep watching.

[Copper Scroll]

Perfect! The attributes which make us who we are, or personalize us, are removed when when obtain eternal life. (You said eternal life is a depersonalized experience, that our individuality is stripped.)
Which means we cease being who we are or we cease to exist.
My thoughts and actions are particular to who I am and, if they cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan, they cannot be undone through eternity. Let's say the same for yours, and yours (like mine, let's say) are righteous and do contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan (the sustenance of our world and each other in perfect peace). Our (righteous) thoughts and actions never cease because the causal relationships they inspire never stop resurfacing. If we make habits of being righteous, we each will inspire many many lines of causal relationships that never cease; let's call them "causal chains". If we are talking about eternity, it is very likely that a number our (yours and mine) causal chains will at some point(s) act in conjunction as they lead to the fulfillment of God's will. It is even more likely that our causal chains will act in conjunction with the various causal chains of others. Each causal chain does have a life (lives) of its own and lives with other causal chains. I said "depersonalized", because (i) we each are our own sets of causal chains (#8 & 10) (ii) while each thought and action has a life of its own and (iii) each thought and action also inevitably acts in conjunction with other causal chains of mine and others. In the fulfillment of God's will, we do not cease because our actions (who we are) have caused that (present) circumstance.

Losing (or, at least, suspending) our individuality should not be such a foreign concept. Whenever the word "we" is applicable in indicates some loss or suspension of individuality, because it means that I am not thinking or acting alone.


Since you've established that you don't trust the Bible, what is your source for this information?
I neither categorically trust or distrust the Bible. It is a collection of documents. Some I hold are more valid and applicable to my life than others. This validity and applicability are determined by relevance (as determined by reason and experience) and historical context (or what is known of it). The Bible does support at least some of my statements, but is not the only source. Much of it is personal religious experience, reason, and (how we get most of our information) other live people.

How do you know God exists at all, let alone that he/she/it knows all that is possible to know, can do all that is possible to do, and exists in and outside of time?
I know God exists and is omnipresent and conscious partly from personal experience. I know God created this world from the Bible and other texts from various world cultures. Given these, the omniscience and eternity parts are supported by reason. I assume since God created this world, is everywhere in it, and knows everything about it, God can do anything in it or to it.

When you say God knows all that is possible to know, and that he/she/it can do all that is possible to do... Who decides what is knowable and what is possible?
Reason.

God can't know what I think, because my thoughts are not vocalized.
God is conscious and omnipresent. Your thoughts exist. God knows what you think.

What if I decide God can't know what happens in my house because the windows are closed? No one else can see me, why should I believe God can know what is not knowable for anyone else?
Because God is not just anyone else, but God (#15)--omnipresent and conscious. Events inside your house exist. God knows what happens inside your house.

If God has knowledge not regularly obtained by ordinary people, how do you believe he/she/it obtains this knowledge?
God is omnipresent and conscious. (By now, we might as well add these attributes to #11.)

If God is limited to doing only that which is possible, that would mean God couldn't feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, he/she/it couldn't flood the entire world, stop the sun in the sky, raise a person from the dead, turn water to wine, or cure a child of cancer.

The laws of nature have shown the above actions to be impossible, thus they are outside of the abilities of God.
I'm not sure if breaking the "laws of nature" is impossible. But it is possible that the miracles and other "acts of God" you site above did not literally happen the way scripture tells us they did. This doesn't mean that those particular scriptures lied. It means that they were myth-telling. (And myth and lie are not synonyms. There is truth in myth, but that truth is not necessarily literal but more existential.)

If God can perform actions which are NOT normally considered possible, then why can't he/she/it perform other actions which are normally considered impossible (Such as making a planet turn right and left at the same time)?
Reason dictates that turning one single object left and right at the same time is impossible. If the reason of an event so clearly described can be defied, there is no point to this or any conversation or complex notion.

Again, without the Bible, how do you know?
"We can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11)."

The fulfillment of God's plan is eternal (#14), because God is eternal (#11).

[el creyente]

You seem to be taking an unnecessarily harsh and confrontational tone with me. It's okay, but is there a reason for it?

I can say that my theistic upbringing has scarred me for life. Even more seriously, though, I did not mean for you to take offense with my tone. It's nothing directed towards you but rather the ideas you espouse. I apologize.

The myth is that possibly (as you yourself indicate above) that this encounter may have never really (literally, verbatim) happened at all. I personally don't think it is all that useful to differentiate what is parable from what isn't (in the Gospels). Why? Because it wouldn't really change the way I live my life or my perspective on God.

But it does make a difference, doesn't it? What if I say "Jesus is a parable" or "God is a parable" and you say "What?" and I say "Yeah, the whole thing. It's just a parable." If you believed me, wouldn't that change your perspective of God?

Are you saying that you never use the word "be" in the future tense ("will").

Of course I do. "Hey, I "will" meet you at six for drinks". That's fine in that everyone understands that this isn't my foreknowledge of any future events but plans I have (which may or may not happen). However, that's not the example I gave, was it? In the example I gave, Jesus tells someone else what THEY will do. Do you see the difference? Let me give you an example. What if you were to tell me the following: "Todd, before the clock strikes 8 tonight and the black dog barks twice, you "will" have consumed 3 Taco Bell tacos." What did I say would be the first words out of my mouth? "How the hell do you know that?" I still don't know of anyone who talks like this. You said that "we" talk like this. I'm still trying to figure out who "we" is.


How do you type with that chip on your shoulder?

See me first entry above. However, I feel now is a good time to bring up what you said about the bible verses. Isn't the bible the only way you know about god? And if I quote handfulls of bible verses that show god does indeed know what will happen in the future, doesn't this show that god does indeed know what will happen in the future? When you say that god doesn't know about the future, upon what authority are you saying this (because it's obviously not the bible)?


I don't think that God knew with certainty that the crucifixion was going to happen. If God did predict this, given the context, I think it was a good prediction. Jesus was a righteous man who lived under two corrupt authorities that crucified people for stealing. In order not to be crucified, Jesus would have to be silent, I suppose. But, in such a corrupted environment, how does a righteous man remain silent?

This just opens up a huge can of worms. How did Jesus finger Judas? Eeeny-meeny-miny-mo? And as another posted wondered, what would you do about Revelations? Referring to my earlier theistic experience, I was always told "God sent his only begotten son that he may die for our sins". I was NEVER told "God sent his only begotten son that he may one day, if everything worked out OK, fingers crossed, planets aligned, etc., die for our sins".

[AZSuperman]

My thoughts and actions are particular to who I am and, if they cause or contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan, they cannot be undone through eternity. Let's say the same for yours, and yours (like mine, let's say) are righteous and do contribute to the fulfillment of God's plan (the sustenance of our world and each other in perfect peace). Our (righteous) thoughts and actions never cease because the causal relationships they inspire never stop resurfacing. If we make habits of being righteous, we each will inspire many many lines of causal relationships that never cease; let's call them "causal chains". If we are talking about eternity, it is very likely that a number our (yours and mine) causal chains will at some point(s) act in conjunction as they lead to the fulfillment of God's will. It is even more likely that our causal chains will act in conjunction with the various causal chains of others. Each causal chain does have a life (lives) of its own and lives with other causal chains. I said "depersonalized", because (i) we each are our own sets of causal chains (#8 & 10) (ii) while each thought and action has a life of its own and (iii) each thought and action also inevitably acts in conjunction with other causal chains of mine and others. In the fulfillment of God's will, we do not cease because our actions (who we are) have caused that (present) circumstance.
In essence, what you're saying (If I'm understanding your correctly) is that we will live forever, because the decisions we make now will have rippling effects (casual relationships) that go forward through time and continue to influence the world.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I will agree with you on part of this point... Although I will disagree that your decisions need to fall in line with a supernatural being's master plan in order for the rippling effect to continue. Time only progresses in one direction, and none of us live in a bubble. Therefore our actions will always influence the world around us... frequently for years to come. No God is needed.

If I misunderstood your argument, please correct me.

Losing (or, at least, suspending) our individuality should not be such a foreign concept. Whenever the word "we" is applicable in indicates some loss or suspension of individuality, because it means that I am not thinking or acting alone.
There is a large difference between acting in a group, and having our individuality stripped. Any member of a group is welcome to leave at any moment.

I neither categorically trust or distrust the Bible. It is a collection of documents. Some I hold are more valid and applicable to my life than others. This validity and applicability are determined by relevance (as determined by reason and experience) and historical context (or what is known of it). The Bible does support at least some of my statements, but is not the only source. Much of it is personal religious experience, reason, and (how we get most of our information) other live people.
So you subscribe to the "Bible a-la-carte" method. Acknowledge the parts you agree with, ignore the parts you don't.

You should create your own version so everyone can gain the benefit of your experience... You can include side notes, describing the events which are to be taken literally, and which ones were pure mythology.

In fact, having this special knowledge of God's will almost requires you to create your own Holy Book. Countless others have ceased to exist because they couldn't gain the personal experience and understanding of God's word that you seem to have. Doing anything less than publishing your own "correct" version of Gods word is being ignoring your responsibility to help your fellow man obtain eternal life!

I know God exists and is omnipresent and conscious partly from personal experience. I know God created this world from the Bible and other texts from various world cultures. Given these, the omniscience and eternity parts are supported by reason.
The idea that God is nothing more than a myth created my people who didn't understand the advanced concepts we now know is also supported by reason... and by personal experience.

God is conscious and omnipresent. Your thoughts exist. God knows what you think.
Being conscious and omnipresent doesn't explain how he can read my mind. Especially when he is limited (by reason) to know only that which is knowable. You must first prove my thoughts are "knowable" to someone other than myself.

I'm not sure if breaking the "laws of nature" is impossible... Reason dictates that turning one single object left and right at the same time is impossible. If the reason of an event so clearly described can be defied, there is no point to this or any conversation or complex notion.
Can you show any examples of the laws of nature being broken? The laws which state water can't be turned to wine are the same laws which state a singular object can not be turned in two directions at once... They are natural observable laws. Why are so you quick to grant your God the ability to operate outside of nature sometimes, then limit him to operating within human contraints at others?

"We can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11)."
But he's not COMPLETELY omnipotent, since he can't see the future, he can't plan for it. Since the future is up for grabs, there could be an unforseen event which PROHIBITS God's plan from being fulfilled. OR, since he can't see the future, there could be an event which causes God to CHANGE his plan... Thus all the souls who were operating in accordance to Gods will, wouldn't be anymore... and they would cease to exist.

Without knowledge of the future, God can't be sure his plan will be fullfilled... Reason definately doesn't dictate that it MUST be fulfilled.

[John A. Broussard]

"We can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11)."

The fulfillment of God's plan is eternal (#14), because God is eternal (#11).

So it's possible to know the future, at least for god. Since we can reason that god's plan must be fulfilled, then god must definitely know the future.

But you also say that god can't know the future.

Which is it?

[Copper Scroll]

Since God can't know the future, that means none of the (supposed) OT prophecies about Jesus were really prophesies. God couldn't have know Jesus would be crucified... Heck, God didn't know if Jesus would survive Herod's infantcide order, since he didn't even know such an order would take place!
It depends on which definition of prophecy you use. I found two definitions from the same source: (1) "knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source)" and (2) "a prediction uttered under divine inspiration." To me, the second more accurately characterizes biblical prophecies.

I answer the second issue hesitantly at the risk of veering off topic: God knew Herod's intention to kill the baby and sent an angel to warn Joseph in a dream. God might have even predicted Herod's reaction to the news of Jesus' birth. I argue that God is well acquainted with individuals' patterns of thoughts and action. Awareness also of physical, natural forces makes God a really really really good guesser. I argue that it is impossible to know future events with the same level of certainty as past and present events.

So all the verses Christians pull from the OT to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, are completely worthless as proof, since God can't know future events.
Well, I suppose, the OT (particularly its prophecies) wouldn't be proof of anything to someone who doesn't believe in the Bible at all.

Personally, I wouldn't use the OT as proof of such.

Of course, the entire book of Revelations can be torn from every Bible (since it's a book full of information which COULDN'T have come from God).
I suppose God and prophets can predict. God is exponentially more qualified than anyone to offer predictions. (God takes the term "educated guess" to a whole new level.)

Revelations is so dreamy in its tone that I seriously doubt that it was ever meant to be taken literally anyway. It's like the dream of one person who lived a long time ago had about what the fulfillment of God's plan might look like. Like dreams, it is wholly symbolic. This does not mean that it is not of value or does not contain important truths.

[AZSuperman]

It depends on which definition of prophecy you use. I found two definitions from the same source: (1) "knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source)" and (2) "a prediction uttered under divine inspiration." To me, the second more accurately characterizes biblical prophecies.
Devine adj:Having the nature of or being a deity.

So the prophesies were written under inspiration from a God who has no foreknowledge of future events?

Let me get this straight... God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but somehow he was able to "guess" what would happen to someone born hundreds of years later? Then he inspired OT writters to write down his "guesses" as prophesies so they could later prove his power?

I argue that God is well acquainted with individuals' patterns of thoughts and action. Awareness also of physical, natural forces makes God a really really really good guesser.

Actually this makes sense... and it explains a lot! :thumbs:

Here's a theory that fits this God with less than perfect knowledge
God doesn't know the future so he creats several rival religions. He gives contradictory revelations (multiple guesses) because he knows eventually some of them will be right! He may still be sending contradictory revelations to modern-day prophets! This explains why there are so many religious groups in the world! (And more springing up every day.)

Perhaps when so many people prophecied that the world would end Jan 1st 2000, it may've been God's latest "guess" about when the neccessary events would fall into place to finally end the world.

I argue that it is impossible to know future events with the same level of certainty as past and present events.
Interesting... You leave the possibility for God to make a mistake.

If God can't know the future with certainty, then it is a very real possibility that his plan may fail due to unforeseeable complications. :eek:

Well, I suppose, the OT (particularly its prophecies) wouldn't be proof of anything to someone who doesn't believe in the Bible at all.
It doesn't matter what I believe. The question is what you believe. (Again, this is why I'm not quoting from the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or any other Holy Book.)

Personally, I wouldn't use the OT as proof of such.
Good, we'll rule the OT out as proof of Jesus' Messiahship. We'll consider any OT prophecies as either not pertaining to Jesus, or as a lucky guess.

I suppose God and prophets can predict. God is exponentially more qualified than anyone to offer predictions. (God takes the term "educated guess" to a whole new level.)
Yet still not an infallible level... To be able to predict the future with certainty is synonomous to having foreknowledge.

Revelations is so dreamy in its tone that I seriously doubt that it was ever meant to be taken literally anyway. It's like the dream of one person who lived a long time ago had about what the fulfillment of God's plan might look like. Like dreams, it is wholly symbolic. This does not mean that it is not of value or does not contain important truths.
If it's only the dream of one man, why bother to include it? What value could it possible hold? What truths could it teach?

[AZSuperman]

If God acted to prevent rape every time it occurred, God might be obliged to prevent murder everytime it occurs. These are probably the worst things people can do to each other, but what if they were wiped out? What would be the next worst thing? Burglary? Exploitation? God, by your reasoning, should feel obligated to wipe these out too. What's next? Petty theft? Cutting people off on the highway? Plain old sadness? After he wipes these and all the other evils (and inconveniences) of this world, what do we have? Perfect world (good!) of perfect slaves (wait minute!) to God's will. If everybody must do what's right, we not really good--we're just obedient.".... unfree.
Copper, this sounds a lot like your definition of Heaven. We're all "just obedient" to God's will... and ther is no rape, murder, burglary, exploitation, petty theft, cutting people off, or plain old sadness. :angel:

If it's good enough for the afterlife, why isn't it a good thing now?

If God could create a world without this suffering later why didn't he start with that world? Is this world just a rough draft?

[John A. Broussard]

Copper, this sounds a lot like your definition of Heaven. We're all "just obedient" to God's will... and ther is no rape, murder, burglary, exploitation, petty theft, cutting people off, or plain old sadness. :angel:

If it's good enough for the afterlife, why isn't it a good thing now?

If God could create a world without this suffering later why didn't he start with that world? Is this world just a rough draft?
I think CS's point is that the future is unknowable to everyone including god, so god's plans may have gone badly awry. God intended to make heaven on earth but it didn't turn out the way god planned it to be.

Sorry. God can't win 'em all.

[John A. Broussard]

Revelations is so dreamy in its tone that I seriously doubt that it was ever meant to be taken literally anyway. It's like the dream of one person who lived a long time ago had about what the fulfillment of God's plan might look like. Like dreams, it is wholly symbolic. This does not mean that it is not of value or does not contain important truths.
Do you have any suggestions as to how to filter out those important truths from the rest of this dream sequence?

Thank you.

[el creyente]

Personally, I wouldn't use the OT as proof of such.
I'm at an impasse here and was wondering if you could help me out. Who should I believe? You.........
And he [Jesus] said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
..........or Jesus???

[Lamp Of Light]

If it's good enough for the afterlife, why isn't it a good thing now?

If God could create a world without this suffering later why didn't he start with that world? Is this world just a rough draft


Because God wants you to choose for yourself, a real free will choice, of that which you prefer to serve, in spirit and in truth, right from your heart. You might think, well who in their right mind wouldn't go for the lovign, compassionate, perfect God filled world ? Yes indeed, who in their right mind wouldn't ? Obviously though, there is all kinds of people not in their right mind, who actually do prefer suffering, death, deception, and self serving. That is why God setup a perfect balanced unbiased medium in which good and evil are co-existant, so that through direct experience and first hand knowledge of good and evil, you can choose without being forced. God has not left us all alone in this, He sent us His word, and established a full revelation of HImself to mankind, so we were told the rules of the "game" so to speak.


John A Broussard said:

The third assumption is self evident. Human beings either have or do not have free will.

Given assumptions one and two, let's assume that human beings do not have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer inevitably seems to be "no."

Given assumptions one and two again, let's assume that human beings do have free will. Will their actions differ in any way from what is written in the book? The answer seems necessarily to be also "no."

If the above reasoning is correct, then--given the existence of an omniscient, sentient being--it doesn't matter whether human beings do or do not have free will. Such a being simply makes free will irrelevant.


Such an assessment is entirely flawed. It assumes that by knowing the outcome , the one doing the knowing has somehow invalidated or made free-will irrelevent. Yet, for example, how would my knowing the winner of the super-bowl in january affect its outcome ? Would they still not play the game the way they would even if I didn't know ? How does my knowing affect their free-will performance in any way or make it irrlevent ? They will stillplay the game, exercise their plays, and make their choices in the game, and whther or not I already know it all in regards to it, is entirely irrlevent to them choosing or doing what they will freely. My knowing in no way , shape, or form, affects their ability to play or choose plays, or act the way that they will at game time. It simply means that God knows from the beginning who will and who will not "be saved".

[Alf]

Such an assessment is entirely flawed. It assumes that by knowing the outcome , the one doing the knowing has somehow invalidated or made free-will irrelevent. Yet, for example, how would my knowing the winner of the super-bowl in january affect its outcome ?
]/quote]
If you had infallible knowledge of the outcome it would affect the outcome.

If you know in advance that team A wins and you know this with infallible knowledge - you CANNOT be mistaken or wrong, then team A wins no matter what happens and no matter what they do or do not do. They can sit on their butts and do nothing and still win the match. If they didn't you would be wrong and you already claimed that you cannot be wrong by virtue of being infallible.

Thus, your analogy doesn't work. I may suspect or guess who will win a match but as I might well turn out to be wrong in my guess I have no influence on the outcome.

If you accept that God is not infallible he cannot affect the outcome and so you can claim that free will is relevant. If you claim that God is infallible and omniscient and omnipotent then JAB is absolutely correct.

[QUOTE=Lamp Of Light]
Would they still not play the game the way they would even if I didn't know ?

As you didn't claim to have infallible knowledge of the outcome this objection is irrelevant.

If you assume you have infallible knowledge of the outcome then yes, it does affect the outcome and nothing they do or do not do can change that outcome.


How does my knowing affect their free-will performance in any way or make it irrlevent ?

Same thing. As long as you do not claim you have infallible knowledge of the future and there is a chance that your prediction can be wrong, then free will might play a part here. However, you do not allow such room for God. God can never be wrong, he can never be mistaken. If he knows that team A wins, team A will win even if they all comitted suicide just before the game started.


They will stillplay the game, exercise their plays, and make their choices in the game, and whther or not I already know it all in regards to it, is entirely irrlevent to them choosing or doing what they will freely.

Wrong. If they were to do anything that caused them to not win, you would be mistaken. An infallible God cannot be mistaken and so that can never happen. Hence, they have no free will in the matter, the outcome simply have to turn out the way that God knows it will turn out.


My knowing in no way , shape, or form, affects their ability to play or choose plays, or act the way that they will at game time. It simply means that God knows from the beginning who will and who will not "be saved".
If that knowledge is fallible and he can be wrong then, yes, you are right. Free will play a part. If God has infallible knowledge then your objection is faulty and the analogy you present is wrong. Their free will is irrelevant. They may have it but it is completey irrelevant to the issue, whatever God knows will happen will happen with or without their free will, consent, knowledge or acceptance of it. This is exactly John's argument if I understand it right - and I agree.

Alf

[AZSuperman]

Because God wants you to choose for yourself, a real free will choice, of that which you prefer to serve, in spirit and in truth, right from your heart. You might think, well who in their right mind wouldn't go for the lovign, compassionate, perfect God filled world ? Yes indeed, who in their right mind wouldn't ? Obviously though, there is all kinds of people not in their right mind, who actually do prefer suffering, death, deception, and self serving. That is why God setup a perfect balanced unbiased medium in which good and evil are co-existant, so that through direct experience and first hand knowledge of good and evil, you can choose without being forced. God has not left us all alone in this, He sent us His word, and established a full revelation of HImself to mankind, so we were told the rules of the "game" so to speak.
I don't know anyone who enjoys suffering, death, and deception. Sure, there are people who are self-serving, but the Christian God doesn't limit Hell to those who only think of themselves. Your theory doesn't make sense, for two reasons... one of which I'll explain now, the other coincides with my response to your next paragraph.

If the Christian concept allowed non-Christians to make it to Heaven according to how they lived their lives (salvation by works maybe) then it would be a little easier to swallow. As it stands, the simple act of not accepting the NT stories as factual is enough to warrant you a perminent place in the Lake of Fire.

Millions of people are born and die without accepting Jesus... those who do accept him are usually raised in a primarily Christian area... the majority of people raised in a Muslim area will remain Muslim, most people brought up in a Hindu culture will remain Hindu, Buddhists will remain Buddhists, and so on... therefore the biggest factor in whether or not God saves you is LOCATION, not your love of "suffering," "death," "deception," OR "self-service."

It assumes that by knowing the outcome , the one doing the knowing has somehow invalidated or made free-will irrelevent. Yet, for example, how would my knowing the winner of the super-bowl in january affect its outcome ? Would they still not play the game the way they would even if I didn't know ? How does my knowing affect their free-will performance in any way or make it irrlevent ? They will stillplay the game, exercise their plays, and make their choices in the game, and whther or not I already know it all in regards to it, is entirely irrlevent to them choosing or doing what they will freely. My knowing in no way , shape, or form, affects their ability to play or choose plays, or act the way that they will at game time. It simply means that God knows from the beginning who will and who will not "be saved".
The other reason your explanation in the first paragraph doesn't make sense ties into this statement.

Your knowledge of the outcome makes the game irrelevant. It makes no difference whether or not your knowledge affects the game, your knowledge negates the game.

If you hand out the trophy at the end of the season, and you know who will win every game... WHY PLAY? :huh: Why bother going through the steps when the outcome is known? Why allow countless players to be injured needlessly? Why subject them to the stress unneccessarily?

The game is pointless when the outcome is known in advance.

God could've just as easily created souls one at a time, said: "You go to Heaven... You go to Hell... You go to Heaven... You go to Hell..." based on the outcome which WOULD'VE happened. He could've sent people to their final placement in eternity without bothering to send them to Earth! Without allowing injury to the blessed souls.

Since God is all-knowing, and all-powerful, any argument from those of us being condemned would be futile.

What's the point of playing a game when the outcome is already known?

Is it to allow the "saved" to suffer on Earth before experienceing a perfect existence? (If so, God is sadistic.) :devil3:

Is it to allow the "damned" to live pleasently before being condemned to eternal torment? (If so, God is still sadistic.) :devil3:

[Copper Scroll]

X cannot both be true and false at the same time. If he is both within time and without it at the same time you have a contradiction and since it is time we are talking about here you cannot say he is whtin time at one time and without time another time.

Since your god is a contradiction it doesn't exist period.
Air is both within your lungs and without them. The sunlight coming through your window is both inside your house and outside of it. A tree is both underground and above ground. A turtle is both inside of its shell and outside of it. During this moment, I exist, but I also existed a few moments ago; this means that I am both within this moment and without it. According to #7 in my previous argument, a person's soul can be said to be located both within her material body and without it.

By your reasoning then, should any of these not exist?

Sorry to break your bubble.
Did you mean to break my bubble? If so, then I'm sorry... It's still intact.

[Copper Scroll]

CS allows himself a lot of wiggle room within his bubble..
Apparently not nearly as much wiggle room as the atheists, who tend not to accept the burden of proof. I can't think of any more wiggle room than that.

(I do not mean to start an argument about the burden of proof. No comments please.)

[AZSuperman]

Air is both within your lungs and without them. The sunlight coming through your window is both inside your house and outside of it. A tree is both underground and above ground. A turtle is both inside of its shell and outside of it. During this moment, I exist, but I also existed a few moments ago; this means that I am both within this moment and without it. According to #7 in my previous argument, a person's soul can be said to be located both within her material body and without it.

By your reasoning then, should any of these not exist?

Your analogies are flawed:
Air is made up of individual molecules, the same molecule doesn't exist inside my lungs and outside my lungs at the same time.

Sunlight is made of individual photons, each travelling the distance from the sun to my window. Every photon must make the journey, there are no photons which exist both inside my house and outside my house simultaniously.

A turtle has parts of itself inside it's shell and outside it's shell, but no part of the turtle can exist both inside and outside the shell simultaniously.

In this moment you exist, a few moments ago you existed. However, unless you can do some fancy movements backward in time, you no longer exist a few minutes ago. You can not exist now, and "a few moments ago" simultaniously... (In fact now and "a few moments ago" can not exist simultaniously. One is refers to the present, the other refers to a time which no longer exists.) Therefore you do exist in this moment, but you do not exist outside of it.

(The memory of past events continues to exist, but knowledge of said event is not the same as having that event still physically exist.)

Unless you're willing to say God is made up of smaller God-particles, the air, sunlight, and turtle analogies are flawed.

Unless you're willing to say God no longer exists outside of time, but did at one point, then your "a few moments ago" analogy is flawed.

Apparently not nearly as much wiggle room as the atheists, who tend not to accept the burden of proof. I can't think of any more wiggle room than that.

(I do not mean to start an argument about the burden of proof. No comments please.)
You can't say something like this and expect no one to respond.

Can you give me an example of anything you accept as FACT until you're able to prove it wrong?

And are you able to PROVE all other religions wrong, conclusively? If not, do you accept them as FACT?

[Alf]

Air is both within your lungs and without them.

Not the same air at the same time.

If you say that God is a huge group of beings - not one being - and some gods are outside of time and some gods are in time then you are right but then you are also squarely in polytheist land. Last time I checked - even though some people can argue that technically christianity is polytheistic most christians will adamantly argue against that.



The sunlight coming through your window is both inside your house and outside of it.

Not the same sunlight at the same time. The photons that hit me when I am inside the house are inside the house when they hit me, they are NOT outside at the same time.


A tree is both underground and above ground.

The part of the tree that is underground is not above ground and the part of the tree that is above ground is not under ground at the same time.

How does this god who is half way outside of time and half way inside of time synchronize himself with himself? When does he experience a "now"? Part of him cannot and part of him does at the same time? This is meaningless drivel.


A turtle is both inside of its shell and outside of it.

Do I have to repeat myself? The part of the turtle that is "inside" the shell at time T1 is not outside of it at time T1 and the part that is outside at time T1 is not inside at time T1.


During this moment, I exist, but I also existed a few moments ago; this means that I am both within this moment and without it.

No, the "you" that is in that moment is IN that moment and is not without it. The "you" that is not in that moment is not in that moment and is not in it.


According to #7 in my previous argument, a person's soul can be said to be located both within her material body and without it.

Again wrong. If you don't see why it is wrong please consider why "X and not X" is always false.


By your reasoning then, should any of these not exist?

Except for the soul which does not exist, they all exist. I.e. sunlight, tree, turtle etc all exist and I explained why and how above.


Did you mean to break my bubble? If so, then I'm sorry... It's still intact.

Sorry for you, it really should break, you really should take a look at the real world that is outside of that bubble.

Alf

[Copper Scroll]

I can say that my theistic upbringing has scarred me for life. Even more seriously, though, I did not mean for you to take offense with my tone. It's nothing directed towards you but rather the ideas you espouse.
I see. I can appreciate that. I have a feeling that you are not alone in this. And I know there's plenty of people who lived who suffered far worse than any of us because of religions and their dogmas. Let me acknowledge and express my profound disgust for those injustices which do continue today.

I know that within our cultures, theism tends to be forced upon the young, who are taught to fear an awesome and ultimately oppressive God and to somehow love this God at the same time. Many ignore or find ways of justifying this contradiction, "believing in" God out of superstition and irrational fears. That is regrettable. There are others, however, (including many of you) who settle the contradiction by rejecting belief in God altogether. Yours is a more audacious and, in some ways, respectable route than that of the superstitious variety of theists.

I like to think that I've taken a different route. What I'm doing on this thread is sorta testing its rationality. (No better place to do it, eh?) That's why the Bible verses turn me off. I can go to church and hear Bible verses on why my ideas are wrong. I'm here to find out where its rational flaws are. Ultimately, I'd like to see some form of reconciliation and common understanding between theists and atheists. These conversations are too often avoided, so, for them, I thank many of you on this thread. (And apologize for turning way off topic.)

But it does make a difference, doesn't it? What if I say "Jesus is a parable" or "God is a parable" and you say "What?" and I say "Yeah, the whole thing. It's just a parable." If you believed me, wouldn't that change your perspective of God?
I know God is an actual literal reality, independent of the Bible. Someone on this thread posed a question about Jesus though, and I'll tell you like I told them: If I was presented some historical evidence that proved that in all likelihood the Gospel protagonist never actually lived, I would still believe in God.

What if you were to tell me the following: "Todd, before the clock strikes 8 tonight and the black dog barks twice, you "will" have consumed 3 Taco Bell tacos." What did I say would be the first words out of my mouth? "How the hell do you know that?" I still don't know of anyone who talks like this. You said that "we" talk like this. I'm still trying to figure out who "we" is.
All I meant was that "we" make generic and simple predictions and expectations about the future all the time. The taco thing, I answered before.


However, I feel now is a good time to bring up what you said about the bible verses. Isn't the bible the only way you know about god? And if I quote handfulls of bible verses that show god does indeed know what will happen in the future, doesn't this show that god does indeed know what will happen in the future? When you say that god doesn't know about the future, upon what authority are you saying this (because it's obviously not the bible)?
The Bible is not the only way to know about God.

I argue that it doesn't make rational sense for anyone to "know" what events will occur in the future. Though I have be challenged many times on this, no one has really attacked this argument. The only assumption this argument rests on is that conscious beings have free will.

How did Jesus finger Judas? Eeeny-meeny-miny-mo? And as another posted wondered, what would you do about Revelations? Referring to my earlier theistic experience, I was always told "God sent his only begotten son that he may die for our sins". I was NEVER told "God sent his only begotten son that he may one day, if everything worked out OK, fingers crossed, planets aligned, etc., die for our sins".
I would answer the question about Judas the same way I did about Peter. I answered the one about Revelations in another post.

God is highly capable of accurate predictions and can intervene to make things happen. Some of my critics appear to be under the assumption that because I can explain why God might not intervene in certain situations that means that God cannot intervene. This is an unnecessary assumption.

[John A. Broussard]

John A Broussard said:


Such an assessment is entirely flawed. It assumes that by knowing the outcome , the one doing the knowing has somehow invalidated or made free-will irrelevent. Yet, for example, how would my knowing the winner of the super-bowl in january affect its outcome ? Would they still not play the game the way they would even if I didn't know ? How does my knowing affect their free-will performance in any way or make it irrlevent ? They will stillplay the game, exercise their plays, and make their choices in the game, and whther or not I already know it all in regards to it, is entirely irrlevent to them choosing or doing what they will freely. My knowing in no way , shape, or form, affects their ability to play or choose plays, or act the way that they will at game time. It simply means that God knows from the beginning who will and who will not "be saved".

Please, please read my argument again.

No way. No way. NO WAY have I said anywhere in my argument that knowing the outcome of an event affects IN ANY WAY the outcome of the event.

I'm simply saying, and I'll repeat it for your benefit:

If you do NOT have free will, will you behave differently from what an all-knowing being knows how you will behave?

After answering that question, move on to the next one.

If you DO have free will, will you behave differently from what an all-knowing being knows how you will behave?

After answering that question, take a look at your answers. In what way does answer one differ from answer two?

If they differ, see me.

If not, you have agreed that free will makes no difference if an all-knowing being knows how you will behave.

Please let me know what you finally decide.

Thank you for reading my post and for making your critique. I appreciate it.

[John A. Broussard]

Apparently not nearly as much wiggle room as the atheists, who tend not to accept the burden of proof. I can't think of any more wiggle room than that.

(I do not mean to start an argument about the burden of proof. No comments please.)
I promise not to comment on your above comments.

However, I would like an answer to my earlier question about your insight into Revelation:

Do you have any suggestions as to how to filter out those important truths from the rest of this dream sequence?

Thank you.

[John A. Broussard]

God is highly capable of accurate predictions and can intervene to make things happen. Some of my critics appear to be under the assumption that because I can explain why God might not intervene in certain situations that means that God cannot intervene. This is an unnecessary assumption.
But, since your god can't tell what the future will be with certainty, then obviously there must be situations where he can't intervene successfully since he can't know for sure the outcome of his intervention.

Specifically, should he decide to grow a new limb for an amputee, his efforts might simply fail because he thougt there would be one result, when actually another occurred. He might make that leg grow out of the amputee's forehead for all he knows.

Not knowing what the future holds is a serious drawback when it comes to manipulating the future. Anyone who plays the slot machines can tell you that.

[John A. Broussard]

[QUOTE=Lamp Of Light]
If that knowledge is fallible and he can be wrong then, yes, you are right. Free will play a part. If God has infallible knowledge then your objection is faulty and the analogy you present is wrong. Their free will is irrelevant. They may have it but it is completey irrelevant to the issue, whatever God knows will happen will happen with or without their free will, consent, knowledge or acceptance of it. This is exactly John's argument if I understand it right - and I agree.

This argument is so clear, that I can never understand how anyone can challenge it.

Even Copper agrees. He simply insists that there is no sentient being who can know the future. That, of course, makes the argument unnecessary.

LoL, however, insists that I'm arguing that foreknowledge forces people to behave the way as they do.

Much as I try, I can't convince him that I'm not saying that.

Sigh!

[alienward]

From the Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention (U.S.):

God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.
The god of theists like Copper Scroll completely contradicts gods like the Southern Baptist god. This is why Copper Scroll will reply to this saying a god that can predict the future is completely consistent with a god that can’t predict the future. But what he really will be continuing to show us is theists don’t have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about their gods.

[AZSuperman]

WOW! This thread has explained a lot!

Look what we've learned:

God is God (thanks 911)
God may (or may not) have knowledge of the future. (But if he doesn't know, he can make educated guesses.)
God's plan may fail due to his inability to plan forsee future events.
God created man with free-will so he would do exactly the same things he would've done if God hadn't created him with free-will.
God exists in time and outside of time.
Having your individuality stripped, and being depersonalized, doesn't stop you from being the you we all know and love.
God refuses to prevent evil, because that would make Earth life just like Heaven... (and I guess that's bad somehow.)

[Alf]

From the Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention (U.S.):


The god of theists like Copper Scroll completely contradicts gods like the Southern Baptist god. This is why Copper Scroll will reply to this saying a god that can predict the future is completely consistent with a god that can’t predict the future. But what he really will be continuing to show us is theists don’t have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about their gods.

Part of the problem is an effect of the "delutions of language" if you might call it that.

Words like "omnipotence" etc is so easy to write and it is so easy to make claims about "God": "God is omnipotent", "God can do anything I feel for him being able to do at my current whim" etc...

Since there never is any God around that they can point to and show satisfies these claims, these statements are so easy to make. The problem arises when us atheists starts asking nasty questions like "What does it mean?" and "What consequences do these properties of God impose upon the world?".

When they are sitting among other theists they generally don't ask such questions, they just say "God is omnipotent" and the others say "AMEN BROTHER" and "Yeah" and "hear, hear". None among them ask "But, what does it actually mean?".

I guess that is why many theists are so totally unprepared for the "assault" they experience here in IIDB. It really isn't an assault and isn't intended that way from us, but I guess they feel it that way since they are completely unprepared for it. They are used to comments like "amen" etc above, they are not used to nasty questions at worst they are used to the "objections" that the preacher brings up which are worded in such a way that he has ready-made answers for them - if he didn't he wouldn't bring them forth. When we do not ask those ready-made "objections" they get in trouble.

Alf

[Lamp Of Light]

Alf said:
If that knowledge is fallible and he can be wrong then, yes, you are right.
Free will play a part. If God has infallible knowledge then your objection is faulty and the analogy you present is wrong. Their free will is irrelevant. They may have it but it is completey irrelevant to the issue, whatever God knows will happen will happen with or without their free will, consent, knowledge or acceptance of it. This is exactly John's argument if I understand it right - and I agree.

John A broussard said:
This argument is so clear, that I can never understand how anyone can challenge it.

Even Copper agrees. He simply insists that there is no sentient being who can know the future. That, of course, makes the argument unnecessary.

LoL, however, insists that I'm arguing that foreknowledge forces people to behave the way as they do.

Much as I try, I can't convince him that I'm not saying that.


John ,

What you are demonstrating is that predestination and free-will are running concurrently. From GODS perspective, everythign is predestined, from our perspective we have free will. Our free will plays into the predestination. In other words you left work yesterday, and you went home. The way you chose to drive, where you stopped, etc, you chose freely to do (in so much as free will was presented, because alot of times there is cause and effect at work), and yet all of those things combined are predestined to happen. God knows it. That is where prophecy comes from and the ability for God to tell it like it is. Furthermore because if it wasn't goign to go the way God desired for it to go, He could and does specifically make it go that way.

I say that God had a plan from the very beginning, and He knew every single aspect of it, and what would happen, and altered the course as necessary to make it happen that way, and that it is all played out to His mind. The reason it is playing is because it requires the element of time in order to achieve the end desired result, the completion of the work. I say it is the building of His kingdom of truth and love. Why ? I think because in the beginning there was only God. Perhaps He is merely justifying His own existance, and that is why we are all here...I honestly could not say.... I do however maintain that He is entirely trustworthy, and a real livign life form, even an all-knowing sentient being.

May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever !

[Alf]

John ,

What you are demonstrating is that predestination and free-will are running concurrently. From GODS perspective, everythign is predestined, from our perspective we have free will. Our free will plays into the predestination. In other words you left work yesterday, and you went home. The way you chose to drive, where you stopped, etc, you chose freely to do (in so much as free will was presented, because alot of times there is cause and effect at work), and yet all of those things combined are predestined to happen. God knows it. That is where prophecy comes from and the ability for God to tell it like it is. Furthermore because if it wasn't goign to go the way God desired for it to go, He could and does specifically make it go that way.

I say that God had a plan from the very beginning, and He knew every single aspect of it, and what would happen, and altered the course as necessary to make it happen that way, and that it is all played out to His mind. The reason it is playing is because it requires the element of time in order to achieve the end desired result, the completion of the work. I say it is the building of His kingdom of truth and love. Why ? I think because in the beginning there was only God. Perhaps He is merely justifying His own existance, and that is why we are all here...I honestly could not say.... I do however maintain that He is entirely trustworthy, and a real livign life form, even an all-knowing sentient being.

May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever !

If the free will is only free will from our perspective and not from god's perspective then 1) Free will is only an illusion and 2) God can not possibly give it to us since he cannot even see it from his own perspective.

So, where did we get this "illusion of free will" from if not form God? Or perhaps God gave us this illusion just to delude us while he knows it is only an illusion and that it is all predestined anyway?

You\re not making much sense.

Alf

[John A. Broussard]

John ,

What you are demonstrating is that predestination and free-will are running concurrently. From GODS perspective, everythign is predestined, from our perspective we have free will.
What in the world does this have to do with the argument I presented?

I purposely have kept the argument as simple as possible and avoided emotionally charged concepts such as predestination, perspectives, etc.

So, please try answering it again.

Do we or do we not have free will?

If we do not have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?

If we do have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?

Don't you agree with the simple statement: "We either have free will or we don't"????

[Lamp Of Light]

Alf said:

If the free will is only free will from our perspective and not from god's perspective then

1) Free will is only an illusion


I can understand why you perceive it that way, but its not an illusion, because you still have to exercise it in order for destiny to be fulfilled. It is a gift from God that He already knows what you will do with, yet you are still enjoined to doing it. this is because until you fulfill all that you are intended to fulfill, the result cannot be achieved or complete, despite already being destined. All men have been given a deposit of faith, a life, and they spend it how they will, and God already knows how they are goign to spend it, even though they are freely goign to do what they will with their lives.


and 2) God can not possibly give it to us since he cannot even see it from his own perspective.


What it ultimately boils down to is this: What exactly is free will ? I suggest to you that everythign almost entirely happens as result of cause and effect, that cause and effect ultimately ripples down from the only real free will decision that God gave you...your free will is reduced to a choice: To love God or not to love God, to choose Him or reject Him, and, I suggest that is why the whole creation exists. It is designed in such a fashion as to let you freely choose in your heart, mind, spirit, that which you will serve. God will not force you, but if you open the door to Him, He will become the rock of your salvation.
You will either be a lovign kind person who is generous and just and honest, or you will be someone who is opposite, or you will even be someone who is in between. That covers all people. At the judgement, God will measure it all out, and those who are one side, through Christ are made righteous, and those on the other side are cast off and burned up like chaff. God knows our strength is little, that is why we are to rely upon Him. We could never be found righteous in His eyes, even our best men would be like mealy worms in dung compared to the perfect God. Yet, in Christ we can be made whole, or clean, and found without blame before God.




So, where did we get this "illusion of free will" from if not form God? Or perhaps God gave us this illusion just to delude us while he knows it is only an illusion and that it is all predestined anyway?

You\re not making much sense.

Alf


Again its not an illusion, it is simply a choice, God even seemingly knows what you will choose, but you will still have to make the choice, hence why we are all here. Either you are goign to turn to Him or you are not, thats all there is, and He already knows(Who are we to say to God why did you make me so?), but I surely do not know. Perhaps someday you will turn to Him, and then again, maybe you never will, but ultimately, we can witness to the fruits of your tree in who you are, what you do, and how you behave. Likewsie the same for me. God is going to judge men upon sin, and He surely saves Who He will, but not before you make effort to open the door to His incessant knocking and invite Him in, and I say, probably even if it doesn't happen before you die. In other words, having disbelieved in God because you did not accept Him based upon false teaching or understanding others had given to you, and yet you still lived your life based upon what pleases God, then you have in essence conformed to Him even though you rejected Him, and salvation may still be possible. That is really only my own opinion, and ultimately, whatever God decides, I am trusting in His choice.

[AZSuperman]

I say that God had a plan from the very beginning, and He knew every single aspect of it, and what would happen, and altered the course as necessary to make it happen that way, and that it is all played out to His mind.
Having foreknowledge of the result negates the game. Why would God continue to proceed with his plan if he already knew the outcome?

The reason it is playing is because it requires the element of time in order to achieve the end desired result, the completion of the work. I say it is the building of His kingdom of truth and love. Why ? I think because in the beginning there was only God. Perhaps He is merely justifying His own existance, and that is why we are all here...
Great, billions of people are going to suffer in Hell forever because God decided he needed a purpose in life.

Once his plan is complete, what then?

[Lamp Of Light]

Having foreknowledge of the result negates the game. Why would God continue to proceed with his plan if he already knew the outcome?


Because He desires for the outcome to be achived/realized ?


Great, billions of people are going to suffer in Hell forever because God decided he needed a purpose in life.


Well, it can be argued that hell is not eternal at all. The jews never believed it was. My personal opinion at this time is that the eternal fire is the fire of God, and when you are cast into it, it will consume that which is unclean or not pure, and what remains will be cleansed. (hence purgatory, and being burned up entirely or consumed if entirely wicked.)


Once his plan is complete, what then?


Wipe the gameboard clean and start over ? Somthing new and different perhaps ? Eternal peace and happiness forever seems the likely for those who have been saved. That is what I believe, but I couldn't tell you He won't maybe do somthign new and exciting, maybe He already is elsewhere in the galaxy.

[AZSuperman]

Having foreknowledge of the result negates the game. Why would God continue to proceed with his plan if he already knew the outcome?

Because He desires for the outcome to be achived/realized ?
Once his plan is complete, what then?

Wipe the gameboard clean and start over ? Somthing new and different perhaps ? Eternal peace and happiness forever seems the likely for those who have been saved. That is what I believe, but I couldn't tell you He won't maybe do somthign new and exciting, maybe He already is elsewhere in the galaxy
God's plan is to create billions of lives, destroy most of them, then the few survivors get to live "Happily Ever After" while God goes gallivanting around creating more universes with more lives to destroy? :rolling:

Seriously, how can you say such a thing and not recognize it as make believe?

[Copper Scroll]

In essence, what you're saying (If I'm understanding your correctly) is that we will live forever, because the decisions we make now will have rippling effects (casual relationships) that go forward through time and continue to influence the world.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I will agree with you on part of this point... Although I will disagree that your decisions need to fall in line with a supernatural being's master plan in order for the rippling effect to continue. Time only progresses in one direction, and none of us live in a bubble. Therefore our actions will always influence the world around us... frequently for years to come. No God is needed. God's plan must be fulfilled. If there are thoughts and actions occurring now that do not contribute to the fulfillment of the plan, then by the time that plan nears fulfillment the "rippling effects" or "causal chains" initiated by those thoughts and actions would have ceased.

Let's talk about sand castles again: Two sand castles are built, one by Kid N and the other by Kid O. Kid O builds his a little too close to the ocean. A wave knocks it down, while Kid N's castle remains. Let's assume the same amount of effort--the same degree of thought and action--went into the construction of both castles. What did Kid N's effort (thought and action) get him ultimately? A well constructed sand castle. What about Kid O's effort? It got him displaced sand smoothed out by the sea.

Above you speak of all actions having some lasting influence. I can agree with that, but I would argue that there is a large difference between having a sand castle and just displacing sand on a beach.

There is a large difference between acting in a group, and having our individuality stripped. Any member of a group is welcome to leave at any moment. I don't think I ever used the word "stripped". It makes it sound like some outside force is removing or stealing something from us. I think I said "shed" and in the example you're referring to I said "suspend". We do suspend our individuality all the time. One example is when we act as groups.

Another is the simple fact that each set of our thoughts and actions have lives of their own. When you think or do something, you can't undo it. Your actions take place in the material world and set off a causal chain that may not be easy to erase, as you yourself indicated. In this way, we extend ourselves into the world--share ourselves with the world--and in some ways its beyond our control once its done. When we die, those causal chains ("rippling effects") is what's left of us, and they are each out there in the world, doing their own things. If you think about every thought and action you have, it appears to be a mighty legacy. The point of my whole argument is to make it all count for something. Contribue to the sustenance of the world and you will live eternally.


So you subscribe to the "Bible a-la-carte" method. Acknowledge the parts you agree with, ignore the parts you don't. This is a regrettable oversimplification. Are you saying that you don't think the documents that make up the Bible can viewed individually and judged according their (various) historical contexts?

In fact, having this special knowledge of God's will almost requires you to create your own Holy Book. Countless others have ceased to exist because they couldn't gain the personal experience and understanding of God's word that you seem to have. If their thoughts and actions were righteous, then they will never cease to exist. They could have even been atheists.

The idea that God is nothing more than a myth created my people who didn't understand the advanced concepts we now know is also supported by reason... and by personal experience. That might be because different people have different (personal) experiences.


Being conscious and omnipresent doesn't explain how he can read my mind. Especially when he is limited (by reason) to know only that which is knowable. You must first prove my thoughts are "knowable" to someone other than myself. My definition of "omnipresence" is that if something exists, God is there. Your mind and your thoughts exist, so God (who is conscious) knows their contents.


Can you show any examples of the laws of nature being broken? The laws which state water can't be turned to wine are the same laws which state a singular object can not be turned in two directions at once... They are natural observable laws. Why are so you quick to grant your God the ability to operate outside of nature sometimes, then limit him to operating within human contraints at others? I disagree. "Laws of nature" come about when somebody tries to do something and finds out they can't. Turning something left and right at the same time is intrinsically and logically impossible because of the meanings of the words "left" and "right". (I'd like to see the scientist with two PhDs trying to turn a doorknob clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.)


But he's not COMPLETELY omnipotent, since he can't see the future, he can't plan for it. Since the future is up for grabs, there could be an unforseen event which PROHIBITS God's plan from being fulfilled. OR, since he can't see the future, there could be an event which causes God to CHANGE his plan... Thus all the souls who were operating in accordance to Gods will, wouldn't be anymore... and they would cease to exist. One assumption: The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible. If God can do anything that is possible and there is only one God, no event could prevent God's plan from unfolding. The future is "up for grabs" mainly because there are beings within time (us) that have free will. But there is nothing that we can do to keep God's plan from being fulfilled. We can choose to contribute or not.

If no one contributes--if we all go around abusing and exploiting each other and our natural environments--I expect that our ecologies would treat us as a pathology (some argue that they already do) and natural events (called "acts of God", typically) would help our own self-destructive tendencies to wipe us out completely. After that, God would continue God's work in guiding this world toward perfectly peaceful self-sustenance in whatever way God sees fit.

Or God could intervene in order to make us do right at some point. This would not help us to live eternally though, because it would be God's doing, God's righteous thought and action--not ours. We'd be just so many manipulated objects, just another part of the material world we should be working to nurture.

Without knowledge of the future, God can't be sure his plan will be fullfilled... Reason definately doesn't dictate that it MUST be fulfilled. If God is conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal, explain to me how God's plan could not be fulfilled.

[Copper Scroll]

So it's possible to know the future, at least for god. Since we can reason that god's plan must be fulfilled, then god must definitely know the future.

But you also say that god can't know the future.

Which is it? You've asked and I've answered this question already. This might be the third time you've asked it and I noticed you continue to ask it after this particular post.

I've already written you: "To clarify further, we can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known."

If God has a plan and God is omnipotent and conscious and everywhere and everywhen (and there's only one God--#15), there is nothing that can prevent the plan from being fulfilled. So I suppose there are two certainties about the future: (i) God will be there and (ii) God's plan will be fulfilled.

But as I wrote you another time: "God's existence is another certainty about the future, but that is not an event. The fulfillment of God's plan is a certainty, but it's character as an event--when, how, by whom, and other journalistic issues (speaking of "journals", this reminds me of your imaginary book full of past, present, and future events)--cannot be known.

Either (i) you haven't read these responses, (ii) you are not a rational person, or (iii) the responses are not valid to you. If they are not valid please say why before asking me this same question again.

[Copper Scroll]

:angel:

[Copper Scroll]

Devine adj:Having the nature of or being a deity.

So the prophesies were written under inspiration from a God who has no foreknowledge of future events? Assume that I will always answer this question the same way. It is not possible, even for God, to have the same level of certainty about future events as present or past events.

Let me get this straight... God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but somehow he was able to "guess" what would happen to someone born hundreds of years later? Then he inspired OT writters to write down his "guesses" as prophesies so they could later prove his power?
If you're referring to Jesus, well, God made Jesus' birth happen. God could have conceivably planned this particular event.


Interesting... You leave the possibility for God to make a mistake. I don't think it's really God making the mistake necessarily. If I have a free will and I use it to do something God would not want me to do, I'm making the mistake--not God.

If God can't know the future with certainty, then it is a very real possibility that his plan may fail due to unforeseeable complications. Provide an example.

If it's only the dream of one man, why bother to include it?
Are you asking me? Is this hypothetical? The New Testament was compiled some 1,700 years ago. I... wasn't born yet. I didn't do it. I swear!

What value could it possible hold? What truths could it teach? I can give the Bible compilers some credit though. For a bunch of documents that may span some 1,000 years, when they come together, they do tell somewhat of one complete story: God creates a perfect world. A creature with free will chooses to fuck it up... repeatedly. God is said to "punish" and "warn" the creature (repeatedly), but the creature can't seem to help itself. When things have really taken a dive, God sends a perfect creature to inspire righteousness in the others. A movement builds around this creature.

If there was no Revelations, the story would end here. That wouldn't be right. There's too much tension and suspense.

(I will acknowledge, before you bring it up, the OT God and the NT God appear quite different. It's like a parent who has two kids. From my experience, the first kid gets more and worse beatings than the second kid, who gets more reason, understanding, and friendship from the parent. Why? Because the parent is just learning the ropes. With God, I think it's just us learning who God is over time and our understanding of God changing. The ancient Hebrews viewed God one way and I do another. This doesn't mean that we are not referring to the same God. It means that I am not an ancient Hebrew.)

[Copper Scroll]

Copper, this sounds a lot like your definition of Heaven. We're all "just obedient" to God's will... and ther is no rape, murder, burglary, exploitation, petty theft, cutting people off, or plain old sadness.
The very important difference is that in one situation, we choose to do God's will without being forced and without God needing to intervene. We internalize God's will (the sustenance of the world in perfect peace) and do it naturally, rationally, and consciously.

What God wants for us and our world, I think, is like what a good parent wants for their children. A good parent wants her kids to grow up to be independent, responsible, and somewhat like her. We can't be independent or responsible if God makes us be good. We must choose it.

If it's good enough for the afterlife, why isn't it a good thing now? It would be a very good thing now, if we could do it without God's intervention.

If God could create a world without this suffering later why didn't he start with that world? Is this world just a rough draft? I'm not sure if I understand these questions. But God did create the world perfectly. We made a mistake(s) and are now suffering the repercussions of it.

[Alf]

I can understand why you perceive it that way, but its not an illusion, because you still have to exercise it in order for destiny to be fulfilled. It is a gift from God that He already knows what you will do with, yet you are still enjoined to doing it. this is because until you fulfill all that you are intended to fulfill, the result cannot be achieved or complete, despite already being destined. All men have been given a deposit of faith, a life, and they spend it how they will, and God already knows how they are goign to spend it, even though they are freely goign to do what they will with their lives.

Pay attention to the text in bold above. If I have to do that particular action in order to get destiny fulfilled which god already know I am going to do, then it is NOT free. Alternatively you can say it is free or not but it does NOT matter. Whatever God foresee that we are going to do is what we are going to do NO MATTER WHAT.

If God forsee that I will get a new job tomorrow then I WILL get a new job tomorrow, even if I suicide today and even if I do not send out a single resume. I can do whatever I want, lock myself in a room not seeing anyone - I STILL will get a new job tomorrow if that is what God foresaw.

The concept of free will becomes irrelevant under these conditions. Which is exactly what John claims.


What it ultimately boils down to is this: What exactly is free will ?

No, free will is IRRELEVANT - it is a red herring it is besides the point. It doesn't matter what free will is and it doesn't matter if we have it or not. Even if we have it, we might as well not have it, it woulnd't make one bit of difference.


I suggest to you that everythign almost entirely happens as result of cause and effect, that cause and effect ultimately ripples down from the only real free will decision that God gave you...your free will is reduced to a choice: To love God or not to love God, to choose Him or reject Him, and, I suggest that is why the whole creation exists.

So the planet of JUpiter and all the galaxies has existed for billion of years for the sole purpose of giving me a choice? A choie that doesn't make a difference? A choice that doesn't matter because ultimately my free will is ignored by God?

I suggest you should open your eyes and wake up from that dormant state you are in.


It is designed in such a fashion as to let you freely choose in your heart,

No it is not. If we could then God could not possibly know what we are going to choose. If he knows in advance what we are going to choose and his knowledge is infallible then we cannot do anything other than selecting the choice that God knows in advance we are going to take. We cannot chose any different. That is exactly why the "free choice" is nothing but a decoration, it is truly irrelevant. We might as well not have it, it wouldn't make a single bit different.


mind, spirit, that which you will serve. God will not force you, but if you open the door to Him, He will become the rock of your salvation.

"He will not force me" you say but I cannot choose any other way than what God knows I will choose, so where is the choice?


You will either be a lovign kind person who is generous and just and honest, or you will be someone who is opposite, or you will even be someone who is in between.

Yes and no matter what I do, I will be whatever god already knows I will be. There is not a THING I can do to change that. If God were to foresee that Joe will become a mass murderer, then Joe cannot do a thing to change that, he WILL be a mass murderer. He cannot prevent it any more than you can prevent that a dice roll of 6 end up being 6 or any more than you can prevent getting hungry if you stop eating for a while.


That covers all people. At the judgement, God will measure it all out,

So he is unjust. He punishes people for doing things they cannot prevent.


and those who are one side, through Christ are made righteous, and those on the other side are cast off and burned up like chaff.

Exacty. God's maljustice in practice.


God knows our strength is little, that is why we are to rely upon Him.

Our strength is zero. We can no more change and act contrary to God's forsight than you can prevent yourself from falling down if you are floating in mid air and not able to hang unto anything.

If god made a rule that you are not allowed to fall down if you fall off a cliff, should he punish you if you happen to fall of and break his law by plummeting down? After all, you had free will, you could use that will to just hang in the air, right?


We could never be found righteous in His eyes, even our best men would be like mealy worms in dung compared to the perfect God.

The christians ability to devalue humans and drag them in the shit always amazes me. I am sorry, but I haev probably higher regard for human life and human abilities than you have so I cannot share your sentiment here.


Yet, in Christ we can be made whole, or clean, and found without blame before God.

Yeah, first create the sickness and then provide the cure. We are sinning, worthless worms but with christ we can regain the worth you are claiming we never had or claiming we lost at some point if we ever had it.

Sorry, but I call your bluff. We never lost it. We have value because we are humans and because we are sentient beings. We are not worms and even worms have value just incase you didn't know.

Your description here is wrong through and through.



Again its not an illusion, it is simply a choice, God even seemingly knows what you will choose, but you will still have to make the choice, hence why we are all here. Either you are goign to turn to Him or you are not, thats all there is, and He already knows(Who are we to say to God why did you make me so?), but I surely do not know. Perhaps someday you will turn to Him, and then again, maybe you never will, but ultimately, we can witness to the fruits of your tree in who you are, what you do, and how you behave. Likewsie the same for me. God is going to judge men upon sin, and He surely saves Who He will, but not before you make effort to open the door to His incessant knocking and invite Him in, and I say, probably even if it doesn't happen before you die. In other words, having disbelieved in God because you did not accept Him based upon false teaching or understanding others had given to you, and yet you still lived your life based upon what pleases God, then you have in essence conformed to Him even though you rejected Him, and salvation may still be possible. That is really only my own opinion, and ultimately, whatever God decides, I am trusting in His choice.

YOu know, I can only take so much blathering and preaching, so I won't go every sentence here in detail. Suffice to know that your perverted and sick view of mankind doesn't ring true to me. I ain't buying it.

I believe humans even worms have value and I believe humans have even more value because it is me - a human - who assign those values to me as I believe other people assign value for themselves.

I don't beleive your God has any value, he is a sick perverted image cooked up by some primitive people and the really sad thing is that people like you still believe in this outdated perverted fantasy.

Btw, you are not a lamp of light, you are a lamp of darkness. You call it freedom when we are completely tied up, you call it good when this god slaughter amalekites including women and children claiming that there must have been a reason for it when it is obvious to all the rest of us that the only reason was greed on the israeli part. They wanted land and unfortunately the Amalekites was living there already so they had to die. They cook up some God in their own image which is just as tyrranical and cruel as themselves and they provide as excuse that their god told them to do it.

I ain't buying it.

Alf

[Lamp Of Light]

"He will not force me" you say but I cannot choose any other way than what God knows I will choose, so where is the choice?


You make your choice all on your own, God merely knows what it will be. If God knows you will get a new job tommorrow, then so what ? YOu say it prevents you from committing suicide, or sending out resumes, etc, you state that regardless of what you do, you will still get the job tommmorrow, so how do you have free will ? The whole entire point alf, is that you would not commit suicide tommorrow, because you will not choose that route, rather you will be getting a new job, and you will not likely do things to prevent it, such as not sending resumes, or doing what it takes not to get the new job, because you will have by your own free choice, made the decisions that lead to your getting the new job tommorrow.. and God already knows it.
Your free choice isn't affected at all by His knowign it. You keep trying to say "but if I did this that or the other thing, then it will still happen anyways so how do I have free will?"... you keep wanting to resist the idea that your choices are destined to lead you a certain way, and that if your choices lead a certain way, then you must not have free will, but that doesn't even make sense. For example, lets look at the game illustration again. There is football game tommorrow..God knows what that outcome will be, and you seem to think His knowing means they have no free will, but that isn't true. You seem to say that no matter what the players do, even if they do not show up to the game, they will still win, but the whole point is, they WILL show up to the game, none of them will committ mass suicide, or stand still not playing for the entire game. They will all show up, they will play the game, and they will do it of their own free will choice, and they will win, just like God foreknew they would. They won't committ suicide or do anythign that you suggested in order to try and prevent the win, because their free will choice will not be to committ suicide, or not show up, or do all in their power to try and lose, just to see if they still win. Rather they will choose to show up, play, and do their best to win, it will play out the way God knows it will. Why would they committ suicide ? or not show up ? or stand still ? They wouldn't. They will go about living their lives exactly as they intend to live it, by their own choice, and God simply knows what it will be. Yes, it means that everything is predestined, but at the same time, it is destined to be that way based upon our own choices and decisions. You are right, nothing you can do would prevent the outcome, and that is because you will freely choose to particpate in that outcome juts like everyon else. YOu will not somehow be privy to the inside information so you can try and choose otherwise. You will choose, all on your own, and that choice is destined to result in a certain outcome that God knows already.

The whole scenario reminds me of a movie or somthign where two people are faced with tons of adversity, and they overcome it all just to hit one last hurdle that seems insurmountable, and the one guy says, "thats it ! we are destined to die!" and the other guy says "Screw that ! I don't believe in destiny" So the second guy concocts a plan, and they overcome the hurdle and they escape. The whole point would be that it was predestined for them to escape, and by the second guy refusing to yield, he ends up completeing that destiny. He didn't go about sealing their destiny because he did or did not believe it specifically(in this specific instance he didn't believe anyways), the point is, that what they chose to do filled their destiny. If they had both decided to toss in the towel and fail, then that would have been what was destined to happen and God would have known it. If they had overcome (as they did in the example story) then that was their destiny and God would have fore known that instead. Looking at it from the other direction : God merely knows the outcome, He doesn't affect it in any way. If the outcome would have been forseen by God to be failure, then they would have decided all on their own to toss in the towel and fail. If God had fore knwon they would succeed, then they would have chosen all on their own to not toss in the towel, and eventually overcome. Either way, God fore knew it, and they chose freely. It is as if a playwrite has written a grand play, and we are all the actors playing our parts. We will play the parts of our own accord, but we will not deviate from the script because it is our desire and choices that lead to the writing of our script to begin with. God knew what our desires and choices would be already, which is only reasonable, since He did after all create us. So it stands to reason that He should surely know us inside and out. I mean I didn't make my car, but I sure could tear it down to the last nuts and bolts and put it back together again, and that is because i know it inside and out. How much more-so with God and His creations ?






Yes and no matter what I do, I will be whatever god already knows I will be.


Yes, but it is not because of no matter what I do, as in no matter what I can do to change it. The point is you don't know what the outcome will be, so how can you possibly make chocies to try to change it to begin with ? You couldn't and you wouldn't, and so you will make your choices and be/do/choose/ what you want, all on your own, and God simply knows it already. So by your own choices you make throughout life, all on your own, YOU will define that outcome, and God already knows it.



There is not a THING I can do to change that. If God were to foresee that Joe will become a mass murderer, then Joe cannot do a thing to change that, he WILL be a mass murderer. He cannot prevent it any more than you can prevent that a dice roll of 6 end up being 6 or any more than you can prevent getting hungry if you stop eating for a while.


Thats right, but Joe doesn't know he will be a mass murderer, so Joe isn't going to do anythign to try and prevent that from happeneing, because why would he ? He doesn't know it. Joe will become a mass murderer all on his own, by his own choices that are destined to lead him to become a mass murderer. Joe has no insight to this, joe has no privledged understanding of what he will become. Joe will go through life, livign it as he sees fit, and one day he will snap, or will take the course of action that will lead him to become a mass murderer. Thats it. He won't try to prevent it because he knows the outcome of his choices(like God). Joe will simply live his life, and he will end up being a mass murderer if that is what he is destined to be in Gods fore knowledge.

Yes, this means God knows that there are some who will make it and some who wont. It means that there are going to be many who fail to meet the standard set up by God. Yet who are we to object ? Can a pop bottle object to the way the factory makes it ? In the beginning God made adam and eve, he intended for them to be the means whereby which he populated His kingdom. The producers of the product so to speak. As with the establishment of any kingdom or factory, there are establishment and operating costs. Costs in life, costs in materials, etc. It is no different in the building of Gods kingdom. It would appear to me that building His kingdom likewise has a price. It means that there will be those who do not succeed and those who do not pass inspection. Just like a factory produces bottles that may be flawed and need to be tossed. Or just liek a kingdom spends soldiers in order to establish itself. SO the kingdom of God will destory the chaff, and seal up the good product for delivery. Sure, you can object to this kingdom and its workings, after all, people object to walmart or other enterprises they do not agree with, but such a objection is ultimately futile in this particluar case. A pop bottle has no right or ability to go to the factory and say why do you make me so ? Just like the testament says "Who are we to say to God "why did you make me so ?"

So in the words of Christ himself. He said "I came as a witness to the truth, those who are of the truth will hear my voice." Do you not hear his voice ?

[John A. Broussard]

You've asked and I've answered this question already. This might be the third time you've asked it and I noticed you continue to ask it after this particular post.

I've already written you: "To clarify further, we can reason that God's plan must be fulfilled (#13), because God is omnipotent (#11). What cannot be known is when or how that plan is fulfilled. The actual events that lead up to and characterize it cannot be known. My definition of "omniscience" is knowing all that can be known. Since future events do not exist, they cannot be known."

If God has a plan and God is omnipotent and conscious and everywhere and everywhen (and there's only one God--#15), there is nothing that can prevent the plan from being fulfilled. So I suppose there are two certainties about the future: (i) God will be there and (ii) God's plan will be fulfilled.

But as I wrote you another time: "God's existence is another certainty about the future, but that is not an event. The fulfillment of God's plan is a certainty, but it's character as an event--when, how, by whom, and other journalistic issues (speaking of "journals", this reminds me of your imaginary book full of past, present, and future events)--cannot be known.

Either (i) you haven't read these responses, (ii) you are not a rational person, or (iii) the responses are not valid to you. If they are not valid please say why before asking me this same question again.



How about (iv) CS has still not answered the question.

Here it is again.

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
So it's possible to know the future, at least for god. Since we can reason that god's plan must be fulfilled, then god must definitely know the future.

But you also say that god can't know the future.

Which is it?

You keep insisting that god can't know the future and at the same time you say that it is certain that god's plan will be carried out in the future.

If god can't know the future, god can't know that god's plan will be carried out in the future. Right?

You even go so far as to say that the future can't be known, but that you know god's plan will be carried out in the future.

So you keep insisting that god can't know the future, that the future is "unknowable" and then also keep insisting that god knows his plan will be carried out in that unknowable future.

No matter how you slice it, you are flat out contradicting yourself.

Either the future is knowable or it's unknowable. You can't have even piece-meal knowable and still continue to say it's unknowable.

How about a decision so we can move on?

Take a look at your answer above and explain to me how the future can be both knowable and unknowable.

[John A. Broussard]

You apparently missed this post, so I'm running it again for you.

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by Lamp Of Light
John ,

What you are demonstrating is that predestination and free-will are running concurrently. From GODS perspective, everythign is predestined, from our perspective we have free will.

What in the world does this have to do with the argument I presented?

I purposely have kept the argument as simple as possible and avoided emotionally charged concepts such as predestination, perspectives, etc.

So, please try answering it again.

Do we or do we not have free will?

If we do not have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?

If we do have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?

Don't you agree with the simple statement: "We either have free will or we don't"????

[Copper Scroll]

Do you have any suggestions as to how to filter out those important truths from the rest of this dream sequence?. I won't go through a verse by verse interpretation of the text. Overall, the truth that underlies it says that corrupt and oppressive authorities and social orders in this world will cease and a new just social order will rise while only the righteous (who have internalized God's will) will remain.

This truth can be seen by looking at the document in its historical context. It was written while Christians were being persecuted in the Roman Empire. Most of the imagery of evil portrayed in the text is symbolic of the Roman Empire. This text must have been very encouraging for the early Christians.

[Copper Scroll]

Your analogies are flawed:
I used those analogies for the purposes of showing that "A is both within B and without B" is not necessarily an invalid statement. (It is according to formal logic, but if used in everyday language it's sense might never be called into question.)

Analogies involving "eternity" will naturally fall short, because eternity is so difficult to conceptualize for us who are bound within time and space. Let's take a different approach: Imagine a scientific experiment. Experiments must be done under highly controlled circumstances. The scientist is responsible for controlling those circumstances. She can be said to be both within and without the experiment. She is without the experiment in designing it first, hypothesizing about it, observing it, and recording its results. She is within it when she needs to manipulate its variables, but her intervention must be carefully considered. The point is that the scientist is independent of the experiment, while the experiment is entirely dependent upon her.

Imagine children playing "make believe". They design an imaginary world and have a common understanding of that world. It has its own events and rules those events must conform to. The children in play act within this world but can abandon this world at anytime and return to the real world. The point is that the children are independent of the "pretend" world, while this world is entirely dependent upon them.

The point is that God is independent of time and space, while time and space are entirely dependent upon God. God can (and does, I believe) exist both before time and through it.

Air is made up of individual molecules, the same molecule doesn't exist inside my lungs and outside my lungs at the same time. An animal is made up of individual cells. If those cells are doing different things (as they always do) in different places, can we not refer to the animal as a whole? God too has different actions that take place at different points in time and space. Can I not refer to God as a whole?

[Yahzi]

All I can say is that if God ordered genocide, then it must have been the right and good and true thing, even if I cnanot understand it.
Do you understand this contradicts the Bible?

God acknowledges, on page 3, that Man has knowledge of Good and Evil as God's. Therefore, if you cannot understand how an act is good, it is not good. You have moral knowledge, you can make moral judgements, you are capable of knowing the good. This is the message of the Bible starting from page 3. If God wants us to believe he is good, then he is required to explain his horrific actions such as genocides. The fact that he does not means we must (until further notice) assume those are acts are as they appear - evil.

The Bible quite clearly says that Man has knowledge of good and evil. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending you can't judge God while he is murdering babies is simply inexcusable - from every point of view.

[Lamp Of Light]

Do we or do we not have free will?


Yes, I believe we absolutely do have free will.



If we do have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?


I believe we have it, and i believe our free will choices God already fore-knows. So the answer is NO, we will do only what God foresees we are goign to do, yet we will do this through our own free will choices He foresaw.


If we do not have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?


The question is irrelevent, because I believe we have it. If however I believed we did not have it, the answer would still be the same. God will still foreknow the outcome either way. So what does it mean then ? It means whetehr or not you have free will, God would still know the outcome.

So now you think free will is irrelevent, merely because someone foreknows your choices ? You would rather then be a slave entirely ? What you think therefore its not a gift because He knows it ? You think therefore He has given you nothing because He knows what He gave you ? Did you expect Him to rather give you somthing that He Himself cannot have or give ? That would be impossible wouldn't it ? He is omniscient after all.



What is it your objecting to John ? Is it that you object to being born, living, and dying ? God is not asking anything of you that He didn't do Himself. Did God not send His Holy Spirit to endure the same ? Ar eyou thinkign Him unjust for putting you here to begin with ? yet did He not provide a way out for you through Jesus Christ ? Even the pop bottles that would otherwise be rejected can be transformed in Christ to be found perfect. Did He not even show you the way ? Give up the life of Himself in the only begotten Son for you ? God gave each man what he needs to find his way, but not every man will choose to act upon it and find the way. So nobody is predestined to hell, although some will surely begoing. It ultimately all boils down to responsibility and accountability , and as is quite obvious, most peopel want to shirk rresponsibility and accountability as much as they can. Just look at the blame society today. I know all kinds of people that think everything that happens to them is someone elses fault or action. They can't or won't take responsibility for anything. Its not "their problem".

May the Glory of God fill your heart forever !

[Yahzi]

I'll tell you like I told them:
I realize you are having many conversations at once; but your response to my comments was wholly unsatisfactory as a logical response. I believe that my comments strike to the heart of the issue.

I never used any Bible verses to support any of my claims on this thread ever.
Then what do you support your claim that God exists with?

If you don't get your knowledge of God from the Bible, where do you get it from?

If you do agree, there is absolutely no point in bring up the Bible with me.
But you brought up the Bible first! You did it when you started talking about God and Jesus and Heaven. You got these ideas from the Bible. And now you complain because we keep referring to the Bible?

You don't believe in the Bible, so leave it alone.
And I will repeat what I said: You do. Therefore it is relevant.

I never said that one part was literally true.
So if you found out Jesus did not historically exist, that would be ok with you?

If you found out God was just speaking in allegory when He promised eternal life, that would be ok by you?

That, I think, would be God's will. Is it difficult to ascertain?
Given the vast religious differences in the world, it is self-evident that God's will is difficult to ascertain. However, the example you presented is merely ordinary biological morality.

I never said "guess". I person with no (ethical or rational or common) sense might have to guess. I don't.
You don't have to guess God's will? And anybody who disagrees with what you think God's will is is not ethical, rational, or possessing of common sense?

Did you mean to offend me here? It appears so, but I'll answer anyway. God is not an object. Definitions are for objects--things that can be manipulated and that have limitations.
If God cannot be defined, then why you do issue so many definitions of him? If God does not have limitations, then why do you assume he is limited to doing only good?

You're saying that pain can be categorically called "excessive" when it kills the person who is in pain?
Yes.

(God! Why o why does this needle have to pinch me soooo?!! BooHooo!!)
Do you understand how insensitive it is to mock other people's pain? Go read up on Rawanda.


A person can only robbed of something that they own or have a right to.
Why don't Angels have a right to free will? I assert that right stems from their ability to understand and use it; you assert that because they were born in the wrong race.

If it was "done to" us, then we wouldn't be us. At the risk of sounding like my li'l homie 911, angels are angels, and we are us.
Imagine a white man saying this about a black slave.

Your defense of the treatment of Angels is indistinguishable from the defense of the treatment of slaves.

If I knew nothing else of Christianity, I would reject it on this alone: that racism is an adequate defense of slavery, that sentient beings can be treated like objects merely because somebody has the power to do so.

God fulfills God's responsibility to you. God offers you love and eternal life.
How do you know this? From the Bible. But you just excluded the Bible from the conversation. Please explain how you know this.

suffering is relative.
:mad:

Tell that to the survivors of the last genocide.

See above (the ooolldd paragraphs I quoted that you never responded to).
I did respond. I am just repeating myself now. You defend evil as relative - unless, of course it is happening to you. I imagine you are quite capable of distinguishing between pin pricks and genocide when it is happening to you.

Would God be unfair in not giving anyone else an address to where another child is being abused?
Yes.

You keep saying God gave us the tools - I keep pointing out that he has not. He has a tool - global vision - that would make the difference in my ability to create justice on Earth. He will not share it. Perhaps he is amused by our blind fumbling? So amused he watches children get tortured and does nothing?

You want Heaven on earth without having to work for it.
Why should we have to work for it? Did we get life on Earth by working for it? Does God need our help to finish building heaven?

God has answered enough questions.
One gets the distinct impression you feel you have answered enough.

To sum up: you refuse to defend the Bible, but expect us to accept the parts of it you feel like presenting; you think sentient beings can be treated like property if they are born into a particular race; and you think suffering is relative, so much so that watching your children raped and torn to death by dogs (as happend to at least one Jewish man in the Polish Ghetto) is indistinguishable from being pricked by a needle.

Do you feel this is a correct assessment of your position?

[Copper Scroll]

I'm at an impasse here and was wondering if you could help me out. Who should I believe? You.........

..........or Jesus???
I was speaking here within the context of this discussion. Since (most) atheists would not accept the OT as authoritative, I wouldn't use it as "proof" of anything in these conversations. In the verse you quote, Jesus is speaking to his discplines (who do accept the OT as authoritative).

[Copper Scroll]

Not the same air at the same time.
See post 420.

Do I have to repeat myself?
No. What you should do is realize that I cannot respond to a question you write in your post at least until after you've finished writing your post and posted it.

[Copper Scroll]

The god of theists like Copper Scroll completely contradicts gods like the Southern Baptist god..
So I have to agree with something a religious organization deems true? I'm sure you wish I would so that it would be easier to refute my arguments. I suppose this means you can't judge my arguments as they stand. I don't have to agree with this religious organization's position on God's omniscience any more than an American citizen has to agree with the war in Iraq. Wait--I'm not even a member of this organization.

Everyone knows that ideas about God abound across and within religions. That does not mean that God doesn't exist (if this is your point).

This is why Copper Scroll will reply to this saying a god that can predict the future is completely consistent with a god that can’t predict the future.
:confused:

But what he really will be continuing to show us is theists don’t have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about their gods Hey, nobody's perfect. I thought you were still looking for IHOP.

[Copper Scroll]

You keep insisting that god can't know the future and at the same time you say that it is certain that god's plan will be carried out in the future..
It's pretty plain: Our knowledge of the past and present consists of events--particular events for which questions like who what where when how can be answered. I admit two certainties about the future: God's existence and the fulfillment of God's plan. God's existence is not an event; it is eternal. The fulfillment of God's plan (reason dictates) must happen, but the who what where when how of this event cannot be known with the same level of certainty as with past or present events.

If god can't know the future, god can't know that god's plan will be carried out in the future. Right?
I write in post 410: "One assumption: The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible. If God can do anything that is possible and there is only one God, no event could prevent God's plan from unfolding. The future is "up for grabs" mainly because there are beings within time (us) that have free will. But there is nothing that we can do to keep God's plan from being fulfilled. We can choose to contribute or not.

"If no one contributes--if we all go around abusing and exploiting each other and our natural environments--I expect that our ecologies would treat us as a pathology (some argue that they already do) and natural events (called "acts of God", typically) would help our own self-destructive tendencies to wipe us out completely. After that, God would continue God's work in guiding this world toward perfectly peaceful self-sustenance in whatever way God sees fit.

"Or God could intervene in order to make us do right at some point. This would not help us to live eternally though, because it would be God's doing, God's righteous thought and action--not ours. We'd be just so many manipulated objects, just another part of the material world we should be working to nurture."

Give me an example of something that could prevent the fulfillment of God's plan.

[Copper Scroll]

Then what do you support your claim that God exists with? If you don't get your knowledge of God from the Bible, where do you get it from?

I know God exists from personal experience independent of the Bible.

But you brought up the Bible first! You did it when you started talking about God and Jesus and Heaven. You got these ideas from the Bible. And now you complain because we keep referring to the Bible?
The Bible is not a monolithic document. Its a compilation of documents written by human beings that often speak in myth and allegory and might sometimes even be wrong. Each document must be interpreted in light of its historical and cultural contexts.

So if you found out Jesus did not historically exist, that would be ok with you?
I would still believe in God.

If you found out God was just speaking in allegory when He promised eternal life, that would be ok by you?
Granted certain assumptions, reason supports the promise of eternal life. See post 359.


Given the vast religious differences in the world, it is self-evident that God's will is difficult to ascertain. However, the example you presented is merely ordinary biological morality. This "morality" and "biology" you speak of come from God. There are dangerous social trends that may lead to someone taking the money off the ground and keeping it not being considered unethical.


You don't have to guess God's will? And anybody who disagrees with what you think God's will is is not ethical, rational, or possessing of common sense? Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong.

If God cannot be defined, then why you do issue so many definitions of him? If God does not have limitations, then why do you assume he is limited to doing only good? I would say that what I have been offering are descriptions. God determines what is really "good", not the other way around.


Yes.
Do you understand how insensitive it is to mock other people's pain? Go read up on Rawanda. The objective behind many of your questions is clearly to make me sound insenstive. Well, within the context of this thread, I am beginning not to care how I sound or appear. I know who I am and where I stand with regards to the world's tragedies.

I am most certainly not defending evil. I say we need to fix it. You respond to by saying you are doing your share. This, I think, is great, but I ask how do you determine God's share. I get no response on this.

I argue that your standard for excessive pain is ridiculous because many people die with little pain while others experience great pain and never die. You call me insensitive for "mocking" a person complaining about the pinch of a needle while another man has been shot in the stomach.

This I call "reaching for insensitivity". You don't have to reach for it. If you want me to say something insensitive say, "Copper, say something insensitive?" It's easier that way.

Why don't Angels have a right to free will?
Because they know everything.

I assert that right stems from their ability to understand and use it; And you don't answer my question about someone robbing your home because you have more than they do. The robber can understand what it means to have a Persian rug, even if he doesn't have one. Frankly, he does need one. Does he have a right to one? Does he have a right to take yours?


Imagine a white man saying this about a black slave.

Your defense of the treatment of Angels is indistinguishable from the defense of the treatment of slaves. I disagree and have presented by argument why. You don't respond to that argument here at all.

:mad:
This is not a response to my argument about the relativity of suffering. It's a mad face.

Tell that to the survivors of the last genocide. I am sure these survivors would tell me something along the lines of "Suffering is relative" if they found me complaining about how crowded the mall is this weekend. If it's true for me, isn't it also true for them?

You keep saying God gave us the tools - I keep pointing out that he has not. He has a tool - global vision - that would make the difference in my ability to create justice on Earth.
You must be Batman or one of the Super Friends. It's not just your responsibility--it's everyone's. If God gave you "global vision", God might be obliged to give everyone "global vision". Since without this vision evil would remain--the eradication of evil would not really be our doing; it would be God's, while it is our responsibility.

He will not share it. Perhaps he is amused by our blind fumbling? So amused he watches children get tortured and does nothing? You are not giving yourself and others who work towards the betterment of the world enough credit. This world is not all torture and suffering. You're a glass-half-empty kinda guy, huh?

Why should we have to work for it? Did we get life on Earth by working for it? Does God need our help to finish building heaven? Working for it is the reason why we live. To the question about Heaven: Absolutely. See post 359.


One gets the distinct impression you feel you have answered enough.
Then why am I still here?

To sum up: you refuse to defend the Bible, but expect us to accept the parts of it you feel like presenting; you think sentient beings can be treated like property if they are born into a particular race; and you think suffering is relative, so much so that watching your children raped and torn to death by dogs (as happend to at least one Jewish man in the Polish Ghetto) is indistinguishable from being pricked by a needle.

Do you feel this is a correct assessment of your position?
(1) The Bible is naturally split into parts--some parts written by some people almost 1,000 years before Jesus was born and others written about 100 years afterwards by other people. That's the only rational way to look at it. (2) :mad: is my final answer on the one about racism. (3) A point you fail to respond to: If we were socialized in a world were children were never raped and nothing worse happened to anyone but being pricked with a needle, being pricked with a needle would be considered as terrible a tragedy as the horrible things that happened during the Holocaust. I would appreciate a response to this before hearing more inevitable charges of insensitivity.

[Yahzi]

I know God exists from personal experience independent of the Bible.
Then you understand that we do not know of God because we have not had that personal experience.

Why do you suppose God has given you personal expierence, but not us?

Please do not return an argument that presupposes our insensitivity, dishonesty, or lack or integrity.

I would still believe in God.
You would still know Jesus' name without the Bible?

Please excuse me, but this claim seems quite incredible.

Granted certain assumptions,
Having gone to great lengths to explain that God does not fit into the most basic assumptions (such as being an object), how do you justify any assumptions?

This "morality" and "biology" you speak of come from God. There are dangerous social trends that may lead to someone taking the money off the ground and keeping it not being considered unethical.
If even biology comes from God, then wouldn't those dangerous social trends also come from God?

I point out a perfectly natural explanation for morality - biology - and your response is that biology is of God too. Well, then, everything must be of God, including the social trends you decry, and the genoicides, and every thing else.

Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope that I wasn't wrong.
Again, in very plain words, you are stating that what you think is what God thinks, and anybody that disagrees with you is lying or stupid.

Do you understand why this presumption of righteousness is not only offensive to other people, but positively dangerous? Can you explain why we should think you are correct authority instead of those that disagree with you?

I would say that what I have been offering are descriptions. God determines what is really "good", not the other way around.
If God determines what is really good, then how do you explain Genesis asserting that Man now has knowledge of Good and Evil "as God's?"

Oh, right, sorry, I forgot. You don't want us to quote the Bible to you. Your direct experience of God trumps anything anyone else might ever have written or experienced.

The objective behind many of your questions is clearly to make me sound insenstive.
The objective behind those questions is to demonstrate to you how insenstive your position requires you to be. I know for a fact you are not insenstive; if you were, you would simply shrug your shoulders and say, "So God killed people I don't know, so what?"

Why aren't you willing to do this? Why do you feel it necessary to reject the story of God ordering young girl children to watch their families slaughtered before becoming sex slaves for the rest of their life? If you really believed in God's goodness, you would be like Lamp of Light, and just not care; or even celebrate that God so loved you that he tortured them for your sake.

Why do you recoil from these horrible stories of your God?

(Hint: because your biological, social morality tells you they are unacceptable. Because you, as a product of evolution and society, are a better person than the people who wrote the Bible.)

This, I think, is great, but I ask how do you determine God's share. I get no response on this.
I quite explicitly responded to this. Each of us does as much as we are capable of. How much is God capable of?

I argue that your standard for excessive pain is ridiculous because many people die with little pain while others experience great pain and never die.
See, this seems to imply that suffering is absolute; that there is a level of pain at which people should not complain about because it is so low.

But elsewhere you said suffering was relative. I am confused.

And you don't answer my question about someone robbing your home because you have more than they do.
Because it doesn't apply. The Angels aren't robbing us. They are just asking that the guy giving out Persian rugs give them one too.

What are the Angels taking from us? What would we lose if God treated the Angels as people?

I am sure these survivors would tell me something along the lines of "Suffering is relative" if they found me complaining about how crowded the mall is this weekend.
No, they would say you don't know what suffering is.

If God gave you "global vision", God might be obliged to give everyone "global vision".
And the problem with that is?

Since without this vision evil would remain--the eradication of evil would not really be our doing; it would be God's, while it is our responsibility.
Now you equate "knowing about evil" with "eradication of evil." Now you re saying knowing about evil is the same as eradicating it. But God knows about all the evil, and its not eradicated. Why can God know of all the evil in the world, and that's ok, but I can't know of all the evil in the world? Is it because I would actually do something about it?

Are you arguing that the eradication of evil is a bad thing?

This world is not all torture and suffering.
Tell that to the half the planet that lives in poverty and oppression.

You're a glass-half-empty kinda guy, huh?
And you're a "My glass is full, so fuck off," kinda person. :down: Perhaps we should refrain from personal commentary. It does not seem to advance the argument.

Working for it is the reason why we live.
So now you are saying we are saved by works? Are you willing to commit to this as a cornerstone of your theological position?

If we were socialized in a world were children were never raped and nothing worse happened to anyone but being pricked with a needle, being pricked with a needle would be considered as terrible a tragedy as the horrible things that happened during the Holocaust.
No, it wouldn't. Not only does this violate your claim that suffering is absolute (above), but it is just wrong. None of my children have been raped, but I can imagine how horrible it would be just by listening to the stories of others. We don't need continuing genocides; just one would be sufficient. Yet God allows them to occur over and over. We don't need multiple children to be raped; just one would be horrific enough to terrorize the rest of us. Yet God allows them to be raped over and over. And all God has to do to stop it is to tell someone about it.

But according to you, merely having full knowledge of evil eradicates it. Answer this: if the government invented a system that would prevent all crime, would you object to it?

I would appreciate a response to this before hearing more inevitable charges of insensitivity.
Please explain to me how your total disregard for the fate of the Angels (simply because they were born in the wrong class) is anything but "insensitive."

You have written off an entire class of sentient beings because they don't look like you. You make "mad" faces at my charges of racism, but as you pointed out, mad faces are not an argument.

[Copper Scroll]

Then you understand that we do not know of God because we have not had that personal experience.
Of course.

Why do you suppose God has given you personal expierence, but not us? I don't know. Maybe some people have had experiences like mine but didn't attribute them to God. In my experience, God never says "I'm God." I don't really recall words at all. It's been part emotional and part intellectual--like contemplating and then suddenly exhilaration and epiphany. I realign my thought and actions accordingly. It's only happened a couple of times, and the last time was a while ago.

You would still know Jesus' name without the Bible? I don't know how you arrived at this idea. What I was saying was that if I found out Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) never really lived then I would still believe in God.

Having gone to great lengths to explain that God does not fit into the most basic assumptions (such as being an object), how do you justify any assumptions? Personal experience parallel to the experiences of others, basic principles in the Bible and other religious texts and ideas, and how I perceive the world around me. The assumptions (#s 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 in post 359) come from these.

If even biology comes from God, then wouldn't those dangerous social trends also come from God? If you assume that biology determines social trends, then yes. I however adamantly reject this notion.

I point out a perfectly natural explanation for morality - biology - and your response is that biology is of God too. Well, then, everything must be of God, including the social trends you decry, and the genoicides, and every thing else.
Our biology is of God and it is of us. There is no clear line between the two. If we choose to develop certain habits, we can change our biology (at least after some generations). We however have much more direct control over social trends. We choose to abuse, exploit, and kill each other in a way far more direct than we choose, say, to have ten fingers.


Again, in very plain words, you are stating that what you think is what God thinks, and anybody that disagrees with you is lying or stupid.

Do you understand why this presumption of righteousness is not only offensive to other people, but positively dangerous? Actually, I said unethical, irrational, and/or stupid.

Well, I would consider it far more dangerous to give someone a pass who says that God told him to kill his family, instruct other men to kill their families, and then commit suicide just because he says God told him to do so.

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Can you give me an example of this danger you speak of?

Can you explain why we should think you are correct authority instead of those that disagree with you? You can judge the argument on its own merits, I guess. (Post 359). What's wrong with it?

I guess anyone puts forth an argument and takes a stand about something supposes they are some "correct authority." Can you give me an example of someone who would disagree with me? It would be easier to answer the question that way.

The objective behind those questions is to demonstrate to you how insenstive your position requires you to be.
This is something you decided before reading my first post. Any theistic position, to you, is insensitive. You carry this attitude with you in your line of questioning. I think it's unfair.

I know for a fact you are not insenstive; if you were, you would simply shrug your shoulders and say, "So God killed people I don't know, so what?"

Why aren't you willing to do this?
If you are referring to genocide, then I would argue that God didn't do it. People did it.

Why do you feel it necessary to reject the story of God ordering young girl children to watch their families slaughtered before becoming sex slaves for the rest of their life? If you really believed in God's goodness, you would be like Lamp of Light, and just not care; or even celebrate that God so loved you that he tortured them for your sake. There is one issue at the heart of our dispute. I would never blame God for these terrible acts (that people clearly do themselves), but you would (let me know if I'm wrong) because you believe that it's God's responsiblity to stop the people who do them (or intervene to provide direct assistance for someone else to stop them). I don't see it as God's responsibility. Giving us our moral, ethical sense is enough. From there, it's ours to apply.

The issue of God's responsibility is the real issue here. Bringing up examples of heart-breaking injustices God is supposedly responsible for doesn't help. I'm going to keep saying the same thing, and you'll keeping bringing new examples in your replies.

God created this world and sustains this world but the goal is for this world to sustain itself--for us to sustain it and bring lasting peace upon it. This cannot happen if God intervenes everytime something bad happens. We are provided our moral sense of responsibility for our world and the model of at least one perfectly moral life (in Jesus). We need to apply what we know as right. This is our responsibility.

(Hint: because your biological, social morality tells you they are unacceptable. Because you, as a product of evolution and society, are a better person than the people who wrote the Bible.) I assume you would argue that our ethics and morals would be at least as good as they are had there been no Jesus and no Bible. I would disagree with that.


I quite explicitly responded to this. Each of us does as much as we are capable of. How much is God capable of? You are right in that you did respond to this. I apologize.

What you didn't respond to was my argument that God, by your standard, would be infinitely more responsible than anyone else because God's power and ability is infinitely greater than anyone else's. By your standard, God would have to make the world perfect (again) because God has the power to do it. (And you've seen my argument for why God doesn't do this--the whole free will and virtue thing.)

See, this seems to imply that suffering is absolute; that there is a level of pain at which people should not complain about because it is so low.

But elsewhere you said suffering was relative. I am confused.
This is how it went down: First, you blamed God for the great pain and suffering in the world but claimed that you did not expect God to fix everything. Next, I asked you how much pain God should alleviate (or something along these lines)--how much pain is too much. Next, you said that when it kills you its too much. (Now, people don't usually die from pain. So, I assumed you meant that when a person is in pain and dies, then the pain was excessive.) So next, I said what about one person who dies only feeling the pinch of a needle and another suffers chronic pain and never dies. By your standard, the pinch of a needle is too much for one person and chronic pain is not enough for another. I was throwing your standard of excessive pain into question and didn't mean to imply that I thought suffering is absolute along the way. (If I did, I don't understand how. I might be confused too.)


Because it doesn't apply. The Angels aren't robbing us. They are just asking that the guy giving out Persian rugs give them one too. Then let's take the robbery out. Does a person who understands what having an Xbox means and can use one have a right to one? By your standard he does.

Now, you might say "Yes, if she can pay for it." And I might say that it's a similar situation with the angels. The angels are unfree not because there's a chain around their necks; they are unfree because they know too much. Our freedom is based in part on lack of certain knowledge that angels have. We can make mistakes that angels would never make because they know too much. They can disobey God but have to pay for it by making mistakes (sinning. Disobeying God is essentially making a mistake.)

You said (I think it was you) that no one wants the freedom to make mistakes. By your reasoning then, the angels are better off than us. Which do you really think is better? Is either better than the other?

No, they would say you don't know what suffering is. And (God forbid) someone went through something far worse than genocide survivors, that someone might say that they don't know what suffering is.


And the problem with that is? If everyone had "global vision", no one would do anything wrong because they would know someone who would stop and punish them immediately can see them do it. People would be forced to be good.

Now you equate "knowing about evil" with "eradication of evil." Now you re saying knowing about evil is the same as eradicating it.
Evil would be eradicated because, on the one hand, seeing a evil-doing first hand obligates any moral person to stop it and, on the other hand, potential evil-doers would know they are being watched by others who will stop and punish them. These potential evil-doers would "be good" just because they are being watched.

But God knows about all the evil, and its not eradicated. Why can God know of all the evil in the world, and that's ok, but I can't know of all the evil in the world? Is it because I would actually do something about it?
All of this is a dispute about where responsibility lies. It's on all of us, not just you. If God intervened everyday all day, we would be reverted to objects God manipulates and sets right.

Are you arguing that the eradication of evil is a bad thing? Absolutely not, but it should be our doing.


Tell that to the half the planet that lives in poverty and oppression. I said that the world is not all torture and suffering, even for people in poverty and oppression. Are you saying that it is?

At the risk of sounding insensitive, people are resilient and capable of solving our own and/or each other's problems. My life isn't all rosy, but it (thankfully) isn't all bad either. We live in a world where rich kids on tv cuss their parents out and swear that their lives are shit because their folks won't hire rapstars to perform at their birthday parties... and in a world where kids living in the projects with no heat laugh and dance to the radio when their song comes on. For everyone, life has pain and life has joy. Absolutely joyless and hopeless lives end early at the hands of those suffering them. Many many people live in poverty and many many many people are oppressed, but they live and probably prefer it that way.

:down: Oh man.

So now you are saying we are saved by works? Are you willing to commit to this as a cornerstone of your theological position? I would argue that good works is the fruit of genuine faith. One need not be a Christian (to me) to be "saved". Hey, there are even righteous atheists apparently.

No, it wouldn't I disagree. If you didn't know of anything worst than petty theft, petty theft would horrify you just as much as rape and genocide.

Answer this: if the government invented a system that would prevent all crime, would you object to it? If it eliminated certain civil liberties, I would. The government could be extra proactive and just lock us all up. That would helps stop crime, I guess.

If that system does not eliminate certain civil liberties, I don't think I would object. But that is our government--that is our work; that would contribute to the self-sustenance of the world God has planned.

[copernicus]

There is one issue at the heart of our dispute. I would never blame God for these terrible acts (that people clearly do themselves), but you would (let me know if I'm wrong) because you believe that it's God's responsiblity to stop the people who do them (or intervene to provide direct assistance for someone else to stop them). I don't see it as God's responsibility. Giving us our moral, ethical sense is enough. From there, it's ours to apply.

This reminds me of the last episode of the Jerry Seinfeld show, where he and his friends were imprisoned for violating a "Good Samaritan" law. They watched an overweight person being carjacked and did nothing to stop the crime, even ridiculing the victim. They thought it terribly unfair that they went to trial for failing to come to the aid of a crime victim, and I'm sure that our non-judgmental Copper Scroll felt that they got a bum rap, too. ;)

[AZSuperman]

God's plan must be fulfilled. If there are thoughts and actions occurring now that do not contribute to the fulfillment of the plan, then by the time that plan nears fulfillment the "rippling effects" or "causal chains" initiated by those thoughts and actions would have ceased.

Let's talk about sand castles again: Two sand castles are built, one by Kid N and the other by Kid O. Kid O builds his a little too close to the ocean. A wave knocks it down, while Kid N's castle remains. Let's assume the same amount of effort--the same degree of thought and action--went into the construction of both castles. What did Kid N's effort (thought and action) get him ultimately? A well constructed sand castle. What about Kid O's effort? It got him displaced sand smoothed out by the sea.

Above you speak of all actions having some lasting influence. I can agree with that, but I would argue that there is a large difference between having a sand castle and just displacing sand on a beach.
This did nothing to show how or why a deity is needed for the rippling effect to take place or to last.

But lets take a look at history for a minute: The people who leave the most lasting impression are NOT the people who do good, they are the people who commit some of the worst atrocities.

According to your theory, we must assume Attila the Hun, Hilter, Stalin, Jack the Ripper, Al Capone, Bonny & Clyde, etc. were doing God's will, because their actions are still known, and the ripples from their actions are still spreading.

I don't think I ever used the word "stripped". It makes it sound like some outside force is removing or stealing something from us. I think I said "shed" and in the example you're referring to I said "suspend". We do suspend our individuality all the time. One example is when we act as groups.
As I said, when we act in groups we have the ability to stop acting as part of that group at any time. Are you saying we will have the option to stop acting in accordance to God's will after we have obtained eternal life?

If not, we're slaves.

Another is the simple fact that each set of our thoughts and actions have lives of their own.
Not in the same sense as you and I have lives of our own.

When you think or do something, you can't undo it.
That's a given

Your actions take place in the material world and set off a causal chain that may not be easy to erase, as you yourself indicated. In this way, we extend ourselves into the world--share ourselves with the world--and in some ways its beyond our control once its done. When we die, those causal chains ("rippling effects") is what's left of us,
That's hardly "eternal life" in the conscience sence. If all that is needed for eternal life, is a lasting effect, then I'll agree with you... We all have the potential for eternal life. However, if your definition includes some sort of conscience existence which continues beyond the grave, you will need to do more than show that our actions create reactions.

... and they are each out there in the world, doing their own things.
Our thoughts are out doing there own things? Our interactions are out doing there own things? This is utter nonsense! Our interactions with the world around us will leave the world different that how we found it, but it doesn't create an invisible life form which then wanders the world doing it's own thing.

If you think about every thought and action you have, it appears to be a mighty legacy. The point of my whole argument is to make it all count for something. Contribue to the sustenance of the world and you will live eternally.
Again, if "live eternally" means "leave a lasting impression," then I agree. It's the moment you assign a level of consciousness to that impression that you lose me.

So you subscribe to the "Bible a-la-carte" method. Acknowledge the parts you agree with, ignore the parts you don't.
This is a regrettable oversimplification. Are you saying that you don't think the documents that make up the Bible can viewed individually and judged according their (various) historical contexts?
I am saying nothing of the sort. But I'm also not claiming the book is God's word.

It seems strange that you would believe the Bible (or at least parts of it) to be God's word, but then admit other parts (or other books) are not.

Wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to get a clear version of his word out to the world? Wouldn't God do something to ensure that the most important message sent to the world would be relayed effectively?

If their thoughts and actions were righteous, then they will never cease to exist. They could have even been atheists.
So the part where Jesus says anyone who doesn't believe in him is damned already is one of those parts that you don't believe?

I disagree. "Laws of nature" come about when somebody tries to do something and finds out they can't. Turning something left and right at the same time is intrinsically and logically impossible because of the meanings of the words "left" and "right".
Just as turning water into wine is logically impossible because water and wine are different substances. In order for Jesus to turn water into wine, he would've needed to chemically change the structure of the water.

Of course now you'll probably tell me this is one of the Bible stories which may just be a parable.

Are there any Bible miracles you DO believe LITERALLY happened? Or do you believe the Bible is filled with fluffy "feel-good" stories of no substance?

One assumption: The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible. If God can do anything that is possible and there is only one God, no event could prevent God's plan from unfolding.
Correction, that's four assumptions.

The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible: Define "perfect peace." Does this mean a world free of human violence toward other humans? Does it extend to the animal kingdom? Does "perfect peace" mean no animal violence toward other animals? What about animal violence toward humans? What about human violence toward animals? Are all creatures vegetarians in this "perfect" world? You'll need to better define your "perfect" world before we can agree that it's even possible.

God can do anything that is possible: This assumption you have declared, but not given any reason for us to accept it yet, nor have you defined "anything that is possible."

There is only one God: How do you know this? If it's possible for one invisible superhero to exist, then it's possible others could exist as well. We can't rule that possibility out just because we don't like it.

No event could prevent God's plan from unfolding: I disagree. If the future is unknown, even to God, then it's impossible for God to design a completely fool-proof plan. As I said before, it's entirely possible that some event could happen which will prevent God's plan from taking place.

Let's use a really simplistic example: If you are planing a vacation for you and your family next week, you can be pretty sure of what you will do on that vacation, and you can be pretty sure that nothing will prevent you from going on your vacation. Therefore, you can plan your vacation with a certain degree of certainty.

If, however, you are planning a vacation for a date 20 years from now, it would be very difficult to make plans with any degree of certainty. Dozens of things could happen which could completely destroy you plans: you could get divorced; your children could die; the area you wanted to visit could become a war zone; a financial situation could prevent you from going; the economy could crumble and you may not be able to find a way to get to your destination; etc....

Now God set up his plan at least 5000-6000 years ago (if you believe the Bible account of creation) but more realisticly his plan started BILLIONS of years ago.

Without perfect knowledge of the future, and without controlling his free-agents (humans) there would be an ENORMOUS number of variables which he would be unable to foresee.

To put it simply: God would not be able to create a plan which accounted for the actions of people whom he didn't know would be born.

The future is "up for grabs" mainly because there are beings within time (us) that have free will. But there is nothing that we can do to keep God's plan from being fulfilled. We can choose to contribute or not.

If no one contributes--if we all go around abusing and exploiting each other and our natural environments--I expect that our ecologies would treat us as a pathology (some argue that they already do) and natural events (called "acts of God", typically) would help our own self-destructive tendencies to wipe us out completely.
God would wipe us out, just like he did with Noah! (Oh wait, you already said that was a Bible story which may not have literally happened.)

Out of curiosity, do you believe all natural disasters are God's way of eradicating the non-contributees? Was there an overwhelming number of people going against God's will in the areas hit hardest by the tsunami? Or the recent hurricanes?

After that, God would continue God's work in guiding this world toward perfectly peaceful self-sustenance in whatever way God sees fit.
<CTRl> <ALT> <DETELE> "Reboot?" [OK] [CANCEL] :rolling:

Or God could intervene in order to make us do right at some point. This would not help us to live eternally though, because it would be God's doing, God's righteous thought and action--not ours. We'd be just so many manipulated objects, just another part of the material world we should be working to nurture.
So I guess we can assume God won't intervene...

God may utterly destroy all life on Earth (again), but he won't intervene to eradicate pain and suffering.

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.

Without knowledge of the future, God can't be sure his plan will be fullfilled... Reason definately doesn't dictate that it MUST be fulfilled. If God is conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal, explain to me how God's plan could not be fulfilled.
Easy, first I need to point out that we're using your definition of omnipotent, and omniscient. (Meaning God has no foreknowledge of the future, and he can't do anything logically impossible.)

Since God came up with his plan thousands (more likely billions) of years ago, at the time he created his plan he didn't know: who would currently be living, what animals would become extint, what technologies we would develope, what religions would dominate the world, what diseases would be cured, what weapons would be created, what languages would be spoken, or any other thing concerning the modern world. It would be impossible to create a plan, which would account for the TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of variables which would play out over the years.

Creating a plan, without knowing MOST of the variables, is called "taking a shot in the dark." It's a guess, based on extremely limited information.

Reason dictates that a plan initiated that long ago, with no knowledge of future events, is more likely to FAIL then to succeed.

[John A. Broussard]

If God can do anything that is possible and there is only one God, no event could prevent God's plan from unfolding.
You keep slipping this in over and over again.

If god doesn't know the future, how can god possibly know that the plan, whatever it is, will "unfold."

If god can't foretell the future, then god can't foretell the future.

Want to try again?

Do you want me to repeat it for you?

Either god knows what the future will be or god doesn't know what the future will be. Whatever god's plans for humankind, a meterorite (which god couldn't have foreseen) could wipe out the earth and thus prevent the fulfilment of god's plans for human beings. If god had planned to have human kind wiped out in that fashion, the meteorite might still miss. Your "omniscient" god simply can't know what the meteorite will for sure do since your god doesn't know what the future will bring.

If god doesn't know what's going to happen tomorrow, god can't make plans for tomorrow that god will be certain will turn turn out.

Can I say it some other way?

Either god knows what will happen in the future, or god doesn't. If god doesn't, then god can in no way predict the future with 100 percent certainty.

I look forward to your defense of a god who can make plans for the future but can't be certain that the plans will achieve fruition since that god doesn't know what the future will bring.

[AZSuperman]

So the prophesies were written under inspiration from a God who has no foreknowledge of future events?Assume that I will always answer this question the same way. It is not possible, even for God, to have the same level of certainty about future events as present or past events.
And, as I addressed in post #432, this makes it highly unlikely that God could create a plan which would account for all the variables.

Let me get this straight... God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but somehow he was able to "guess" what would happen to someone born hundreds of years later? Then he inspired OT writters to write down his "guesses" as prophesies so they could later prove his power?
If you're referring to Jesus, well, God made Jesus' birth happen. God could have conceivably planned this particular event.
How? At one point he had decided to eradicate all life on Earth.

When he changed his mind, and decided to keep Noah around, did he then decide he'd need to make a personal appearence?

Did he pick his mother hundreds of years before he knew if she would be born, or did he chose Mary because she "fit the bill" when he felt the timing was right to make a cameo?

Interesting... You leave the possibility for God to make a mistake.
I don't think it's really God making the mistake necessarily. If I have a free will and I use it to do something God would not want me to do, I'm making the mistake--not God.
How is God not making mistakes if his plan rested on one event, and something else happens? His entire plan would be thrown out of wack. He would need to admit his mistake (his erronious assumption) and change his plan accordingly, or his plan would fail.

If God can't know the future with certainty, then it is a very real possibility that his plan may fail due to unforeseeable complications.Provide an example.
See post #432... Without foreknowledge of the outcome of TRILLIONS of possibilities, over which he has no control (due to free-will), he can't design a plan with any certainty.

Having the ability to make "educated guesses" about the actions of people yet to be born for centuries with any level of certainty is synonymous with having the foreknowledge.

If it's only the dream of one man, why bother to include it?Are you asking me? Is this hypothetical? The New Testament was compiled some 1,700 years ago. I... wasn't born yet. I didn't do it. I swear!
You were the one who said it was the dream of one man... Not me. You were the one who said it should be taken literally... Not me.

I know you didn't include it, but you think it should be removed, ignored, or do you think it's an important part of "God's word."

I can give the Bible compilers some credit though. For a bunch of documents that may span some 1,000 years, when they come together, they do tell somewhat of one complete story... If there was no Revelations, the story would end here. That wouldn't be right. There's too much tension and suspense.
So I guess it should be included... even if it's only a dream, and not anything revealled by God himself?

: God creates a perfect world. A creature with free will chooses to fuck it up... repeatedly.
Did you ever notice that in God's "perfect" world, humans were created ignorant? Seriously, look it up! They were created without the ability to tell the difference between good and evil. Then God punished them for doing something evil (eating the fruit). I mean they were created WITHOUT any conscience! They had no way to know that there was any difference between obeying God and disobeying him. How fair is that, really?

"Hey you, I know you can't comprehend that disobeying me will be a bad thing, but if you do I'll kill ya!"

Sounds meanacing right? But they didn't know what it was to die. Death hadn't been introduced to the world yet. So not only were they completely unable to know disobeying God was "evil," but they also had no way of knowing what God was threatening them with!

Then the injustice continues... God punishes all of mankind of the actions of Adam and Eve, including causing Eve to have painful childbirth (a penance which continues to be paid by women around the world).

God is said to "punish" and "warn" the creature (repeatedly), but the creature can't seem to help itself.

God then kills off most of the life on the planet, changes his mind at the last moment... just when people are starting to become numerous again, God confuses their language (because if mankind works together he can do anything: Gen 11:6-7).

God then progresses to kill, hurt, and main millions of people. Ordering repeated genocides, and even human sacrifice.

When things have really taken a dive, God sends a perfect creature to inspire righteousness in the others. A movement builds around this creature.
Then God makes an appearance himself, and he raises the bar a little... It becomes just as bad to think lustful thoughts as it is to commit adultry, it becomes just as much of a sin to be angry as to commit murder... He even threatens you with Hell if you do so much as call someone a fool.

A movement builds around the creature because God threatened to eternally punish anyone who didn't.

(I will acknowledge, before you bring it up, the OT God and the NT God appear quite different. It's like a parent who has two kids. From my experience, the first kid gets more and worse beatings than the second kid, who gets more reason, understanding, and friendship from the parent. Why? Because the parent is just learning the ropes. With God, I think it's just us learning who God is over time and our understanding of God changing. The ancient Hebrews viewed God one way and I do another. This doesn't mean that we are not referring to the same God. It means that I am not an ancient Hebrew.)

The Bible tells a story about a God who appears very human, and changes repeatedly.

The God of the Old Testament is not a theological abstraction but rather a historical "figure" who becomes known to us through his interventions in the lives of his chosen people... At times he is prone to horrible rages, to changing his mind, to regretting his actions, and to being unfair (from a human perspective). He rests, he curses, he gambles, he gets peeved and refuses to talk - in short, he is very like a man except for his lack of direct sexual activity (although he is quite interested in the procreation of others).

The New Testament vers "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8) indicates unchangeability, but there is nothing comparable in the Old Testament, where God changes many times... God started out full of youthfull enthusiasm and bold deeds. As he matured, however, his actions gave way to words and eventually to silence. God the warrior became the Ancient of Days.

PsychoBible, Armondo Favazza

[AZSuperman]

Why do you feel it necessary to reject the story of God ordering young girl children to watch their families slaughtered before becoming sex slaves for the rest of their life? If you really believed in God's goodness, you would be like Lamp of Light, and just not care; or even celebrate that God so loved you that he tortured them for your sake.
There is one issue at the heart of our dispute. I would never blame God for these terrible acts (that people clearly do themselves), but you would (let me know if I'm wrong) because you believe that it's God's responsiblity to stop the people who do them (or intervene to provide direct assistance for someone else to stop them). I don't see it as God's responsibility. Giving us our moral, ethical sense is enough. From there, it's ours to apply.
Copper, you really need to make yourself more familiar with the OT. The "terrible acts (that people clearly do themselves)" were ordered by God.

I know, I know, you don't believe in the Bible (at least not all of it), but as long as you keep bringing up Jesus, it's impossible for us to leave it out. You should become more familiar with it so you can recognize OT stories when they're paraphrased.

The issue of God's responsibility is the real issue here. Bringing up examples of heart-breaking injustices God is supposedly responsible for doesn't help. I'm going to keep saying the same thing, and you'll keeping bringing new examples in your replies.
These aren't random examples where he's saying "God didn't stop X from happening." These are examples where "God ordered X." We're not assigning the responsibility for the actions to God, he's accepting responsibility in the OT.

Evil would be eradicated because, on the one hand, seeing a evil-doing first hand obligates any moral person to stop it...
Since God see's evil and does not stop it, using the logic you provided, we can thereby reach the conclusion that God is not a moral being.

and, on the other hand, potential evil-doers would know they are being watched by others who will stop and punish them. These potential evil-doers would "be good" just because they are being watched.
And that's a bad thing?

All of this is a dispute about where responsibility lies. It's on all of us, not just you. If God intervened everyday all day, we would be reverted to objects God manipulates and sets right.
If God can do "anything that is possible," and he didn't create a world filled with beings, who have free-will, who always choose to follow him... (even though that was his intention). We can thereby reach the conclusion that such a world is not possible.

Answer this: if the government invented a system that would prevent all crime, would you object to it?
If it eliminated certain civil liberties, I would. The government could be extra proactive and just lock us all up. That would helps stop crime, I guess.

If that system does not eliminate certain civil liberties, I don't think I would object. But that is our government--that is our work; that would contribute to the self-sustenance of the world God has planned.
But potential evil-doers would "be good" just because they are being watched. The only difference is we would be the ones doing the watching. You're against God granting us global vision to stop crimes, but you're not against the government granting us the same ability... :confused:

[el creyente]

There are others, however, (including many of you) who settle the contradiction by rejecting belief in God altogether. Yours is a more audacious and, in some ways, respectable route than that of the superstitious variety of theists.
See, I have a hard time with this. "Rejecting belief in God." I like to think that there's nothing to reject. I reject the ideas, statements, "knowledge", etc. that other people have about god. I just don't have a single god belief in my body. This reminds me when my parents tell close family members and friends that I've "turned my back on god".
I like to think that I've taken a different route. What I'm doing on this thread is sorta testing its rationality. (No better place to do it, eh?).
IIDB has done more for me than words can express. And I enjoy posters such as yourself in that I experience perspectives that I wouldn't otherwise.
That's why the Bible verses turn me off.
And this is where you've lost me. I honestly can't figure out how you believe in what you do without bible verses. I assume from your post that you don't attend church? If I'm making the wrong assumption please let me know, for I have a question.
I know God is an actual literal reality, independent of the Bible.
But how do you know this?
All I meant was that "we" make generic and simple predictions and expectations about the future all the time.
I think we can all agree that we often us the term "will" to express future plans. However, when you originally repsonded to my example, I was under the impression that it was commonplace to use the term "will" when telling others about their own future specific actions. I now see my impression was wrong.
The Bible is not the only way to know about God.
And what other way is there?

[el creyente]

I was speaking here within the context of this discussion. Since (most) atheists would not accept the OT as authoritative, I wouldn't use it as "proof" of anything in these conversations. In the verse you quote, Jesus is speaking to his discplines (who do accept the OT as authoritative).
So then, by your response, I take it that, unlike the disciples of Jesus, you don't accept the OT as authoritative. I understand this from your quote:
Personally, I wouldn't use the OT as proof of such.
The word "personally" means that you're talking about yourself. Is this correct?

ETA: I take it from your response that when you're discussing the bible with atheists, you don't accept the OT as authoritative. However, when you're discussing the bible with theists, you do accept the OT as authoritative. Is this correct?

[Copper Scroll]

This did nothing to show how or why a deity is needed for the rippling effect to take place or to last.. Without the deity's intervention, revelation, and guidance, we'd very likely destroy ourselves and the world.

But lets take a look at history for a minute: The people who leave the most lasting impression are NOT the people who do good, they are the people who commit some of the worst atrocities.
I disagree. We remember the assholes in history (with disgust, hate, and anger), but we undo the wrongs they have done. By assigning and reinforcing their images as monsters, we undo their ideological damage. When one politician really wants to diss another, he calls him Hitler. This is more akin to Hell than Heaven for Hitler.

As I said, when we act in groups we have the ability to stop acting as part of that group at any time. Are you saying we will have the option to stop acting in accordance to God's will after we have obtained eternal life?
Good question. Technically, I guess, it would be an option, just one that would make no sense. In the world as we live it, there are plenty of reasons to disobey God--plenty of temptations and reinforcements for evil thought and deeds. In Heaven, there are no such temptations and reinforcements. Further, we would have internalized God's will. It would be more of our nature than it is now. So the question becomes Why would someone go against their internal nature and external environment even if it is an option? I doubt it would even occur to anyone. But good question.

Not in the same sense as you and I have lives of our own. Their lives are our lives. They (the causal chains) are us. And they last much longer than our lives as organisms.

That's hardly "eternal life" in the conscience sence. If all that is needed for eternal life, is a lasting effect, then I'll agree with you... We all have the potential for eternal life. However, if your definition includes some sort of conscience existence which continues beyond the grave, you will need to do more than show that our actions create reactions.
I would argue that it is conscious; it's just depersonalized. Our consciousness is nothing but a set of thoughts and actions. Each thought and action we have (and the causal chains they inspire) contains our consciousness.

I am saying nothing of the sort. But I'm also not claiming the book is God's word. Neither am I. Personally, I don't think it's any more "God's word" than a John Coltrane record. I've said as much before. But I like Coltrane, and the Bible does contain many important truths.

It seems strange that you would believe the Bible (or at least parts of it) to be God's word, but then admit other parts (or other books) are not. Strike the "God's word" and replace with "human's word".

Strange, but don't say (as others) that it makes me self-contradicting. The Bible is a compilation.

Wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to get a clear version of his word out to the world? Wouldn't God do something to ensure that the most important message sent to the world would be relayed effectively? For many people who practice many religions, the revelations they have from God are enough to satisfy them in their faiths.

Just as turning water into wine is logically impossible because water and wine are different substances. In order for Jesus to turn water into wine, he would've needed to chemically change the structure of the water.

Of course now you'll probably tell me this is one of the Bible stories which may just be a parable.
No, I'll tell you that chemical and physical change is possible. If it is possible, God can do it.

The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible: Define "perfect peace."
Balance without conflict or exploitation of each other or our environment. I don't know what this might mean for animals. Are you asking (ultimately) whether animals will be our equals? I don't know.

God can do anything that is possible: This assumption you have declared, but not given any reason for us to accept it yet, nor have you defined "anything that is possible." God created this material world and the principles which govern it. God can do anything within it. If you don't believe me or the many others who feel the same way, that's fine.

There is only one God: How do you know this? . Personal experience and the accounts of others in various religious traditions.

No event could prevent God's plan from unfolding: I disagree. If the future is unknown, even to God, then it's impossible for God to design a completely fool-proof plan. As I said before, it's entirely possible that some event could happen which will prevent God's plan from taking place.
You go on from here to beat this point into the ground without providing a real example of what might prevent God's plan from unfolding. (The thing about planning a vacation is not an example but an analogy that doesn't quite fit.) I address this issue in my response to JAB, because he actually provides an example.

Out of curiosity, do you believe all natural disasters are God's way of eradicating the non-contributees?
No, natural disasters are atmospheric and geological events that we are present for. They have nothing to do with righteousness or sin.

So I guess we can assume God won't intervene... We can assume this but that doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

[Copper Scroll]

You keep slipping this in over and over again

If god doesn't know the future, how can god possibly know that the plan, whatever it is, will "unfold."

If god can't foretell the future, then god can't foretell the future..
There's a difference between knowing something will happen and knowing who what where when how it will happen.

Want to try again? Not really, but I guess that you do. I will say reread what I've written you already.

Either god knows what the future will be or god doesn't know what the future will be. Whatever god's plans for humankind, a meterorite (which god couldn't have foreseen) could wipe out the earth and thus prevent the fulfilment of god's plans for human beings. If god had planned to have human kind wiped out in that fashion, the meteorite might still miss. Your "omniscient" god simply can't know what the meteorite will for sure do since your god doesn't know what the future will bring.
God can stop meteorites that would prevent the fulfillment of God's plan. (This answer is also intended for Clark Kent.) If you guy's come up with another example, by all means, run it by me.

[Copper Scroll]

I know, I know, you don't believe in the Bible (at least not all of it), but as long as you keep bringing up Jesus, it's impossible for us to leave it out.
Jesus isn't in the OT, but for some reason you can't seem to view the Bible as the compilation it is. For you, it must be a monolith.

But potential evil-doers would "be good" just because they are being watched. The only difference is we would be the ones doing the watching. You're against God granting us global vision to stop crimes, but you're not against the government granting us the same ability...
First, I would not be against God granting us "global vision" if that is what God wants to do. I only offer explanations for why God might not.

"Global vision" would stop crime (for the most part), but it wouldn't necessarily stop people's motivations for committing crime or people's desire to commit crime. These people are forced to repress their motivations and desires. This world would be safer, at least temporarily, but it wouln't be stable at all. We all (should) know what repression can lead to--various forms of psychopathology, which is not very safe at all. Heaven is stable and free; not unstable and repressed, on the verge of disaster.

Now, about the government coming up with a system to stop crime, I wrote: "If it eliminated certain civil liberties, I would [object to it]. The government could be extra proactive and just lock us all up. That would helps stop crime, I guess.

"If that system does not eliminate certain civil liberties, I don't think I would object.."

Many people would argue that if the goverment did come up with a "global surveillance system, that it would definitely eliminate certain civil liberties. In this case, I would not agree with it.

[Copper Scroll]

See, I have a hard time with this. "Rejecting belief in God." I like to think that there's nothing to reject. I reject the ideas, statements, "knowledge", etc. that other people have about god. I just don't have a single god belief in my body. This reminds me when my parents tell close family members and friends that I've "turned my back on god".
Acknowledged.

And what other way is there? I've encountered God personally, and God shows in in various religious traditions and philosophical/scientific ideas.

[Copper Scroll]

I take it from your response that when you're discussing the bible with atheists, you don't accept the OT as authoritative. However, when you're discussing the bible with theists, you do accept the OT as authoritative. Is this correct?
My view on the Bible is this: It is a compilation of various writings by people. I don't think it can be characterized as "God's cut" of the many many ancient religious writings in the JudeoChristian tradition (like the "director's cut" of a movie). I've been accused here of picking and choosing arbitrarily what I like and don't like in the Bible. It's not like that. Each document has its own historical and cultural context, and I believe there are flaws and truths in each document necessarily because they were written by flawed human beings.

You previously asked me a question about church. I don't go regularly, but this is something I plan to work on. I haven't found a church-home I can feel completely comfortable in.

[copernicus]

My view on the Bible is this: It is a compilation of various writings by people. I don't think it can be characterized as "God's cut" of the many many ancient religious writings in the JudeoChristian tradition (like the "director's cut" of a movie). I've been accused here of picking and choosing arbitrarily what I like and don't like in the Bible. It's not like that. Each document has its own historical and cultural context, and I believe there are flaws and truths in each document necessarily because they were written by flawed human beings.

What criteria do you use to decide whether a statement in the Bible is true or false? Gut feeling?

[John A. Broussard]

There's a difference between knowing something will happen and knowing who what where when how it will happen.

It's becoming clearer. God would know which horse is going to win the next Kentucky Derby, but he wouldn't know who was going to ride the horse, what day it would happen, where it would take place or how much the horse would win by.

All of which brings up the important point. How can your god know for sure about some things in the future but be blind to other future events?

Do you follow some rule about this? If so, could you tell me where you got the rule and how reliable it is?

I must admit I'm fascinated by your very different god who can predict some things with 100 percent accuracy and yet be totally unable to predict other items at all.

Any backing for your view of your god, even scriptural support, would be nice.

Thanks again for responding to my post.

[John A. Broussard]

Thank you for your post. I'm repeating part of it here in order to be sure I understand what you wrote:

JAB:
Do we or do we not have free will?

LoL: Yes, I believe we absolutely do have free will.

JAB: If we do have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?



LoL: I believe we have it, and i believe our free will choices God already fore-knows. So the answer is NO, we will do only what God foresees we are goign to do


JAB: If we do not have it, will we do anything except what your god foresees that we will do?


LoL: The question is irrelevent, because I believe we have it. If however I believed we did not have it, the answer would still be the same. God will still foreknow the outcome either way. So what does it mean then ? It means whetehr or not you have free will, God would still know the outcome.

So now you think free will is irrelevent, merely because someone foreknows your choices ? You would rather then be a slave entirely ?.

Since you've now admitted that it makes no difference whether or not we have free will, then how can that last question have any meaning?

The fact that you believe you have free will makes absolutely no difference so far as your behavior is concerned, so how can free will be relevant to anything?

Now that we've settled the matter that it doesn't matter whether or not you have free will, how can your not having free will make you a "slave?"

As usual I look forward to your answer.

[alienward]

So I have to agree with something a religious organization deems true? I'm sure you wish I would so that it would be easier to refute my arguments.
No, your arguments fall on their own. I’m just showing a religious organization that believes in a different god than you.

Everyone knows that ideas about God abound across and within religions. That does not mean that God doesn't exist (if this is your point).
The completely contradictory claims like ones that a god can predict the future and others that a god can’t predict the future are evidence enough that theists are just speaking from their imaginations.

[Yahzi]

Of course.
So if I die right now, never having had the experience that God gave you and thus not believing in God, am I barred from Heaven?

I don't understand why you are OK with the fact that God has revealed himself to you, but not to me. It seems a lot like the Angels - you don't seem to object to God having treated me differently. You don't seem to object to the unfairness of it, and I don't know why.

Maybe some people have had experiences like mine but didn't attribute them to God. In my experience, God never says "I'm God."
Now you are back to making God ambigous again.

Why does the Almighty God need to play hide and seek? And if there is a good reason, then why are you pointing out what tree he is hiding behind?

There is no clear line between the two.
For a person who revels in ambiguity, you seem rather certain of the fact that I am wrong.

I am fully aware of the complexity of the relationship between genes and behaviour. This is not the point. The point is that you freely ascribe bad behaviour to humans, while implying that all good behaviour is inspired by God.

Well, I would consider it far more dangerous to give someone a pass who says that God told him to kill his family, instruct other men to kill their families, and then commit suicide just because he says God told him to do so.
But (minus the suicide) you are quoting the Bible here. :(

For the record: it is possible to believe in objective morality without believing in God. I am quite certain that morality is objective, and that it can be scientifically shown to be so.

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Can you give me an example of this danger you speak of?
You don't understand why it is dangerous to presume that people who disagree with you are criminal or stupid? Particularly after you have acknowledged that not everyone would interpret the data the same as you have?

Do you understand why dissent is necessary for a democracy to function?

This is something you decided before reading my first post.
I will kindly ask you not to speculate on my motives or integrity.

Any theistic position, to you, is insensitive.
This is simply not true. In any case, you cannot dismiss my arguments because they happen to apply to the theisms you are interested in. If you think my arguments for insenstivity do not apply, then show how they do not apply. Simply stating that I am a close-minded zealot does not constitute an argument.

I don't see it as God's responsibility..
The heart of our dispute is that you grant God a special exemption. If it were a mere man in His position - if a mortal man sat back and idley watched these crimes while it was in his power to prevent them - you would be outraged. You would call that man evil or at least not good.

The simple question we pose to you is this: Why would you condemn a man for doing what God does?

This is what all the insensitivity arguments are about. I will go out on a limb and state as a matter of fact that you could never watch a child be raped without intervening. Especially if that intervention were as easy as pushing a button. Nor could you ever stomach to be friends or even an associate of a person who could remain so indifferent.

Yet God does it every day, and you profess to worship him.

Why the difference?

God created this world and sustains this world but the goal is for this world to sustain itself--for us to sustain it and bring lasting peace upon it. This cannot happen if God intervenes everytime something bad happens.
Then why did God intervene at all?

What was the point of Jesus dying on the cross if we are on our own?

I assume you would argue that our ethics and morals would be at least as good as they are had there been no Jesus and no Bible. I would disagree with that.
See, speaking of insensitivity: you have just implied that the morals of the Chinese are not as good as ours. Your argument presupposes that the Japanese have not developed as morally as we have.

I am not Oriental, but I am offended on behalf of that entire hemisphere that you think their morals are inferior to ours.

What you didn't respond to was my argument that God, by your standard, would be infinitely more responsible than anyone else because God's power and ability is infinitely greater than anyone else's.
Congratulations. You have just discovered one of the problems with the concept of omnipotence.

(And you've seen my argument for why God doesn't do this--the whole free will and virtue thing.)
I defeated your argument against free will with my telephone example.

Does a person who understands what having an Xbox means and can use one have a right to one? By your standard he does.
The issue is not their right to have one; it is God's fairness in giving one to some people but not to others.

If everyone had "global vision", no one would do anything wrong because they would know someone who would stop and punish them immediately can see them do it. People would be forced to be good.
And that is bad how?

:huh:

How is that bad?

seeing a evil-doing first hand obligates any moral person to stop it
Unless that person is God.

I disagree. If you didn't know of anything worst than petty theft, petty theft would horrify you just as much as rape and genocide.
So you cannot appreciate the evils of the world fully unless I rape and exterminate your family?

Don't you see how this argument fails - either each of us must suffer the evil firsthand, or secondhand accounts are adequate in which case one secondhand account is good enough. It's one or the other.

If that system does not eliminate certain civil liberties, I don't think I would object.
You don't think? That implies you aren't sure. Since you've just explained why God has to allow rapists to complete their crimes, perhaps you can explain how the government stopping people is different than God stopping people.

Again, we are left with the picture that you require others to suffer horribly so that you might have moral growth.

[Copper Scroll]

What criteria do you use to decide whether a statement in the Bible is true or false? Gut feeling? I don't go looking for falsehoods in the Bible. I find some text more relevant than others based in part on subjective intuition and the rest on historical context and reason.

[Lamp Of Light]

John,

you said:

The fact that you believe you have free will makes absolutely no difference so far as your behavior is concerned, so how can free will be relevant to anything?


It is relevent to the point that you get to exercise it as opposed to being forced to be somthing you don't choose to be. God is giving you a choice. He is letting you choose that which you will be, and in the end, you will either be with God or against Him. You will know and understand good and evil after you pass through this life, and your deeds and actions will reflect that knowledge and choice of service accordingly. Nobody will go through it without having an understanding by experience of love, hate, pain, pleasure , suffering, injustice, justice, etc, etc, etc. God remains hidden precisely for that reason. So that He does not affect/influence the balance that allows us to experience a direct knowledge of both.

Here on earth we choose to be that which we desire. The question really is would you rather be forced to be a certain way ? Or not be given the experience of first hand knowledge of good and evil so as to choose for yourself ? I mean I hear alot of people say why didn't God just make everythign perfect to begin with ? I say He did make it perfect. They say why did God not make it so there is no pain, suffering, death, etc ? I say those are the very same thigns I used to say, and argue against a loving God with, but the reality is this... what is the meaning of the warm sun upon your skin in the summer time if you have never experienced the cold, the damp, the wet, the freezing, the winter ? What is the meaning to feel healthy, if never you were sick ? WOuld you know and appreciate and understand the value of good health having never suffered illness in your life ? What about pleasure ? Wopuld it hav eth esame meaning, understanding, and value, if you never have experienced anythign besides it ? The same with love, and all of it. Just look around you john... do you have employees ? been one yourself ?? HOw many times have you had a job, and after workign there a while you think your irreplaceable ? How many employees have you seen who become that way ? Are they really irreplacable ? Or are they taking their job for granted ? Look at the Isrealites, and you will see it again and again and again. Do you take for granted that you will wake up tommorrow ?
I hear people saying, "all I want is proof !" So what if you had the proof ? Do you think you are suddenly goign to do everythign God demands of you ? Do you think you will suddenly transform into the perfect child of God ? Thats what the Isrealites thought. They even asked God to give them more responsibilities because they thought they would surely live up to it, but God already knew they couldn't live up to what they had, and even so He gave them more. God desires perfection like He himself is perfect, but we cannot become perfect of ourselves. At some point, we will sin. Yet through Jesus Christ we can be transformed and made whole. Complete, perfect, upright and righteous before God, not by our own work, but by allowing God to enter into our life and work through us. It is a relationship. We are liek the bride and He is the bridegroom.

[Copper Scroll]

All of which brings up the important point. How can your god know for sure about some things in the future but be blind to other future events?

Reason dictates two certainties about the future: God's existence and the fulfillment of God's plan... neither of these is a specific event. No specific events in the future can be known by anyone.

[Copper Scroll]

No, your arguments fall on their own.
I suppose you're keeping the reasons how and why to yourself.

[Lamp Of Light]

copper scroll,

If I might interject a moment. I thought you said God was inside time and outside time at the same time ?? Or was that someone else ? If it was you, then I think it pokes a hole in your position that God doesn't knwo the future. This I say because if He is outside of time, then He already has seen the end.

Just my thoughts. I have entertained a few different ideas on it myself.

[Copper Scroll]

So if I die right now, never having had the experience that God gave you and thus not believing in God, am I barred from Heaven? I don't believe so.

I don't understand why you are OK with the fact that God has revealed himself to you, but not to me.
God is revealed to different people for different reasons. (You are OK with people being different, I hope.)

It seems a lot like the Angels - you don't seem to object to God having treated me differently. You don't seem to object to the unfairness of it, and I don't know why. If your question on this issue is still unanswered after reading my last reply, you could try to ask a specific question about it.

The issue with you is fairness between us and angels. We have free will, which makes us us, and angels have omniscience, which makes angels angels. I suppose it is also unfair (to you) that angels have knowledge that we don't have. Well, if we had that knowledge, we would be unfree like them. We can't have it both ways. Which way would you prefer?


This is not the point. The point is that you freely ascribe bad behaviour to humans, while implying that all good behaviour is inspired by God. When we are bad, it's because of us. When we are good, it's because of us.

For the record: it is possible to believe in objective morality without believing in God. . Acknowledged.

I am quite certain that morality is objective, and that it can be scientifically shown to be so You can prove scientifically that murder is wrong?


You don't understand why it is dangerous to presume that people who disagree with you are criminal or stupid?
I never said criminal. Everyone with conviction thinks they are right. You don't think you are right?

Do you understand why dissent is necessary for a democracy to function? What does this have to do with anything? If my opinion is not dissent, both within the context of this forum and in the church, then what is?


I will kindly ask you not to speculate on my motives or integrity.
I don't need to speculate about your motives. They are plain.

If you think my arguments for insenstivity do not apply, then show how they do not apply.
According to you, because I believe in a God that does not intervene everytime something bad happens, then I am insensitive to the pain and suffering in the world.

I argue that if God intervenes everytime something bad happens, God forces us to be good. This, I argue, would defeat our purpose in life, as our purpose is to choose to be good. We cannot sustain ourselves if God intervenes to either stop us from doing evil or to provide direct assistance to us in stopping evil every time evil is about to occur. We would be entirely dependent upon God's intervention for our "goodness". It would likely get to the point where if God failed to intervene for just an hour, our world would collapse in on us. We have a responsibility to care for each other and our world. We cannot learn to do this if God intervenes all of the time, like a parent jumping in to save her kid everytime he gets into trouble.

There are times when good parents have to let their kids make mistakes. You might respond to this by saying the mistakes we are allowed to make are too great. I would argue that any mistake would be considered to great by someone. This is a point you have not responded to: If there was no regularly occurring evil in this world worse than glue sniffing and none of us knew about anything worse than glue sniffing (if this was the biggest mistake that we made), then someone like you would demand God to fix it.

The heart of our dispute is that you grant God a special exemption.
Well, God is special. My arguments have gone ignored. You don't respond to them. You return with the same questions and issues in every post without acknowledging the answers I offer.

Then why did God intervene at all? To save us from ourselves.

What was the point of Jesus dying on the cross if we are on our own? My belief that Jesus' life needed to happen because we were on the path straight to self-destruction. Jesus' life and teachings saved us from annihilation.


See, speaking of insensitivity: you have just implied that the morals of the Chinese are not as good as ours. Your argument presupposes that the Japanese have not developed as morally as we have. No, there was no talk of the East. Our whole discussion has been based squarely within a JudeoChristian (Western) context. You bringing up the East was a way of side-stepping the question, which I'll rephrase: Do you think that without the life and teachings of Jesus our ethics and morals be as good as they are in Western culture? (If anything I think the East probably always had better ethics and values (in general) than those in Western culture.)

I am not Oriental, but I am offended What's new? (I don't think they like being called "Oriental" by the way. They might be offended.)

I defeated your argument against free will with my telephone example.
Now, there's a winning strategy. Ignore the arguments and declare victory in the debate. The Internet is a wonder! I'll revise previous answers:

1. If everyone got phone calls preceding every rape and murder, rape and murder might end. But other crimes remain. After a generation, you would stand up and demand phone calls preceding every burglary or assault.

2. People's motivations to rape and murder would not be curbed. They would either find faster ways of doing it without getting caught, or stop and repress their motivations. Repressed motivations lead to psychopathology and, well, crazy people don't think or care about getting caught.

The issue is not their right to have one; it is God's fairness in giving one to some people but not to others. Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?


And that is bad how?
Our purpose for living is to choose virtue. See post 440. (I'll probably hear the question again though.)

So you cannot appreciate the evils of the world fully unless I rape and exterminate your family? You have interpreted what I say this way before. I don't know where you get it from. I think it's something you heard from another theist.

I'm not sying we need familiarity with the evils of this world. I'm saying that if there is any evil in this world, there will be some events regarded as great tragedies. If peeing in the alley was the worst thing that happened in our society, your "telephone" argument would be about God not calling you when someone was about to pee in the alley.

Don't you see how this argument fails Not yet.

- either each of us must suffer the evil firsthand, or secondhand accounts are adequate in which case one secondhand account is good enough. It's one or the other. I don't know what you're talking about. Cannibalism is not something that happens very often. If it happened more often, your "telephone" argument would be about God not calling you when someone was about to eat somebody else.


You don't think? That implies you aren't sure.
If the government's final crime stopper infringed upon civil liberties I would be against it. You imply that you would be in favor of a solution. Where do you stand on the civil liberty question?

Since you've just explained why God has to allow rapists to complete their crimes, perhaps you can explain how the government stopping people is different than God stopping people. I thought I did: Our government's work "is our work; that would contribute to the self-sustenance of the world God has planned."

Again, we are left with the picture that you require others to suffer horribly so that you might have moral growth. Another passage from How to Talk to Theists... If You Must?

[Copper Scroll]

I thought you said God was inside time and outside time at the same time ?? Or was that someone else ? If it was you, then I think it pokes a hole in your position that God doesn't knwo the future. This I say because if He is outside of time, then He already has seen the end.
Good question, Lamp. My argument is that God is eternal in that God existed before time, exists through time independently of it, and will exist after time. But since the future has not unfolded and come into existence yet by definition, its contents are cannot be known with certainty.

This is an argument against determinism. To my mind, if the future's contents are knowable then that must mean that past events determine the future. If past events determine the future then people never really choose--they just react. As a conscious person, to me, this is intuitively wrong.

I know you have been having a long discussion with our atheist friends on this issue, but I haven't really been following it that well. In the glimpse I took, you were supporting an argument that says (let me know if I'm wrong) that we do choose freely because we do not know the exact outcomes of our choices and those of others. My argument is that if these outcomes can be known with certainty, then the freedom of our choices is illusory.

I would agree with you that God does know (better than we ourselves know) our pattern of thoughts and actions and the content of our "hearts". This information would be invaluable in predicting what choices we would make in various situations. But (in the ways I have used the words "knowledge" and "prediction") this qualifies as prediction and not as knowledge. Prophecy can happen and it is a valid enterprise for those have received God's revelation, but (to me) it is highly informed prediction and not necessarily prescience.

[John A. Broussard]

Reason dictates two certainties about the future: God's existence and the fulfillment of God's plan... neither of these is a specific event. No specific events in the future can be known by anyone.
Please explain how god's plan is not a specific event.

Thank you.

[John A. Broussard]

It is relevent to the point that you get to exercise it as opposed to being forced to be somthing you don't choose to be. God is giving you a choice. He is letting you choose that which you will be,
Which, as you yourself said, makes absolutely no difference, since if you do not have free will, you will make the choices that god has foreseen.

If you do have free will, you will make the choices that god has foreseen.

In neither case are you being "forced to be something you don't choose to be."

As you said, you simply choose to do what god has foreseen you will choose to do regardless of whether or not you have free will.

The argument simply states that an omniscient god makes free will irrelevant.

You agreed with the premisses, and didn't deny that they yield that conclusion.

Why fight it?

[John A. Broussard]

copper scroll,

If I might interject a moment. I thought you said God was inside time and outside time at the same time ?? Or was that someone else ? If it was you, then I think it pokes a hole in your position that God doesn't knwo the future. This I say because if He is outside of time, then He already has seen the end.

Just my thoughts. I have entertained a few different ideas on it myself.

Given the same argument I presented--which you accepted--CS avoided the horns of the dilemma by simply denying the possibility of god foreseeing the future. While that avoidance saves the relevancy of free will, it has it's own drawbacks--some of which you are pointing to above.

If, like CS, you give up the notion of an omniscient god (one who by the usual definition of the word can foresee the future) then you can preserve the relevancy of free will.

Care to change your mind?

Do you want to believe that free will matters? If so, then you will have to follow CS down the path of denying god's omniscience.

[Lamp Of Light]

Thanks for the reply Copper Scroll !

Well I have, myself, entertained a few different views on the issue at various times the past three years. I have settled upon the traditional view, feeling that it is not the best course to abandon it for another view, and there are many reasons for that, which I won't go into now. However, I have debated what you have basically been presenting here, and wish to share some of my thoughts upon it to perhaps aid your own seekign heart.
As you said, God can look at all the knowables, and then practically know it simply by takign into account everythign possibly knowable, thus making Him extremely accurate in foretelling the future. Likewise, being God, He is all powerful, so He could simply say it will be and make it so that it will be. For example, He could say at 12:00PM on Decmber,10,2009 a total of 17 monkeys will fly out everybodys chimney, or whatever, and since He is God, He can surely make that happen. Hence prophecy is always fulfilled merely in the fact He is all powerful and can make it happen.
Another point of note I present is that there really is only the "now". The past has already happened, the future is yet to happen, and the only thing that really exists is the "now". Time as we typically understand it is simply a linear logical construct. In other words you could never go back in time, or forward in time to the future, because those things are just linear logical constructs. Time as we think of it, does not really exist except in our minds. It is really nothign but a logical frame of reference for our minds and a linear construct whereby which we can actively function more efficiently and purposefully, but predominantly it i s tool for measuring. Hence time will not really stop when you reach the speed of light, even though mathematically we can demonstrate that it should, and that is because time does not really exist. Likewise we do not grow old because of time, but rather because of our genetic construction and metabolism burning up or eroding, and we can see it occurr over the logical linear construct called time. I suggest that it isn't that time causes this to occurr, but rather that time simply measures it's occurance for us. That is my thoughts upon it anyways.
These are a couple of the things i presented when I adopted your position for a time and debated for it, especially in regards to the future not having occurred yet. I of course, hav epredominantly made my arguments based out of scripture since my conversion, and I can make a pretty strong case for your position using it. However I ultimately ended up abondoning it, because as you have done, I saw it would require me to abandon the scriptures in the end, and I wasn't willing to to do that based upon its actual affirmation of my belief. In other words, because I believe the scriptures to be true subsequent to my experience, and in particular the gospel of john, I could not then bring myself to abandon it, because it served as an affirmation to my experience. You have apparently chosen to abandon them. Ultimately though, I wanted to point out to you that I think the construct of time really throws alot of people for the loop, and while i can agree with much of your argument, I ultimately have chosen another option for myself at this point.

May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever !

[copernicus]

What criteria do you use to decide whether a statement in the Bible is true or false? Gut feeling?
I don't go looking for falsehoods in the Bible. I find some text more relevant than others based in part on subjective intuition and the rest on historical context and reason.

You have denied cherry-picking the parts of the Bible that you take as literal truth, but your response suggests that that is exactly what you do. You don't go "looking for falsehoods". That is, you are predisposed to believe what you read in the Bible. You employ "subjective intuition" (a.k.a. "gut feeling") to believe those passages that take your fancy. When serious questions are raised about historical accuracy and logic, you are willing to abandon them. The de facto effect of all this is that you end up cherry-picking what you defend as truth in the Bible.

[John A. Broussard]

Thanks for the reply Copper Scroll !

Well I have, myself, entertained a few different views on the issue at various times the past three years. I have settled upon the traditional view, feeling that it is not the best course to abandon it for another view, and there are many reasons for that, which I won't go into now. However, I have debated what you have basically been presenting here, and wish to share some of my thoughts upon it to perhaps aid your own seekign heart.
As you said, God can look at all the knowables, and then practically know it simply by takign into account everythign possibly knowable, thus making Him extremely accurate in foretelling the future. Likewise, being God, He is all powerful, so He could simply say it will be and make it so that it will be. For example, He could say at 12:00PM on Decmber,10,2009 a total of 17 monkeys will fly out everybodys chimney, or whatever, and since He is God, He can surely make that happen. Hence prophecy is always fulfilled merely in the fact He is all powerful and can make it happen.
Another point of note I present is that there really is only the "now". The past has already happened, the future is yet to happen, and the only thing that really exists is the "now". Time as we typically understand it is simply a linear logical construct. In other words you could never go back in time, or forward in time to the future, because those things are just linear logical constructs. Time as we think of it, does not really exist except in our minds. It is really nothign but a logical frame of reference for our minds and a linear construct whereby which we can actively function more efficiently and purposefully, but predominantly it i s tool for measuring. Hence time will not really stop when you reach the speed of light, even though mathematically we can demonstrate that it should, and that is because time does not really exist. Likewise we do not grow old because of time, but rather because of our genetic construction and metabolism burning up or eroding, and we can see it occurr over the logical linear construct called time. I suggest that it isn't that time causes this to occurr, but rather that time simply measures it's occurance for us. That is my thoughts upon it anyways.
These are a couple of the things i presented when I adopted your position for a time and debated for it, especially in regards to the future not having occurred yet. I of course, hav epredominantly made my arguments based out of scripture since my conversion, and I can make a pretty strong case for your position using it. However I ultimately ended up abondoning it, because as you have done, I saw it would require me to abandon the scriptures in the end, and I wasn't willing to to do that based upon its actual affirmation of my belief. In other words, because I believe the scriptures to be true subsequent to my experience, and in particular the gospel of john, I could not then bring myself to abandon it, because it served as an affirmation to my experience. You have apparently chosen to abandon them. Ultimately though, I wanted to point out to you that I think the construct of time really throws alot of people for the loop, and while i can agree with much of your argument, I ultimately have chosen another option for myself at this point.

I don't often agree with you, but I must admit the above is a powerful argument if one is going to believe in the truth of the scriptures.

But CS has rejected the view of the scriptures that you present here, so I doubt that your argument will have much influence.

Anyhow. Well done.

[Lamp Of Light]

John said:

If, like CS, you give up the notion of an omniscient god (one who by the usual definition of the word can foresee the future) then you can preserve the relevancy of free will.

Care to change your mind?

Do you want to believe that free will matters? If so, then you will have to follow CS down the path of denying god's omniscience.


Sorry John, I won't shift my position at this stage. You seem to think free will is irrelvent by the fact that God knows our free will choices. I continue to maintain that despite HIs knowing our free will choices, that it is still relevent. It remains relevent for a couple reasons to my understanding.

1) You were at least given the choice, even if you do not exercise it to the best result, and even if God already knows it.

2) If you were never given the choice, then you would be nothign but a mindless slave without any experience or knowledge of good or evil. you would be, what I would suggest, just like an animal not knowing the difference.

When questioned "If God knows the results why bother ?" ... I say it is because it has to be actualized in order to achive the desired end result.
I do have to be honest John, I tend to favor copper scrolls position on many points. I find it more "reasonable" in many areas, but then again, just because it seems more reasonable doesn't mean it's so. Because I believe the scriptures to be true, I ended up having to abondon it, because it conflicts with my understanding of scripture, especially in regards to destiny and knowing. Yet who knows John, my understanding and thinking may evolve in such a manner that what was previously not visible or comprehensible to me, may tommorrow become comrpehensible, and I may shift back to a position more similiar to copper scroll, but I don't think that is goign to happen without some understandings and comprehension coming my way over some issues I have previously run into. I am not adverse to changing my position John, and I am always willing to align to the truth, after all, it is the truth whereby which I seek to know in all aspects, although its not likely I will actually achieve that in this lifetime.

May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever !!


P.S. Thanks for the compliment John. I appreciate your kindness. :)

[Yahzi]

The issue with you is fairness between us and angels. We have free will, which makes us us, and angels have omniscience, which makes angels angels.
Where do you derive the idea that angels are omniscient? Would that be your intuition again?

What you are saying is that free will is a function of ignorance. This makes no sense at all. First, you are implying that knowledge of good means there is no choice, but this is invalidated by common experience (we all know people who choose bad even when they know it is bad) and by your description of Satan (who chose bad despite his knowledge.)

Second, and far more ominous, it suggests that ignorance is good. One can imagine it is a very small step from your "we can't know everything" to book burnings. If all knowledge is bad, then why would getting some knowledge be good?

Which way would you prefer?
I would prefer to be good. Isn't that what it means to be good - to choose the good when you have a choice? What does it say about you that you prefer ignorance and evil so that you might be free? How selfish can you get to choose ignorance simply because it gives you freedom from having to be good?

Of course we all choose good. How could we choose otherwise and still be good?

You can prove scientifically that murder is wrong?
Yes. But that is another argument, and not particularly relevant here.

I never said criminal. Everyone with conviction thinks they are right. You don't think you are right?
I do not understand why you cannot grasp this point. I am not complaining about your conviction; I am complaining about your assumption that people who disagree with you are lying or stupid. It is not the strength with which you hold your views that concerns me; it is the contempt with which you hold other's views.

I don't need to speculate about your motives. They are plain.
Questioning my integrity by asserting that I hold to a preconcieved notion and will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented is both impolite and against the rules of the IIDB.

According to you, because I believe in a God that does not intervene everytime something bad happens, then I am insensitive to the pain and suffering in the world.
Not quite. What I am saying is that if you believe the theology you are espousing, you are necessarily endorsing insensitivity, because your theology is insensitive. The fact that this bothers you is proof that you are sensitive. So now the question becomes: where does your sensitivity come from, if not from your theology?

I argue that if God intervenes everytime something bad happens, God forces us to be good.
I argue that making a phone call is not intervening with free will.

This, I argue, would defeat our purpose in life, as our purpose is to choose to be good.
We could make this choice with vastly less evil. It is not necessary for children to be raped for us to be able to make this choice. Is it necessary for your child to be raped for you to make this choice? Given that your answer is no, why do you think it is necessary for other people's children to be raped for you to make this choice?

We would be entirely dependent upon God's intervention for our "goodness".
The people who burned the heretics in the Auto-de-fa did not feel any need to hide their actions. The prosecutors of witches did not hide their names. Your idea that if there were no secrets there would be no evil is not supported by the historical record.

It would likely get to the point where if God failed to intervene for just an hour, our world would collapse in on us.
The Holocaust, Bosnia, Rawanda, the AIDS crisis in Africa, the food crisis in Africa, global warming... what, exactly, qualifies as "collapsed" for you?

I would argue that any mistake would be considered to great by someone.
I would argue that some mistakes would be considered too great by everyone. Wouldn't you agree?

Again you make the point that God must allow mistakes; God must allow other people's children to be raped so that you will have a chance to grow morally.

This is a point you have not responded to: If there was no regularly occurring evil in this world worse than glue sniffing and none of us knew about anything worse than glue sniffing (if this was the biggest mistake that we made), then someone like you would demand God to fix it.
I have responded to this issue before you brought it up. Please pay attention to the "none of us knew." Please refer to my examples where I explicitly stated that a single second-hand account would be sufficient.

Again you state that regularly occurring evil is necessary for your moral growth - but not necessarily occurring to you. Again you are saying that other people's suffering is necessary for your moral growth.

Tell me what is wrong with this idea: I suffer from the mistakes I make, and not from someone else's. What is wrong with that? Will I be unable to experience moral growth under that set of rules? Why does God allow children to suffer from the rapist's mistake?

And why are you so utterly unconcerned with the fate of children that are raped and murdered before they have a chance to make any mistakes, before they can experience any moral growth?

Well, God is special.
That's your argument? God is special?

Perhaps you should look up the fallacy known as "special pleading."

My arguments have gone ignored. You don't respond to them. You return with the same questions and issues in every post without acknowledging the answers I offer.
Because your answers are not answers.

When I ask you, why is God special, and your answer is, because he is: that is not an answer. When I ask why the Angels have not received the same the gift we have, you say because Angels are different. When I ask why second-hand reports are good enough for you but not for others, you just ignore me. When I ask you why a man should be expected to do what God is not, you say because God is special.

My belief that Jesus' life needed to happen because we were on the path straight to self-destruction. Jesus' life and teachings saved us from annihilation.
:eek:

If you think the ancient world was about to exterminate human life until Jesus set them on another path, then perhyaps you could explain how China managed to run a civilized society for a thousand years after Christ without hearing a word of Christ's message.

Your understanding of history seems to be on the same level as your understanding of the Bible. That is to say: intuitive.

No, there was no talk of the East. Our whole discussion has been based squarely within a JudeoChristian (Western) context. You bringing up the East was a way of side-stepping the question, which I'll rephrase: Do you think that without the life and teachings of Jesus our ethics and morals be as good as they are in Western culture? (If anything I think the East probably always had better ethics and values (in general) than those in Western culture.)
So your position is that only Western societies needed Jesus. Oriental societies are morally capable of getting by without special help.

On behalf of all Occidentals, I am offended.

In direct response to your question, I will point out that our morality derives from Greek rationalism, not Jewish mysticism.

1. If everyone got phone calls preceding every rape and murder, rape and murder might end. But other crimes remain. After a generation, you would stand up and demand phone calls preceding every burglary or assault.
Why would this be bad? Is God afraid of running up His telephone bill?

2. People's motivations to rape and murder would not be curbed. They would either find faster ways of doing it without getting caught, or stop and repress their motivations. Repressed motivations lead to psychopathology and, well, crazy people don't think or care about getting caught.
So we have to allow rape to prevent people from repressing their emotions? I am sorry, but I cannot accept this response as serious.

And isn't this an argument against your claim that global vision stops crime? You just pointed out how some people would chose crime despite global vision. Which means that moral choices are still possible. Which totally defeats your previous argument.

Do you want everybody to be the same and have the same?
Do you want unfairness? Do you actively desire that things be unfair?

I'm not sying we need familiarity with the evils of this world. I'm saying that if there is any evil in this world, there will be some events regarded as great tragedies. If peeing in the alley was the worst thing that happened in our society, your "telephone" argument would be about God not calling you when someone was about to pee in the alley.
And now you are back to "evil is relative." I do not understand how a Christian who holds that morality and truth are absolute can assert that evil is not. If evil is relative, then isn't goodness? Does that mean Heaven is a firepit of agony, because, after all, no matter how pleasant God made heaven, people would just get used to it and to some of them it wouldn't be as pleasant as it could be?

(Also, please allow me to point out that your claim that someone peeing in the alley is fundamentally indistinguishable from having your child raped is generally considered an example of insensitivity.)

Not yet.
One more try:

We presume that you do not need to have your child raped to be able to choose virtue. We presume that merely hearing about it happening to someone else is adequate for you. This means you are satisfied with a second-hand account.

Now please explain why other people cannot suffice with a second-hand account. And if second-hand accounts are adequate, then only one child ever had to be raped, and all the rest of us need merely hear about it.

Yet God allows many children to be raped, every day.

Why?

If the government's final crime stopper infringed upon civil liberties I would be against it.
The entire point of civil liberties is to make our lives better. If we could have a perfect life without civil liberties, then we would all choose it. Civil liberties are not the goal. The good life is the goal, and civil liberties are merely the method to get there.

I thought I did: Our government's work "is our work; that would contribute to the self-sustenance of the world God has planned."
This is really hard to believe. If God watches us and calls the cops whenever we do wrong, that is God intervening, and our moral natures will not grow. However, if the government does exactly the same thing, suddenly that is ok?

Like all Christians, you have resorted to collective punishment. You treat the human race as a collective, single entity, deserving of punishment as a unit, earning of salvation as a group. Yet the entire message of Jesus was that God had a personal relationship to each individual.

Christian morality only makes sense if you treat human beings as a single unit, as you have done above when you assert that having a good government is the same as each individual choosing virtue. This is how you justify children dying for the sake of the human race. But the entire essence of morality is to treat each individual as an individual, to treat each moral agent as a moral agent and not merely as a member of a class. You implicitly refuse to do this when you state that children being raped is necessary to your moral growth, and you explicitly refuse to do this when you shrug your shoulders at the plight of the Angels.

Another passage from How to Talk to Theists... If You Must?
But there is no requirement that I talk to theists. If you do not choose to actually engage the points I have made, and attempt to reconcile the contradictions I have pointed out, I will not waste any more effort on you.

[AZSuperman]

You go on from here to beat this point into the ground without providing a real example of what might prevent God's plan from unfolding. (The thing about planning a vacation is not an example but an analogy that doesn't quite fit.) I address this issue in my response to JAB, because he actually provides an example....

God can stop meteorites that would prevent the fulfillment of God's plan. (This answer is also intended for Clark Kent.) If you guy's come up with another example, by all means, run it by me.
I did provide an example, and you completely ignored it. I believe you intentionally ignored my example because it's harder to write off. I brought up the free-will defense (the only variables over which you admit God has no control), times thousands (billions) of years.

Saying something as simple as "God can stop meteorites..." won't work when the variable is people.

Here is my example again, feel free to offer an explanation:
Now God set up his plan at least 5000-6000 years ago (if you believe the Bible account of creation) but more realisticly his plan started BILLIONS of years ago.

Without perfect knowledge of the future, and without controlling his free-agents (humans) there would be an ENORMOUS number of variables which he would be unable to foresee.

To put it simply: God would not be able to create a plan which accounted for the actions of people whom he didn't know would be born.
...
Since God came up with his plan thousands (more likely billions) of years ago, at the time he created his plan he didn't know: who would currently be living, what animals would become extint, what technologies we would develope, what religions would dominate the world, what diseases would be cured, what weapons would be created, what languages would be spoken, or any other thing concerning the modern world. It would be impossible to create a plan, which would account for the TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of variables which would play out over the years.

Creating a plan, without knowing MOST of the variables, is called "taking a shot in the dark." It's a guess, based on extremely limited information.

Reason dictates that a plan initiated that long ago, with no knowledge of future events, is more likely to FAIL then to succeed.

Perhaps you don't actually understand the scope of this example. Lets break it down mathematically:

How many choices do you make on a daily basis? Probably hundreds, but lets be ULTRA conservative, we'll say 10 to make it easier.

How many possible solutions are there to each decision? Again, several, the world is rarely black and white... but for simplicity sake, we'll say it is.

So that's 10 choices a day, with 2 possible answers to each decision, or 20 variables per day, per person. That's 7300 variables per year, per person. With the current average life span in the US being 85 years, that equates to a total of 620,500 variables per person. According to ask.com, the population of the United States is 295,734,134 that equals 1.8 x10^14 variables per year over which God would have no control, and no foreknowledge, in the UNITED STATES ALONE!

According to ask.com, the world population is 6.4 x 10^9, making the total number of variables over which God has no control, and no foreknowledge a whopping 3.999 x10^15 for this year alone.

That means God has a 1 in 3.999x10^15 chance of having his guess (er... plan) come out right this year alone. He'll have a smaller chance next year, as the population continues to grow so do the number of variables which God can't control.

The actual number of choices and solutions is exponentially higher, because choices are seldom black or white, and we're faced with hundreds or even thousands of decisions each day... not just 10.

As I said, he is more likely to fail than to succeed.
Please explain how God could create a plan, which requires the cooperation and participation of humans, without the either controling the humans or having foreknowledge of their choices.

[John A. Broussard]

Sorry John, I won't shift my position at this stage. You seem to think free will is irrelvent by the fact that God knows our free will choices. I continue to maintain that despite HIs knowing our free will choices, that it is still relevent. It remains relevent for a couple reasons to my understanding.

1) You were at least given the choice, even if you do not exercise it to the best result, and even if God already knows it.

2) If you were never given the choice, then you would be nothign but a mindless slave without any experience or knowledge of good or evil. you would be, what I would suggest, just like an animal not knowing the difference.

What difference does it make, since god has foreseen what choice you are going to make?

An omniscient god knows not only what you are going to do, but also what you will want to do. So it really doesn't matter whether you freely want to do something or do not freely want to do something.

You've already admitted that. It's the rational, logical answer.

However, you don't have to believe what you've already admitted to. There's nothing that forces you to be rational.

[John A. Broussard]

Where do you derive the idea that angels are omniscient? Would that be your intuition again?


As a suggestion that might help. CS doesn't mean that an omniscient being knows everything. Neither his god nor god's angels know anything beyond the present moment.

It helps in discussion with CS to find out how he is using the terms such as omnipotent, omniscient etc. Otherwise you waste a lot of bandwidth.

That being said, CS's theism is a very, very limited variety. It sounds much more like deism than anything else.

[AZSuperman]

Without the deity's intervention, revelation, and guidance, we'd very likely destroy ourselves and the world.
This is just an assertion... please provide evidence.

I disagree. We remember the assholes in history (with disgust, hate, and anger), but we undo the wrongs they have done. By assigning and reinforcing their images as monsters, we undo their ideological damage. When one politician really wants to diss another, he calls him Hitler. This is more akin to Hell than Heaven for Hitler.
No, this is akin to eternal life. I didn't say we remembered the monsters in a good light, just that the most memorable people in history have been the monsters. We often use their bad example to create new laws, and protect ourselves from a similar monster... but the evil characters outlive the good in human memory.

As I said, when we act in groups we have the ability to stop acting as part of that group at any time. Are you saying we will have the option to stop acting in accordance to God's will after we have obtained eternal life?
Good question. Technically, I guess, it would be an option, just one that would make no sense. In the world as we live it, there are plenty of reasons to disobey God--plenty of temptations and reinforcements for evil thought and deeds. In Heaven, there are no such temptations and reinforcements. Further, we would have internalized God's will. It would be more of our nature than it is now. So the question becomes Why would someone go against their internal nature and external environment even if it is an option? I doubt it would even occur to anyone. But good question.
Wait a minute... we're performing God's will because there are no temptations and no reinforcments for evil... Man! Why didn't God start out that way? Why doesn't he elliminate the evil temptations, and evil reinforcments now?

Their lives are our lives. They (the causal chains) are us. And they last much longer than our lives as organisms.
I have a hard time with this... When I line up dominos, and then knock them down, I'm creating a casual chain which will continue until the chain of dominos ends... However that reaction is merely a cause and effect (or action/reaction) relationship. There is no living thought, or mind, there. The falling dominos can not choose to change direction, or to stop falling, or to reorganize themselves in some other fashion. It's a reaction, not a living entity.

The casual chains we create are similar (although infinitely more complex), they behave in a similar manner. Someone may make a decision because being in contact with us, or something we did, influenced them in some way... but that does not imply conscience thought on behalf of the reaction.

I would argue that it is conscious; it's just depersonalized. Our consciousness is nothing but a set of thoughts and actions. Each thought and action we have (and the causal chains they inspire) contains our consciousness.
Give me an example of a reaction thinking on it's own.

Neither am I. Personally, I don't think it's any more "God's word" than a John Coltrane record. I've said as much before. But I like Coltrane, and the Bible does contain many important truths.

No, I'll tell you that chemical and physical change is possible. If it is possible, God can do it.
So now this is one of the stories you take literally? It's difficult to keep up with which miracles we're supposed to accept as literal, and which ones we're supposed to believe as parable only.

You'll need to show me a that a chemical and physical change from water into wine is possible.

The self-sustenence of the world in perfect peace is possible: Define "perfect peace."
Balance without conflict or exploitation of each other or our environment.
So in your perfect world we all live harmoniously side by side, without dispute or argument. However we will continue to be attacked by animals; and we will continue to suffer the consequences of natural diseaster, death, and disease.

God can do anything that is possible: This assumption you have declared, but not given any reason for us to accept it yet, nor have you defined "anything that is possible."
God created this material world and the principles which govern it. God can do anything within it. If you don't believe me or the many others who feel the same way, that's fine.
God can do anything within it, or anything that is possible. What determines what God can and can't do within this world? Is he limited by the laws of nature, or can he cause nature to change her course? Is he limited by the laws of logic, or can he do the illogical?

There is only one God: How do you know this? . Personal experience and the accounts of others in various religious traditions.
I guess the personal expericences and accounts of others in polytheistic religions are invalid?

Out of curiosity, do you believe all natural disasters are God's way of eradicating the non-contributees?
No, natural disasters are atmospheric and geological events that we are present for. They have nothing to do with righteousness or sin.
But just a moment ago you said God would use natural disasters to wipe us off the earth (again) if we weren't contributing to his plan... How do you decide if a disaster is God's judgement (ridding the world of people who aren't contributing to the completion of his plan) or just a natural event?

Or God could intervene in order to make us do right at some point. This would not help us to live eternally though, because it would be God's doing, God's righteous thought and action--not ours. We'd be just so many manipulated objects, just another part of the material world we should be working to nurture.
So I guess we can assume God won't intervene...

God may utterly destroy all life on Earth (again), but he won't intervene to eradicate pain and suffering.

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.
We can assume this but that doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.
We can't be 100% sure of anything... but according to you, God is more likely to utterly destroy us (again) than intervene directly.

[Alf]

You make your choice all on your own, God merely knows what it will be.

Since his knowledge is infallible I cannot make that choice completely free. I am bound on my hands and feet to make the only choice available to me - the choice that God knows i will make. It doesn't matter that I do not know what that choice is.


If God knows you will get a new job tommorrow, then so what ? YOu say it prevents you from committing suicide,

No, I didn't say that. I said that even if I did commit suicide I would still get that job. Another way to look at it is of course that it somehow magically prevents me from committing suicide. I am not sure exactly how you envision this magic to work though. It is easy enough to wait until a day is over and if I did get a job offer that day and then claim "you got it because god foresaw you would get that" it is harder to actually show that God really did know beforehand that I would get that job.

If you could show me a prophecy that God made concerning me that was made before the event took place, then it would be easier to show. However, you cannot even show me evidence for your god, much less any prophecies he has made.


or sending out resumes, etc, you state that regardless of what you do, you will still get the job tommmorrow, so how do you have free will ? The whole entire point alf, is that you would not commit suicide tommorrow, because you will not choose that route, rather you will be getting a new job, and you will not likely do things to prevent it, such as not sending resumes, or doing what it takes not to get the new job, because you will have by your own free choice, made the decisions that lead to your getting the new job tommorrow.. and God already knows it.

My point was not that I won't send out resumes etc, in fact I am not sending out resumes these days since I am not looking for a new job. However, the point is that if God where to find himself in a situation that he foresee that I will get a new job tomorrow, then I _WILL_ get a new job tomorrow. It doesn't matter ONE BIT what I do or do not do. I can send out 100 resumes or 10000 resumes or no resumes at all, I will get the job no matter what. This must be so because god is infallible and if he see I get a new job I will get a new job and it does not matter one bit what I do or do not do. What I do is completely irrelevant, what I choose is completely irrelevant. In other words, my free will and anything else about my person is completely irrelevant.

This is exactly John's claim and I cannot see how you can refute that. Despite your attempts you haven't even come close to succeed yet.


Your free choice isn't affected at all by His knowign it.

That is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that what will happen isn't affected by my choice. My choice have no influence on the result - the result will be as God foresaw it, regardless of what I do or do not do.


You keep trying to say "but if I did this that or the other thing, then it will still happen anyways so how do I have free will?"... you keep wanting to resist the idea that your choices are destined to lead you a certain way,

If my choices are destined to lead a certain way, then it isn't my choices any more. It is not my free will - I go whereever the choices are destined to lead me.


and that if your choices lead a certain way, then you must not have free will,

Free will would imply that I had any influence on the result. Since I don't, I don't have free will. Even if I do have free will under som definition of free will, it still doesn't matter since my will is irrelevant. God already know what will happen so my opinion or choice or free will doesn't matter.


but that doesn't even make sense. For example, lets look at the game illustration again. There is football game tommorrow..God knows what that outcome will be, and you seem to think His knowing means they have no free will, but that isn't true.

Even if they do have free will - it doesn't matter.


You seem to say that no matter what the players do, even if they do not show up to the game, they will still win,

There is no other possible outcome. If they did not, then God would be wrong and an infallible God cannot be wrong. So yeah, even if they do not show up, they will still win if that is what God foresee.


but the whole point is, they WILL show up to the game,

So they don't have the free will to not play the game that day? Where was that free will again?

What you are saying is that they WILL show up on the game or else and they WILL do this on their own free will or else - or else what? Would you shoot them all if they didn't show up?


none of them will committ mass suicide, or stand still not playing for the entire game.

No, they are appearantly puppets under your God's control so none of them will do anything other than what your god wants them to do.


They will all show up, they will play the game, and they will do it of their own free will choice, and they will win,

They will gladly do this of their own free will or else God will get mighty pissed at them and send them all to hell? How nice of your god. I thought they had a free will but they obviously lost that somewhere along the way.


just like God foreknew they would. They won't committ suicide or do anythign that you suggested in order to try and prevent the win, because their free will choice will not be to committ suicide, or not show up, or do all in their power to try and lose, just to see if they still win. Rather they will choose to show up, play, and do their best to win, it will play out the way God knows it will. Why would they committ suicide ? or not show up ? or stand still ? They wouldn't. They will go about living their lives exactly as they intend to live it, by their own choice, and God simply knows what it will be.

Ignoring the fact that you cannot know that god simply knows this, so for the sake of argument we assume that you have somehow received this piece of knowledge from God. How is this not removing their free will? They simply have to play along like puppets and follow the script exactly as God knows it will run and exactly as God planned it would run and they cannot help themselves but are totally under God's control when he pull the strings like an insane puppeteer.


Yes, it means that everything is predestined, but at the same time, it is destined to be that way based upon our own choices and decisions. You are right, nothing you can do would prevent the outcome, and that is because you will freely choose to particpate in that outcome juts like everyon else. YOu will not somehow be privy to the inside information so you can try and choose otherwise. You will choose, all on your own, and that choice is destined to result in a certain outcome that God knows already.

Ok, so God has somehow rigged the game so that he knows that I will choose the second box. Let us say that God has put up 3 boxes. He has put a prize in box number 3 while box number 1 and 2 is empty.

Now, someone tells me I can choose freely which box I will pick by saying I choose box A, B or C. Initially in the game God has assigned the boxes so that 1 is A, 2 is B and 3 is C. However, he foresee that I will pick box 2 so if I choose A he changes box 2 to be A and box 1 to be B and if I choose box C he switches box B and C so that box 2 is C and box 3 is B and if I choose B he just let me have the box. Is this how it works?

Or perhaps it is magic. God somehow knows that I will pick box number 2 and so he announces I will pick that box? How can he possibly know that? Hmm.. he can know me completely - even better than I know myself and so know that I will pick box number 2 but that might not work. For example he might know that I will use a random dice to figure out which box to pick and then he has to know exactly how I plan to roll that random dice. Even an omniscient god cannot know these things - there are simply too many unknowns involved. If you assert that this omniscient god knows these unknowns then you quickly end up in an incoherent concept of what entails "omniscient" so such an omniscient god cannot exist.

Either way, it is ultimately irrelevant. Since no matter what I do, I will end up picking box number 2 if that is what God knows I will pick. Whether God tricks me or forces me is in this regard irrelevant. The effect is that I pick box number 2 and I cannot help myself to pick any other box even if knew for a fact that the price was in box number 3 I couldn't pick it, because God knows I will pick box number 2.

So the game is rigged and your God is a manipulating tyrant.


The whole scenario reminds me of a movie or somthign where two people are faced with tons of adversity, and they overcome it all just to hit one last hurdle that seems insurmountable, and the one guy says, "thats it ! we are destined to die!" and the other guy says "Screw that ! I don't believe in destiny" So the second guy concocts a plan, and they overcome the hurdle and they escape. The whole point would be that it was predestined for them to escape, and by the second guy refusing to yield, he ends up completeing that destiny. He didn't go about sealing their destiny because he did or did not believe it specifically(in this specific instance he didn't believe anyways), the point is, that what they chose to do filled their destiny. If they had both decided to toss in the towel and fail, then that would have been what was destined to happen and God would have known it.

First a little diversion:

Your last sentence reveal an important fallacy in your thinking. Whatever happens is what god would have foresaw happened.

If I roll a dice and it turns out 6 you would have said "God knew that".
If I had rolled it and it turned out a 4 you would also have said "God knew that"
In fact, whatever I rolled, you would have said "God knew that".

The point is, could you have told us BEFORE the roll what the dice would show? If you could, then your theory would have been credible. As it is, it isn't.

Anyway, back to topic.
The point is that in movie they plan a script long before they start filming and each person say exactly what he is supposed to say as envisioned by the film maker. I.e. they have no free choice - each actor does exactly what he is supposed to do and say exactly the lines he is supposed to say in order to make the script go as planned.

I.e. it is exaclty an example of no free choice.

Is this how your god knows in advance what will happen? He has seen the movie already amd knows what will happen?

True, as a movie goer I might have seen the movie before and so I know exactly what will happen when. Especially if I have seen the movie many times and remember exactly what will happen next. I have no incluence over the characters, although they have no free choice it wasn't me who limited their choice, it was the script writer. However, this is because it ultimately describe past events, i.e. the events has already happened.

In real life we experience a "now" and what I do "now" may affect what will happen in the "future" and is affected by the "past". It is not something that has already happened that someone could have already seen.

It also appears you have a somewhat simplified view of time. I am sure that to you God can be outside of time and time is a simple linear progression line that we experience inside the universe but god being outside is not bound by it.

Well, I won't say I am an expert but I am very sure that such a view of time is wrong. For one thing a concept such as "outside of time" doesn't appear to be meaningful to me. Everything that exist - exist in time. Yeah, I know you will say that mathematics is not bound by time but math doesn't really exist in the same sense that you and I exist. It is concept and ideas that exist in our brain but the equation 2+2=4 does not exist per se in the real world even though instances of application of it does.

So although it is very easy for you to claim that this god of yours can do this and that, things that are very easy to claim when you have no actual god to show and who can verify that your claims are true. It is very hard for me to buy that god can foresee the future. For one thing, a god outside of time doesn't make sense to me. How can something outside of time act in time? In fact "action" is something that depends on time and on a universe and so if you have an action such as a god actually doing something, you have to have a universe already - the idea of a god existing outside of the universe is therefore meaningless to me.

Secondly, even if this god could foresee exactly what is going to happen, the very fact that he does this wil infallible accuracy - which is by itself a meaningless assertion since Heisenberg's uncertainty relation essentially tells us that very few things in this world is certain and the future is certainly one that is very uncertain - then I cannot do anything except what God foresee I will do. Thus, my choice does not matter one bit. You might say that I choose this and I choose it of free will, but if my choice is ALWAYS what this god knows it will be, then either God has already seen the movie and it is something that has already happened and I just play out this part or it is something that is not in a movie and God cannot possibly know what is going to happen.


If they had overcome (as they did in the example story) then that was their destiny and God would have fore known that instead. Looking at it from the other direction : God merely knows the outcome,

So you are saying that to god it has already happened. To him it is already in the past?
Well, if so then God cannot intervene either. You cannot pray to your god that he does anything to help you in any way. Your life is already in the past - to God you are already dead and our solar system is already gone. He cannot intervene for exactly the same reason that you cannot go back in time and help your parents overcome their financial problems when they were young before you were born. If you picture a man who is wealthy but was born in a poor family and he knows his mother died of cancer when he was a toddler because they couldn't afford the medical bills at the time. He might want to go back in time and give money to his father so that his mother could get to hospital, but he cannot do that. God will find himself in exactly the same dilemma. He might want to intervene and help you out, but he cannot - your praying and everything that happened is already past for God, it has already happened - how else would he know the outcome?

Ah, then you say, he is also in the "now" and he can "intervene". Hmm.. so then he DOES have the power to pull the puppet strings after all and your free will is gone bye bye.

But then you say, no, no, no, God knows what will happen but he doesn't cause it.

You want the cake and eat it too - you want it both ways.

That is the nice thing with fantasy friends. They can be anything to you. If you want a pilot, he is a pilot. Next moment you want him to be a fireman so he is a fireman. He is whatever you want him to be - no restrictions, no limits. He is omnipotent when you want him to be omnipotent, he is omniscient when you want him to be omniscient, he is benevolent when you want him to be benevolent - see a pattern here?

This is the power of imaginary friends.


He doesn't affect it in any way. If the outcome would have been forseen by God to be failure, then they would have decided all on their own to toss in the towel and fail.

If he doesn't affect it, then he is someonw who has already seen the movie and know the outcome of seeing what has already happened in the past and he not only does not change it but he cannot change it.

Guess there's no point to pray to your god. Whatever happens, happens and he is utterly powerless to prevent the bad things from happening just as the movie watcher who watches the movie without ability to change the outcome of the movie.

Doesn't sound like an omnipotent god to me but that is your choice.

Now, you claim that God is also omnipotent and he CAN change the outcome whenever you want him to. See above about the both ways and want the cake and eat it too.


If God had fore knwon they would succeed, then they would have chosen all on their own to not toss in the towel, and eventually overcome. Either way, God fore knew it, and they chose freely. It is as if a playwrite has written a grand play, and we are all the actors playing our parts.

Then we follow a script and we don't have free will.


We will play the parts of our own accord, but we will not deviate from the script because it is our desire and choices that lead to the writing of our script to begin with. God knew what our desires and choices would be already, which is only reasonable, since He did after all create us.

That is not at all reasonable. I can create a thing and still not know everything about that thing - for example even though Leonardo Da Vinci painted Mona Lisa he could not possibly know that it will hang in Louvre for all those years, nor would he know that you can find stamps and all sorts of "mona lisa variants" pictures where you have mona lisa with dog face etc made by various artists etc around the world after.

Just because you create one thing doesn't mean you necessarily know everything about that thing. Especially not when it comes to a sentient being and free will. If I were to design a new robot and with so advanced software that he were to be a sentient being I would not be able to tell in advance that he would like bridge but not soccer for example.

That is the thing with free will and sentient beings that run completely contrary to your over simplified concept of what "creation" entails. True, if you make an ash tray you can be fairly certain it will be used as ash tray right? Well no, someone might use it to keep their coins and other small items - especially if they don't smoke.

If you cannot even foresee what a simple thing as ash tray can be used, how can you expect anyone - even an omniscient god - can foresee every human and how they live their lives down to every choice and prefereance?

This is a tall order and one would expect you had some evidence to back up your claim. You have none. That is to me quite telling.


So it stands to reason that He should surely know us inside and out.

Absolutely not as I showed above.


I mean I didn't make my car, but I sure could tear it down to the last nuts and bolts and put it back together again, and that is because i know it inside and out. How much more-so with God and His creations ?

A car is many times simpler than a human being. For one thing it isn't a sentient being.


Yes, but it is not because of no matter what I do, as in no matter what I can do to change it. The point is you don't know what the outcome will be, so how can you possibly make chocies to try to change it to begin with ? You couldn't and you wouldn't, and so you will make your choices and be/do/choose/ what you want, all on your own, and God simply knows it already. So by your own choices you make throughout life, all on your own, YOU will define that outcome, and God already knows it.

Irrelevant. The point is that whatever the outcome God see I will do, is what I will do. If I want this or not or if I work against it or not doesn't matter.


Thats right, but Joe doesn't know he will be a mass murderer, so Joe isn't going to do anythign to try and prevent that from happeneing, because why would he ? He doesn't know it. Joe will become a mass murderer all on his own, by his own choices that are destined to lead him to become a mass murderer. Joe has no insight to this, joe has no privledged understanding of what he will become. Joe will go through life, livign it as he sees fit, and one day he will snap, or will take the course of action that will lead him to become a mass murderer. Thats it. He won't try to prevent it because he knows the outcome of his choices(like God). Joe will simply live his life, and he will end up being a mass murderer if that is what he is destined to be in Gods fore knowledge.

Then doesn't that put a moral obligation on god? If you happened to know that Joe would some day become a mass murderer - let us say you somehow got a visit from your future self and your future self tells you that Joe will some day become a mass murderer. Doesn't it then give you a moral obligation - if you believed your future self - to go to Joe and try to help him away from that path? Why doesn't God have this moral obligation?

Again, if God knows the future in the sense that he has already seen the movie, he cannot prevent it but in that case there is no point in praying to that god asking to change anything, because this god is an impotent movie goer who knows what will happen but is powerless to change anything. In this case it is also meaningless to consider God the creator unless you consider him to be the movie maker. However, if he is the movie maker then he was NOT powerless to prevent it and ultimately the actors did whatever he told them to do and so he is the sole responsible for the events that take place in the movie. In this case it is meaningless that god passes judgement on what the actors in the movie does - they simply do what he dictated they should do. He cannot put the criminal in jail when the movie recording is over because he was acting the part of a criminal in the movie - that doesn't make sense. Should Peter Jackson tell the New Zealand police to arrest The actors who played Sauron and Saruman because they were such mean people in the movie? Your God appear to be doing that very thing.

The problem is that you want it both ways but without the responsibility. Yes, God is all powerful and can change the world by snapping his fingers. Yes, God knows everything and knows the future. No, God is not responsible for anything bad in the world. Yes, God deseves the credit for all the good in the world.

Don't you see that this is pure and utter BS?


Yes, this means God knows that there are some who will make it and some who wont.

Again, that gives him a moral obligation.


It means that there are going to be many who fail to meet the standard set up by God. Yet who are we to object ?

Because god is an insane tyrant who punish people who play bad roles that he made for them?


Can a pop bottle object to the way the factory makes it ?

Last time I checked a pop bottle was not a sentient being.


In the beginning God made adam and eve,

Very few people take that literally today and even if you happen to be one of them it is irrelevant.


he intended for them to be the means whereby which he populated His kingdom. The producers of the product so to speak. As with the establishment of any kingdom or factory, there are establishment and operating costs. Costs in life, costs in materials, etc. It is no different in the building of Gods kingdom. It would appear to me that building His kingdom likewise has a price. It means that there will be those who do not succeed and those who do not pass inspection.

God has no problem with innocent people paying his price. I see, he is like the king who is told that "But sir, we cannot attack the enemy on that hill, we will lose many soldiers, countless citizens of our kingdom will die" and the king say "I am willing to pay that price". Yes, it is easy for him to pay that price, it isn't his life that is on the line, poor those soldiers.


Just like a factory produces bottles that may be flawed and need to be tossed. Or just liek a kingdom spends soldiers in order to establish itself. SO the kingdom of God will destory the chaff, and seal up the good product for delivery.

Yeah, God is willing to dress up soldiers that he is willing to let die for his own glory and promote his own agenda. How nice of him.


Sure, you can object to this kingdom and its workings, after all, people object to walmart or other enterprises they do not agree with, but such a objection is ultimately futile in this particluar case. A pop bottle has no right or ability to go to the factory and say why do you make me so ? Just like the testament says "Who are we to say to God "why did you make me so ?"

Unlike the pop bottle we are sentient beings. If there really is such a God, we therefore have that right.


So in the words of Christ himself. He said "I came as a witness to the truth, those who are of the truth will hear my voice." Do you not hear his voice ?
He did not come as a witness of truth. The gospels are all full of lies. In fact the only thing we can be absolutely certian of, is the fact that at least one of the gospels contain lies. Point to me ONE line in the gospel that must necessarily be true and I will show you that this line is something that is not particular to christian religion.

You can even see things in the bible which is not true but which is common knowledge otherwise, for example pi is not equal to 3 and Jesus was cannot be both born while Herod was king and at the same time during a census decreed by Augustus. Jesus cannot have a father's father who's name is both Heli (Eli) and Jacob.

These are facts. What we do not know is if Jesus at all existed, if Jesus' father's name was Heli (Eli) or Jacob. We do not know when he was born and we don't know if the miracles people claimed he did was really miracles they claimed he did or if it was miracles who people claimed some other person had done. We also do not know that those miracles were real miracles or just some smart tricks performed by some person preying on people's gullibility. There were tons of those around in those days and Jesus could just as easily have been one of those, it is much harder to believe that he was a genuine miracle worker.

Alf

[Alf]

See post 420.

The point is that your analgies WAS flawed - as I showed.

If you claim that God is both within time and without time or outside of time then the obvious question becomes: At what time is he without time? It is a trick question, the point is of course that it doesn't make sense and reveal a contradiction.

Is there at all anything that can be said to be independent of time?

Well, yes, we can say that logic and math is independent of time in the sense that when I say 2 + 3 = 5 it doesn't mean that 2 + 3 = 5 yesterday but might be something else tomorrow. However, math and logic are also very stiff, they never change. 2 + 3 = 5 is true at any time in the universe. It never changes.

Thus, things that exist independent of time are necessarily stiff and unchanging. A mathematical equation cannot ever "want" something or "will" something or "cause" something.

Is that the "God independent of time"? A god that cannot want something and can never change, never act? A god that never moves and is unchanging? Never does anything?

The point is that you can pick any valid point in time and the universe already exist. There is no reason to think that the universe has ever not existed. In fact the opposite can be asserted. We have reason to think that the universe has always existed. Thus, a god outside of time appear to be a meaningless concept.


No. What you should do is realize that I cannot respond to a question you write in your post at least until after you've finished writing your post and posted it.

It was a rethoric question and just referred to the fact that my answer here would be very similar to my previous answers. I am fully aware that you cannot and did not expect that you respond to things before I post the questions.

Alf

[Lamp Of Light]

I only have a moment.


John A Broussard said:
What difference does it make, since god has foreseen what choice you are going to make?


It makes a difference to you I am sure, and likewise to all of us. We all want to know and find out for ourselves. Just look around you in the real world and you will see plenty of examples of it. Have you not travelled down a certain path in life, and having experienced it, realized mistakes that you made in hindsight ? So then your friend is heading down the same path that you already took, and so you advise him based upon experience where that path will lead your friend, and yet your friend does not heed your advice, because somthing inside him seemingly requires that he find it out for himself. My personal experience is that this happens frequently. I have advised friends in the past not to take a certain action they were about to take, and of course, they don't heed the advice, believing for whatever reason it won't happen to them, and sure enough it happens to them, and then they eventually come back and say to me "I should have listened to you". Of course I tell them, no problem, we all have to find out for ourselevs to satisfy our own understanding. It is a process of learning through experience. That is why I generally don't offer advice anymore unless I am asked, because my experience has been, it doesn't make any difference. They will still choose to find out for themselves.

Free will is irrelevent only to Gods perspective, not to ours, and everythign is predestined from Gods perspective. That is why I say paul says these things here in romans:

Romans 9:9-33
For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

As He says also in Hosea,
"I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,'
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'"
"AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,'
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD."

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY." And just as Isaiah foretold, "UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH."
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written,
"BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."


This is one of the reasons I had to abandon CS's position. I think these verses very clearly speak to predestination, and God saves who God wills. Likewise one must then consider that if God made vessels to endure His wrath and suffer to His glory, are they not truly blessed vessels indeed, despite seeming to appear otherwise ? Would there lot then be to burn in hell forever ? I say not, frankly , I challenge anyone who thinks hell is eternal to actually back up that statement with the scriptures that speak to it. I am not saying one way or the other, I am merely challenging those of you who think it is eternal to show me in the scriptures where it says so.

[John A. Broussard]

This is one of the reasons I had to abandon CS's position. I think these verses very clearly speak to predestination, and God saves who God wills.
More and more I find myself agreeing with you.

It doesn't make one iota of difference, not a bit, not a smidgen whether or not we have free will, since "God saves who God wills."

You've said it all in that sentence.

We will do what god has foreseen we will do. Your decision to, "abandon CS's position," was indeed a wise one.

There's only one answer.

God knows everything you are going to do, whether or not you have free will. God has even foreseen that you will delude yourself into thinking you have free will.

[Copper Scroll]

For example, He could say at 12:00PM on Decmber,10,2009 a total of 17 monkeys will fly out everybodys chimney, or whatever, and since He is God, He can surely make that happen. Hence prophecy is always fulfilled merely in the fact He is all powerful and can make it happen.
Good point. So it is not just God's broad knowledge that makes God an authority on the future; it is also a function of God's power. I can agree with this.

Another point of note I present is that there really is only the "now".
I agree here also. Time is a tool--a finite one. God can act within what we perceive as time, but God is independent of it.

However I ultimately ended up abondoning it, because as you have done, I saw it would require me to abandon the scriptures in the end, and I wasn't willing to to do that based upon its actual affirmation of my belief.
I'd like to point out here that our worldview (meaning the worldview of our culture in current times) and the conditions under which we communicate (rationally) and understand the concept of "truth" have certain fundamental differences with those of the culture that produced the biblical texts. The orientation that produced the Bible didn't see contradictions where we see them, I would argue. Our orientation is much more empirical and fact-based. Many of the ideas that have contributed to the making of our current orientation didn't even exist during ancient times. So in order to communicate rationally here during these modern times and within our current culture, I believe, that it is ultimately necessary to contradict certain statements made in the Bible. In my opinion, the invisible differences between our paradigms or discourses (borrowing Kuhn and Foucault) is the reason why many atheists here feel that the Bible cannot be rationally defended.

May the Glory of the Lord fill your heart forever ! Thank you. Peace and blessings.

[Copper Scroll]

You have denied cherry-picking the parts of the Bible that you take as literal truth, but your response suggests that that is exactly what you do. You don't go "looking for falsehoods". That is, you are predisposed to believe what you read in the Bible. You employ "subjective intuition" (a.k.a. "gut feeling") to believe those passages that take your fancy. When serious questions are raised about historical accuracy and logic, you are willing to abandon them. The de facto effect of all this is that you end up cherry-picking what you defend as truth in the Bible.
I would argue that in meaningfully applying the principles underlying anything written 2,000 years ago to one's own life (how the subjectivity thing comes in) requires some historical and cultural investigation and some "gut feeling" or subjective intuition. The key is to use these rationally and mindful of historical/cultural/personal context. See also the paragraph I wrote in post 471.

[John A. Broussard]

So it is not just God's broad knowledge that makes God an authority on the future; it is also a function of God's power. I can agree with this.

So god does know the future? I thought you said he didn't. Please clarify.


Time is a tool--a finite one. God can act within what we perceive as time, but God is independent of it.

If god is independent of time, then god must be able to predict exactly what will happen within time.

Am I reading you correctly?

[Copper Scroll]

Where do you derive the idea that angels are omniscient?. This is supported by scripture.

What you are saying is that free will is a function of ignorance. This makes no sense at all. First, you are implying that knowledge of good means there is no choice, but this is invalidated by common experience (we all know people who choose bad even when they know it is bad) and by your description of Satan (who chose bad despite his knowledge.)

Second, and far more ominous, it suggests that ignorance is good. One can imagine it is a very small step from your "we can't know everything" to book burnings. If all knowledge is bad, then why would getting some knowledge be good?
We've been here before. I wrote then: "We all (Christian or otherwise) fall somewhere between complete knowledge (like God's knowledge) and complete ignorance (like we usually think of a rock). Yes, our ignorance allows us to be free and our freedom is required for virtue, so we can say that ignorance is required for virtue.... but the exact same thing can be said of knowledge. Our knowledge allows us to be free (not "rocks") and our freedom is required for virtue."

"Knowledge of good" is not what would make us unfree. Clear and complete knowledge of the right action (the one that God wills) in every situation and knowledge of the consequences of wrong action (death) would force our hands. The devil(s) make the wrong choice out of extreme jealousy and hatred--more extreme probably than anyone of us have ever felt. Only these, I think, could drive them to such a decision.


I would prefer to be good. Isn't that what it means to be good - to choose the good when you have a choice? Yes.
What does it say about you that you prefer ignorance and evil so that you might be free? Who said I prefer ignorance and evil? How selfish can you get to choose ignorance simply because it gives you freedom from having to be good? Now, these questions make no sense. To borrow a line from you... I am offended. I don't really see how any of this answers the question I asked: Which would you prefer: complete knowledge or virtue?

It is not the strength with which you hold your views that concerns me; it is the contempt with which you hold other's views. Let me remind you how this part of our discussion started: After a description I offered of God's will, you characterized my concept of discerning God's will as a "puzzle game" or some kind of guessing game. I replied that no guessing is involved--that we use reason, ethics, and common sense to figure out what is the right action, what God would will. You responded with this question:
And anybody who disagrees with what you think God's will is not ethical, rational, or possessing of common sense? I wrote: "Most principles we would normally agree are ethical, rational, and sensible, I think, are God's will. If someone disagrees with these principles based on what they think is God's will, I would probably conclude that they are unethical, irrational, and/or stupid and hope I wasn't wrong." Now, you say this is dangerous. By saying that this is dangerous you seem to be contradicting yourself. If someone disagreed with a principle we (you and I in agreement) would normally consider ethical, you wouldn't think that that person was unethical in disagreeing with us? Let me ask the same question twice more replacing "ethical" with "rational" and "sensible", and "unethical" with "irrational" and "stupid". Were you leading me the whole time during this part of our discussion hoping I would forget how it started? I don't get you.

So now the question becomes: where does your sensitivity come from, if not from your theology? My theology says that if there is a problem we need to solve it, if there is an evil we need to get rid of it, if there is pain and suffering we need to relieve it. Do you disagree?


I argue that making a phone call is not intervening with free will.
I argue that the reasons you present why a phone call is necessary leads necessarily to a conclusion that would eliminate free will. You say that the responsibility of a person is a function of that person's power. God has far more power than the ability to make a phone call. God does have the power to fix everything. If God did fix everything, we would not be free.

We could make this choice with vastly less evil.
I agree, but we would still (eventually) feel the same measure of suffering as a result of what little "evil" is left behind (as illustrated in various ways in previous posts). In terms of suffering, it wouldn't make a difference. Our drive as moral beings is to get rid of all suffering and all evil, because this is our purpose. Whether we are experiencing a "mountain of evil" or a "molehill of evil", we would feel pain by the same measure and feel the need to get rid of it for good. Once we get rid of it for good--ourselves... eternal life.

The Holocaust, Bosnia, Rawanda, the AIDS crisis in Africa, the food crisis in Africa, global warming... what, exactly, qualifies as "collapsed" for you? Everything you name above happening everywhere all the time to every single body... and that being the highlight of our days. At the risk of sounding insensitive, things could be worse.

I have responded to this issue before you brought it up. Please pay a