Happy Atheist Forum

Here's a question for all you Christians out there: why did your God have to make evil? And if you say he didn't, then why does it exist?

Evil exists as a result of sin. God allows it in order to make a complete revelation of himself.

Quote from: "Voter"Evil exists as a result of sin. God allows it in order to make a complete revelation of himself.

Why did God make sin? Why does he have to allow it to reveal himself? Couldn't he have revealed himself without it?

He can't reveal his reaction to sin if there is no sin to react to.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

So, he wanted to make known his wrath toward sin and his mercy.

Quote from: "Voter"He can't reveal his reaction to sin if there is no sin to react to.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

So, he wanted to make known his wrath toward sin and his mercy.

So, basically, he just wanted to be mad at something, so he made evil in the world so he could throw a hissyfit?

Quote from: "Voter"He can't reveal his reaction to sin if there is no sin to react to.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

So, he wanted to make known his wrath toward sin and his mercy.

Which means to be more godly I must provoke people to do bad deeds so I can get all indignant? I think I'll start by giving a child with anger issues a loaded rifle so when he snaps and kills his parent I can show him mercy.

The only religion I know of which successfully deals with this old problem of theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) is Pastafarianism.  The FSM was drunk at the moment of creation, which is why the world is so lousy.  I've never heard of any other theology getting a grip on it.

The original sin theory might make some kind of sense explaining, say, illness, but to apply it to natural disasters you have to postulate a very unpleasant, vengeful god.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So, basically, he just wanted to be mad at something, so he made evil in the world so he could throw a hissyfit?

No. The Bible doesn't go into the reason, but logically:

- He wanted a loving relationship with those of us who will be saved, and
- You can only love someone to the extent you know them.

So, in order to have more than a superficial love from us, he had to make more of his qualities known.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So, basically, he just wanted to be mad at something, so he made evil in the world so he could throw a hissyfit?

No. The Bible doesn't go into the reason, but logically:

- He wanted a loving relationship with those of us who will be saved, and
- You can only love someone to the extent you know them.

So, in order to have more than a superficial love from us, he had to make more of his qualities known.

So:
-God made humans
-God wants to know humans, but in a deep and emotional way
-One of God's qualities is vengeful wrath and anger
-So, in order to show this quality, he creates evil and sin in the world

Makes perfect sense.

The reason you get around the problem of evil is by saying that God is an evil, petty asshole, which I agree with. An unusual position, but I guess it works, if you ignore all the passages in the Bible where it says he's a loving god and whatnot.

Quote from: "Voter"He can't reveal his reaction to sin if there is no sin to react to.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

So, he wanted to make known his wrath toward sin and his mercy.

You beat the people you love so that they feel the love when you're mercifully not beating them. How else will they know you love them, unless you stop beating them?

... you can also get around this quandary by saying that god is neither good nor evil.  ... or that he's both.

Good/Evil, Creation/Destruction - all two sides of one coin, yes/no?

Quote from: "joeactor"... you can also get around this quandary by saying that god is neither good nor evil.  ... or that he's both.

Good/Evil, Creation/Destruction - all two sides of one coin, yes/no?

But the Christian god is supposed to be omnibenevolent, or at the very least a good guy.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So:
-God made humans
-God wants to know humans, but in a deep and emotional way
-One of God's qualities is [strike:362u94g7]vengeful wrath and anger[/strike:362u94g7] righteous judgment-So, in order to show this quality, he [strike:362u94g7]creates[/strike:362u94g7] allows evil and sin in the world

I would change slightly as noted above, but basically you have it right.

QuoteMakes perfect sense.

Yes, it does. Consider human dating. Most people have guards up on a first date. Those guards need to be relaxed if a deeper relationship is desired.

QuoteThe reason you get around the problem of evil is by saying that God is [strike:362u94g7]an evil, petty asshole, which I agree with[/strike:362u94g7] a righteous judge.

Again, aside from spin, you have it right.

QuoteAn unusual position, but I guess it works, if you ignore all the passages in the Bible where it says he's a loving god and whatnot.

He is a loving god. He's also a righteous judge. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "Voter"The reason you get around the problem of evil is by saying that God is [strike:2j8h4pm7]an evil, petty asshole, which I agree with[/strike:2j8h4pm7] a righteous judge.

If I were to carry out my plan to act more godly (as stated above) would that not make me an evil petty asshole? On what planet does creating evil and eternal suffering to make oneself look good not, to use the kindness word possible, at least narcissistic?
God is a sadist.

Quote from: "Sophus"If I were to carry out my plan to act more godly (as stated above) would that not make me an evil petty asshole?

Your plan stated above is not a correct understanding of my position.

QuoteOn what planet does creating evil and eternal suffering to make oneself look good not, to use the kindness word possible, at least narcissistic?

The Bible makes it pretty clear that God alone is worthy of praise. If you want to spin that as narcissism, that's your choice. I see it as simple truth.

BTW, unless you're really unusual, you spend time and money to make yourself look good, when that time and money could have gone to reducing suffering in your fellow man. Does that make you narcissistic?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So:
-God made humans
-God wants to know humans, but in a deep and emotional way
-One of God's qualities is [strike:2al3edqy]vengeful wrath and anger[/strike:2al3edqy] righteous judgment-So, in order to show this quality, he [strike:2al3edqy]creates[/strike:2al3edqy] allows evil and sin in the world

I would change slightly as noted above, but basically you have it right.

QuoteMakes perfect sense.

Yes, it does. Consider human dating. Most people have guards up on a first date. Those guards need to be relaxed if a deeper relationship is desired.

QuoteThe reason you get around the problem of evil is by saying that God is [strike:2al3edqy]an evil, petty asshole, which I agree with[/strike:2al3edqy] a righteous judge.

Again, aside from spin, you have it right.

QuoteAn unusual position, but I guess it works, if you ignore all the passages in the Bible where it says he's a loving god and whatnot.

He is a loving god. He's also a righteous judge. The two are not mutually exclusive.

He didn't "allow" sin to exist, he created it.

Why did he have to create evil and sin to show that he was a righteous God? Why is that the only way to show his love?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"If I were to carry out my plan to act more godly (as stated above) would that not make me an evil petty asshole?

Your plan stated above is not a correct understanding of my position.

QuoteOn what planet does creating evil and eternal suffering to make oneself look good not, to use the kindness word possible, at least narcissistic?

The Bible makes it pretty clear that God alone is worthy of praise. If you want to spin that as narcissism, that's your choice. I see it as simple truth.

BTW, unless you're really unusual, you spend time and money to make yourself look good, when that time and money could have gone to reducing suffering in your fellow man. Does that make you narcissistic?

Is that really your argument? God needs to spend time making himself look good to us, instead of reducing suffering?

Quote from: "Voter"Your plan stated above is not a correct understanding of my position.

In what way does it differ? To me it's actually much more mild compared to inflicting evil and suffering on the entire human race.
 

QuoteThe Bible makes it pretty clear that God alone is worthy of praise. If you want to spin that as narcissism, that's your choice. I see it as simple truth.

How does demanding infinite praise not amount to narcissism? If that doesn't equal narcissism then narcissism does not exist. You would think he'd grow tired after the first billion years of worship, but no, it has to go on.

QuoteBTW, unless you're really unusual, you spend time and money to make yourself look good, when that time and money could have gone to reducing suffering in your fellow man. Does that make you narcissistic?

By what? Buying a comb? Paying for haircuts? That's the equivalent to intimidating an inestimable number of people into unwarranted worship against the fear of eternal suffering in hell? Your logic says haircuts equal narcissism but creating evil for personal glory doesn't? You really believe that?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"He didn't "allow" sin to exist, he created it.

I disagree, but don't see that the distinction is that important for this purpose.

QuoteWhy did he have to create evil and sin to show that he was a righteous God?

I don't know that he had to, as I'm not smart enough to consider all possible alternatives, but it's certainly an obvious and direct way to accomplish his goal.

QuoteWhy is that the only way to show his love?

Again, I can't say it's the only way, and it isn't about showing love, it's about showing wrath and mercy.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich" Is that really your argument? God needs to spend time making himself look good to us, instead of reducing suffering?

No, my argument, as I stated plainly, is that God desires a deep relationship with us, and that requires that we know him fairly completely. You shouldn't have a problem understanding this, as it's common sense and experience. If I said I was leaving my wife and going to Hollywood because I'm in love with Julia Roberts, the first thing people would say to me is, "You can't love Julia Roberts, as you barely know her," and they would be correct.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"He didn't "allow" sin to exist, he created it.

I disagree, but don't see that the distinction is that important for this purpose.

QuoteWhy did he have to create evil and sin to show that he was a righteous God?

I don't know that he had to, as I'm not smart enough to consider all possible alternatives, but it's certainly an obvious and direct way to accomplish his goal.

QuoteWhy is that the only way to show his love?

Again, I can't say it's the only way, and it isn't about showing love, it's about showing wrath and mercy.

"Hmm...I made these humans, and I want them to love me and worship me with their praise for all of their Earthly and immortal lives...so, I shall create (or allow, even though at some point he had to create it) sin and evil!"

Any god that would create evil so that his subjects that he created would worship him is evil. There's no real way around that.

EDIT:

QuoteNo, my argument, as I stated plainly, is that God desires a deep relationship with us, and that requires that we know him fairly completely. You shouldn't have a problem understanding this, as it's common sense and experience. If I said I was leaving my wife and going to Hollywood because I'm in love with Julia Roberts, the first thing people would say to me is, "You can't love Julia Roberts, as you barely know her," and they would be correct.

He didn't have to create evil to do that.

Quote from: "Voter"is that God desires a deep relationship with us

Then why should those who do not want any kind of relationship with god still play his games..?

Quoteand that requires that we know him fairly completely.

...millenia of foreplay and still he fails. Sad.  :raised:

Quote from: "Sophus"In what way does it differ? To me it's actually much more mild compared to inflicting evil and suffering on the entire human race.

I focus on the gracious act of giving life to the entire human race, and giving salvation to me, so I see it differently.
 

QuoteHow does demanding infinite praise not amount to narcissism? If that doesn't equal narcissism then narcissism does not exist. You would think he'd grow tired after the first billion years of worship, but no, it has to go on.

Narcissism is by definition excessive. I don't think it's excessive for the creator of an entire universe to expect continuing admiration from the beings he created.

QuoteBy what? Buying a comb? Paying for haircuts?

Paying much more for a car, clothes, or house than what you really need to get by on. Buying a computer and spending time posting with it rather than helping the elderly or homeless. Most of us constantly put our own pleasure and glory ahead of the suffering of others.

QuoteThat's the equivalent to intimidating an inestimable number of people into unwarranted worship against the fear of eternal suffering in hell? Your logic says haircuts equal narcissism but creating evil for personal glory doesn't? You really believe that?

The difference is that I believe the worship is indeed warranted. If I created a universe I'd think I was pretty hot stuff, and justifiably so.

Quote from: "Voter"I focus on the gracious act of giving life to the entire human race, and giving salvation to me, so I see it differently.

Yeah, well... Human race was getting by very well without "salvation" and we do manage to reproduce by ways of sex so... Unnecessary god is unnecessary.

God created us to praise and worship him. If we don't, we'll be infinitely punished for all eternity.

That is evil. God gave me my morality, so obviously it must be so.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Hmm...I made these humans, and I want them to love me and worship me with their praise for all of their Earthly and immortal lives...so, I shall create (or allow, even though at some point he had to create it) sin and evil!"

Yes, for the reason noted - love is limited by one's knowledge of the object.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Hmm...I made these humans, and I want them to love me and worship me with their praise for all of their Earthly and immortal lives...so, I shall create (or allow, even though at some point he had to create it) sin and evil!"

Yes, for the reason noted - love is limited by one's knowledge of the object.

And he made that so. He made it so that we had to know him to love him, so he created evil and sin so we could experience his wrath and "mercy".

That is evil. And petty. And assholeish.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And he made that so. He made it so that we had to know him to love him, so he created evil and sin so we could experience his wrath and "mercy".

Personally I find it illogical to posit an existence in which we can reasonably love and hate things without knowledge of them. Can you explain this?

By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

Quote from: "Whitney"By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

No, you don't understand my reasoning.

Suppose you really hate the word "I" to the extent you'd like to punish those who use it, but you keep that to yourself. People seemingly love and respect you. But, their use of "I" eats at you, and you know that some or all of them would abandon you if you made your position known and acted on it. On your side, you certainly can't describe this as a close relationship.

So, you make your feelings on "I" known and act accordingly. Most people call you a tyrant and leave. A few say it's your right to set the rules on your board, and while they may not fully understand why you hate "I," they make the effort to avoid it. You now have a closer relationship with these people than you had before, and you forgive their occasional slips.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

No, you don't understand my reasoning.

Suppose you really hate the word "I" to the extent you'd like to punish those who use it, but you keep that to yourself. People seemingly love and respect you. But, their use of "I" eats at you, and you know that some or all of them would abandon you if you made your position known and acted on it. On your side, you certainly can't describe this as a close relationship.

So, you make your feelings on "I" known and act accordingly. Most people call you a tyrant and leave. A few say it's your right to set the rules on your board, and while they may not fully understand why you hate "I," they make the effort to avoid it. You now have a closer relationship with these people than you had before, and you forgive their occasional slips.

Sounds like that thing where abused spouses still love their asshole abusers. Of course they're free to leave so it's ok for their spouses to beat them, after all it is their spouses house.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And he made that so. He made it so that we had to know him to love him, so he created evil and sin so we could experience his wrath and "mercy".

Personally I find it illogical to posit an existence in which we can reasonably love and hate things without knowledge of them. Can you explain this?

I find it illogical to assume that God must have made things the way they are. God could have made our universe anything -- our laws of physics anything -- logic anything -- etc.

God created the concepts of love, hate, and knowledge. To say that they couldn't be anything different is insulting to God's great power and magnificence (his omnipotence).

And yet, he everything work in a way that made the existence of evil/sin necessary. Why?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

No, you don't understand my reasoning.

Suppose you really hate the word "I" to the extent you'd like to punish those who use it, but you keep that to yourself. People seemingly love and respect you. But, their use of "I" eats at you, and you know that some or all of them would abandon you if you made your position known and acted on it. On your side, you certainly can't describe this as a close relationship.

So, you make your feelings on "I" known and act accordingly. Most people call you a tyrant and leave. A few say it's your right to set the rules on your board, and while they may not fully understand why you hate "I," they make the effort to avoid it. You now have a closer relationship with these people than you had before, and you forgive their occasional slips.

Sounds like that thing where abused spouses still love their asshole abusers.

No, that's not analogous, as the people who leave don't still love her, and the people who stay aren't being abused.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I find it illogical to assume that God must have made things the way they are.

Then it was illogical for you to ask "Why did God have to make evil?" in the first place, and you're shown to be trolling.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

No, you don't understand my reasoning.

Suppose you really hate the word "I" to the extent you'd like to punish those who use it, but you keep that to yourself. People seemingly love and respect you. But, their use of "I" eats at you, and you know that some or all of them would abandon you if you made your position known and acted on it. On your side, you certainly can't describe this as a close relationship.

So, you make your feelings on "I" known and act accordingly. Most people call you a tyrant and leave. A few say it's your right to set the rules on your board, and while they may not fully understand why you hate "I," they make the effort to avoid it. You now have a closer relationship with these people than you had before, and you forgive their occasional slips.

So you are saying that an all powerful being can't figure out how to be more understanding of someone would have a tendency to want to use the word "I" and instead of getting murderously upset makes every bit of an effort to tone it down a few notches and make peace with the word "I" knowing that others will try to avoid the word "I" when around him?  

What you are describing is a one way street relationship; true relationships are a two way street.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"Sounds like that thing where abused spouses still love their asshole abusers.

No, that's not analogous, as the people who leave don't still love her, and the people who stay aren't being abused.

I think you should read up on spouse abuse...

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"By voter's reasoning if I want all the members here to love and respect me I must create rules against using the word "I", get all upset if anyone accidentally uses the word "I" and banish them immediately, then show my grace by letting them back on the forum after they apologized for using a word that is natural to conversation.

No, you don't understand my reasoning.

Suppose you really hate the word "I" to the extent you'd like to punish those who use it, but you keep that to yourself. People seemingly love and respect you. But, their use of "I" eats at you, and you know that some or all of them would abandon you if you made your position known and acted on it. On your side, you certainly can't describe this as a close relationship.

So, you make your feelings on "I" known and act accordingly. Most people call you a tyrant and leave. A few say it's your right to set the rules on your board, and while they may not fully understand why you hate "I," they make the effort to avoid it. You now have a closer relationship with these people than you had before, and you forgive their occasional slips.

QuoteSo you are saying that an all powerful being can't figure out how to be more understanding of someone would have a tendency to want to use the word "I" and instead of getting murderously upset makes every bit of an effort to tone it down a few notches and make peace with the word "I" knowing that others will try to avoid the word "I" when around him?  

No, I'm not saying that. See the bolded part. God does tone it down with those who recognize his wishes and try to live by them.

QuoteWhat you are describing is a one way street relationship; true relationships are a two way street.

How is it one-way? It seems two-way to me.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I find it illogical to assume that God must have made things the way they are.

Then it was illogical for you to ask "Why did God have to make evil?" in the first place, and you're shown to be trolling.

...

 

I find it funny that Voter is calling me a troll.

Quote from: "Voter"How is it one-way? It seems two-way to me.

When only one person has to change it's a one way relationship.

Just because you think the end result is a closer relationship (I disagree) doesn't make it a two way relationship.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I find it funny that Voter is calling me a troll.

I find it funny that you attempt to dismiss it like that, rather than addressing the actual argument.

Quote from: "Whitney"When only one person has to change it's a one way relationship.

Yes, but in the example both sides changed, so your charge fails. One side opened up and shared, the other started avoiding the word, and the first overlooked occasional slips. That's definitely two-sided.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I find it funny that Voter is calling me a troll.

I find it funny that you attempt to dismiss it like that, rather than addressing the actual argument.

A lot of Christians get around the "why does evil exist?" problem by saying that God had to make evil, or something like that. I'm saying he didn't.

How obvious does that need to be?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"A lot of Christians get around the "why does evil exist?" problem by saying that God had to make evil, or something like that. I'm saying he didn't.

See, that was much more productive.

I agree that god was not under compulsion to create in any particular way. I've given an explanation for the aspects of creation that you questioned.

You've since said that God could have made a creation in which we could love or hate things without knowing them. Well, maybe, but it's not something we can discuss rationally. If that's what you're left with, I guess we're done.

Quote from: "Voter"You've since said that God could have made a creation in which we could love or hate things without knowing them. Well, maybe, but it's not something we can discuss rationally. If that's what you're left with, I guess we're done.

That was just one example. There are literally infinite ways to have made the universe. Many of them do not require evil for everything to work well. If God was good, he wouldn't have created evil.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"When only one person has to change it's a one way relationship.

Yes, but in the example both sides changed, so your charge fails. One side opened up and shared, the other started avoiding the word, and the first overlooked occasional slips. That's definitely two-sided.

I wouldn't call sharing that you want to kill someone every time you see a certain action then not making an attempt to tone down your emotions to something more more normal is changing.  It's just voicing your opinion then demanding others act in accordance with your wishes or else.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"When only one person has to change it's a one way relationship.

Yes, but in the example both sides changed, so your charge fails. One side opened up and shared, the other started avoiding the word, and the first overlooked occasional slips. That's definitely two-sided.

I wouldn't call sharing that you want to kill someone every time you see a certain action then not making an attempt to tone down your emotions to something more more normal is changing.  It's just voicing your opinion then demanding others act in accordance with your wishes or else.

You seem to be blatantly wearing blinders to parts of my argument (as bolded above).

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That was just one example. There are literally infinite ways to have made the universe. Many of them do not require evil for everything to work well. If God was good, he wouldn't have created evil.

So give us an example. Remember, though, that it's the creator who decides if the creation "work well." I.e., your scenario has to achieve God's desires in the creation.

Quote from: "Voter"You seem to be blatantly wearing blinders to parts of my argument (as bolded above).

Had sex outside of marriage? That's cool, that's cool. It's your first mistake, I can let it slide, because I know you just slipped up.

What? You did it again? Ooh boy, you're going to hell now motherfucka!

Quote from: "Voter"So give us an example. Remember, though, that it's the creator who decides if the creation "work well." I.e., your scenario has to achieve God's desires in the creation.

How about where we can have free will but always do good? Or where we don't have free will, but that isn't an issue? Or where evil isn't even a concept?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How about where we can have free will but always do good? Or where we don't have free will, but that isn't an issue? Or where evil isn't even a concept?

If evil isn't even a concept, I assume you mean the opposite of good, how then would "good" be known?
(sorry just jumping in)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How about where we can have free will but always do good?

We had that chance here. It didn't work out.

QuoteOr where we don't have free will, but that isn't an issue?

What do you mean by "isn't an issue?" That's too vague to address.

QuoteOr where evil isn't even a concept?

Same as above, or see AD's response.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How about where we can have free will but always do good?

We had that chance here. It didn't work out.

If an omnipotent, omniscient creator had wanted it to work out, there's no reason it couldn't have made it so.

Quote

QuoteOr where we don't have free will, but that isn't an issue?

What do you mean by "isn't an issue?" That's too vague to address.

Too vague for an omnipotent, omniscient creator?

Quote

QuoteOr where evil isn't even a concept?

Same as above, or see AD's response.

Your omnipotent, omniscient creator seems rather lacking in imagination.

Quote from: "elliebean"If an omnipotent, omniscient creator had wanted it to work out, there's no reason it couldn't have made it so.

There certainly could be. Try reading up on omnipotence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/). There's more to it than your simplistic approach.

QuoteToo vague for an omnipotent, omniscient creator?

No, too vague for me, which was obvious from the context.

QuoteYour omnipotent, omniscient creator seems rather lacking in imagination.

So do you.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteYour omnipotent, omniscient creator seems rather lacking in imagination.

So do you.

Why? Because I could dream up a better world than your god could?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteYour omnipotent, omniscient creator seems rather lacking in imagination.

So do you.

Why? Because I could dream up a better world than your god could?

Yep. If you can't imagine how a universe that punishes people is evidence of a benevolent creator person who requires people to worship it yet is not narcissistic, then you're imagination is not that good.

Quote from: "elliebean"Why? Because I could dream up a better world than your god could?

Obviously not, as I don't know that you can do that. So far your contribution has been trite and simplistic.

Quote from: "Voter"Obviously not, as I don't know that you can do that.

Have faith.

QuoteSo far your contribution has been trite and simplistic.

Your understanding of my contribution so far has been sophomoric and myopic.

God is omnibelevolent, all-good, and omniscient yet he can't create something that can be all good too? Just doesn't make sense.

Quote from: "Cite134"God is omnibelevolent, all-good, and omniscient yet he can't create something that can be all good too? Just doesn't make sense.

The Bible doesn't portray God as being omnibenevolent.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Cite134"God is omnibelevolent, all-good, and omniscient yet he can't create something that can be all good too? Just doesn't make sense.

The Bible doesn't portray God as being omnibenevolent.

Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

So what I'm hearing is, it's okay to be an evil narcissist if it makes for "closer relationships". Do Christians suffer from some form of spiritual Stockholm Syndrome?

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

This is your interpretation, but when you think about it, removing your apparent "I hate God Goggles", then you can see that where there is only light, darkness is not.  Can darkness exist where light is?  If you're in a closed room and you light a candle, does the room remain pitch dark?  That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:6,7  NIV"...I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Cite134"God is omnibelevolent, all-good, and omniscient yet he can't create something that can be all good too? Just doesn't make sense.

The Bible doesn't portray God as being omnibenevolent.

So he has some evil in him?  

Has it not yet occurred to anyone that evil doesn't exist? That is to say that "evil" is not a thing; nor can a thing in itself be an "evil". It's best to use the word as an adjective; it's used as a noun the same way "badness" would be used as a noun - that is, not very meaningfully, except in a comparative sense (ie. the relative evils of smoking cigarettes vs. cigars, for example). Events and actions can have "evil' outcomes, which essentially means things happen that we don't all like. That's it.

Quote from: "elliebean"Has it not yet occurred to anyone that evil doesn't exist? That is to say that "evil" is not a thing; nor can a thing in itself be an "evil". It's best to use the word as an adjective; it's used as a noun the same way "badness" would be used as a noun - that is, not very meaningfully, except in a comparative sense (ie. the relative evils of smoking cigarettes vs. cigars, for example). Events and actions can have "evil' outcomes, which essentially means things happen that we don't all like. That's it.

Of course, Ellie, but we're dealing with Christians here, who believe that evil = sin, and that sin is an actual thing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

This is your interpretation, but when you think about it, removing your apparent "I hate God Goggles", then you can see that where there is only light, darkness is not.  Can darkness exist where light is?  If you're in a closed room and you light a candle, does the room remain pitch dark?  That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:6,7  NIV"...I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Why couldn't God have made it so that his "lightness" could still shine without their being darkness?

Ya beat me to it Ellie.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

QuoteIsaiah 45:6,7 NIV wrote:...
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Does not say:
It seems I am the LORD, and there seems there is no other.
t seems I form the light and create darkness,
It seems I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, seem to do all these things.

Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4: "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."  
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

Does God tempt people?
James 1:13: "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1: "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33: "The God of peace."
Isaiah 2:4: ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
vs.
Exodus 15:3: "The Lord is a man of war."
Joel 3:9-10: "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

Is God omnipotent?
Jeremiah 32:27: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
Matthew 19:26: "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
vs.
Judges 1:19: "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Does God live in light?
I Timothy 6:15-16: " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."
James 1:17: " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
John 12:35: "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."
Job 18:18: "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
Daniel 2:22: "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.
vs.
I Kings 8:12: "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." ( II Chronicles 6:1)
II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 18:11: "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 97:1-2: "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."

Quote from: "Gawen"Ya beat me to it Ellie.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

QuoteIsaiah 45:6,7 NIV wrote:...
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Does not say:
It seems I am the LORD, and there seems there is no other.
t seems I form the light and create darkness,
It seems I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, seem to do all these things.

Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4: "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."  
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

Does God tempt people?
James 1:13: "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1: "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33: "The God of peace."
Isaiah 2:4: ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
vs.
Exodus 15:3: "The Lord is a man of war."
Joel 3:9-10: "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

Is God omnipotent?
Jeremiah 32:27: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
Matthew 19:26: "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
vs.
Judges 1:19: "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Does God live in light?
I Timothy 6:15-16: " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."
James 1:17: " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
John 12:35: "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."
Job 18:18: "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
Daniel 2:22: "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.
vs.
I Kings 8:12: "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." ( II Chronicles 6:1)
II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 18:11: "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 97:1-2: "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."

Silly Gawen, you're just interpreting it wrong.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Silly Gawen, you're just interpreting it wrong.

See...I didn't have to say anything.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Silly Gawen, you're just interpreting it wrong.

See...I didn't have to say anything.

I love making the other side's arguments for them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

This is your interpretation, but when you think about it, removing your apparent "I hate God Goggles", then you can see that where there is only light, darkness is not.  Can darkness exist where light is?  If you're in a closed room and you light a candle, does the room remain pitch dark?  That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:6,7  NIV"...I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

I don't see the fake Einstein explanation as being a suitable analogy for the creation story, or story of the Fall. Even in a non-literal sense why would God give Adam and Eve a moral dilemma without first giving them knowledge of right and wrong? The result is predicable even to a mere mortal like myself.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Silly Gawen, you're just interpreting it wrong.

See...I didn't have to say anything.

I love making the other side's arguments for them.

Yes, thank you.  If then the interpretation is wrong, the whole idea derived from that interpretation is wrong.

A text without context is a pretext.  I guess Legendary Sandwich understands this well and thus the list of pretexts Gawen lists does nothing to support his/her claim.

Quote from: "Sophus"I don't see the fake Einstein explanation as being a suitable analogy for the creation story, or story of the Fall. Even in a non-literal sense why would God give Adam and Eve a moral dilemma without first giving them knowledge of right and wrong? The result is predicable even to a mere mortal like myself.

The moral dilemma is the knowledge of right and wrong.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

This is your interpretation, but when you think about it, removing your apparent "I hate God Goggles", then you can see that where there is only light, darkness is not.  Can darkness exist where light is?  If you're in a closed room and you light a candle, does the room remain pitch dark?  That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:6,7  NIV"...I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

I don't see the fake Einstein explanation as being a suitable analogy for the creation story, or story of the Fall. Even in a non-literal sense why would God give Adam and Eve a moral dilemma without first giving them knowledge of right and wrong? The result is predicable even to a mere mortal like myself.

That's not even the most troubling part of the Genesis creation story, to me. Not only did God deliberately place a tree in the garden that would "make them die" when they had no knowledge of good and evil, and he knew they would since he's omniscient and all, but the result of eating from that tree was knowledge of good and evil. So God punished them for seeking knowledge (he also punished them for being tricked by a being he created too...the absurdities continue).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, thank you.  If then the interpretation is wrong, the whole idea derived from that interpretation is wrong.

A text without context is a pretext.  I guess Legendary Sandwich understands this well and thus the list of pretexts Gawen lists does nothing to support his/her claim.

Why wouldn't God take some extra steps to make sure his message was clear and easily understandable?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not even the most troubling part of the Genesis creation story, to me. Not only did God deliberately place a tree in the garden that would "make them die" when they had no knowledge of good and evil, and he knew they would since he's omniscient and all, but the result of eating from that tree was knowledge of good and evil. So God punished them for seeking knowledge (he also punished them for being tricked by a being he created too...the absurdities continue).

Likewise it is so absurd that humans procreate with full knowledge of death coming to all...logic amazes me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not even the most troubling part of the Genesis creation story, to me. Not only did God deliberately place a tree in the garden that would "make them die" when they had no knowledge of good and evil, and he knew they would since he's omniscient and all, but the result of eating from that tree was knowledge of good and evil. So God punished them for seeking knowledge (he also punished them for being tricked by a being he created too...the absurdities continue).

Likewise it is so absurd that humans procreate with full knowledge of death coming to all...logic amazes me.

...
...
What.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Why wouldn't God take some extra steps to make sure his message was clear and easily understandable?

Seek and ye shall find.  It's not hidden.  It is easy.  Even a child understands.  Some simply require absolute evidence where none will be given.  You can understand now, can't you?  You just choose to disagree and so poke fun at.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"Likewise it is so absurd that humans procreate with full knowledge of death coming to all...logic amazes me.

...
...
What.

Are you having trouble understanding the "logic" of procreating simply to die?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"Likewise it is so absurd that humans procreate with full knowledge of death coming to all...logic amazes me.

...
...
What.

Are you having trouble understanding the "logic" of procreating simply to die?

I'm having trouble understanding the "logic" of your argument.

"We die; therefore, we should not have sex."

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Why wouldn't God take some extra steps to make sure his message was clear and easily understandable?

Seek and ye shall find.  It's not hidden.  It is easy.

You don't believe in a literal Genesis, do you? If you don't, and believe it's metaphorical or some shit, then why is it there? Why couldn't God have said that there was a Big Bang, life got created on Earth, and then, billions of years later, humans appeared as a result of evolution? Why would he have chosen to make a bullshit Creation story?

That's just one example out of probably hundreds.

QuoteEven a child understands.

A child also understands that Santa Clause exists. It's not hard to abandon logic, rational thinking, and reasoning (which is what you have to do to become "like a child).

QuoteSome simply require absolute evidence where none will be given.

I don't require absolute evidence to believe something.

QuoteYou can understand now, can't you?

No, not really.

QuoteYou just choose to disagree and so poke fun at.

...What.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"That's not even the most troubling part of the Genesis creation story, to me. Not only did God deliberately place a tree in the garden that would "make them die" when they had no knowledge of good and evil, and he knew they would since he's omniscient and all, but the result of eating from that tree was knowledge of good and evil. So God punished them for seeking knowledge (he also punished them for being tricked by a being he created too...the absurdities continue).

Likewise it is so absurd that humans procreate with full knowledge of death coming to all...logic amazes me.

Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

This is something that I cannot understand why a Christian, who knows it, refuses to understand. If God knows everything everywhen, he knew A&E had no knowledge of right and wrong before they ate the fruit. He knew they would eat the fruit and then know right from wrong. And he knew what the consequences would be beforehand. It was a set up. It's disgusting and not a very good way to trust a god that wants one to obey him.
It also destroys the Christian free will argument.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, thank you.  If then the interpretation is wrong, the whole idea derived from that interpretation is wrong.

A text without context is a pretext.  I guess Legendary Sandwich understands this well and thus the list of pretexts Gawen lists does nothing to support his/her claim.

I KNEW the issue of context would come up. Apologise for us Ad; you have the pulpit. Show us the CORRECT context and interpretations of the above inconsistencies.

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

Er, maybe because he told them not to eat from the tree?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

Er, maybe because he told them not to eat from the tree?

How would they know it was wrong for them to disobey God's commandments? They didn't have knowledge of good or evil.

for the answer, check my topic.

'Islam - why are we here? '

Quote from: "Cite134"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Cite134"God is omnibelevolent, all-good, and omniscient yet he can't create something that can be all good too? Just doesn't make sense.

The Bible doesn't portray God as being omnibenevolent.

So he has some evil in him?  

No, but he is a righteous judge, and judgment certainly doesn't seem benevolent to the convict.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Silly Gawen, you're just interpreting it wrong.

See...I didn't have to say anything.

I love making the other side's arguments for them.

Most people don't admit they love making straw men. Go figure.  

Quote from: "Voter"Most people don't admit they love making straw men. Go figure.  

Straw men? AnimatedDirt just said that that was exactly the argument he was going to use.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

Er, maybe because he told them not to eat from the tree?

How would they know it was wrong for them to disobey God's commandments? They didn't have knowledge of good or evil.

As noted previously, you must consider the context. There is more than one kind of knowledge or understanding. They knew they weren't supposed to eat from the tree because God told them (BTW, Adam wasn't deceived), so they had an intellectual knowledge, but not an experiential knowledge. A virgin might intellectually know all the steps of lovemaking, but if someone with experience said to him "you don't really know sex until you've experienced it," you wouldn't chastise that person for making a nonsensical statement.

Quote from: "Voter"As noted previously, you must consider the context. There is more than one kind of knowledge or understanding. They knew they weren't supposed to eat from the tree because God told them (BTW, Adam wasn't deceived), so they had an intellectual knowledge, but not an experiential knowledge. A virgin might intellectually know all the steps of lovemaking, but if someone with experience said to him "you don't really know sex until you've experienced it," you wouldn't chastise that person for making a nonsensical statement.

So God punished them why...?

It's like grounding a baby because you told him not to chew on his legos, but he did anyways.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry, but I think you're deflecting. Why would God expect Adam and Eve to know what is wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge which makes it possible for them to know what is right and wrong?

Er, maybe because he told them not to eat from the tree?

But they had no concept of right and wrong. They wouldn't have known it was wrong to disobey.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, the bible portrays god as a bloodthirsty, narcissistic, evil thing.

This is your interpretation, but when you think about it, removing your apparent "I hate God Goggles", then you can see that where there is only light, darkness is not.  Can darkness exist where light is?  If you're in a closed room and you light a candle, does the room remain pitch dark?  That is why the scriptures SEEM to suggest God created evil.

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:6,7  NIV"...I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster,
I, the LORD, do all these things.

I don't have any "I hate god goggles" just as I don't have any "I hate dancing waffles goggles" or "I hate cooking ice cream tennis shoes in the oven goggles".

Moving on from your baseless assumptions into the bloodthirsty god: God requiring the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in the book of Judges after leading Jephthah into victory killing his enemies, ordering that the pregnant women should be ripped open by swords in Hosea 13:16, the world wide flood, killing the first born of a bunch of people because the pharaoh of Egypt wouldn't let Moses leave with a bunch of slaves... etc.. So did god do and order these things? Is it just my interpretation of the bible that god did and ordered these things? These things clearly denote a person that seeks out to kill (blood thirsty) instead of finding peaceful, non-violent solutions... which I think an all knowing, all powerful god would be able to do.

Narcissistic: Maybe it's just my interpretation that god wants everyone to believe in and praise him, but because Christians have stated so, I doubt that it's just my interpretation. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me" that leads to think that god has a problem with people not worshiping him.

Evil: Punishing people for eternity just because they told a lie and didn't believe in this god, is evil. All the bloodthirsty stuff I discussed just previously, are evil things to do and command. So when you think about it, without any "god is good and I must find any reason no matter how crazy to justify god being good in spite of all the things the bible says he did and commanded goggles" then you can see that god is a bloodthirsty, narcissistic evil thing.

QuoteNo, but he is a righteous judge, and judgment certainly doesn't seem benevolent to the convict.

A "righteous" judge who condemns imperfect beings that HE created to eternal "suffering"; With no jury at that. What a just and fair God.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So God punished them why...?

Because they disobeyed him.

Quote from: "Cite134"A "righteous" judge who condemns imperfect beings that HE created to eternal "suffering"; With no jury at that. What a just and fair God.  

He's just. As to fair, depends on the sense you're using.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So God punished them why...?

Because they disobeyed him.

Why would he punish them if they disobeyed him when they had no sense of right and wrong? Like I said earlier, it's like punishing a baby because it disobeyed you. It's not fair. It's not just. It's evil.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So God punished them why...?

Because they disobeyed him.

How were they to know that disobeying was wrong if they didn't know that anything was wrong? Why was God expecting them not to disobey them? It's like giving candy to a group of kids and telling them not to eat it.

Quote from: "Voter"He's just. As to fair, depends on the sense you're using.

How exactly is god just..?

Is justice about an equal reaction to one's actions, or does justice mean getting a ton of crap for a minor offence..? Or does it mean getting shit for something good..?

What exactly IS justice to your imaginary friend?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So God punished them why...?

Because they disobeyed him.

Why would he punish them if they disobeyed him when they had no sense of right and wrong? Like I said earlier, it's like punishing a baby because it disobeyed you. It's not fair. It's not just. It's evil.

And I earlier explained that there are different types of knowledge, to which you just repeated your question. Guess we're done here.

Quote from: "Sophus"How were they to know that disobeying was wrong if they didn't know that anything was wrong?

Again, there are different kinds or levels of knowledge. They did have some understanding. Otherwise, why didn't they eat of the tree until they were tempted? If their lack of understanding was as complete as you conclude, they would have been eating at random, and the temptation would have had no effect.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"How were they to know that disobeying was wrong if they didn't know that anything was wrong?

Again, there are different kinds or levels of knowledge. They did have some understanding. Otherwise, why didn't they eat of the tree until they were tempted? If their lack of understanding was as complete as you conclude, they would have been eating at random, and the temptation would have had no effect.

Flawed point, however:

DID temptation have an effect..? I can see a possibility where the snake tells them: "Oh look! Good apples there" and they go "Nah... In a mood for a banana right now". The snake persists though and they go " Apples, eh..? Oh, whatever... Let's have some"

It might have been a product of temptation, OR it could simply be that they saw an apple and ate it for reasons totally different than the bothersome talking snake, who, in its narcissism, decided to take the credit anyways.

Different types of knowledge. It's only you and your wife...no other humans exist. Ok, you DO NOT KNOW right from wrong. You DO KNOW how to drive a car. There are no speed limit signs. One day you see there are speed limit signs posted at intervals. You are told by a god that these signs are put there for you to keep a speed equal to or less than the speed posted on the sign; otherwise, if you go faster, you will know right from wrong and you shall surely die. Next thing you see is a talking platypus in the back seat and it tells your wife that, hey, you can go faster and you won't die. She believes the talking platypus and then tells you to go faster because she's hungry and wishes to stop at the magical Taco Bell, where tacos, burritos and Mexican pizzas are magically made (because , remember there are no other humans).

So you go one mile an hour over the speed limit. What happens?
You make it to the Taco Bell (where Mexican Pizzas are not made by Mexicans....or Italians, for that matter),
you suddenly and magically know right and wrong,
you don't die
the platypus was right
God lied.
Lying is wrong.
AND
You are fined to the tune of -
you and all your children and subsequently all mankind are cursed forever,
your wife (and subsequently all women) has painful childbirth,
you and your wife are kicked out of the car,
angels are posted as a watch so you can't get back in the car under orders to kill you if you try,
you notice that you and your wife are naked, which is now somehow wrong and suddenly ashamed.
the platypus now has to eat dirt

Where is this just? How does the punishment fit the crime? How is there a crime in the first place when you don't know right from wrong?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"How were they to know that disobeying was wrong if they didn't know that anything was wrong?

Again, there are different kinds or levels of knowledge. They did have some understanding. Otherwise, why didn't they eat of the tree until they were tempted? If their lack of understanding was as complete as you conclude, they would have been eating at random, and the temptation would have had no effect.

Maybe my baby analogy was flawed, as babies don't really know anything. Let me use a new analogy in its place -- say you're the father of a mentally handicapped kid, who is a normal kid in every other way besides his conscious, for he can not tell right from wrong. You tell him not to eat the last slice of pizza from the fridge, but his friend comes along and convinces him to. Would you punish him, even though he lacks any way to tell what's right from what's wrong?

"Evil," in our ordinary usage of words, is the name of two kinds of manifestations. We often understand by this world anything in general which evokes misfortune and causes suffering. But in a more precise, direct sense, evil is a name for negative manifestations of the moral order which proceed from the evil direction of the will and violation of God's laws.

It is clear that misfortunes in the physical world--for example, earthquakes, storms, floods, landslides, and the rest--are in themselves neither good nor evil. In the general world system they are what shadows are to bright colors in the art of painters, what crude sounds are to soft sounds in music, and so forth. This is the way in which Holy Fathers such as Blessed Augustine and St. Gregory the Theologian treat these manifestations. One cannot deny that such manifestations of the elements are often the cause of misfortunes and sufferings for sensible creatures and for man; but one can only bow down in reverence before the all-wise order of the world, where the endlessly various and mutually opposed strivings on the part of blind elemental powers and organic creatures, which collide with each other at every moment, are in mutual agreement and are brought into harmony, becoming a source of contstant renewal in the world.

To a certain extent, the unpleasant, shadowy sides of our human life make us value and sense more highly the joyful sides of life. But the word of God itself tells us that difficult sufferings, sorrows, and afflictions cannot be acknowledged as manifestations completely in accordance with law and therefore normal; rather, they are a deviation from the norm. The sufferings of the human race began with the appearance of moral evil and are the consequences of sin, which entered into our life at that time. Of this the first pages of the Bible testify: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy sighting; in pain thou shalt bring forth children(the words addressed to Eve after the fall into sin);Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (the words spoken to  Adam; Gen 3:16-17). Sufferings are given to man as a means of chastisement, enlightenment, and correction. According to St. Basil the Great, sufferings and death itself "cut off growth of sin." Numerous examples of the awareness of the tie between suffering and sin result of its cause are given to us in the word of God: Lay hold of chastisement, lest at any time the Lord be angry (Ps. 2:12); it is good for me that Thou hast humbled me, that I might learn Thy statutes (Ps. 118:71). Careful observation itself shows that the causes of diseases and sufferings, in the overwhelming majority of cases , are men themselves, who have created artificial and abnormal conditions for their existence, introducing a cruel mutual warfare while chasing after their own egotistic physical well-being; and sometimes these things are the direct result of a certain demonic attitude--pride, revenge, and malice.

As the word of God instructs us, the consequences of moral evil spread from people to the animal world and to the whole of creation: For we know that the whole creation goaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, the Apostle Paul writes, and her further explains: For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected it in hope: because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:22, 20-21). It is the consensus of the Holy Fathers that the entire creation was brought into the bondage of corruption through man's sin. Commenting on Romans 8:20, St. John Chrysostom writes "What means, For the creation was made subject to vanity? It became corruptible. Why and by what cause? By your fault, O man. Because you received a body mortal and subject to sufferings, so the earth also was subject to a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles." Later in the same section, St. John writes: "Just as the creation became corruptible when your body became corruptible, so also when your body will be incorrupt [i.e., after the General Resurrection], the creation also will follow after it and become corresponding to it" (Homilies on Romans, Homily 14.5)

St. Symeon the New Theologian states specifically that the entire earth, and not just Paradise, was created incorrupt. "God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible, No!...The whole world has been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptibel yet material and perceptible" (On the Mystical Life)

The Holy Fathers indicate that evil is not some kind of essence which has any actual independent existence, like the elements and powers of the world which were created by God. St. Diadochus of Photiki: "Evil does not exist by nature, nor is any man naturally evil, for God made nothing that was not good. When in the desire of his heart someone conceives and gives form to what in reality has no existence, then what he desires begins to exist. We should therefore turn our attention away from the inclination to evil and concentrate it on the remembrance of God; for good, which exists by nature, is more powerful than our inclination to evil. The one has existence while the other does not, except when we give it existence through our actions" (Philokalia vol 1). Evil is only a deviation of living beings from that original condition in which the Creator placed them, into a condition which is opposed to this. Therfore, it is not God Who is the cause of moral evil; rahter, it proceeds from creatures themselves, for they have deviated from the agreement of their will with the will of God. The essence of evil consists in the violation of God's will, the commandments of God, and the moral law which is writtin in the human conscience. This violation is called sin.

But from whence did moral evil arise? God created the world pure, perfect, free from evil. Evil entered the world as a consequence of the fall, which occured, according to the word of God, originally in the world of fleshless spirits, and then in the human race, and was reflected in the whole of living nature.

According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devill sinneth from the beginning (I John 3:8). The word "devil" means "slanderer." Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirts or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he "abode not in the truth" and fell away from God. St John Damascence: "Every rational being is free. The angelic nature, then, insofar as it is rational and intelligent, is free; while, insofar as it is created, it is changeable and has the power to persevere and progress in good or to turn to evil. Although man, by reason of the infirmity of his body, is capable of repentance, the angel, because of his incorporeality, is not" (Exact Exposition 2.3) The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2:4)

What was the cause of the fall in the angelic world? From this same Divine Revelation we can conclude that the reason was pride: the beginning of sin is pride, says the son of Sirach (Sir. 10:13). The Apostle Paul, warning the Apostle Timothy against making bishops of those who are newly converted, adds: Lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condmnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6).

The evil spirits are mentioned in only a few passages in the Old Testament Revelation. These places are the following: We read of the "serpent," the temer of the first people, in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. The activities of "Satan" in the life of the righteous Job are related in the first chapter of the book of Job. In First Kings it is said concerning Saul that an evil spirit troubled him after the Spirit of the Lord departed from him (I Kings 16:14). In First Paralipomenon (Chronicles), chapter 21, we read that when the thought came to King David to make a census of the people, it was because Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. In the book of the Prophet Zachariah it is said concerning his vision of the chief priest, Joshua, that Joshua was resisted by "the devil" (Zach. 3:1). In the book of the Wisom of Solomon it is said that through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis. 2:24). Likewise, in Deuteronomy 32:17 it is said: They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; and in Pslam 105:35: And they sacrificed...unto demons.

An incomparably more complete representation of the activity of Satan and his angels is contained in the New Testament Revelation. From it we know that Satan and evil spirts are constantly attracting people to evil. Satan dared to tempt the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the desert. The evil spirits rush into the souls and even into the bodies of men; of this there is the testimony of many events in the Gospel and of the teachings of the Saviour. Concerning the habitation of evil spirits in men, we know from the numerous healings by the Saviour of the demon-possessed. Evil spirits spy, as it were, on the carelessness of man so as to attract him to evil: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when his come, he findeth it empty, swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they enter in and dwell there: nd the last state of that man is worse than the first (Matt. 12:43-45). With regard to the healing of the bent woman, the Saviour said to the ruler of the synagogue: And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? (Luke 13:16).

Likewise, the Sacred Scripture calls evil spirits "unclean spirits," "spirits of evil," "devils," "demons," "angels of the devil," and angels of Satan." Their chief, the devil, is also called the "tempter," "Satan," "Beelzbub," "Belial," the "prince of devils," and other names like "Lucifer" (the morning star).

Taking the form of a serpent, the devil was the tempter and the cause of the fall into sin of the first people, as is related in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. In the Apocalypse he is called the great dragon, that old serpent (Apoc. 12:9)

The devil and his angels are deprived of remaining in the heavenly dwellings of light. I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, said the Lord to his disciples. (Luke 10:18). Being cast down from the world above, the devil and his servants act in the world under the heaven, among men on earth, and they have taken into their possession, as it were, hell and the underworld. The Apostle calls them principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world (Eph. 6:12). The devil is the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), and his servants, the fallen angels, are the spirits of wickedness under the heaven (Eph. 6:12).

Why was man's fall into sin possible? The Creator imparted to man three great gifts at his creation: freedom, reason, and love. These gifts are indispensable for the spiritual growth and blessedness of man. But where there is freedom there is the possibility of wavering in one's choice; thus, temptation is possible. The temptation for reason is to grow proud in mind; instead of acknowledging the wisdom and goodness of God, to seek the knowledge of good and evil outside of God; to desire oneself to be a "god." The tempation for the feeling of love is: in place of love for God and one's neighbor, to love oneself and everything that satisfies the lower desires and gives temporary enjoyment. This possibility of temptation and fall stood before mankind, and the first man did not stand firm against it.

Let us make note here of St. John of kronstadt's reflection on this subject. He writes: "Why did God allow the fall of man, his beloved creation and the crown of all the earthly creatures? To this question one must reply thus: If man is not to be allowed to fall, then he cannot be created in the image and likeness of God, he cannot be granted free will, which is inseperable feature of the image of God; but he would have to be subejct to the law of neccessity, like the soulless creation--the sky, the sun, stars, the circle of the earth, and all the elements--or like the irrational animals. But then there would have been no king, over the creatures of hte earth, no rational hymn-singer of God's goodnesss, wisdom, creative almightiness, and Providence. Then man would have had no way to show his faithfulness and devotion to the Creator., his self-sacrificing love. Then there would have been no exploits in battle, no merits, and no incorruptible crowns for victory; there would have been no eternal blessednesss, which is the reward for faithfulness and devotion to God, and no eternal repose after the labors and struggles of our earthly pilgrimage."

The writer of Genesis does not tell us whether our first ancestors lived for a long time in the blessed life of Paradise. Speaking of their fall, he indicates that they did not come to the temptation of themselves, but were led to it by the tempter.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of Paradise? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of Paradise: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of Pradise, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat (Gen. 3:1-6)

The Christian Church has always understood the serpent, the tempter, to be the devil, whoo took the form of a serpent as corresponding best to his sneaky, cunning, and poisonous character. Teh clear words of our Lord Himself about the devil confirm this interpretation: He was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). In the Apocalypse of John the Theologian he is called the great dragon, that old serpent (Apoc. 12:9). In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon it says: Through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis. 2:24).

The transgression of our first ancestors was this: Having been tempted by the serpent, they violated the direct commandment of God not to eat of the forbidden tree. The fulfillment of this commandment would have shown obedience to God and trust in His words, as well as humility and continence--a summing up of the simple and natural virtues. The eating of the forbidden fruit immediatley drew after itself the whole sum of lamentable moral and physical consequences.

The eating of the fruit was only the beginning of moral deviation, the first push; but it was so poisonous and ruinous that it was already impossible to return to the previous sanctity and righteousness; on the contrary, there was revealed an inclination to travel farther on the path of apostasy from God. This is seen in the fact that they immediately noticed their nakedness and, hearing the voice of God in Paradise, they hid from Him and, justifying themselves, only increased their guilt. In Adam's replies to God, we see from the beginning his desire to flee from God's sight and an attempt to hide his guilt; we see the untruth in his saying that he had hidden from God only becasue he was naked; and then the attempt at self-justification and the desire to transfer his guilt to another, his wife. Blessed Augustine says: "Here was pride, because man desired to be more under his own authority than under God's; and a mockery of what is holy, because he did not believe God; and murder, because he subjected himself to death; and spiritual adultery, because the immaculateness of the human soul was defiled through the persuasion of the serpent; and theft, because they made use of the forbidden tree; and the love of acquistion, because he desired more than was necessary to satisfy hismelf."

Thus, with the first transgression of the commandment, the principle of sin immediately entered into man--"the law of sin" (nomos tis amartias). It struck the very nature of man and quickly, began to root itself in him and develop. With the entrance of sin, man lost the Grace in which he had been created, Because his nature had become corrupted by sin, Grace was now foreign to it. St. John Damascene writes: "And so, man succumbed to the assualt of the demon, the author of evil; he failed to keep the Creator's commandment and was stripped of Grace and deprived of that familiarity which he had enjoyed with God" (Exact Exposition). Likewise, St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: "When with his soul he (Adam) believed the serpent and not God, then Divine Grace which had rested on him stepped away from him, so that he became the enemy of God by reason of the unbelief which he had shown to His words" (First-Created Man). Of this sinful principle which entered human nature, Apostle Paul wrote: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not...For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (Rom. 7:18, 22-23). The sinful inclinations in man have taken the reigning position; man has become the servant of sin (Rom. 6:17). Both the mind and the feelings have become darkened in him, and therefore his moral freedom often does not incline towards the good, but towards evil. Lust and Pride have appeared in the depths of man's impulses to activity in life. Of this we read in I John 2:15-16: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world...For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The lust of the flesh is a weakening of the authority of the spirit over the body, a subjection of it to the lower, fleshly desires; the lust of the eyes means the false idols and attachments, greed and hunger for the world, envy; and pride is self-esteem, egoism, self-exaltation, a despising of others who are weaker, love of self, and vainglory.

Contemporary psychological observations also lead investigators to the conclusion that lust and pride (the thirst for being better than others) are chief levers of the strivings of contemporary fallen mankind, even when they are deeply hidden in the soul and are not completely conscious.

The physical consequences of the fall are diseases, hard labor, and death. These were the natural result of the moral fall, the falling away from communion with God, man's departure from God. When man lost the Grace of God, he experienced spiritual death, and this spiritual death made him subject to physical death. Thus, St. Gregory Palamas writes: "It was indeed Adam's soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for 930 years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject ot fatigue, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death" (Philokalia vol. 4). Elsewhere St. Gregory of Palamas expounds further on what is meant by the death of the soul: "Physical death is when the soul leaves the body and is seperated from it. The death of the soul is when God leaves the soul and is separated from it, although in another way, the soul remains immortal. Once separated from God it becomes more ugly and useless than a dead body, but unlike such a body it does not disintegrate after death since it is not composite" (Homilies vol 1). Man became subject to the corrupt elements of the world, in which dissolution and death are active. Nourishment from the Source of Life and from the constant renewal of all one's powers became weak in men. Our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the dependence of illnesses on sin when he healed the paralytic, saying to him: Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee (John 5:14).

With sin, death entered into the human race. Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have reamined immortal also in body if he had not falled away from God. The Wisdom of Solomon says: God did not make death (Wis. 1:13). Man's body, as well expressed by Blessed Augustine, does not possess "the impossibility of dying," but it did possess "the possibility of not dying" was maintained in Paradise by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, of which our first ancestors were deprived after they were banished from Paradise. As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). The Apostle calls death the "wages," that is, the payment or reward for sin: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). St John Damascene: "He [man] was clothed with the roughness of his wretched life--for that is what the fig leaves signify--and put on death, that is to say, the mortality and the grossness of the flesh--for this is what the garment of skins signifies; he excluded from Paradise by the just judgment of God; and was condemned to death and made subject to corruption" (Exact Exposition 3.1).

Physical misfortunes are not only a consequence of sin; at the same time they are chastisments from God, as was revealed in the words of God to our first parents when they were banished from Paradise. It is clear that these chastisements are given as a means of preventing man from a further and final fall.

Concerning the meqaning of labors and diseases in fallen man, St. Cyril of Alexandria says that man, "having received as his lot an exhausting fast and sorrows, was given over to illnesses, sufferings, and the other bitter things of life as to a kind of bridle. Because he did not sensibly restrain himself in that life which was free of labors and sorrows, he was given over to misfourtunes so that by sufferings he might heal in himself the disease which came upon him in the midst of blessedness".

Of death, this same Holy Father says: "By death the Giver of the Law stopped the spread of sin, and in the very chastisement revealed His love for mankind. Inasmuch as He, in giving the cammandment, joined death to the transgression of it, and iasmuch as the criminal thus fell under this chastisment, so He arranged that the chastisement itself might serve for salvation. For death dissolves this animal nature of ours and thus, on the one hand, stops the activity of evil, and on the other delivers a man from illnesses, frees him from labors, puts an end to his sorrows and cares, and stops his bodily sufferings. With such a love for mankind has the Judge mixed the chastisement".

However, the final and most important consequence of sin was not illness and physical death, but the loss of Paradise. This loss of Paradise is the same thing as the loss of the Kingdom of God. In Adam all mankind was deprived of the future blessedness which stood before it, the blessedness which Adam and Eve had partially tasted in Paradise. In other words, the way to deification was barred to man.  In place of the prospect of life eternal, mankind beheld death, and behind it hell, darkness, rejection by God. Therefore, the sacred books of the Old Testament are filled with dark thoughts concerning existence beyond the grave: For in death there is none that is mindful of Thee, and in hades who will confess Thee? (Ps. 6:5). This is not a denial of immortality, but a reflection of the hopeless darkness beyond the grave. Such awareness and sorrow were eased only by the hope of future deliverance through the coming of the Saviour: I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though my skin hath been destroyed, yet in my flesh shall I see God (Job 19:25-26). Therefore did my heart rejoice and my tongue was glad; moreover, my flesh shall dwell in hope. For Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hades, nor wilt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption (Ps. 15:9-10).

After man's fall into sin, God did not reject man the sinner. He took away from him neither His image, (St. Gregory Palamas writes that the human soul "possesses the image of God inalienably, even if it does not recognize its own dignity, or think and live in a manner worthy of the Creator's image within it. After our forefather's transgression in Paradise thourgh the tree, was suffered the death of our soul--which is the separation of the soul from God--prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image. Thus when the soul renounces its attachment to inferior things and cleaves through love to God and subnits itself to Him through acts and modes of virtue, it is illuminated and made beautiful by God and is raised to a higher level, obeying His counsels and exhortations; and by these means it regains the truly eternal life" (Philokalia vol4)) which distinguished him from the animal world, nor the freedom of his will, nor his reason, by which man was capable of understanding spiritual principles, nor his other capabilities. God acted towards him as does a physician and educator: He covered his nakedness with clothing, moderated his self-esteem and pride, his fleshly desires and passions, by means of healing measures--labor and diseases--giving to them an educational significance. We ourselves can see the educational effect of labor, and the cleansing effect of disease on the soul. God subjected man to physical death so as not to hand him over to final spiritual death--that is, so that the sinful principle in him might not develop to the extreme, so that he might not become like Satan.

However, this natural bridle of suffering and death does not uproot the very source of evil. It only restrains the development of evil. It was most necessary for mankind to have a supernatural power and help which might perform an inward reversal within him and give to man the possibility to turn away from a gradually deepening descent and towards victory over sin and a gradual ascent to God. God's Providence foresaw the future fall of man's free will which had not become strong. Foreseeing the fall, He prearranged an arising. Adam's fall into sin was not an absolute perdition for mankind. The power which was to give rebirth, according to God's pre-eternal determination, was the descent to earth of the Son of God.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Maybe my baby analogy was flawed, as babies don't really know anything. Let me use a new analogy in its place -- say you're the father of a mentally handicapped kid, who is a normal kid in every other way besides his conscious, for he can not tell right from wrong. You tell him not to eat the last slice of pizza from the fridge, but his friend comes along and convinces him to. Would you punish him, even though he lacks any way to tell what's right from what's wrong?

There's a contradiction in your scenario. You say I tell him, but then say he lacks any way to tell. You even used the same word. Same with A&E.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"How were they to know that disobeying was wrong if they didn't know that anything was wrong?

Again, there are different kinds or levels of knowledge. They did have some understanding. Otherwise, why didn't they eat of the tree until they were tempted? If their lack of understanding was as complete as you conclude, they would have been eating at random, and the temptation would have had no effect.

Some understanding of what? Right and wrong or the command to not eat from one tree? As far as we know they were eating at random anything they found in the garden since they were allowed to eat anything... but from one tree.

Will such a tree exist in Heaven? If not, why? Why didn't God simply not plant this tree in the Garden to begin with? Why would you want to go to Heaven if - apparently by your logic - a close relationship with God cannot exist there because there is no evil in Heaven?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Maybe my baby analogy was flawed, as babies don't really know anything. Let me use a new analogy in its place -- say you're the father of a mentally handicapped kid, who is a normal kid in every other way besides his conscious, for he can not tell right from wrong. You tell him not to eat the last slice of pizza from the fridge, but his friend comes along and convinces him to. Would you punish him, even though he lacks any way to tell what's right from what's wrong?

There's a contradiction in your scenario. You say I tell him, but then say he lacks any way to tell. You even used the same word. Same with A&E.

How would he know it's right to follow what you say?

And you would punish him, then?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How would he know it's right to follow what you say?

Trust derived from our relationship.

QuoteAnd you would punish him, then?

Possibly. Punishment over pizza seems unlikely, but suppose he had food allergies and so it was important for him to obey me on the issue of food. Then, yes, I would likely punish.

Quote from: "Sophus"Some understanding of what? Right and wrong or the command to not eat from one tree?

Both I suppose.

QuoteAs far as we know they were eating at random anything they found in the garden since they were allowed to eat anything... but from one tree.

Yes, which again shows that they had some level of understanding.

QuoteWill such a tree exist in Heaven? If not, why? Why didn't God simply not plant this tree in the Garden to begin with?

As already explained, to make a complete or more complete revelation of himself, in order to allow a deeper relationaship with us.

QuoteWhy would you want to go to Heaven if - apparently by your logic - a close relationship with God cannot exist there because there is no evil in Heaven?

This isn't apparent from my logic, as we will already have the knowledge of these characteristics of God. They don't need to be repeated for eternity.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How would he know it's right to follow what you say?

Trust derived from our relationship.

QuoteAnd you would punish him, then?

Possibly. Punishment over pizza seems unlikely, but suppose he had food allergies and so it was important for him to obey me on the issue of food. Then, yes, I would likely punish.

But he doesn't know that it would be morally wrong to eat from the fridge (if we assume that disobeying your parents is a sin). Consider that he could also be naive (as Adam and Eve seemed to be) -- he follows your directions at first, but then his friend comes and along and convinces him that nothing would go wrong if he ate the slice of pizza. If he has no sense of right and wrong, and he's been convinced by his friend to do something bad, why would you punish him?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"If he has no sense of right and wrong, and he's been convinced by his friend to do something bad, why would you punish him?

And punish him, to wit, by throwing him in the oven until he dies.

Yeah, that's just.

This entire argument is silly, because AD, Achronos, and Voter aren't going to change their minds no matter what we say until the injustice strikes them directly; and perhaps not even then.  They're too emotionally invested in their belief systems to ponder the thought of rebuilding their entire outlook.  I can understand that; deconverting was a pretty scary thing for me, too.

Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

The worst part about this is that it's an impossible attribute that self-collapses. Hence the paradox: "Can you know how to create something that you do not already know", or Can you know how to create knowledge?

And when you take omniscience and try to apply it to some entity that you claim created everything to which includes you, it becomes rather laughable in regards to good/evil or sin. And that is because a said being that would infinitely know everything would infinitely know the past and future of and on everything..INFINITELY! What does this mean? It means there can be no "Free Will", or even freedom of choice. Said deity would have known everything man would ever do, or say in exact infinite detail to every thought and emotion before man was ever created. This just means your purpose was nothing more than a prefabricated puppet in a puppet show. But hey, the sucky thing for your GOD is that existence is nothing more than an infinite rerun tv show. It's existence has thus become irrelevant and without purpose since it would be omniscient. It would have done everything, created everything, judged everything, felt everything, seen everything, heard everything, known everything infinitely, and repeated the above infinitely over and over and over again!

Also, there is a minor glitch in that concept because logic would suggest the following paradox:


If you knew infinitely everything, could you create or do anything at all? It seems that suggesting a GOD that is not bound to time to where it's infinitely old, and infinitely older according to the present could not possibly have created anything. Under this argument everything would have just been existent without creation with an entity that would have just been existent that knows it all. And how exactly would an entity create that which it self requires to exist anyways?

What's also interesting is that Omniscience would be equivalent to Solipsism.

Anyways,

I do not worship things as GODS. Especially things that have obviously been said to have intentionally killed something. What most Christians don't get, it's that Christianity is really about unquestionable servitude to power. That is exactly what it is from cover to cover.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteWill such a tree exist in Heaven? If not, why? Why didn't God simply not plant this tree in the Garden to begin with?

As already explained, to make a complete or more complete revelation of himself, in order to allow a deeper relationaship with us.

Then heaven has but a mere shallow relationship. You're also implying God was not powerful enough to make a deep relationship possible without hell, sin, suffering and the creation of evil.

Quote

QuoteWhy would you want to go to Heaven if - apparently by your logic - a close relationship with God cannot exist there because there is no evil in Heaven?

This isn't apparent from my logic, as we will already have the knowledge of these characteristics of God. They don't need to be repeated for eternity.

Then why not eliminate evil right now since we already have knowledge of his wonderful narcissistic characteristics?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

Wouldn't omniscience, especially in the case TheJackel point out, result in infinite boredom? Why does God have such a fuse toward "evil sins" if he has forever since known they will occur and according to his book) be overcome?

And that's another question: is all sin evil?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

If you don't believe in Solipsism or the concept that GOD is existence itself to where everything is made of GOD, and all knowledge and information is possessed by said deity, you surely would need to reconsider your position. Because under this argument, you are at best nothing more than the figment of your GODS imagination. It's like GOD worshiping itself :P


However, all purpose is lost under Omniscience since all has been done and known infinitely. And it would be infinitely powerless to change that. Thus the Christian GOD is technically a logical fallacy. It's ruled itself irrelevant. We may as well just put this on the mythical wall right next to all the Greek GODS, or even Peter Pan.

So the big question is for Voter and Animated Dirt:

Is your GOD "IN" existence, or is your GOD the sum total of all existence? One will nullify it as being a GOD btw, while the other will make all things GOD. Crazy little quagmire theists get themselves into

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

Agreeing on definitions is one of the standard preliminaries of a debate.  Can you not acknowledge it in a civil manner?  Sarcasm won't advance the discussion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

"Logical paradoxes and absurdities? No problem for me!"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How would he know it's right to follow what you say?

Trust derived from our relationship.

QuoteAnd you would punish him, then?

Possibly. Punishment over pizza seems unlikely, but suppose he had food allergies and so it was important for him to obey me on the issue of food. Then, yes, I would likely punish.

But he doesn't know that it would be morally wrong to eat from the fridge (if we assume that disobeying your parents is a sin). Consider that he could also be naive (as Adam and Eve seemed to be) -- he follows your directions at first, but then his friend comes and along and convinces him that nothing would go wrong if he ate the slice of pizza. If he has no sense of right and wrong, and he's been convinced by his friend to do something bad, why would you punish him?

Already answered. What part don't you understand?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Just so Voter and AnimatedDirt know the definition of Omniscience, we should post it here from them:

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely

Oh my...with this new information, I may have to change my mind on everything!

Damn, me too - I thought it referred to someone who is really good at science!

Quote from: "Voter"Already answered. What part don't you understand?

OK, you said that Adam and Eve had a kind of knowledge, but not the knowledge of good evil that the bible says they got from eating some fruit. Why would god punish a person for doing something they did not know was evil to do? That is the part I do not understand.

Quote from: "Davin"OK, you said that Adam and Eve had a kind of knowledge, but not the knowledge of good evil that the bible says they got from eating some fruit. Why would god punish a person for doing something they did not know was evil to do? That is the part I do not understand.

They had an intellectual knowledge that it was wrong, but not an experiential knowledge. You can punish someone based on intellectual knowledge alone.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"Already answered. What part don't you understand?

OK, you said that Adam and Eve had a kind of knowledge, but not the knowledge of good evil that the bible says they got from eating some fruit. Why would god punish a person for doing something they did not know was evil to do? That is the part I do not understand.

Wrong is not Evil.  Wrong is a result of Evil.  Eve had the knowledge of what was right and wrong, at least in regard to the tree.  She knew it was wrong as God had plainly told them not to take the fruit.  What she didn't understand is the EVIL it takes for another to tempt her and twist the truth.  The serpent didn't necessarily lie to her, but twisted and simply questioned the truth which is evil.  After committing the wrong, she(they) then understood Good and Evil.

Quote from: "Voter"They had an intellectual knowledge that it was wrong, but not an experiential knowledge. You can punish someone based on intellectual knowledge alone.

She didn't have experiential knowledge, all that means is that she needed experience and the fruit of some tree. But to get that experience, she needs to do something, and that something gets her punished.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Wrong is not Evil.  Wrong is a result of Evil.  Eve had the knowledge of what was right and wrong, at least in regard to the tree.  She knew it was wrong as God had plainly told them not to take the fruit.  What she didn't understand is the EVIL it takes for another to tempt her and twist the truth.

So by gaining understanding she gets punished? And in order for her to learn that it's evil for people to tempt her and twist the truth, she gets punished?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The serpent didn't necessarily lie to her, but twisted and simply questioned the truth which is evil.

Wait, what is evil?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"After committing the wrong, she(they) then understood Good and Evil.

And got punished for understanding good and evil?

I'm not seeing what is wrong with eating some fruit that will give one knowledge of good and evil. Also wasn't that part of this gods plan?

Quote from: "Davin"She didn't have experiential knowledge, all that means is that she needed experience and the fruit of some tree. But to get that experience, she needs to do something, and that something gets her punished.

In order to gain experiential knowledge of right and wrong, you can logically do either what is wrong, or what is right. I.e., if they had resisted the temptation, they would have gained experiential knowledge of right and wrong as well.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"She didn't have experiential knowledge, all that means is that she needed experience and the fruit of some tree. But to get that experience, she needs to do something, and that something gets her punished.

In order to gain experiential knowledge of right and wrong, you can logically do either what is wrong, or what is right. I.e., if they had resisted the temptation, they would have gained experiential knowledge of right and wrong as well.

They had resisted the temptation up until they ate the fruit.

Quote from: "Davin"So by gaining understanding she gets punished? And in order for her to learn that it's evil for people to tempt her and twist the truth, she gets punished?

Is it that difficult?  She/we get punished for wrong.  She did what God didn't want her to do.  It had nothing to do with the fruit, but doing what is wrong...following evil and not God.

Quote from: "Davin"Wait, what is evil?

Tempting or leading others into wrong.  The root cause of...  Pride is the root of all Evil.  Pride that we, the created, know more or better than the Creator.

Quote from: "Davin"And got punished for understanding good and evil?

No.  The death punishment is for doing wrong and choosing evil over God.  If God alone is the sustainer of life, then choosing against God is to die...hence Adam and Eve began to die the moment the did wrong...chose evil.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not seeing what is wrong with eating some fruit that will give one knowledge of good and evil. Also wasn't that part of this gods plan?

Nothing is wrong with eating fruit.  The fruit was a tool.  God's plan was that His created choose Him.  God's foreknowledge was that not all would and in fact with the fall of one, all their offspring would be lost as they would be also tainted "from conception".
The "rescue" or plan of salvation was set before creation as God already knew the outcome. (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So by gaining understanding she gets punished? And in order for her to learn that it's evil for people to tempt her and twist the truth, she gets punished?

Is it that difficult?  She/we get punished for wrong.  She did what God didn't want her to do.  It had nothing to do with the fruit, but doing what is wrong...following evil and not God.

But she had no knowledge of evil.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Wait, what is evil?

Tempting or leading others into wrong.  The root cause of...  Pride is the root of all Evil.  Pride that we, the created, know more or better than the Creator.

That sounds a lot better than simply questioning being evil, glad you cleared that up.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And got punished for understanding good and evil?

No.  The death punishment is for doing wrong and choosing evil over God.  If God alone is the sustainer of life, then choosing against God is to die...hence Adam and Eve began to die the moment the did wrong...chose evil.

They didn't know they were choosing evil because they had no knowledge of it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not seeing what is wrong with eating some fruit that will give one knowledge of good and evil. Also wasn't that part of this gods plan?

Nothing is wrong with eating fruit.  The fruit was a tool.  God's plan was that His created choose Him.  God's foreknowledge was that not all would and in fact with the fall of one, all their offspring would be lost as they would be also tainted "from conception".
The "rescue" or plan of salvation was set before creation as God already knew the outcome. (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20)

So god punished them for following his plan?

Quote from: "Davin"But she had no knowledge of evil.

She didn't need it to live.

Quote from: "Davin"They didn't know they were choosing evil because they had no knowledge of it.

Evil is the cause of their downfall.  Knowledge of it means they now had an intimate knowledge of how evil works...and they gave into it.

Quote from: "Davin"So god punished them for following his plan?

His plan was that His created stay with Him by choice.  The plan of salvation, while made prior, didn't go into effect until sin came in.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"But she had no knowledge of evil.

She didn't need it to live.

You said, "It had nothing to do with the fruit, but doing what is wrong...following evil and not God." However she had no knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit, which not only gave her the knowledge that eating the fruit would be evil, but also punishment.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"They didn't know they were choosing evil because they had no knowledge of it.

Evil is the cause of their downfall.  Knowledge of it means they now had an intimate knowledge of how evil works...and they gave into it.

And got punished for doing something they didn't know was evil.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So god punished them for following his plan?

His plan was that His created stay with Him by choice.  The plan of salvation, while made prior, didn't go into effect until sin came in.

Stay on topic, we're talking about Adam and Eve doing something that god planned and getting punished for it.

Quote from: "Davin"You said, "It had nothing to do with the fruit, but doing what is wrong...following evil and not God." However she had no knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit, which not only gave her the knowledge that eating the fruit would be evil, but also punishment.

Not correct.

Quote from: "Genesis 2:9"And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Quote from: "Genesis 2:16,17"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

They knew the taking of the fruit was against God's will and so wrong.  They only knew the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
They were not wanting of fruit as they had a whole garden full of fruit.

Quote from: "Davin"And got punished for doing something they didn't know was evil.

No, they chose to go against God which if He is the sustainer of life, brings death.  Evil is what they chose, not what they did, necessarily.

Quote from: "Davin"Stay on topic, we're talking about Adam and Eve doing something that god planned and getting punished for it

It wasn't me confusing the "plans"...I simply clarified where you are mistaken.
God didn't "plan" to purposely fail, but knew the outcome.  Both are plans, one is a plan that doesn't come into play until it is needed.
Both Adam and Eve were fully aware of what was right and wrong.  They weren't clueless.

Quote from: "Voter"Already answered. What part don't you understand?

To make this analogy as accurate as possible, you would have to be the one who gave him food allergies.

AnimatedDirt and Voter, I wrote a long piece on Evil a few pages back. May I ask what is your take on that?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"Already answered. What part don't you understand?

To make this analogy as accurate as possible, you would have to be the one who gave him food allergies.

If such allergies are genetic and I'm his father, I suppose I did.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"Already answered. What part don't you understand?

To make this analogy as accurate as possible, you would have to be the one who gave him food allergies.

If such allergies are genetic and I'm his father, I suppose I did.

Purposefully.

Quote from: "Achronos"AnimatedDirt and Voter, I wrote a long piece on Evil a few pages back. May I ask what is your take on that?

Why would my "fundamentalist" opinion be of any consequence?  I'll look back though.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You said, "It had nothing to do with the fruit, but doing what is wrong...following evil and not God." However she had no knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit, which not only gave her the knowledge that eating the fruit would be evil, but also punishment.

Not correct.

Quote from: "Genesis 2:9"And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Quote from: "Genesis 2:16,17"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

They knew the taking of the fruit was against God's will and so wrong.  They only knew the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
They were not wanting of fruit as they had a whole garden full of fruit.

So going against gods will is not evil? Maybe you should define evil.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And got punished for doing something they didn't know was evil.

No, they chose to go against God which if He is the sustainer of life, brings death.  Evil is what they chose, not what they did, necessarily.

So they did not do evil but chose to an action that was evil... and they were punished for not doing anything evil. Got it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Stay on topic, we're talking about Adam and Eve doing something that god planned and getting punished for it

It wasn't me confusing the "plans"...I simply clarified where you are mistaken.

How many plans are there? How many different plans does an all knowing god need to make? This god knows what's going to happen, but he still needs some backup plans?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God didn't "plan" to purposely fail, but knew the outcome.  Both are plans, one is a plan that doesn't come into play until it is needed.

So this god (being all knowing) knew he would fail, but decided to make up a backup plan in case he didn't fail? Adam and Eve didn't do anything god did not know they would do, so in that plan, they did what god planned, and got punished for fulfilling gods plan.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Both Adam and Eve were fully aware of what was right and wrong.  They weren't clueless.

This god told them not to do something he knew they would do, because it was part of his plan for them to do it, and get punished for it.

Quote from: "Davin"So this god (being all knowing) knew he would fail, but decided to make up a backup plan in case he didn't fail?

Your point doesn't even follow logic...making a backup plan in cas he didn't fail?  He made a backup plan knowing humanity would fail...God's vidication, if you will, is in the salvation of a fallen creature despite their failure.  Failure is ours, hot His.

Quote from: "Davin"Adam and Eve didn't do anything god did not know they would do, so in that plan, they did what god planned, and got punished for fulfilling gods plan.

Again you show your illogical thinking.  God's plan was that His creation choose to follow Him.  Knowing they would be tempted by evil, they would fail and so a plan of saving that which was lost was planned and eventually put into effect in order that His plan not fail.  His created will choose Him...those that don't choose Him, choose to be apart from that which sustains them and created them and so they die.  It's not necessarily "punishment" as it is consequence because all die.  Do you disagree with the laws of nature here?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So this god (being all knowing) knew he would fail, but decided to make up a backup plan in case he didn't fail?

Your point doesn't even follow logic...making a backup plan in cas he didn't fail?  He made a backup plan knowing humanity would fail...God's vidication, if you will, is in the salvation of a fallen creature despite their failure.  Failure is ours, hot His.

This god knew what would happen, but according to you made two different plans; one for what he knew would happen (him failing), and a backup one in case what he knew would happen didn't happen. If you don't understand that, I think I could try to make it even more basic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Adam and Eve didn't do anything god did not know they would do, so in that plan, they did what god planned, and got punished for fulfilling gods plan.

Again you show your illogical thinking.  God's plan was that His creation choose to follow Him.  Knowing they would be tempted by evil, they would fail and so a plan of saving that which was lost was planned and eventually put into effect in order that His plan not fail.  His created will choose Him...those that don't choose Him, choose to be apart from that which sustains them and created them and so they die.  It's not necessarily "punishment" as it is consequence because all die.

So this didn't happen:

Quote from: "Gen 3:16-19 NIV"16 To the woman he said,

   â€œI will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
   with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
   and he will rule over you.”

 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

   â€œCursed is the ground because of you;
   through painful toil you will eat food from it
   all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
   and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
   you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
   since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
   and to dust you will return.”

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Do you disagree with the laws of nature here?

Of course not, but I'm not the one claiming there's some supernatural thing am I? Nope, it's you who are disagreeing with the laws of nature.

Quote from: "Davin"This god knew what would happen, but according to you made two different plans; one for what he knew would happen (him failing), and a backup one in case what he knew would happen didn't happen. If you don't understand that, I think I could try to make it even more basic.

I never said he made two different plans.  The plan is to create humans and for those humans to freely choose Him.  Knowing the humans would fail at following directions, the plan to save the plan, if you will, was planned for before the humans were created in order that the plan not fail.  (in essence the PLAN was one plan) When the plan to make man fly was set into action, did the first plan succeed or fail?  IT failed, but not the plan to fly...it progressed and ultimately the plan was fulfilled.  One plan enhanced the other.  While the analogy breaks down as a human continuing effort, the analogy fits in that the PLAN didn't fail.  

Quote from: "Davin"So this didn't happen: Gen 3:16-19 NIV

It happened, but as a consequence of sin, not punishment.  The "punishment" (as you say) is really a consequence.  If you put your finger in the flame, you will get burned.  It is both a consequence and a punishment as a result of the immutable properties of fire.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Do you disagree with the laws of nature here?

Of course not, but I'm not the one claiming there's some supernatural thing am I? Nope, it's you who are disagreeing with the laws of nature.

When did I disagree with the laws of nature?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This god knew what would happen, but according to you made two different plans; one for what he knew would happen (him failing), and a backup one in case what he knew would happen didn't happen. If you don't understand that, I think I could try to make it even more basic.

I never said he made two different plans.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It wasn't me confusing the "plans"...I simply clarified where you are mistaken.

Ok, you didn't say he made "two different plans" but pluralizing it means at least two plans.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The plan is to create humans and for those humans to freely choose Him.  Knowing the humans would fail at following directions, the plan to save the plan, if you will, was planned for before the humans were created in order that the plan not fail.

I thought you just said that you didn't say there were two different plans.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"(in essence the PLAN was one plan)

And Adam and Eve fulfilled the PLAN, and got punished for it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"When the plan to make man fly was set into action, did the first plan succeed or fail?

Are you implying that god cannot plan better than man?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"IT failed, but not the plan to fly...it progressed and ultimately the plan was fulfilled.

I'd think an all knowing god creating a plan to make man fly could do it on his first attempt... being all knowing and all.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"One plan enhanced the other.  While the analogy breaks down as a human continuing effort, the analogy fits in that the PLAN didn't fail.

So they were punished for fulfilling gods PLAN.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So this didn't happen: Gen 3:16-19 NIV

It happened, but as a consequence of sin, not punishment.  The "punishment" (as you say) is really a consequence.  If you put your finger in the flame, you will get burned.  It is both a consequence and a punishment as a result of the immutable properties of fire.

So god didn't say "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;"? Notice the key words, "I will make", not that he already made it that way or that it will be that way because of what she did, but that he will make it that way. And why? Because she ate the fruit he told her not to eat.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Do you disagree with the laws of nature here?

Of course not, but I'm not the one claiming there's some supernatural thing am I? Nope, it's you who are disagreeing with the laws of nature.

When did I disagree with the laws of nature?

When you believe in the supernatural, you're disagreeing with the laws of nature.

Voter and Animated dirt,

Just so you actually know the purpose behind the Fruit of knowledge. It's the sin of seeking out knowledge that may prove the bible and all of it's contents as being nothing more than a fairy tail. It's purpose is to keep it's followers from asking questions, and to keep them from leaving the religion. Hence, do not seek out knowledge..Only believe what is written in the bible and what we tell you to believe! This is the very same structure that people like the Banana Man and the Master videos use. It's the same nonsense you get when you get Creationists vs Science. So it's based on the premise that those that seek knowledge may stop worshiping said GOD and realize it's all made up nonsense. Religions can't have decent from servitude, and neither can your supposed GOD's Ego seem capable dealing with not being worshiped as a GOD.


And if you were actually intelligent in regards to science and how the conscious mind works, temptation, and wright and wrong are all very much natural attributes of the mind. It's actually quite silly to suggest the nonsense either of you are posting. In fact all of your arguments are specifically self invented. Apparently neither you or Voter realize that you are actually formulating your own assertions, ideas, and interpretations as if you actually know a damn thing about what it is you are talking about. You even continue to ignore the actual meaning of Omniscience because neither of you can seem to comprehend it, or understand the consequences of it and why it nullifies even your own self-invented nonsense. Especially in considering so called "PLANS"

So I love how both of you like to run around circles and are completely incapable of dealing with the reality of your arguments being self-inventive and self-collapsing. At best, you have made your so called Deity a Hypocrite of the 10 commandments. It's just simply stupid pleading for ignorance!

Quote from: "TheJackel"You even continue to ignore the actual meaning of Omniscience because neither of you can seem to comprehend it, or understand the consequences of it and why it nullifies even your own self-invented nonsense. Especially in considering so called "PLANS"
[/b]

Jackel, I ignore you because I think there are other atheist regulars here who are better thinkers and writers than you, and more civil.

Davin, it is useless, as I see, to discuss with you since you cannot see the difference between a plan within a plan whereby the PLAN is fulfilled and not failed when the rest are put into place to fulfill.  To further substanciate that I'm done with you is your inability or refusal to see that it is not God that failed when He set out to give freewill.  He cannot then dictate what the created is to do if the basic premise is to give FREEWILL.  That means that the created is free to choose.  The "plan(s)" is put into place to then, while the created fails, the Creator still is able to save the created despite the "sold into slavery" sting of sin.  You might need to look that up to get the idea of it.

Until you quit with the "God's plan(s) failed and so punishes..." idea when it is clearly explained to you otherwise, then you and I are through.  You can't understand simple things.

[spoiler:2dy0fbul]

Quote from: "Achronos""Evil," in our ordinary usage of words, is the name of two kinds of manifestations. We often understand by this world anything in general which evokes misfortune and causes suffering. But in a more precise, direct sense, evil is a name for negative manifestations of the moral order which proceed from the evil direction of the will and violation of God's laws.

It is clear that misfortunes in the physical world--for example, earthquakes, storms, floods, landslides, and the rest--are in themselves neither good nor evil. In the general world system they are what shadows are to bright colors in the art of painters, what crude sounds are to soft sounds in music, and so forth. This is the way in which Holy Fathers such as Blessed Augustine and St. Gregory the Theologian treat these manifestations. One cannot deny that such manifestations of the elements are often the cause of misfortunes and sufferings for sensible creatures and for man; but one can only bow down in reverence before the all-wise order of the world, where the endlessly various and mutually opposed strivings on the part of blind elemental powers and organic creatures, which collide with each other at every moment, are in mutual agreement and are brought into harmony, becoming a source of contstant renewal in the world.

To a certain extent, the unpleasant, shadowy sides of our human life make us value and sense more highly the joyful sides of life. But the word of God itself tells us that difficult sufferings, sorrows, and afflictions cannot be acknowledged as manifestations completely in accordance with law and therefore normal; rather, they are a deviation from the norm. The sufferings of the human race began with the appearance of moral evil and are the consequences of sin, which entered into our life at that time. Of this the first pages of the Bible testify: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy sighting; in pain thou shalt bring forth children(the words addressed to Eve after the fall into sin);Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (the words spoken to  Adam; Gen 3:16-17). Sufferings are given to man as a means of chastisement, enlightenment, and correction. According to St. Basil the Great, sufferings and death itself "cut off growth of sin." Numerous examples of the awareness of the tie between suffering and sin result of its cause are given to us in the word of God: Lay hold of chastisement, lest at any time the Lord be angry (Ps. 2:12); it is good for me that Thou hast humbled me, that I might learn Thy statutes (Ps. 118:71). Careful observation itself shows that the causes of diseases and sufferings, in the overwhelming majority of cases , are men themselves, who have created artificial and abnormal conditions for their existence, introducing a cruel mutual warfare while chasing after their own egotistic physical well-being; and sometimes these things are the direct result of a certain demonic attitude--pride, revenge, and malice.

As the word of God instructs us, the consequences of moral evil spread from people to the animal world and to the whole of creation: For we know that the whole creation goaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, the Apostle Paul writes, and her further explains: For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected it in hope: because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:22, 20-21). It is the consensus of the Holy Fathers that the entire creation was brought into the bondage of corruption through man's sin. Commenting on Romans 8:20, St. John Chrysostom writes "What means, For the creation was made subject to vanity? It became corruptible. Why and by what cause? By your fault, O man. Because you received a body mortal and subject to sufferings, so the earth also was subject to a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles." Later in the same section, St. John writes: "Just as the creation became corruptible when your body became corruptible, so also when your body will be incorrupt [i.e., after the General Resurrection], the creation also will follow after it and become corresponding to it" (Homilies on Romans, Homily 14.5)

St. Symeon the New Theologian states specifically that the entire earth, and not just Paradise, was created incorrupt. "God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible, No!...The whole world has been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptibel yet material and perceptible" (On the Mystical Life)

The Holy Fathers indicate that evil is not some kind of essence which has any actual independent existence, like the elements and powers of the world which were created by God. St. Diadochus of Photiki: "Evil does not exist by nature, nor is any man naturally evil, for God made nothing that was not good. When in the desire of his heart someone conceives and gives form to what in reality has no existence, then what he desires begins to exist. We should therefore turn our attention away from the inclination to evil and concentrate it on the remembrance of God; for good, which exists by nature, is more powerful than our inclination to evil. The one has existence while the other does not, except when we give it existence through our actions" (Philokalia vol 1). Evil is only a deviation of living beings from that original condition in which the Creator placed them, into a condition which is opposed to this. Therfore, it is not God Who is the cause of moral evil; rahter, it proceeds from creatures themselves, for they have deviated from the agreement of their will with the will of God. The essence of evil consists in the violation of God's will, the commandments of God, and the moral law which is writtin in the human conscience. This violation is called sin.

But from whence did moral evil arise? God created the world pure, perfect, free from evil. Evil entered the world as a consequence of the fall, which occured, according to the word of God, originally in the world of fleshless spirits, and then in the human race, and was reflected in the whole of living nature.

According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devill sinneth from the beginning (I John 3:8). The word "devil" means "slanderer." Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirts or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he "abode not in the truth" and fell away from God. St John Damascence: "Every rational being is free. The angelic nature, then, insofar as it is rational and intelligent, is free; while, insofar as it is created, it is changeable and has the power to persevere and progress in good or to turn to evil. Although man, by reason of the infirmity of his body, is capable of repentance, the angel, because of his incorporeality, is not" (Exact Exposition 2.3) The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2:4)

What was the cause of the fall in the angelic world? From this same Divine Revelation we can conclude that the reason was pride: the beginning of sin is pride, says the son of Sirach (Sir. 10:13). The Apostle Paul, warning the Apostle Timothy against making bishops of those who are newly converted, adds: Lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condmnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6).

The evil spirits are mentioned in only a few passages in the Old Testament Revelation. These places are the following: We read of the "serpent," the temer of the first people, in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. The activities of "Satan" in the life of the righteous Job are related in the first chapter of the book of Job. In First Kings it is said concerning Saul that an evil spirit troubled him after the Spirit of the Lord departed from him (I Kings 16:14). In First Paralipomenon (Chronicles), chapter 21, we read that when the thought came to King David to make a census of the people, it was because Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. In the book of the Prophet Zachariah it is said concerning his vision of the chief priest, Joshua, that Joshua was resisted by "the devil" (Zach. 3:1). In the book of the Wisom of Solomon it is said that through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis. 2:24). Likewise, in Deuteronomy 32:17 it is said: They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; and in Pslam 105:35: And they sacrificed...unto demons.

An incomparably more complete representation of the activity of Satan and his angels is contained in the New Testament Revelation. From it we know that Satan and evil spirts are constantly attracting people to evil. Satan dared to tempt the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the desert. The evil spirits rush into the souls and even into the bodies of men; of this there is the testimony of many events in the Gospel and of the teachings of the Saviour. Concerning the habitation of evil spirits in men, we know from the numerous healings by the Saviour of the demon-possessed. Evil spirits spy, as it were, on the carelessness of man so as to attract him to evil: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when his come, he findeth it empty, swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they enter in and dwell there: nd the last state of that man is worse than the first (Matt. 12:43-45). With regard to the healing of the bent woman, the Saviour said to the ruler of the synagogue: And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? (Luke 13:16).

Likewise, the Sacred Scripture calls evil spirits "unclean spirits," "spirits of evil," "devils," "demons," "angels of the devil," and angels of Satan." Their chief, the devil, is also called the "tempter," "Satan," "Beelzbub," "Belial," the "prince of devils," and other names like "Lucifer" (the morning star).

Taking the form of a serpent, the devil was the tempter and the cause of the fall into sin of the first people, as is related in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. In the Apocalypse he is called the great dragon, that old serpent (Apoc. 12:9)

The devil and his angels are deprived of remaining in the heavenly dwellings of light. I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, said the Lord to his disciples. (Luke 10:18). Being cast down from the world above, the devil and his servants act in the world under the heaven, among men on earth, and they have taken into their possession, as it were, hell and the underworld. The Apostle calls them principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world (Eph. 6:12). The devil is the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), and his servants, the fallen angels, are the spirits of wickedness under the heaven (Eph. 6:12).

Why was man's fall into sin possible? The Creator imparted to man three great gifts at his creation: freedom, reason, and love. These gifts are indispensable for the spiritual growth and blessedness of man. But where there is freedom there is the possibility of wavering in one's choice; thus, temptation is possible. The temptation for reason is to grow proud in mind; instead of acknowledging the wisdom and goodness of God, to seek the knowledge of good and evil outside of God; to desire oneself to be a "god." The tempation for the feeling of love is: in place of love for God and one's neighbor, to love oneself and everything that satisfies the lower desires and gives temporary enjoyment. This possibility of temptation and fall stood before mankind, and the first man did not stand firm against it.

Let us make note here of St. John of kronstadt's reflection on this subject. He writes: "Why did God allow the fall of man, his beloved creation and the crown of all the earthly creatures? To this question one must reply thus: If man is not to be allowed to fall, then he cannot be created in the image and likeness of God, he cannot be granted free will, which is inseperable feature of the image of God; but he would have to be subejct to the law of neccessity, like the soulless creation--the sky, the sun, stars, the circle of the earth, and all the elements--or like the irrational animals. But then there would have been no king, over the creatures of hte earth, no rational hymn-singer of God's goodnesss, wisdom, creative almightiness, and Providence. Then man would have had no way to show his faithfulness and devotion to the Creator., his self-sacrificing love. Then there would have been no exploits in battle, no merits, and no incorruptible crowns for victory; there would have been no eternal blessednesss, which is the reward for faithfulness and devotion to God, and no eternal repose after the labors and struggles of our earthly pilgrimage."

The writer of Genesis does not tell us whether our first ancestors lived for a long time in the blessed life of Paradise. Speaking of their fall, he indicates that they did not come to the temptation of themselves, but were led to it by the tempter.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of Paradise? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of Paradise: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of Pradise, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat (Gen. 3:1-6)

The Christian Church has always understood the serpent, the tempter, to be the devil, whoo took the form of a serpent as corresponding best to his sneaky, cunning, and poisonous character. Teh clear words of our Lord Himself about the devil confirm this interpretation: He was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). In the Apocalypse of John the Theologian he is called the great dragon, that old serpent (Apoc. 12:9). In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon it says: Through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis. 2:24).

The transgression of our first ancestors was this: Having been tempted by the serpent, they violated the direct commandment of God not to eat of the forbidden tree. The fulfillment of this commandment would have shown obedience to God and trust in His words, as well as humility and continence--a summing up of the simple and natural virtues. The eating of the forbidden fruit immediatley drew after itself the whole sum of lamentable moral and physical consequences.

The eating of the fruit was only the beginning of moral deviation, the first push; but it was so poisonous and ruinous that it was already impossible to return to the previous sanctity and righteousness; on the contrary, there was revealed an inclination to travel farther on the path of apostasy from God. This is seen in the fact that they immediately noticed their nakedness and, hearing the voice of God in Paradise, they hid from Him and, justifying themselves, only increased their guilt. In Adam's replies to God, we see from the beginning his desire to flee from God's sight and an attempt to hide his guilt; we see the untruth in his saying that he had hidden from God only becasue he was naked; and then the attempt at self-justification and the desire to transfer his guilt to another, his wife. Blessed Augustine says: "Here was pride, because man desired to be more under his own authority than under God's; and a mockery of what is holy, because he did not believe God; and murder, because he subjected himself to death; and spiritual adultery, because the immaculateness of the human soul was defiled through the persuasion of the serpent; and theft, because they made use of the forbidden tree; and the love of acquistion, because he desired more than was necessary to satisfy hismelf."

Thus, with the first transgression of the commandment, the principle of sin immediately entered into man--"the law of sin" (nomos tis amartias). It struck the very nature of man and quickly, began to root itself in him and develop. With the entrance of sin, man lost the Grace in which he had been created, Because his nature had become corrupted by sin, Grace was now foreign to it. St. John Damascene writes: "And so, man succumbed to the assualt of the demon, the author of evil; he failed to keep the Creator's commandment and was stripped of Grace and deprived of that familiarity which he had enjoyed with God" (Exact Exposition). Likewise, St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: "When with his soul he (Adam) believed the serpent and not God, then Divine Grace which had rested on him stepped away from him, so that he became the enemy of God by reason of the unbelief which he had shown to His words" (First-Created Man). Of this sinful principle which entered human nature, Apostle Paul wrote: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not...For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (Rom. 7:18, 22-23). The sinful inclinations in man have taken the reigning position; man has become the servant of sin (Rom. 6:17). Both the mind and the feelings have become darkened in him, and therefore his moral freedom often does not incline towards the good, but towards evil. Lust and Pride have appeared in the depths of man's impulses to activity in life. Of this we read in I John 2:15-16: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world...For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The lust of the flesh is a weakening of the authority of the spirit over the body, a subjection of it to the lower, fleshly desires; the lust of the eyes means the false idols and attachments, greed and hunger for the world, envy; and pride is self-esteem, egoism, self-exaltation, a despising of others who are weaker, love of self, and vainglory.

Contemporary psychological observations also lead investigators to the conclusion that lust and pride (the thirst for being better than others) are chief levers of the strivings of contemporary fallen mankind, even when they are deeply hidden in the soul and are not completely conscious.

The physical consequences of the fall are diseases, hard labor, and death. These were the natural result of the moral fall, the falling away from communion with God, man's departure from God. When man lost the Grace of God, he experienced spiritual death, and this spiritual death made him subject to physical death. Thus, St. Gregory Palamas writes: "It was indeed Adam's soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for 930 years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject ot fatigue, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death" (Philokalia vol. 4). Elsewhere St. Gregory of Palamas expounds further on what is meant by the death of the soul: "Physical death is when the soul leaves the body and is seperated from it. The death of the soul is when God leaves the soul and is separated from it, although in another way, the soul remains immortal. Once separated from God it becomes more ugly and useless than a dead body, but unlike such a body it does not disintegrate after death since it is not composite" (Homilies vol 1). Man became subject to the corrupt elements of the world, in which dissolution and death are active. Nourishment from the Source of Life and from the constant renewal of all one's powers became weak in men. Our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the dependence of illnesses on sin when he healed the paralytic, saying to him: Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee (John 5:14).

With sin, death entered into the human race. Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have reamined immortal also in body if he had not falled away from God. The Wisdom of Solomon says: God did not make death (Wis. 1:13). Man's body, as well expressed by Blessed Augustine, does not possess "the impossibility of dying," but it did possess "the possibility of not dying" was maintained in Paradise by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, of which our first ancestors were deprived after they were banished from Paradise. As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). The Apostle calls death the "wages," that is, the payment or reward for sin: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). St John Damascene: "He [man] was clothed with the roughness of his wretched life--for that is what the fig leaves signify--and put on death, that is to say, the mortality and the grossness of the flesh--for this is what the garment of skins signifies; he excluded from Paradise by the just judgment of God; and was condemned to death and made subject to corruption" (Exact Exposition 3.1).

Physical misfortunes are not only a consequence of sin; at the same time they are chastisments from God, as was revealed in the words of God to our first parents when they were banished from Paradise. It is clear that these chastisements are given as a means of preventing man from a further and final fall.

Concerning the meqaning of labors and diseases in fallen man, St. Cyril of Alexandria says that man, "having received as his lot an exhausting fast and sorrows, was given over to illnesses, sufferings, and the other bitter things of life as to a kind of bridle. Because he did not sensibly restrain himself in that life which was free of labors and sorrows, he was given over to misfourtunes so that by sufferings he might heal in himself the disease which came upon him in the midst of blessedness".

Of death, this same Holy Father says: "By death the Giver of the Law stopped the spread of sin, and in the very chastisement revealed His love for mankind. Inasmuch as He, in giving the cammandment, joined death to the transgression of it, and iasmuch as the criminal thus fell under this chastisment, so He arranged that the chastisement itself might serve for salvation. For death dissolves this animal nature of ours and thus, on the one hand, stops the activity of evil, and on the other delivers a man from illnesses, frees him from labors, puts an end to his sorrows and cares, and stops his bodily sufferings. With such a love for mankind has the Judge mixed the chastisement".

However, the final and most important consequence of sin was not illness and physical death, but the loss of Paradise. This loss of Paradise is the same thing as the loss of the Kingdom of God. In Adam all mankind was deprived of the future blessedness which stood before it, the blessedness which Adam and Eve had partially tasted in Paradise. In other words, the way to deification was barred to man.  In place of the prospect of life eternal, mankind beheld death, and behind it hell, darkness, rejection by God. Therefore, the sacred books of the Old Testament are filled with dark thoughts concerning existence beyond the grave: For in death there is none that is mindful of Thee, and in hades who will confess Thee? (Ps. 6:5). This is not a denial of immortality, but a reflection of the hopeless darkness beyond the grave. Such awareness and sorrow were eased only by the hope of future deliverance through the coming of the Saviour: I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though my skin hath been destroyed, yet in my flesh shall I see God (Job 19:25-26). Therefore did my heart rejoice and my tongue was glad; moreover, my flesh shall dwell in hope. For Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hades, nor wilt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption (Ps. 15:9-10).

After man's fall into sin, God did not reject man the sinner. He took away from him neither His image, (St. Gregory Palamas writes that the human soul "possesses the image of God inalienably, even if it does not recognize its own dignity, or think and live in a manner worthy of the Creator's image within it. After our forefather's transgression in Paradise thourgh the tree, was suffered the death of our soul--which is the separation of the soul from God--prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image. Thus when the soul renounces its attachment to inferior things and cleaves through love to God and subnits itself to Him through acts and modes of virtue, it is illuminated and made beautiful by God and is raised to a higher level, obeying His counsels and exhortations; and by these means it regains the truly eternal life" (Philokalia vol4)) which distinguished him from the animal world, nor the freedom of his will, nor his reason, by which man was capable of understanding spiritual principles, nor his other capabilities. God acted towards him as does a physician and educator: He covered his nakedness with clothing, moderated his self-esteem and pride, his fleshly desires and passions, by means of healing measures--labor and diseases--giving to them an educational significance. We ourselves can see the educational effect of labor, and the cleansing effect of disease on the soul. God subjected man to physical death so as not to hand him over to final spiritual death--that is, so that the sinful principle in him might not develop to the extreme, so that he might not become like Satan.

However, this natural bridle of suffering and death does not uproot the very source of evil. It only restrains the development of evil. It was most necessary for mankind to have a supernatural power and help which might perform an inward reversal within him and give to man the possibility to turn away from a gradually deepening descent and towards victory over sin and a gradual ascent to God. God's Providence foresaw the future fall of man's free will which had not become strong. Foreseeing the fall, He prearranged an arising. Adam's fall into sin was not an absolute perdition for mankind. The power which was to give rebirth, according to God's pre-eternal determination, was the descent to earth of the Son of God.

[/spoiler:2dy0fbul]

TL;DR

Quote from: "Achronos"AnimatedDirt and Voter, I wrote a long piece on Evil a few pages back. May I ask what is your take on that?

**AD's emphasis

Are you the author or an editor of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm)?

I will either way still read fully and give you my take.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Davin, it is useless, as I see, to discuss with you since you cannot see the difference between a plan within a plan whereby the PLAN is fulfilled and not failed when the rest are put into place to fulfill.

It's really very simple: Did god's plan include Adam and Eve eating the fruit he told them not to eat, or is this god not all knowing? Of course there is another option: god knew what they would do, but planned otherwise for no particular reason.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"To further substanciate that I'm done with you is your inability or refusal to see that it is not God that failed when He set out to give freewill.

It was your wording, "God didn't "plan" to purposely fail, but knew the outcome. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=120#p98473)" that lead me to think that god failed. It is clear now that you made that statement in error.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"He cannot then dictate what the created is to do if the basic premise is to give FREEWILL.

Not talking about dictating, I'm talking about god knowing what they will choose, seems to put everything in place (put the tree in the garden, created the snake to tempt them), so that they would more than just have the opportunity to disobey, but he also engineered their temptation. A temptation of which these people had no knowledge would even exist, not to mention that the talking creature was created by god. Why should they not trust a creation of god, especially without the knowledge of good and evil?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"That means that the created is free to choose.

Free to choose something unknown to god?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The "plan(s)" is put into place to then, while the created fails, the Creator still is able to save the created despite the "sold into slavery" sting of sin.  You might need to look that up to get the idea of it.

So Adam and Eve fulfilled that part of the plan that created a world with sin, or are you saying that sin is unnecessary in gods plan?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Until you quit with the "God's plan(s) failed and so punishes..." idea when it is clearly explained to you otherwise, then you and I are through.

Sorry, as explained before, I was going off of your wording.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can't understand simple things.

I think I've more than demonstrated my ability to understand even very complicated things. Including the simple statement "God didn't "plan" to purposely fail[...]" which implies that god failed but did not plan to. The fault is not on me, but on you. Please refrain from unwarranted personal attacks.

@lookitsaustin: Check out the spoiler tag:
[spoiler]Stuff[/spoiler]

Quote from: "lookitsaustin"

Quote from: "Achronos"[spoiler:hh40tvjx]"Evil," in our ordinary usage of words, is the name of two kinds of manifestations. We often understand by this world anything in general which evokes misfortune and causes suffering. But in a more precise, direct sense, evil is a name for negative manifestations of the moral order which proceed from the evil direction of the will and violation of God's laws.

[...][China called, they want their wall back.][/spoiler:hh40tvjx]

TL;DR

Quote from: "Davin"@lookitsaustin: Check out the spoiler tag:

Code Select Expand

[spoiler]Stuff[/spoiler]

Genius!    Thank you, I'm still learning this forum. I went ahead and did this to my earlier reply so it would shorten the page.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You even continue to ignore the actual meaning of Omniscience because neither of you can seem to comprehend it, or understand the consequences of it and why it nullifies even your own self-invented nonsense. Especially in considering so called "PLANS"
[/b]

Jackel, I ignore you because I think there are other atheist regulars here who are better thinkers and writers than you, and more civil.

No, you ignore me because you can't address the argument. I am perfectly civilized when people can actually make honest engagements in a discussion. So why is it that you can't address an argument honestly Voter? And yes, there other people here that are better "writers" than I am. However, you seem to use that excuse as if they are only writers that allow you to skip around in circles without ever having to directly address the argument without self-inventive deflections. I am only attempting to keep you honest Voter. So when I post the meaning of Omniscience, you continue to skip around it as if you don't comprehend it. You weren't exactly ignoring me Voter, you were ignoring the definition of "all knowing", or Omniscience. You would even have to ignore the definitions of all the Omni powers theists like to give to a GOD. So you either abide by those, or you need to simply drop them and admit they are self-contradictions, and self-collapsing.  Even Davin is trying to point these out to you by example. However, I am just simply more direct, and I like to get straight to the point without circular arguments. Most theists don't like those kinds of discussions because they will simply lose them.  So why is it Voter that theist see directness or bluntness as uncivilized? Is it because it doesn't give them circular movement within an argument? Probably.. Creationists don't like this either.

So can you Voter, Animated Dirt actually address the problem directly and honestly?

And btw, I'm a realist/materialist. Atheism just seems to come with the territory. Hence, my intentions or beliefs are not specific to atheism!

Example:

Nothing can't be something, or a person, place, or thing. That includes entities, GODS, substance, or form of existence. Nothing is not existent. So when I get arguments that suggest a GOD is outside of material physicality, space, time, or the rules of existence, I can't help but notice the intentional game of self-invented circularity of argument designed to deflect from having to address an argument they can't handle. They refuse to enter an discussion with honesty. I even sometimes fail to abide by this and end up getting my butt handed to me. Davin I believe has put me in my place once already. So please stop inventing deflective arguments, and address the valid points and arguments we make here.

---

So what I want you to do voter is actually address an argument without trying to self-invent excuses or arguments in attempt to circumvent them when they are simply not circumventable. You are basically trying to circumvent rational logic and reason. Such as the fact that I would never consider anything that has killed as being a "GOD". It would end right there no matter what excuse you try to give, or what rationality you would like to try and invent for it. It's straight up Hypocrisy of the 10 commandments. The Island of Dr Monroe is a perfect example of what's wrong with that picture. And I don't think theists are willing to honestly address that.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Davin, it is useless, as I see, to discuss with you since you cannot see the difference between a plan within a plan whereby the PLAN is fulfilled and not failed when the rest are put into place to fulfill.

It's really very simple: Did god's plan include Adam and Eve eating the fruit he told them not to eat, or is this god not all knowing? Of course there is another option: god knew what they would do, but planned otherwise for no particular reason.

One last time.  Hopefully, if I worded something wrong before I wont do it again.  God's "plan" has not failed.  It is the created that failed the initial.  I would have to go into a very long thesis on original sin, the Fall of Satan, and the reason Satan is allowed to live on.(which I likely couldn't do correctly anyway)  In a nutshell;

• God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.
• One angel got the prideful thought (by freewill) that it isn't fair he's not like God or equal to Him
• That angel, Lucifer, convinced 1/3 of the rest of the angels of the same idea
• Having brought evil/sin into God's presence, (which cannot be) they were thrown out.  Had God simply anhilated Lucifer and his angels, what then does that say to the other angels?  If you go against God, you get zapped.  But so that God's mercy, love, righteousness is proven, God allows sin to enter and do its work.
• When God creates humans Lucifer then says, "Ah Ha!  Now lets see if you allow them to think freely."  To do so, God must allow Lucifer to tempt...and in essence give them the knowledge of good and evil which they had no idea about.
• The created choose to do wrong, and thus follow evil instead.
• The plan that was set before creation is put into effect.  Why?  Because God loves that which He creates and knows that not all would choose evil over good.  Not only that but also to prove that sin is evil and leads to death.  Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns.  If you are against God, there is no life in you...and you die.
• Since the first created beings are now sinful, their offspring (us) are "sold into slavery" "even from conception" not having done or chosen anything at all.  (Again, you'll have to look into that further if you want clarification on what that means.)
• The plan requires it all be legal and forthright.  God is Judge, afterall, and cannot go against His own law.  The law is, if you sin, you die as sin transgresses the law and thus it separates you from God, the sustainer of life.  Death is the result/consequence.
• "But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law has beenmade known." (see Romans 3:21 and onwards)
• The penalty of sin is death.  Either each person pays the penalty him/herself or they "die in Christ" and His righteousness is credited to our acct and so, even though we die in this life, we live when it counts...the next which commences when Christ returns to give the gift we accepted by faith in Christ's righteousness.

Thus the "plan" is fulfilled and successful.  It hasn't failed.  Sin is proven ugly and pride is the beginning of the end.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"To further substanciate that I'm done with you is your inability or refusal to see that it is not God that failed when He set out to give freewill.

It was your wording, "God didn't "plan" to purposely fail, but knew the outcome. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=120#p98473)" that lead me to think that god failed. It is clear now that you made that statement in error.

I thought the quotes made that clear...I admit partly to blame.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"He cannot then dictate what the created is to do if the basic premise is to give FREEWILL.

Not talking about dictating, I'm talking about god knowing what they will choose, seems to put everything in place (put the tree in the garden, created the snake to tempt them), so that they would more than just have the opportunity to disobey, but he also engineered their temptation. A temptation of which these people had no knowledge would even exist, not to mention that the talking creature was created by god. Why should they not trust a creation of god, especially without the knowledge of good and evil?

Again, simply knowing the created would fail, is not failure on God's part.  He created that which He set out to create.  A being able to think and act according to it's own will...to choose.  If there is no choices to choose from, there is no choice.  If God had not allowed freewill, there would be no choice.  The fact that Lucifer (Satan) exists is testament to evil entering into a perfect world regardless where freewill is desired.  Up to Lucifer's pride, evil was unknown to the created, but right and wrong was.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"That means that the created is free to choose.

Free to choose something unknown to god?

I don't know what you mean by this, but I hope the above explains whatever this asks.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The "plan(s)" is put into place to then, while the created fails, the Creator still is able to save the created despite the "sold into slavery" sting of sin.  You might need to look that up to get the idea of it.

So Adam and Eve fulfilled that part of the plan that created a world with sin, or are you saying that sin is unnecessary in gods plan?

No. Adam and Eve were participants of God's creative work that Satan tempted and used his knowledge of good and evil to steer them against God.  Am I saying sin is unnecessary in God's plan?  Sin exists APART from God's plan.  It is as the Bible and you should understand.  Dark is not created, but when light is seen.  Likewise, sin is not created, but when evil (and thus good) is known.  It's pure logic.  If good exists, then the opposite exists.  If we know what dark is, that means we have knowledge of light.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can't understand simple things.

I think I've more than demonstrated my ability to understand even very complicated things. Including the simple statement "God didn't "plan" to purposely fail[...]" which implies that god failed but did not plan to. The fault is not on me, but on you. Please refrain from unwarranted personal attacks.

Not a personal attack...and if so, I apologize.

The point remains that the plan has not failed.  The created (first Lucifer, then man) failed.  God created a perfect being that has full freewill.  God does have those that do love Him by freewill.  Sin is ugly and the result is ultimately death...among the many causes of death that we know.  Pride, when allowed to grow, results in death, but spawns all the other ugly things we see in our society.  When pride sparks, death comes.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"One last time.  Hopefully, if I worded something wrong before I wont do it again.  God's "plan" has not failed.  It is the created that failed the initial.

If the creation has failed, do you blame the creation, or the creator?  

QuoteI would have to go into a very long thesis on original sin, the Fall of Satan, and the reason Satan is allowed to live on.(which I likely couldn't do correctly anyway)

Maybe because it's bullshit that makes no sense? Just a thought.

QuoteIn a nutshell;

• God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.
• One angel got the prideful thought (by freewill) that it isn't fair he's not like God or equal to Him
• That angel, Lucifer, convinced 1/3 of the rest of the angels of the same idea

Why would God create Lucifer, knowing full well what he would do in the future? Why would he let his angels be tempted?

Quote[/li][li]Having brought evil/sin into God's presence, (which cannot be) they were thrown out.

God created sin/evil, and he made it so that he despise it and it can not be in his presence.

QuoteHad God simply anhilated Lucifer and his angels, what then does that say to the other angels?

...That God is a righteous God, who quickly strikes down evil? Isn't that what Voter is saying?

QuoteIf you go against God, you get zapped.  But so that God's mercy, love, righteousness is proven, God allows sin to enter and do its work.

Why couldn't God just rid Lucifer of evil? That nicely gets rid of all problems.

Quote[/li][li]When God creates humans Lucifer then says, "Ah Ha!  Now lets see if you allow them to think freely."  To do so, God must allow Lucifer to tempt...and in essence give them the knowledge of good and evil which they had no idea about.

The choice do to evil must have existed to have free will, and yet they had no knowledge of good and evil...?

Quote[/li][li]The created choose to do wrong, and thus follow evil instead.

Why couldn't God have given them the balls to say "Shut the hell up you snake, I'm not going against God's word"?

Quote[/li][li]The plan that was set before creation is put into effect.  Why?  Because God loves that which He creates and knows that not all would choose evil over good.

...Because he made it so.

QuoteNot only that but also to prove that sin is evil and leads to death.  Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns.  If you are against God, there is no life in you...and you die.

Seems a little harsh for beings you created.

Quote[/li][li]Since the first created beings are now sinful, their offspring (us) are "sold into slavery" "even from conception" not having done or chosen anything at all.  (Again, you'll have to look into that further if you want clarification on what that means.)

That's stupid.

Quote[/li][li]The plan requires it all be legal and forthright.  God is Judge, afterall, and cannot go against His own law.  The law is, if you sin, you die as sin transgresses the law and thus it separates you from God, the sustainer of life.  Death is the result/consequence.

So, he's not omnipotent? Why can't he change his laws? Why would he create such laws if he knew the consequences of them from the beginning?

Quote[/li][li]The penalty of sin is death.  Either each person pays the penalty him/herself or they "die in Christ" and His righteousness is credited to our acct and so, even though we die in this life, we live when it counts...the next which commences when Christ returns to give the gift we accepted by faith in Christ's righteousness.[/li][/list]

Jesus's death seems to be little more than a Get Out of Jail Free card.

QuoteThus the "plan" is fulfilled and successful.  It hasn't failed.  Sin is proven ugly and pride is the beginning of the end.

I could come up with a better plan than God.

QuoteAgain, simply knowing the created would fail, is not failure on God's part.

For someone who's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, it sure as hell is.

QuoteHe created that which He set out to create.  A being able to think and act according to it's own will...to choose.  If there is no choices to choose from, there is no choice.  If God had not allowed freewill, there would be no choice.  The fact that Lucifer (Satan) exists is testament to evil entering into a perfect world regardless where freewill is desired.  Up to Lucifer's pride, evil was unknown to the created, but right and wrong was.

And choice is good because God made it so.

QuoteNo. Adam and Eve were participants of God's creative work that Satan tempted and used his knowledge of good and evil to steer them against God.  Am I saying sin is unnecessary in God's plan?  Sin exists APART from God's plan.  It is as the Bible and you should understand.  Dark is not created, but when light is seen.

Because God made it so.

QuoteLikewise, sin is not created, but when evil (and thus good) is known.  It's pure logic.  If good exists, then the opposite exists.  If we know what dark is, that means we have knowledge of light.

And God made logic.

QuoteThe point remains that the plan has not failed.  The created (first Lucifer, then man) failed.  God created a perfect being that has full freewill.  God does have those that do love Him by freewill.  Sin is ugly and the result is ultimately death...among the many causes of death that we know.  Pride, when allowed to grow, results in death, but spawns all the other ugly things we see in our society.  When pride sparks, death comes.

If I create a plan to crash my car into the side of a building, and I successfully do so, then my plan has not failed.

How can a Perfect Creator make a Failed Creation?

Can a Perfect Carpenter build a crooked cabinet?  And does it make sense for him to get angry at the cabinet for having skewed angles?

Can the plans of an Omnipotent God be waylaid by impotent Man without that God's consent?  

What meaning does free will have when one's soul (assuming that such a thing exists) is held hostage with the threat of Hell?  Wouldn't the worship thus extracted be about as voluntary as money surrendered at gunpoint to a robber?  Would the Christian reader exonerate the robber when he argues "But, your Honor, she chose to give me the money, I didn't force her to"?  Why then, would he or she exonerate God's behavior?

Blackmail, genocide, group punishment, eternal torture, these are all evil things.

Quote from: "lookitsaustin"

Quote from: "Davin"@lookitsaustin: Check out the spoiler tag:

Code Select Expand

[spoiler]Stuff[/spoiler]

Genius!    Thank you, I'm still learning this forum. I went ahead and did this to my earlier reply so it would shorten the page.

Not a problem. I fully intended that to be a friendly suggestion and not a smart ass reply.

LegendarySandwich, you're saying you'd rather a God that dictates what you do?  You'd rather not have freewill?  You're choosing right now!  How would you like to be forced to go to heaven and "play a harp on a cloud" all day, every day, for eternity...while being given freedom to think, just not the freedom to act on your freethinking?

Get rid of Lucifer?  What about LegendarySandwich?  Get rid of you too?  Well, it seems you're thinking just like those that hold contempt for God and the Flood...yet when you say or suggest it, it's "logical."

I suppose you want to live in a dictatorship?

Better "plan" than God?  When has a human built anything with free thought?

So because you say something is "stupid"...that's you're argument?  You said it's stupid.  So endeth the discussion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"LegendarySandwich, you're saying you'd rather a God that dictates what you do?  You'd rather not have freewill?  You're choosing right now!  How would you like to be forced to go to heaven and "play a harp on a cloud" all day, every day, for eternity...while being given freedom to think, just not the freedom to act on your freethinking?

Who made it so that I value freewill, and the ability to think?

QuoteGet rid of Lucifer?  What about LegendarySandwich?  Get rid of you too?

...What.

QuoteWell, it seems you're thinking just like those that hold contempt for God and the Flood...yet when you say or suggest it, it's "logical."

Say or suggest what?

QuoteI suppose you want to live in a dictatorship?

No, I don't.

QuoteBetter "plan" than God?  When has a human built anything with free thought?

...What.

QuoteSo because you say something is "stupid"...that's you're argument?  You said it's stupid.  So endeth the discussion.

It's stupid that the descendants have to pay for something their ancestors did.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"How can a Perfect Creator make a Failed Creation?

Repeating.  Creation is not failed.  The beings God created are exactly what He created, free thinking, free choosing.  Now, to save the created from their folly...if not one is saved, THEN CREATION has failed.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Can a Perfect Carpenter build a crooked cabinet?  And does it make sense for him to get angry at the cabinet for having skewed angles?

If He built a crooked cabinet, then there is no sense in getting angry.  However if the cabinet is animated and given the freedom to choose, and the cabinet chooses to be crooked...that is different.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Can the plans of an Omnipotent God be waylaid by impotent Man without that God's consent?

No...hence why the "plan" has not failed.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What meaning does free will have when one's soul (assuming that such a thing exists) is held hostage with the threat of Hell?

As long as the soul rejects that which gave it life, then it is not held hostage, but instead chose to side "unwisely".

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Wouldn't the worship thus extracted be about as voluntary as money surrendered at gunpoint to a robber?  Would the Christian reader exonerate the robber when he argues "But, your Honor, she chose to give me the money, I didn't force her to"?  Why then, would he or she exonerate God's behavior?

Name one Christian doing anything Godly out of this fear and I'll show you a deluded Christian.  I've spoken of this before it's as simple as a text to answer.  (Rev. 3:15, 16)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Blackmail, genocide, group punishment, eternal torture, these are all evil things.

Blackmail?  When God came Himself?  Genocide?  There will be many of EVERY nation, but all will be of the same thinking.  Eternal torture?  No.  More like an ending that is eternal...eternally separated.  Evil to the finite mind which denys God.  It is mercy to those that while they deserve the same as the others, have placed simple faith into Christ and by that faith, are given a gift.  Nothing more.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"LegendarySandwich, you're saying you'd rather a God that dictates what you do?  You'd rather not have freewill?  You're choosing right now!  How would you like to be forced to go to heaven and "play a harp on a cloud" all day, every day, for eternity...while being given freedom to think, just not the freedom to act on your freethinking?

Who made it so that I value freewill, and the ability to think?

QuoteGet rid of Lucifer?  What about LegendarySandwich?  Get rid of you too?

...What.

QuoteWell, it seems you're thinking just like those that hold contempt for God and the Flood...yet when you say or suggest it, it's "logical."

Say or suggest what?

QuoteI suppose you want to live in a dictatorship?

No, I don't.

QuoteBetter "plan" than God?  When has a human built anything with free thought?

...What.

QuoteSo because you say something is "stupid"...that's you're argument?  You said it's stupid.  So endeth the discussion.

It's stupid that the descendants have to pay for something their ancestors did.

Now all of a sudden, when I quote exactly what I'm referring to you play ignorant?  I guess we are through then.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"LegendarySandwich, you're saying you'd rather a God that dictates what you do?  You'd rather not have freewill?  You're choosing right now!  How would you like to be forced to go to heaven and "play a harp on a cloud" all day, every day, for eternity...while being given freedom to think, just not the freedom to act on your freethinking?

Who made it so that I value freewill, and the ability to think?

QuoteGet rid of Lucifer?  What about LegendarySandwich?  Get rid of you too?

...What.

QuoteWell, it seems you're thinking just like those that hold contempt for God and the Flood...yet when you say or suggest it, it's "logical."

Say or suggest what?

QuoteI suppose you want to live in a dictatorship?

No, I don't.

QuoteBetter "plan" than God?  When has a human built anything with free thought?

...What.

QuoteSo because you say something is "stupid"...that's you're argument?  You said it's stupid.  So endeth the discussion.

It's stupid that the descendants have to pay for something their ancestors did.

Now all of a sudden, when I quote exactly what I'm referring to you play ignorant?  I guess we are through then.

Maybe it'd be a bit easier for me to understand which of my points you're referring to if you used quotes. I'm not "playing ignorant" here.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Maybe it'd be a bit easier for me to understand which of my points you're referring to if you used quotes. I'm not "playing ignorant" here.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Why couldn't God just rid Lucifer of evil? That nicely gets rid of all problems.

To do so is to remove free will.
The people prior to the flood, apparently, were also warned.  Not one came knocking on the fairy tale ark to ask if they too could sail away.  They all chose...the parents chose for their children just as you would choose for yours to not partake of such delusion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Maybe it'd be a bit easier for me to understand which of my points you're referring to if you used quotes. I'm not "playing ignorant" here.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Why couldn't God just rid Lucifer of evil? That nicely gets rid of all problems.

To do so is to remove free will.

Isn't the devil kind of above humans and the free will issue? I mean, for fuck's sake, he's the fucking devil.

Even if God didn't want to change him, he could have just killed him. I mean, he's killed lots of humans in the past.

QuoteThe people prior to the flood, apparently, were also warned.  Not one came knocking on the fairy tale ark to ask if they too could sail away.

Why should they have?

QuoteThey all chose...the parents chose for their children just as you would choose for yours to not partake of such delusion.

That's an assumption that I don't like you making about me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Repeating.  Creation is not failed.  The beings God created are exactly what He created, free thinking, free choosing.  Now, to save the created from their folly...if not one is saved, THEN CREATION has failed.

Well, the apex of his Creation, humans, fell short of his hopes.  How is that not a failure?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If He built a crooked cabinet, then there is no sense in getting angry.  However if the cabinet is animated and given the freedom to choose, and the cabinet chooses to be crooked...that is different.  

To argue Free Will, you must explain why Hell is not a cogent threat to behave a certain way only.

QuoteNo...hence why the "plan" has not failed.  

Given that your bible claims that your god initiated the Noachic flood because humans fell short of God's wishes, I'd say your assessment here is unsupported by your own canonical document.

QuoteAs long as the soul rejects that which gave it life, then it is not held hostage, but instead chose to side "unwisely".

"Your Honor, I didn't murder her.  She chose not to give me her purse, so I shot her so I could take it."  Would you kill your child if for some reason they disown you?  Would you torture him or her?

QuoteName one Christian doing anything Godly out of this fear and I'll show you a deluded Christian.  I've spoken of this before it's as simple as a text to answer.  (Rev. 3:15, 16)

No True Scotsman goes without a kilt, either. Also, please explain the pertinence of your cite ("15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarmâ€"neither hot nor coldâ€"I am about to spit you out of my mouth. ") to this conversation, because it isn't apparent.  It doesn't address fear, which is the issue here.

QuoteBlackmail?  When God came Himself?

Yes.  "Surrender your mind to me, or I will torture you forever" is blackmail.

QuoteGenocide?  There will be many of EVERY nation, but all will be of the same thinking.

Would you kindly address my point?  This is a meaningless "answer".

QuoteEternal torture?  No.  More like an ending that is eternal...eternally separated.

Well, that's hardly a torment, then.  I have been godless for over thirty years, and I am much happier living without the brute.  I'll remain atheist in spite of your efforts, if what you're saying is right.

QuoteEvil to the finite mind which denys God.

Yes, I am unafraid to think for myself.  The god you worship would, if he existed, be evil, and worthy of nothing but contempt.  My 13-year-old son is more mature, balanced, and pure of heart than the monster described in the Bible.

QuoteIt is mercy to those that while they deserve the same as the others, have placed simple faith into Christ and by that faith, are given a gift.  Nothing more.

That and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee.  It does not, however, answer anything.  Thanks, but I will choose Free Will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Repeating. Creation is not failed. The beings God created are exactly what He created, free thinking, free choosing. Now, to save the created from their folly...if not one is saved, THEN CREATION has failed.

Then there must be no freewill in heaven since there is no evil there.

Quote

• God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.

Does that include the place to where your GOD must reside? Where exactly is your GOD? And what exactly isn't GOD? Evidence?

Quote[/li]
[li]One angel got the prideful thought (by freewill) that it isn't fair he's not like God or equal to Him

Evidence to prove this? Or this is assumption based on what's written in a book? And how is there free will where there is a supposed GOD that is Omniscient. How does one choose a path to which will not already be known to an infinitely knowing GOD? And is your GOD not equally bound to the rules of existence as everything else is?

Quote[/li]
[li]That angel, Lucifer, convinced 1/3 of the rest of the angels of the same idea

Proof and evidence that will verify and substantiate such a claim please. And is decent from a figure of power the key message here? Anything is evil if it becomes defiant of Power and Control? You might want to look up where the Devil came from in the literature  and history of Christianity. It's main purpose is to demonize anything not Christian. Same goes for the dogma under "Christian Realism". It's purely used as a fear mongering tool to keep people aligned with ideology and to stomp out other apposing religions. Kind of like how 300 years of burning was used to do just that.

Quote[/li]
[li]Having brought evil/sin into God's presence, (which cannot be) they were thrown out.  Had God simply anhilated Lucifer and his angels, what then does that say to the other angels?  If you go against God, you get zapped.  But so that God's mercy, love, righteousness is proven, God allows sin to enter and do its work.

GOD itself by definition is a hypocrite. To event death and then kill himself has brought forth his own failure to abide by the 10 commandments. Genesis is a prime example of Genocide, murder, and the killing of baby bunnies even though it's story is a literal logical fallacy for many reasons. By logic alone, GOD should have condemned himself to hell. It's hardly righteous, or even " all Loving". Especially when true love is purely unconditional, or of pure neutrality and forgiveness. And again, you skip the part that all sin, and all sins to be committed would all already be known by an Omniscient GOD. So you are right back to the puppet show.

Quote[/li]
[li]When God creates humans Lucifer then says, "Ah Ha!  Now lets see if you allow them to think freely."  To do so, God must allow Lucifer to tempt...and in essence give them the knowledge of good and evil which they had no idea about.

Failed rationality, and I say that because you still speak as if that were even necessary when such things could simply be made impossible or irrelevant. You are trying to invent rationals to what has shown to be an imperfect world in contrast to what you suggest is a perfect deity that is all knowing and shouldn't have ever faulted in such a way in his supposed creations. If you (as if you were in GODS seat) have to allow sin, then you are advocating and responsible for any sin that is then made. You  can not blame the beasts of your creations because you yourself are liable and responsible for anything they do wrong! Especially when yourself is shown to be a hypocrite.

Quote[/li]
[li]The created choose to do wrong, and thus follow evil instead.

The creator allowed them to do wrong knowing they would do wrong. Thus condemning faults he himself invented while knowing every outcome that would transpire from it. Again you are trying to rationalize responsibility on those who are faulted by design according to your beliefs as if the design itself is magically not at all faulty by design. It's like trying to blame a A.I. Robot for killing someone, or a machine that accidentally blows up and kills a bunch of people. Perhaps humans should have the right to sue your GOD for their faults?

Quote[/li]
[li]The plan that was set before creation is put into effect.  Why?  Because God loves that which He creates and knows that not all would choose evil over good.  Not only that but also to prove that sin is evil and leads to death.  Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns.  If you are against God, there is no life in you...and you die.

So he invents suffering, death, painful child birth, the vicious food chain of animals eating each other alive, fire that will burn people to death, water that will drown people to death, accidents, the sensation of pain, the invention of anger and hate ect. The list goes on. And worst of all, you used the common fear mongering tool that religions like to use " Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns." It sounds like you worship that which you fear.  

Quote[/li]
[li]Since the first created beings are now sinful, their offspring (us) are "sold into slavery" "even from conception" not having done or chosen anything at all.  (Again, you'll have to look into that further if you want clarification on what that means.)

Another example of cult like qualities within the religion. And again this is using fear mongering as a tool to enforce servitude to power. It's pre-damning the innocent at best as if it makes any moral sense what-so-ever. Again you need to read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing of you want clarification of what that means.

Quote[/li]
[li]The plan requires it all be legal and forthright.  God is Judge, afterall, and cannot go against His own law.

Oh but it does go against his own law. Did your GOD not kill? After all he invented it according to your beliefs! The law wouldn't even be necessary if the invention of death did not exist!. Clearly this GOD is either really dumb, or an egotistical psychopathic maniac getting kicks out of death, pain, suffering, and judging. After all, a world of pure bliss couldn't possibly exist could it!

QuoteThe law is, if you sin, you die as sin transgresses the law and thus it separates you from God, the sustainer of life.  Death is the result/consequence.

When he casts himself into eternal hell and separates himself to such a death for his own hypocrisy and sin, then you can call such a god concept righteous. And under this logic, you would probably assume anyone that has died either by accident or murder would be evil. So to seek knowledge is a sin that separates you from GOD! Ahh yes! that key little point about not seeking knowledge that will separate you from GOD (the religion/ideology).. Such as science, logic, and reason perhaps.

Quote[/li]
[li]"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law has beenmade known." (see Romans 3:21 and onwards)

So a god that kills is righteous, just, and moral and is not subject to follow his own laws? Ahh, the power must remain powerful while being worshiped by fear and force even if itself is a hypocrite. Otherwise you will be killed and damned forever!. Interesting eh.

Quote[/li]
[li]The penalty of sin is death.

Translation.. Decent from power comes the penalty of death. Fear me, obey me, worship me as GOD, be servitude to me and my will, or face death and damnation!

QuoteEither each person pays the penalty him/herself or they "die in Christ" and His righteousness is credited to our acct and so, even though we die in this life, we live when it counts...the next which commences when Christ returns to give the gift we accepted by faith in Christ's righteousness.[/li][/list]

Ahh yes, the salvation/carrot to joining the ideology. First we seed doubt and fear of eternal damnation for not being Christian or of the ideology, we offer you salvation if you should choose to join and repent your sins for not being apart of it. It's also used to target impressionable minds, or people who are emotionally vulnerable or going through tough times. It's the phishing and targeting of the weak. This is a method used commonly in brainwashing to make the targeted victim feel as if they have no other choice but to join the ideology. It's how cults function and operate.

QuoteThus the "plan" is fulfilled and successful.  It hasn't failed.  Sin is proven ugly and pride is the beginning of the end.

Pretty sad considering everything right down to every possible choice or decision that could have ever be made by man would already have been known by said Omniscient being. The plan was fullfilled before it was ever put into action. Much like a movie that goes from production to being played on screen as intended. And again you resort to more fear mongering as a tool of argument.

QuoteI thought the quotes made that clear...I admit partly to blame.

Under Omniscience, such plans are complete and already played out in infinite detail. That means the jews were meant to be slaughtered in genocide, the nuclear bomb was meant to go off, humans were meant to sin and be judged, all sins were prejudged before plan was ever put into action, everything that has transpired or will transpire is all apart of a plan that has already been completed before it ever began. There was no free choice, there was not free will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"He cannot then dictate what the created is to do if the basic premise is to give FREEWILL.

This flies in the face of Omniscience, and Omnipotence. You are essentially proving this every time you make an argument like this.

QuoteNot talking about dictating, I'm talking about god knowing what they will choose, seems to put everything in place (put the tree in the garden, created the snake to tempt them), so that they would more than just have the opportunity to disobey, but he also engineered their temptation. A temptation of which these people had no knowledge would even exist, not to mention that the talking creature was created by god. Why should they not trust a creation of god, especially without the knowledge of good and evil?

Again this is flying in the face of Omniscience. This lesson you are posting however is about disobedience to power and control. It's about seeking knowledge that circumvents power and servitude to it. Temptation to seek knowledge is not a bad thing at all. Especially when Genesis contradicts that very argument. At first it states the world is mans do what it wants with it, and then genesis contradicts himself by placing rules that restrict that. At worst it damns the ignorance and faults of the human species. You can't get any more illogical than that.  

QuoteAgain, simply knowing the created would fail, is not failure on God's part.

here you fail to even comprehend your own argument. Since when is a plan designed to fail suddenly not the fault of that which designed it to fail while knowing every outcome that would arise from it in infinite detail? Again, do you understand what Omniscience means? This entire argument flies in the face of omniscience!

QuoteHe created that which He set out to create.  A being able to think and act according to it's own will...to choose.

again that is not possible under omniscience.

QuoteIf there is no choices to choose from, there is no choice.  

There is no choice to choose from when something that supposedly made you already knows every choice you will ever make before you were ever made. It's a pure case of the self-made puppet show on display. So this again would fly in the face of omniscience.  

QuoteIf God had not allowed freewill, there would be no choice.

here again you are making baseless assertions without proof. Also this is a failure to understand how choices are made because choices are simply the weighing of information. Even the said deity is bound to those rules. It's a simple part of consciousness, and no mind can actually create consciousness! Minds observe and process information. Even a GOD couldn't make a choice or decision, or even know itself exists without information! GODS can't create reality, or existence because they are subject to those very same rules in order for them to exist should they exist. It's pretty funny that even your supposed GOD is slave to something it can not create!

So tell us how free will would not exist without a GOD?. It's more like free will wouldn't exist without information, or the processing of it! When you get get the order of things correctly, you will realize that GODS are logical fallacies because even consciousness begins with information, material physicality, and complexity.  

QuoteThe fact that Lucifer (Satan) exists is testament to evil entering into a perfect world regardless where freewill is desired.  Up to Lucifer's pride, evil was unknown to the created, but right and wrong was.

A perfect world wouldn't be vulnerable to the entrance of "evil". Again you are trying to invent circular arguments in attempt to circumvent logic and reasons to support your position.

QuoteI don't know what you mean by this, but I hope the above explains whatever this asks.

That means you don't understand the consequences of Omniscience. Please read the definition again and then rethink think problem you are having in understanding Davin's argument.

QuoteNo. Adam and Eve were participants of God's creative work that Satan tempted and used his knowledge of good and evil to steer them against God.

puppets are participants in pre-planned plays. How does evil steer something against an all powerful and omniscient GOD? Contradiction 101.

QuoteAm I saying sin is unnecessary in God's plan?  Sin exists APART from God's plan.

This alone would be a disqualifier in my book to anything being considered a GOD. You are at best trying to justify murder, death, sin, hate, anger, genocide, drowning, freezing to death, Orca's ripping apart a baby seal, birth defects, war, servitude, Power by virtue of EGO ect.

QuoteIt is as the Bible and you should understand.  Dark is not created, but when light is seen.

Contradicting everything not god is created.. So your GOD didn't create Darkness? Funny because technically there can only ever be one or the other. So how was light and dark designed and created into existence? Or do you not understand that darkness referred to the night cycle vs they day cycle of an Earth day. Hence, it was based on the rising sun, and the fear of darkness or the darkness that night brings. The Earth appears to be formless at night until the sun rises. This is actually the only way Genesis makes any sense btw. And that is really the only way you can interpret it logically. When people attempt to put it into context of the literal formation of the Earth and Universe it makes zero sense!  It also shows that the Christian GOD is particularly a Sun GOD, or the "Light" that sustains life! AKA taken partly from the Egyptians!

QuoteLikewise, sin is not created, but when evil (and thus good) is known.  It's pure logic.  If good exists, then the opposite exists.  If we know what dark is, that means we have knowledge of light.

I think you are having trouble with logic here. And at worst you try to equivocate darkness as a negative or equal to evil when the two are not within equal context. Darkness is referred to the lacking of light from the sun and nothing more. In many cases the darkness is bliss because I would hate to try and sleep with the sun shinning in my face all the time! Light can make your eyes hurt, or even make you go blind. The bible just plays on the fear of darkness philosophically however.

I think the worst part of this discussion is AnimatedDirt and Voter positing their ideology and every aspect of it as "FACTS".. Such dishonesty that there is no room for an honest debate. They have already ruled out having to face and address arguments that specifically contradict them. And that is why you see the circular self-invented arguments you see here today. It's getting rather old, and I consider this preaching because they don't want to address the argument honestly. It's ignoring the definition of Omniscience repeatedly! Neither of them are taking the time to fully understand the consequences of that.  

If you guys can't honestly debate, why are you here? Are you phishing for ignorance, Preaching, Or looking to understand why people don't follow your ideology?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "lookitsaustin"

Quote from: "Davin"@lookitsaustin: Check out the spoiler tag:

Code Select Expand

[spoiler]Stuff[/spoiler]

Genius!  :)

Something I wrote on the Forbidden Fruit.

The Forbidden Fruit: The Apple (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4732)

An all knowing GOD wouldn't put poisonous life forms within the reach of little children, or even adults. Or make them at all. That's not very loving is it?

Christians just can't get their heads wrapped around there being no free will. The Bible teaches that there is no free will. Paul, Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught no free will. God is able to override our free will; through predestination.

Ephesians 1:3-6 [NIV]: Praise be to [God], who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and willâ€" to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Quite stupidly, in the scripture above, you can only enter heaven if you are blameless (without sin) and to do that you need Jesus. But you only have Jesus if God has chosen you as one of the ones who is blessed with Jesus!
Here is another: Ephesians 2:10 [NIV]: For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."[/color]

God chooses some people, before time, and grants them a 'gift' to conform to Jesus according to God's plan. Those who are chosen are automatically destined to 'do good works' which 'God prepared in advance for them to do. People don't choose to do good, and accepted into Heaven, or that people choose to do good and come to accept Jesus. The Bible clearly states that God makes specific people do specific 'good works'.

Romans 8:28-30 [NIV]: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

God has called certain people according to what God wants to get done, and then these people love God. God then "works for the good" of these people. People are predestined to be "conformed" to Jesus; not that these people acted well and then accepted God. They are predestined to love God. It doesn't matter about their free will or whether they wanted to accept Jesus, or even if they believe in Jesus or not. God "predestined", "called", "justified" and "glorified" those who it chose. Their choice, if they had one, was irrelevant.

The Bible specifically, clearly and definitely says over and over that such choices were chosen by God, not by you. Those people's actions are not according to their will, but to God's - "according to his will and pleasure" and "according to his purpose". It's not your will or pleasure, not your purpose, and certainly not your choice.

But now we have two problems.

1) What of the others who God has chosen NOT to conform to Jesus, to be blameless and holy? I reckon they make similar choices in life to those who ARE chosen, but they just don't get it right because God hasn't created them or chosen them in that way. God has created them to fail, and I also reckon they don't even know it. It could be that you are one of them and don't know it.

2) If God is just in who he calls to be chosen, what are Christians? How do they make sense of God is not the all-loving God that they believe? God is lying, or Christians are deceived. Paul saw these problems: Romans 9: 10-15 [NIV]: “Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand not by works but by him who calls - she was told "The older will serve the younger". Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" [Exodus 33:19]”

Paul's answer makes no sense. It doesn't address the question: Is God just? How can a just God predetermine people to sin, to be hated by God, and predetermine them not to 'conform to Jesus', and then judge those people for that which was beyond their control? Paul later goes on to affirm that free will does not affect our fate: If our actions and nature are determined by God, how can god blame us for those actions?

Romans 9:16-19 [NIV]: It does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed on all the earth." [Exodus 9:16] Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Paul has asked "Is God unjust?" Well, his answer should shock anyone with a brain to comprehend:
Romans 9:20-21 [NIV]: But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"[Isaiah 29:16, 45:9] Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Well, there you have it, God is unjust, simply because it can be! There is no justification other than it being arbitrary. God makes some people "for noble use", chosen and predestined to do good works 'which God prepared in advance' 'according to his purpose'. If you're not lucky enough to be chosen, then you are for common use, relegated to hell and torment, a life without conformity to Christ. You may THINK you are, but only God would know. Not only is this unjust, Paul says you have no right to raise a concern.

I have more, but I think that is enough for now.

I'm only going to niy pick one thing in this post. The part in red below should be the first item in the list:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

• God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.
• One angel got the prideful thought (by freewill) that it isn't fair he's not like God or equal to Him
• That angel, Lucifer, convinced 1/3 of the rest of the angels of the same idea
• Having brought evil/sin into God's presence, (which cannot be) they were thrown out.  Had God simply anhilated Lucifer and his angels, what then does that say to the other angels?  If you go against God, you get zapped.  But so that God's mercy, love, righteousness is proven, God allows sin to enter and do its work.
• When God creates humans Lucifer then says, "Ah Ha!  Now lets see if you allow them to think freely."  To do so, God must allow Lucifer to tempt...and in essence give them the knowledge of good and evil which they had no idea about.
• The created choose to do wrong, and thus follow evil instead.
• The plan that was set before creation is put into effect.  Why?  Because God loves that which He creates and knows that not all would choose evil over good.  Not only that but also to prove that sin is evil and leads to death.  Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns.  If you are against God, there is no life in you...and you die.
• Since the first created beings are now sinful, their offspring (us) are "sold into slavery" "even from conception" not having done or chosen anything at all.  (Again, you'll have to look into that further if you want clarification on what that means.)
• The plan requires it all be legal and forthright.  God is Judge, afterall, and cannot go against His own law.  The law is, if you sin, you die as sin transgresses the law and thus it separates you from God, the sustainer of life.  Death is the result/consequence.
• "But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law has beenmade known." (see Romans 3:21 and onwards)
• The penalty of sin is death.  Either each person pays the penalty him/herself or they "die in Christ" and His righteousness is credited to our acct and so, even though we die in this life, we live when it counts...the next which commences when Christ returns to give the gift we accepted by faith in Christ's righteousness.

Quote from: "Gawen"I'm only going to niy pick one thing in this post. The part in red below should be the first item in the list:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

• God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.
• One angel got the prideful thought (by freewill) that it isn't fair he's not like God or equal to Him
• That angel, Lucifer, convinced 1/3 of the rest of the angels of the same idea
• Having brought evil/sin into God's presence, (which cannot be) they were thrown out.  Had God simply anhilated Lucifer and his angels, what then does that say to the other angels?  If you go against God, you get zapped.  But so that God's mercy, love, righteousness is proven, God allows sin to enter and do its work.
• When God creates humans Lucifer then says, "Ah Ha!  Now lets see if you allow them to think freely."  To do so, God must allow Lucifer to tempt...and in essence give them the knowledge of good and evil which they had no idea about.
• The created choose to do wrong, and thus follow evil instead.
• The plan that was set before creation is put into effect.  Why?  Because God loves that which He creates and knows that not all would choose evil over good.  Not only that but also to prove that sin is evil and leads to death.  Again God's properties are similar to fire.  If you touch fire, it burns.  If you are against God, there is no life in you...and you die.
• Since the first created beings are now sinful, their offspring (us) are "sold into slavery" "even from conception" not having done or chosen anything at all.  (Again, you'll have to look into that further if you want clarification on what that means.)
• The plan requires it all be legal and forthright.  God is Judge, afterall, and cannot go against His own law.  The law is, if you sin, you die as sin transgresses the law and thus it separates you from God, the sustainer of life.  Death is the result/consequence.
• "But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law has beenmade known." (see Romans 3:21 and onwards)
• The penalty of sin is death.  Either each person pays the penalty him/herself or they "die in Christ" and His righteousness is credited to our acct and so, even though we die in this life, we live when it counts...the next which commences when Christ returns to give the gift we accepted by faith in Christ's righteousness.

I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  

Quote from: "Ad"God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.

If there is no suffering and no evil in heaven, Heaven is by definition, a perfect place. If God created evil because it wanted us to have free will; free will is more important than anything else. If free will is so importance that God creates evil in order to allow moral free will, beings in Heaven must have free will.

Heaven is a place where there is free will, but no evil.

This means that free will can exist without the presence of evil and suffering. This means that free will theodicy is not valid. God could make everywhere the same as heaven, with the same free will but without evil/suffering. It is perfectly possible for God to grant advantages to people without the experience of evil/suffering: After all, Adam and Eve were created perfect. God could grant everyone the experience of no suffering, and put everyone in heaven immediately. This would prevent all suffering because in Heaven, there is no suffering. But, God does not prevent all suffering. As an aside, it seems the only type of God that creates evil and suffering and designs life so that it needs these evil and suffering, is either immoral or insane.

If angels (and god) exist in heaven, it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first going through an experience of suffering. Therefore, if God is good, it could immediately place everyone in heaven. However, god is not good, because it continues to let us suffer. On the other hand, Heaven is not a place of "all good". If angels can betray God in Heaven, it shows that Gods plan is faulty. Therefore, God is faulty.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  

I know. I've been debating this stuff for more than 15 years. They just can't decompartmentalise. It gets old quickly now. My patience wears thin faster. Really, the only thing that keeps me doing it is for the lurkers, both theists and atheists. Many are still learning this stuff and by hearing our arguments that totally refute theirs, I hope that we have been good teachers.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Ad"God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.

If there is no suffering and no evil in heaven, Heaven is by definition, a perfect place. If God created evil because it wanted us to have free will; free will is more important than anything else. If free will is so importance that God creates evil in order to allow moral free will, beings in Heaven must have free will.

Heaven is a place where there is free will, but no evil.

This means that free will can exist without the presence of evil and suffering.

Pretty much the point I tried to make earlier. Either heaven is not a utopia, or evil never needed to exist in the first place.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "TheJackel"I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  :/ And Voter ponders why he thinks I am so uncivilized  :shake:

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Ad"God created everything that isn't God including His angels which have freewill also.

If there is no suffering and no evil in heaven, Heaven is by definition, a perfect place. If God created evil because it wanted us to have free will; free will is more important than anything else. If free will is so importance that God creates evil in order to allow moral free will, beings in Heaven must have free will.

Heaven is a place where there is free will, but no evil.

This means that free will can exist without the presence of evil and suffering.

:shake:

QuoteWell, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :pop: So this is what happens when discussions are reduced to circular arguments. It's also a common tactic theists like to use to reduce arguments of decent to pure ignorance, or to the point where people stop reading and listening. It's kind of like voting blasphemous points of view down on Youtube so they would become hidden, or tagged as "bad, spam, trolling, or evil". It's how the game is played and they know it  

Hence, just pretend said argument was never made and keep on rolling out circular logic as if said argument magically doesn't apply...

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWell, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :pop: So this is what happens when discussions are reduced to circular arguments. It's also a common tactic theists like to use to reduce arguments of decent to pure ignorance, or to the point where people stop reading and listening. It's kind of like voting blasphemous points of view down on Youtube so they would become hidden, or tagged as "bad, spam, trolling, or evil". It's how the game is played and they know it

Theists are the most disingenuous people I have ever met.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteWell, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :pop: So this is what happens when discussions are reduced to circular arguments. It's also a common tactic theists like to use to reduce arguments of decent to pure ignorance, or to the point where people stop reading and listening. It's kind of like voting blasphemous points of view down on Youtube so they would become hidden, or tagged as "bad, spam, trolling, or evil". It's how the game is played and they know it :sigh:

Quote from: "Gawen"Well, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :blush:

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Gawen"Well, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :blush:

Well, they say you can't reason with the unreasonable ..

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Gawen"Well, damn. I missed your post and I didn't have to tread over the same ground... :blush:

Well, they say you can't reason with the unreasonable ..

It seems they have the same view on free will as Henry Ford did on car colours, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

In that they think that free will is good, so long as you only choose what god wants you to choose.

I just don't understand how Christians can't see this. It's in their very own manual. Even people that don't believe in the Judeo/Christian god have no free will - look at Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. God killed the inhabitants of the city. I would say their free will was severely curtailed...permanently. And then look at Job's wife, who had the alleged free will to look back but was turned to salt for doing so. Why did God make evil? I don't know, but he's a mass murderer and killed at least one witness, Job's wife.

Peter's free will was 'interrupted' by God having him deny Jesus three times.

If a god can affect the lives of people, covertly or overtly, no one can know if it was God that moved them or themselves. In this case, free will is an illusion.

Quote from: "Gawen"I just don't understand how Christians can't see this. It's in their very own manual. Even people that don't believe in the Judeo/Christian god have no free will - look at Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. God killed the inhabitants of the city. I would say their free will was severely curtailed...permanently. And then look at Job's wife, who had the alleged free will to look back but was turned to salt for doing so. Why did God make evil? I don't know, but he's a mass murderer and killed at least one witness, Job's wife.

Peter's free will was 'interrupted' by God having him deny Jesus three times.

If a god can affect the lives of people, covertly or overtly, no one can know if it was God that moved them or themselves. In this case, free will is an illusion.

It all comes down to definitions of omniscience and free will.

If your definitions lead to the conclusion that god's omniscience causes all of our thoughts and actions, then sure, there's no free will. However, the larger argument then falls apart. Remember, the main argument is that, if we have no free will, god is unjust to punish us. However, if god causes our every thought and action, then we are not autonomous entities and have no right to justice in the first place. By this understanding, we are basically characters in a very complex novel. No one accuses Shakespeare of being unjust for killing off Romeo and Juliet.

Quote from: "Gawen"If there is no suffering and no evil in heaven, Heaven is by definition, a perfect place. If God created evil because it wanted us to have free will; free will is more important than anything else. If free will is so importance that God creates evil in order to allow moral free will, beings in Heaven must have free will.

What you're missing is that free will is not an end in itself, it's a means to a greater end. The greater end is righteousness. Once people or angels are determined to be righteous or unrighteous, free moral will is no longer necessary.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "TheJackel"I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  

I know. I've been debating this stuff for more than 15 years. They just can't decompartmentalise. It gets old quickly now. My patience wears thin faster. Really, the only thing that keeps me doing it is for the lurkers, both theists and atheists. Many are still learning this stuff and by hearing our arguments that totally refute theirs, I hope that we have been good teachers.

I like reading a lot of this stuff.... well not the ones that might as well be a book.... but a lot of this stuff I like to read because hopefully one day I can talk my parents out of habitually drinking the kool-aid.

Honestly, sometimes I really don't understand why they, my parents or any xtian, love to be in such a Stockholm Syndrome situation.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Gawen"I'm only going to niy pick one thing in this post. The part in red below should be the first item in the list:

I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  

It's amazing how one says one thing and then in the next breath they disregard the whole thing and ignore the rest.
It simply goes in one ear and out the other with "you".

If you're not willing to discuss, stay out of the discussion.

Knowing the created would "fail" and choose unwisely is not failure on the part of God to create a freethinking creature.  Now let that sink in your brain a bit.  Give that a few moments...

Now the omniscience comes in with the "plan", knowing...heh...knowing that without the "plan" the whole offspring of the created will die without it.  To know before hand is omniscience, to make it a gift is omnipotent, to come down and pay Himself is "all loving".

Quote from: "Voter"free moral will is no longer necessary.

I disagree.  I hope you don't mean that come heaven, we, the created no longer have free will.  Quite the opposite IMHO.

The new creature, Adam and Eve, had freewill and knowledge of right and wrong.  However they didn't have the knowledge of Evil...that being what comes from doing wrong.  Now, with that knowledge and being created new, the new and perfect creature armed with the knowledge of good and evil, now has the FULL capacity to freely choose righteousness and freely leave evil alone now knowing the cost.

So I hear the skeptic saying, "Why not just create with the knowledge?"  I'm not certain.  I suppose it is much like our children born to us here.  They need nurturing and gradually learn the system within the family and then the society in which they live.  Much like  a child being told not to play with fire.  You tell him/her over and over, but they don't listen and somtimes find out the hard way.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"free moral will is no longer necessary.

I disagree.  I hope you don't mean that come heaven, we, the created no longer have free will.  Quite the opposite IMHO.

I mean what I said. God's goal is righteousness, not free will. To say that free will is not necessary does not imply that it does not exist. Personally I think that God's sustenance is necessary to prevent sin, but that's neither here nor there for purpose of the position I was addressing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Gawen"I'm only going to niy pick one thing in this post. The part in red below should be the first item in the list:

I only need to say the following to which invalidates all of that.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, and "All Loving".  All of which are complete contradictions of themselves and of the above quoted post from AnimatedDirt. It simply goes in one ear and out the other with them  :drool . Now you are just intentionally playing ignorant :shake:

For sake of argument, I have written a paradox that explains why Omniscience and Omnipotence self-collapse, and why they are logical fallacies:

Logical Fallacy:

QuoteIn logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

The Paradox:
Can an Omnipotent and Omniscient Entity design and create something that can do or think that which it would not already know in complete infinite detail before it was created, during it's entire existence, and after it's existence?

If someone say yes, they fail utterly at comprehending the definitions of Omniscience and Omnipotence. These attributes are self-collapsing and self-contradictions to which make them utter logical fallacies. Anyone that tries to argue otherwise either doesn't get it out if innocent ignorance, is intentionally playing ignorant, or is trying to circumvent logic and reason for a plea at someone's ignorance in order to further their own ideological agenda. This Paradox is exactly why free Will under just Omniscience alone is a logical Fallacy, never mind the complete self-cancellation of both Omni's when in conjunction with each other as attributes being assigned to some entity. It annoys people when theists purposely ignore or invent such impossible and nonsensical concepts, ideas, notions, or self-invented arguments in order to attempt to circumvent commonsense, logic, rationality, knowledge, or even someones intelligence.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"free moral will is no longer necessary.

I disagree.  I hope you don't mean that come heaven, we, the created no longer have free will.  Quite the opposite IMHO.

I mean what I said. God's goal is righteousness, not free will. To say that free will is not necessary does not imply that it does not exist. Personally I think that God's sustenance is necessary to prevent sin, but that's neither here nor there for purpose of the position I was addressing.

More asserting the Will of a deity to which does not speak for itself.  And I can't believe you would actually argue that free will is not necessary . It's like arguing that all people should be dumb sheep and just follow what you believe in Voter. Talking about pleading for avocation of brainwashing in to obedience of your ideological construct. And do you have any evidence to support such a claim that there is no "Free Will" in this supposed magical wonderland you call Heaven? And how do you get righteousness out of hypocrisy? Only someone that doesn't understand or ignores the definitions of these will rationalize or equivocate them. It's almost if you do absolutely no critical thinking on your own. And I'm starting to think that you are only here to preach to the point of it being considered spam.

QuoteHypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

And your problem is that you believe this crap is "Righteous" or Justified, and basically because you have been programmed not to question what you consider power, and authority over your very soul. Most likely so out of fear and emotional attachments driven into you since you first became a Christian. Hypocrisy of murder, death, ect are apparently OK with you so long as it's your Authority figure doing the Killing ect. That's a pretty good sign that you are in a cult son!.

But no worries, under Omniscient being you were Planned to be right down to your every thought and feeling before you ever had them. Just as I under your Omniscient being was put here to argue with you in every infinite detail before we ever had begun this discussion.. It must be fun to be puppets! This is the worst and most boring drama TV show ever as well because your Omniscient Entity already knows the outcome in infinite detail.

Edit:

QuoteGod's goal is righteousness, not free will.

(bold being related to this thread)

This right here verifies the very argument I was making earlier as well. Your religion is the programming of blind unquestionable servitude to power, control, and authority. You prove this every time I see you post this. That is the actual underlining message and context of the entire bible! And it's done through logical and emotional manipulation of the weak and vulnerable, the mechanics of brainwashing, and subliminal programming. It uses the Seeding process, Fear tool, and the Carrot to engineer blind devotion by virtue of blind faith. Which is fine until it becomes an excuse to control everyone else, used to manipulate others into the ideology, used to spread false information, used disingenuously, used to attack others in social dogmas for the purpose to force them emotionally into the ideology, used to assert assumptions ans self invented arguments as magical truths(Facts) from a Carl Sagan position, used to spread subliminal messages, used dishonestly in discussions,  or used to target easily impressionable and vulnerable minds, or put forth into legislation and government to force everyone to conform to it.

Jackel and also anyone else who this should apply to:

I haven't kept up with this thread but it has become apparent that it's heading in an uncivil direction.

Reminder there that ideas such as omnipotence and omniscience are not "stupid" and are seriously discussed by even modern day religious philosophers and that if someone is unable to discuss without throwing in ad homs then they should just bow out of the topic.

Also, please remember that it is not okay to call for the banning of a member or tell a member they should be banned simply because you disagree with them.  If you don't like how a member is acting and you believe they are breaking HAF rules you can report them or thier post to a moderator.

If you post something to the forum which you think you shouldn't have, while you have the ability, it is bad manners to edit out the comment.  If you must edit out the comment you should throw in an apology at the same time so you don't' appear to be hiding something.  I allow users to edit their posts because most don't abuse the system and need to edit out typos from time to time...let's not allow a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.

Quote from: "Whitney"Jackel and also anyone else who this should apply to:

I haven't kept up with this thread but it has become apparent that it's heading in an uncivil direction.

Reminder there that ideas such as omnipotence and omniscience are not "stupid" and are seriously discussed by even modern day religious philosophers and that if someone is unable to discuss without throwing in ad homs then they should just bow out of the topic.

Also, please remember that it is not okay to call for the banning of a member or tell a member they should be banned simply because you disagree with them.  If you don't like how a member is acting and you believe they are breaking HAF rules you can report them or thier post to a moderator.

If you post something to the forum which you think you shouldn't have, while you have the ability, it is bad manners to edit out the comment.  If you must edit out the comment you should throw in an apology at the same time so you don't' appear to be hiding something.  I allow users to edit their posts because most don't abuse the system and need to edit out typos from time to time...let's not allow a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.

Don't worry Whitney, I'm not going to personally attack them, but I will point out their dishonesty. Or at least what appears to be dishonesty, preaching, or spam. But I will try keep it more civil. I will keep that in mind though not to call out for the banning of someone, so I will edit that out along with other things that I agree are borderline uncivilized due to frustration. :) And I thus apologize for any of those comments. Such as giving out the ban hammer for circular spamming arguments.

I'm also fully aware that philosophers have been seriously discussing those things  :P

Cheers!

One thing I left out was that if someone finds it hard to respond with a civil and thoughtful tone the best course of action is to not respond at all...one can even post that they aren't going to respond because they feel they can't do so without acting emotional if that helps them be able to actually not respond emotionally.

Quote from: "Whitney"One thing I left out was that if someone finds it hard to respond with a civil and thoughtful tone the best course of action is to not respond at all...one can even post that they aren't going to respond because they feel they can't do so without acting emotional if that helps them be able to actually not respond emotionally.

The problem with that though is when someone tries to be direct, stern, or blunt to avoid circular arguments as it is often viewed as uncivilized vs constructive criticism, or keeping things on topic.  :)  Hence, I don't highlight things with the intent to be rude, but rather to point out important things that need to be focused on to which either are being ignored or not addressed by someone repeatedly. But I'm not sure if that is against the forum rules though.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So follow with me slowly here AnimatedDirt ok,

Before you were ever born or man was ever in existence under -->"your belief system's GOD Concept"<-- Your deity being Omniscient (please see definition of Omniscience) would have planned and known every infinite detail about you and mankind to which would include every choice you would ever make, every feeling you would ever have, what sensations you would ever feel, what every experience you would experience, what every observation you would have, what every action and reaction you or mankind would ever have in total, and in complete utter infinite detail throughout your entire existence, prior to your existence, and after your existence.

There is no possibility for "Free Will" under omniscience!

Infact all purpose becomes lost under Omniscience! If you don't understand what Omniscience means, don't argue as if you do! So I highlighted the area in blue for you so you can better comprehend the problem you are having and not listening to. People are sick and tired of playing on your merrygoround.

Yes, thank you for this.  If you don't mind now, let me help you understand...if you don't believe it be so, at least understand the "logic" of this.

The Christian claims:

• God is Omnipotent
• God is Omniscient
• all others...

If God is Omni-all, then logic says that through His knowledge and power, what He produces is, not only the best, but there is no better way.

God then, for reason unknown to me (as a fact, but I have my opinion/interpretation), choses to create humans.  One of His created (not human) has already, by biblical chronology, brought evil into knowledge of those and their fall is evidence of evil.  So God creates Man.  God creates Man perfectly and places in Man a mind capable of free thought, free will, and even reason, ponder self-existence, (is that known as congnitive reasoning?  I'm not sure of the term).

Let's stop there for a moment.  It is God's "plan", if you will, to create a free will creature.  In His omni>, He has done so perfectly...TO THE POINT, if I may be so bold, to allow this creature the ability to chose against its Creator and the Creator's omniscience.  The creature is not given omni-anything other than life, but life sustained by the One who sustains life.

So this creature is given the choice.  If you'll notice, Lucifer didn't necessarily have a choice to eat of a tree when told not to, but evil stirred in him in the form of pride, we are told all in his own mind.  Hence why pride is the root of all evil.

The "plan" to make a creature with free will is perfectly done!  There's apparently no other way to make a freewill creature without the chance the creature will choose wrong over right.  It has freewill.

To not ramble on, in short, God's omniscience, omnipotence is clearly demonstrated.  God, then in His omni-all is then, instead of waving a magic wand and simply disregarding His own law...which if He is omnirighteous/omnijudge he can't, is lawfully able to declare righteous those that are not.  The point is that ALL people after Adam are tainted with sin.  The law demands perfection as God is perfect.  Likewise ALL people after Christ (and prior) who by faith believe He has paid (would pay) their penalty are then declared sinless...not because they are, but because the price of sin has been paid by The Judge Himself and their righteousness is in Christ and not of themselves.  Justice is served.  No one can then claim that God is unfair or simply waves His wand at will and says you're ok, but you're not, without PROOF.  If the sinner is in Christ, then that sinner is dead through Christ already.

Think of it similar to a class-action lawsuit.  One goes to court and pleads the case for many.  But you must include yourself in the lawsuit to gain if the lawsuit goes your way.  You cannot gain in the lawsuit if you haven't added yourself to it.

I hope I've cleared the misconception that omniscience is opposed to freewill or that "There is no possibility for "Free Will" under omniscience!  Simply knowing everyone's choices prior to the person(s) does not remove freewill.
If not, I'm open to more discussion.

AnimatedDirt, it's easy for all of us to get lost in this lengthy mess of a thread, but I would be very interested in your response to this post of Gawen's (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=165#p98603) and my own (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=150#p98590).

Quote from: "Sophus"AnimatedDirt, it's easy for all of us to get lost in this lengthy mess of a thread, but I would be very interested in your response to this post of Gawen's (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=165#p98603) and my own (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=150#p98590).

I would be happy to.  Give me some time.  I'll attempt to do so within an hour or two.
For starters, I think the above post alludes to the answer, but not specifially.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I would be happy to.  Give me some time.  I'll attempt to do so within an hour or two.
For starters, I think the above post alludes to the answer, but not specifially.

Don't rush it.

QuoteThe Christian claims:

• God is Omnipotent
• God is Omniscient
• all others...

If God is Omni-all, then logic says that through His knowledge and power, what He produces is, not only the best, but there is no better way.

I'm sorry AnimatedDirt but that does not address the argument, and you are trying to do is the suggesting that there is no better way so it must be true. This again is trying to circumvent having to deal with the subject and argument  :sigh:  I would appreciate that you actually address Omniscience and Omnipotence in proper context according to their actual definitions, and critically think about the consequences of those. You could perhaps answer the Paradox I had given you, and then explain.

QuoteOne of His created (not human) has already, by biblical chronology, brought evil into knowledge of those and their fall is evidence of evil.  So God creates Man.  God creates Man perfectly and places in Man a mind capable of free thought, free will, and even reason, ponder self-existence, (is that known as congnitive reasoning?  I'm not sure of the term).

An Omniscient GOD would have known that before it ever happened. Infinitely knowing means infinitely knowing everything  :)  

As an example 1:

Do you think you could make a choice or commit a sin that your Omniscient deity would not know about? Could you feel something It would not know you are feeling?

As an example 2:

'I' Argument:

The word "I" is philosophically spiritual, but the word itself is meaningless without all the other information that gives "I" an identity. There is a reason why self-identity and self-awareness is on a need to know basis.. If you do not know that you exist or that you are in existence, you wouldn't be self-aware! "I" is only reference to the knowledge of one's self! Without that knowledge or information to which is the base of inquiry to one's self, there could be no ability to have consciousness. Thus an Omniscient GOD would technically be every conscious entity in existence, and every non-conscious object, or thing in existence if it is to posses the sum total of infinite information and knowledge. And this is while still being slave to information and knowledge itself to even know itself exists, or to exist at all!

QuoteLet's stop there for a moment.  It is God's "plan", if you will, to create a free will creature.  In His omni>, He has done so perfectly...TO THE POINT, if I may be so bold, to allow this creature the ability to chose against its Creator and the Creator's omniscience.  The creature is not given omni-anything other than life, but life sustained by the One who sustains life.

The problem is, it can't under the rules of Omniscience. How do you create something of free will when you already know in infinite detail everything it will do, choose, feel, experience, observe, or be? It's a paradox that makes it a logical fallacy. It's why it's self-collapsing, and self-canceling. Somethings are just not literally possible. This is equal in trying to argue that Nothing can be an existent person, place, substance, or thing while being nothing. Logical fallacies simply can not be possible. So I hope you can see where that fits into your argument. Though I see what you are trying to argue AnimatedDirt, but it's simply nullified by virtue of Omniscience.

QuoteSo this creature is given the choice.  If you'll notice, Lucifer didn't necessarily have a choice to eat of a tree when told not to, but evil stirred in him in the form of pride, we are told all in his own mind.  Hence why pride is the root of all evil.

And you are telling me that an Omniscient GOD would not have known any of this in regards to his own supposed creations? So are you now willing to remove Omniscience from the list of magical attributes? Or are they only applicable when you think they fit your current position? I say that because it seems you are unaware of yourself placing limits on the knowledge of a supposed infinitely knowing entity.

So does your is your GOD omniscient or not?

QuoteThe "plan" to make a creature with free will is perfectly done!  There's apparently no other way to make a freewill creature without the chance the creature will choose wrong over right.  It has freewill.

Plan would fail because he can not have the power to do so when he himself is Omniscient of everything infinitely. They are direct contradictions AminatedDirt, they are not compatible or even self-compatible what-so-ever :sigh:

QuoteTo not ramble on, in short, God's omniscience, omnipotence is clearly demonstrated.  God, then in His omni-all is then, instead of waving a magic wand and simply disregarding His own law...which if He is omnirighteous/omnijudge he can't, is lawfully able to declare righteous those that are not.

This is what I am referring to in regards to self-inventive circular arguments AminatedDirt  :/

QuoteThe point is that ALL people after Adam are tainted with sin.

Have any real evidence to support that? Again you are here making arguments of pure assumption and claiming them to be magical Facts.

QuoteThe law demands perfection as God is perfect.

You just contradicted your above quoted argument.

QuoteLikewise ALL people after Christ (and prior) who by faith believe He has paid (would pay) their penalty are then declared sinless...not because they are, but because the price of sin has been paid by The Judge Himself and their righteousness is in Christ and not of themselves.  Justice is served.  No one can then claim that God is unfair or simply waves His wand at will and says you're ok, but you're not, without PROOF.  If the sinner is in Christ, then that sinner is dead through Christ already.

The red highlighted area is the crux to your own assertion and argument.

QuoteThink of it similar to a class-action lawsuit.

I'll be happy to sue your GOD for my human imperfections that include poor eyesight, low tolerance to circular arguments, the inability to be as perfect as he, ect. After-all it's a sin to be as powerful as the deity himself right?.

QuoteOne goes to court and pleads the case for many.  But you must include yourself in the lawsuit to gain if the lawsuit goes your way.  You cannot gain in the lawsuit if you haven't added yourself to it.

Yep, and I have judged your deity Guilty of Murder, and Genocide, abortion, hypocrisy, barring false witness, evil ect. All the evidence is written in his own words according to you. So he must be banished to eternal hell right?

Give me one good rational reason why anyone should worship such hypocrisy as a GOD?

QuoteI hope I've cleared the misconception that omniscience is opposed to freewill or that "There is no possibility for "Free Will" under omniscience!  Simply knowing everyone's choices prior to the person(s) does not remove freewill.
If not, I'm open to more discussion.

I'm sorry AnimatedDirt but you didn't clear up the misconceptions because you still have yet to fully grasp the meaning of Omniscience and it's implications, and consequences.

Quote from: "Gawen"If there is no suffering and no evil in heaven, Heaven is by definition, a perfect place. If God created evil because it wanted us to have free will; free will is more important than anything else. If free will is so importance that God creates evil in order to allow moral free will, beings in Heaven must have free will.

I agree and disagree.  Here's why;

Heaven is a perfect place, however by the admission of the Bible itself, and thus by God (presumably), Heaven is not void of evil.  The evidence for this is simply the acct. of Lucifer coming to the conclusion on his own without any external suggestion, found pride in his heart.

I agree that freewill is important, of utmost importance.  I also agree in that in order that there be freewill, there must be evil.

I disagree that God created evil.  To put plainly and simply, the mere fact (which I realize you dispute as an Atheist)...ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume God exists as He says He does...that God exists means evil exists.  Not by creation, but by mere fact.  If there is good, the only way to define good is opposed to.  Maybe it's similar to Newton's Third Law of Motion.  I know the concept, but I am no physicist or mathmatician to refute it as a good analogy.  It seems fitting to me.  ( I could even have the wrong law)

Quote from: "Gawen"Heaven is a place where there is free will, but no evil.

In light of the previous, no.

Quote from: "Gawen"This means that free will can exist without the presence of evil and suffering.

Yes, because previous to Lucifer's epiphany of pride, we (Christians assume) Heaven was void of the reality of evil, while the mere existence of God (good) would mean evil existed, just hadn't been manifested yet.

Quote from: "Gawen"This means that free will theodicy is not valid. God could make everywhere the same as heaven, with the same free will but without evil/suffering.

It is possible and if God is still actively creating beings, then I'm sure He is creating perfect beings with the same capability to evil as Lucifer and/or Adam and Eve to choose wrong.

Quote from: "Gawen"It is perfectly possible for God to grant advantages to people without the experience of evil/suffering: After all, Adam and Eve were created perfect.

Yes.  But when you say "people", I assume you mean humanity as we know it.  Right?  See the point right above this.

Quote from: "Gawen"God could grant everyone the experience of no suffering, and put everyone in heaven immediately. This would prevent all suffering because in Heaven, there is no suffering.

If God is omni-everything, which as my previous posts mentions, He is an Omni-Judge.  One cannot simply wipe out evil without punishment for evil.  That would not be Justice by any means, either by humanity or God.  Let's put it this way, if God is omni-Judge, then He is by definition, omni-lawmaker.  To break omni-law is to not be God.  He cannot, by nature, be what He isn't.  So with this in mind, God in His omnipotence and omniscience made a LEGAL way to reconcile humanity back to Him without going against His nature...which He can't anyway.  The law is satisfied.  Justice has prevailed.  God gets His created back with Him which were lost and doomed to death.  God, with His omnipotence, recreates each person born in sin as a new creation, in a new body, but with the same mind, now made perfect, with sinless natures, AND still with the capacity to choose.  What person, metaphorically speaking, grabs the hot iron skillet again having felt the burn the first time?

Quote from: "Gawen"But, God does not prevent all suffering.

While a parent trys as they can to prevent injury, sometimes the meaningless injuries are allowed as a lesson.  Now, you may say and rightly conclude that this does not compare with the suffering seen throughout humanity, nor does it seem right when a God "kills" humans.  There is A LOT behind this and I don't have all the knowledge to explain it all, especially to your liking and acceptance.  One might simply say that as for the flood fairy tale, it is said that Noah preached for 120 years concerning the coming of a flood.  No one listened and so all, aside from his family, were lost.  (this is somewhat proof to me that the flood acct. was not global)

Quote from: "Gawen"As an aside, it seems the only type of God that creates evil and suffering and designs life so that it needs these evil and suffering, is either immoral or insane.

I would agree.  However, as I have mentioned above, God's design of a perfect human with the capacity to choose was done perfectly.  It is evil, the result of it, that has lead humanity down this path.  I don't know where it stops, I don't know when God will say, "Enough", and come as He said He would.  I don't know what He's waiting for.  What I do know, or my faith comforts me in, is that He says He will make everything right.  The evil will be dealt with.  Justice will be served.

Quote from: "Gawen"If angels (and god) exist in heaven, it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first going through an experience of suffering. Therefore, if God is good, it could immediately place everyone in heaven. However, god is not good, because it continues to let us suffer. On the other hand, Heaven is not a place of "all good". If angels can betray God in Heaven, it shows that Gods plan is faulty. Therefore, God is faulty.

I think the above points explain most of this execpt once again the notion of God's "plan" being faulty comes up.  I will once again say that the "plan" is not faulty.  The "plan" of creating a perfect, freewill being is perfectly done.  The "plan" of saving this being that has chosen wrong that evil has so disturbed it to catastrophic suffering, can be, will be, and is legally reconciled back to its Creator, not lost to death, but legally given life.

His foreknowledge in no manner whatsoever, precludes our freewill.

QuoteI disagree that God created evil.

So now are you backpedaling on the GOD being the Creator and Rule maker to all that exists..  Does that include this list? How does one design and create the following into existence?

* existence
* intelligence
* information
* knowledge
* Experience, and experiences
* Ground state of complexity or point zero
* Empty Space
* Capacity
* self-awareness
* self-identity
* consciousness
* a place to exist in
* mind containment
* light/dark
* infinity
* Wisdom
* time
* sight
* hearing
* smell
* observation
* calculation
* manipulation
* thought
* perception
* reality
* Feelings
* Emotions
* complexity
* cause and effect
* Morality
* Cognitive behavior
* Inertia
* Progress / progression
* Mental Processing
* Memory
* Osculation
* intent
* Ability
* Positive, Negative, neutral
* Imagination
* Design
* Point of View
* Life
* mobility
* power
* divinity
* math

It seems your GOD is slave to things he himself can not create :cool: .. You can not know how to create that which yourself requires to exist especially when that includes knowledge and all the information that makes knowledge a base of inquiry. This is also direct show of why Creationism is false, and why Omnipotence is also a logically fallacy! One can not have the power to create that which oneself is slave to require in order to exist!. And it's funny that all those things are exactly what we ourselves require to exist!.. These are fundamentals of why it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness. Gods are thus logical fallacies, nor can the write the "Rules" or "Laws" to existence when they themselves are subject to the same rules  :)

QuoteOne cannot simply wipe out evil without punishment for evil. That would not be Justice by any means, either by humanity or God.

Contradiction 101.  

Prior to this point it seems to me you're arguing the existence of God.  For the purpose of this thread, we must presume God exists.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteGod then, for reason unknown to me (as a fact, but I have my opinion/interpretation), choses to create humans.

This also is not relevant to the argument I have posted  :pop:  You are playing to attach ignorance on an entity that you say is not capable of ignorance by virtue of Omniscience. So under that non-circumventable point, you must realize that under your argument that your GOD intentionally invented EVIL/SIN, and all Evils/SINs that ever occurred are all planned, known, executed, put into action, and controlled in infinite detail from all infinite perspectives to where there could be no possible avenue of Free will.

Not at all, and just because you say so, in no manner makes it so.  In "fact", it is exactly as I propose it is, omniscience does not preclude freewill.  It simply acknowledges what will happen.  It is not, therefore, the creator of the happenings.  If God, as I mentioned, is omniscient...knows all, then He knows the best and only way to make a freewill being.  Having absolute freewill, even God cannot therefore, control the actions of a freewill agent with absolute freewill.  It seems so elementary to me and yet you throw in all kinds of "philosophies" to disprove it when in simplest form it proves itself.

Quote from: "TheJackel"In fact, to be Omniscience would require the argument for Solipsism. So all of what you think you are pondering, reasoning, feeling, or perceive would all have been infinitely known to your Omniscient entity before you ever existed.

Agreed...how does that then remove that He knows?  See the previous point above.  Solipsism?  And yet here we are.  Two entities in a discussion.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Hence there is no choice you could ever make that wouldn't already be known and judged. You could make no free choice or have free will when your supposed creator knows it all in infinite detail prior to your own existence.

This simply does not make sense.  Once again, in kind fashion, simply knowing the choice does not remove the freedom to choose.  It does not mesh at all.  

Quote from: "TheJackel"In fact, an Omniscient deity would be so infinitely knowing that it could and would actually be you in every infinite way! :/.. So you are not applying the paradox I posted for you to this argument.  :sigh:  At best its an argument to say he's righteous to murder, kill, hate, be evil, torture, break all the rules of morality, be dishonest, be unloving ect.

Not at all.  On the human level, is it morally wrong to use the death penalty?  One assumes that at that point, the accused is guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, however humanly, we make mistakes.  We are not omni-anything.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Basically you are collapsing everyone of those omni's.. You are making up excuses to justify anything it has done wrong.

Death or punishment/penalty, justly dealt, is wrong?  I'm glad you're not sitting on as a judge in any of our courts.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And that is a very poor message you want to send to people that might take that literally as justification for their own murderous rampages ect. That is how extremism is seeded and how cults are formed into dangerous religions. I've seen the Omni all argument before, and always to those that make the argument fail to actually understand it and the definitions of those omni's. I was really hoping you wouldn't go that route

I haven't.  I've plainly shown you're position as wrong.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThe point is that ALL people after Adam are tainted with sin.

Have any real evidence to support that? Again you are here making arguments of pure assumption and claiming them to be magical Facts.

Evidence you don't agree with.  So what next?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThe law demands perfection as God is perfect.

You just contradicted your above quoted argument.

Not at all, you seem to have missed the whole point.  Jesus is perfect and if we died in Christ, He died in our stead, a substitutional death/payment for sin, then we can justly be declared "perfect"...the quotes mean that while our state here, prior to Christ's coming and changing us, our state is sinful, while our standing, is perfect.  It is a gift and not that we are literally made perfect this side of life.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteLikewise ALL people after Christ (and prior) who by faith believe He has paid (would pay) their penalty are then declared sinless...not because they are, but because the price of sin has been paid by The Judge Himself and their righteousness is in Christ and not of themselves.  Justice is served.  No one can then claim that God is unfair or simply waves His wand at will and says you're ok, but you're not, without PROOF.  If the sinner is in Christ, then that sinner is dead through Christ already.

The red highlighted area is the crux to your own assertion and argument.

It's not.  See the above to explain again.  The proof is in Christ's death and the individual that holds faith in Christ, has perfection credited...do you understand what credit is?...to him/her as perfect.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteThink of it similar to a class-action lawsuit.

I'll be happy to sue your GOD for my human imperfections that include poor eyesight, low tolerance to circular arguments, the inability to be as perfect as he, ect. After-all it's a sin to be as powerful as the deity himself right?.

You're falling back into defense which does not help your argument.  The imperfections you speak of are a result of evil and not the result of design.  The design of Man was perfect, however the only perfect left in humanity is the ability to choose and think freely.

Your Atheism is proof.  Care to argue this?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteOne goes to court and pleads the case for many.  But you must include yourself in the lawsuit to gain if the lawsuit goes your way.  You cannot gain in the lawsuit if you haven't added yourself to it.

Yep, and I have judged your deity Guilty of Murder, and Genocide, abortion, hypocrisy, barring false witness, evil ect. All the evidence is written in his own words according to you. So he must be banished to eternal hell right?

And the many that have judged others to death for their crimes?  Are they guilty of the same?  The problem is you simply don't understand or refuse (I say more to the latter) to see that Man is tainted and that taint, sin, is the cause of evil in the world.  Please see my last post to Gawen on when it will/should end.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Give me one good rational reason why anyone should worship such hypocrisy as a GOD?

It's not hypocrisy.  I can't give you.  It is different for each person.  If you have no need of anything, what, short of God appearing to you, would change your mind?  Your question is a logical fallacy on your own ideals.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI hope I've cleared the misconception that omniscience is opposed to freewill or that "There is no possibility for "Free Will" under omniscience!  Simply knowing everyone's choices prior to the person(s) does not remove freewill.
If not, I'm open to more discussion.

I'm sorry AnimatedDirt but you didn't clear up the misconceptions because you still have yet to fully grasp the meaning of Omniscience and it's implications, and consequences.

I'm sorry, TheJackel if you fail to see that omniscience does not remove freewill.  If I have repeated myself, it is only because the same argument given deserves the same answer.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI disagree that God created evil.

So now are you backpedaling on the GOD being the Creator and Rule maker to all that exists..  Does that include this list? How does one design and create the following into existence?

Evil is not an existence of a substance, but of an action opposed to good.  Who is using logical fallacies to prove their own?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Contradiction 101.  

Yep, you certainly fell prey to this.

When you combine omniscience with omnipotence and perfect goodness, you have a trilemma -- really, a dilemma, because at most, you can only have one of these, because if you think about it, omniscience and omnipotence are essentially identical: the omnipotent being can do anything, which includes knowing something; and the omniscient being knows everything, including how to do anything.

The answer is obvious, and easy: the God of the Bible, by its own testimony, is at best amoral, and at worst evil.  I can understand the psychological reasons for not embracing this view, but there is no logical impediment to doing so.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When you combine omniscience with omnipotence and perfect goodness, you have a trilemma.  At most, you can only have one of these, because if you think about it, omniscience and omnipotence are essentially identical: the omnipotent being can do anything, which includes knowing something; and the omniscient being knows everything, including how to do anything.

I can agree to this, Thumpalumpacus, and this can also be discussed, that is the "dilemma" of omni and perfect goodness.  Although I don't claim to have the perfect answer to your satisfaction.

So.... there is evil in heaven?

Quote from: "Sophus"So.... there is evil in heaven?

Evil certainly did exist for a time in heaven, what amount of time it was between the thought and the casting out of heaven, I have no clue.  If freewill continues to exist, as I propose it will as evidenced by God's design into Man, then the potential seems to also exist in as "potential energy".  Good and Evil will always be known, never forgotten or unknown again...as to evil in action, it won't.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"So.... there is evil in heaven?

Evil certainly did exist for a time in heaven, what amount of time it was between the thought and the casting out of heaven, I have no clue.  If freewill continues to exist, as I propose it will as evidenced by God's design into Man, then the potential seems to also exist in as "potential energy".  Good and Evil will always be known, never forgotten or unknown again...as to evil in action, it won't.

Then heaven's not a utopia. Does this mean hell isn't a distopia?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"So.... there is evil in heaven?

Evil certainly did exist for a time in heaven, what amount of time it was between the thought and the casting out of heaven, I have no clue.  If freewill continues to exist, as I propose it will as evidenced by God's design into Man, then the potential seems to also exist in as "potential energy".  Good and Evil will always be known, never forgotten or unknown again...as to evil in action, it won't.

Then heaven's not a utopia. Does this mean hell isn't a distopia?

Hell is an end, not an existence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Hell is an end, not an existence.

Then I'm going to have to disagree with what others have said and assert you are not a fundamentalist.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Hell is an end, not an existence.

Then I'm going to have to disagree with what others have said and assert you are not a fundamentalist.

Why thank you!  I'll hold on to this warm feeling.  

As far as I'm concerned, every person who believes that the laws of Nature/physics changed or were tweaked to allow a god to impregnate a human female, create himself with flesh, sacrifice himself to himself to save naughty humans from his own wrath, and resurrect himself so he could sit on the right hand of himself is a fundamentalist.

Therefore, there are only degrees of fundamentalism.

QuoteI wasn't addressing you or your question here.

Irrelevant because I was addressing you regardless.

QuoteNot at all, and just because you say so, in no manner makes it so.  In "fact", it is exactly as I propose it is, omniscience does not preclude freewill.

Again intentionally ignoring the definition of Omniscience.

QuoteIt simply acknowledges what will happen.  It is not, therefore, the creator of the happenings.

Intentional attempt to pretend that the Definition of Omniscience doesn't magically apply while at the same time failing to realize oneself stating a contradiction of said being as being the creator to all things! When does the circular logic realize itself is circular?

QuoteIf God, as I mentioned, is omniscient...knows all, then He knows the best and only way to make a freewill being.

While yet again ignoring the definition of omniscient and applying it to infinitely everything! Please see the definition again please.

QuoteHaving absolute freewill, even God cannot therefore, control the actions of a freewill agent with absolute freewill.  It seems so elementary to me and yet you throw in all kinds of "philosophies" to disprove it when in simplest form it proves itself.

Incorrect.. You are now nullifying both Omniscience and Omnipotence! Circular logic will not get out out of this AnimatedDirt. Either use the terms correctly as they are defined or please stop using them. I am not tossing specifically "Philosophies" in your direction as I am in terms of the literal context of the definitions of Omniscience, and Omnipotence! If you can't address those properly, I don't think you should be using those terms at all AnimatedDirt.

QuoteAgreed...how does that then remove that He knows?  See the previous point above.  Solipsism?  And yet here we are.  Two entities in a discussion.

here you contradict yourself and then try to argue Solipsism. You can not under solipsism prove that you exist to me. Hence, you only exist at my willing, or argue because I choose to argue with myself. If you don't say anything, you don't exist until I have you say something even if I choose to have you argue against my position out of pure amusement to myself. However the point is, Omniscience would be the purist form of Solipsism! In order to infinitely know everything it would have to literally be the sum total of infinite everything!  

QuoteThis simply does not make sense.

Actually it completely makes sense. What part of "Infinitely Knows everything" do you not understand in regards to that AnimatedDirt?

QuoteOnce again, in kind fashion, simply knowing the choice does not remove the freedom to choose.  It does not mesh at all.

Actually it does.. It created you under your beliefs while knowing you would make all those choices. The freedom of choice and free will is lost when the creator already knows everything about you in infinite detail before you were ever placed into existence. Thus to state this again in a different way, anything you do, will do, or had done was already known, planned, judged, and fully understood in every infinite way before you were born. It's no different than a puppet show. Free will and choice is thus lost before you were even born. All Purpose becomes lost under Omniscience.

And I think the key word you are having trouble with here is the term Infinite.. As in not finite! To infinitely know everything is to know everything without bounds or limits!

QuoteIs this is a joke?  If it is, I would be glad to oblige you, but that wont get us anywhere in a discussion.  If it's not a joke, I have no idea what you're saying.

No it's not. So unless you want to retract Omniscience from the magical list of attributes of your supposed deity, you are going to have to comprehend what Infinitely knowing everything means in literal context!

QuoteDo you think you could make a choice or commit a sin that your Omniscient deity would not know about? Could you feel something It would not know you are feeling?
No.  This deity knows it all.  Omniscient.

I think you are starting to catch on while still being in denial ;)

QuoteYou forget the omnipotent part.  He is then powerful enough to be separate and create separate beings apart from this.

Ahh, but he can't create those things :sigh:

QuoteThe created made all it's own decisions that the Creator knew would lead it to the cliff.

Incorrect, it would know all of the above in infinite detail before, during, and after infinitely! From every infinite perspective, view, atom, or in any infinite way you could possibly and infinitely imagine! That includes him actually being you himself in order for him to know exactly every infinite detail of who you are.. To posses and know all information infinitely, the Said GOD would have to be the sum total of all existence itself! Information is all matter, energy, objects, things, patterns, or anything that is technically existent!. That is where information and energy are two sides of the same coin! Material physical structure, patterns, and complexities to which includes yourself. All things have information to offer because all things contain and are made of it, otherwise the absent of information is the absent of existence! There can be no idea, concept, choice, decision, thought, process, or anything without information in the material physical sense. So to state that something is Omniscient is to state that it's the Entire sum of all Existence!

Omniscience is conceptually the purist form of solipsism! Under that context, either all things are GOD or there are no GODS at all!.

QuoteIt's not.  Omniscience is knowing all, not dictating all.

Impossible to not dictate all if you infinitely know everything, especially when one claims such entity has created everything! And that is pretty hard to do when you are then the sum total of everything already!. If your argument were to have been true, the deity would not be omniscience to where your path was never pre-known and determined in it's infinite entirety, and itself would thus then be finite!. It inherently comes with the territory, and you are unwilling to address that. Just to put as an example more bluntly in different terms in regards to free will and dictatorship:

Where is my free will to never die?
Where is my free will to have my Cat here as long as I live?
Where is my free will to be as powerful as your deity?
Where is my free will to be not judged by some hypocrite entity?
Where us my free will to have my path not be pre-known and prejudged before I even existed?

It seems you don't really understand free will, or what a free agent really is. Or at least never really critically thought about it. Even without a GOD it's still a logical fallacy anyways.

QuoteWe are not arguing about nothings, but somethings.  Your statement above rests in the right if I am arguing about "non-existent beings"  Let's move back into reality.

Firstly it was equivocating and showing by example. Secondly, you continue to make assumptions and positing them as magical facts while trying to equivocate them to reality. Nice try though! :raised: (this is in reference to free will).. Did GOD know this before Lucifer was created? How would Lucifer freely choose from a path already known to become a reality before he ever existed? It's not hard to understand why Lucifer under the context of an Omniscient GOD to which supposedly created him could not possibly be liable for a path he can not possibly stray from! The choice had already been made! Hence your GOD's invention of murder through his own puppets! The Script was thus already written! :blink:

QuoteThere is no paradox in knowing all and creating freewill agents.  Knowing simply does not remove the ability of a free agent to choose freely.  Sorry.

Oh but there is because I wrote one! Avoidance and denial for sake of circular arguments? And since when was this specifically only about "free will" vs Omniscience as a whole being a Logical fallacy? Especially in conjunction with Omnipotence. Address the paradox and issue please and stop playing games!

QuoteNot at all.  On the human level, is it morally wrong to use the death penalty?  One assumes that at that point, the accused is guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, however humanly, we make mistakes.  We are not omni-anything.

WOW that was a deflection and a half.  lol

QuoteIt's not hypocrisy.

Now you don't know the definition of Hypocrisy? Seriously?

QuoteI can't give you.  It is different for each person.  If you have no need of anything, what, short of God appearing to you, would change your mind?  Your question is a logical fallacy on your own ideals.

preaching again? And it doesn't matter what came before my eyes, I don't worship things as "GODS". The entire concept is irrelevant to me. The GOD concept is entirely a concept of pure opinion and nothing more.

Example:

It can't create existence! Thus it is not a GOD, or even be all powerful and all knowing since it can't create what itself requires to exist. Thus is not the answer to existence what-so-ever! It's irrelevant to me if a more powerful or intelligent entity or being would exist or not!. In a world of Opinions, an Opinion is irrelevant to the world of Opinions! It only has relevance to that which has the opinion... So much for perfection in your supposed perfect deity only to be nullified by mere opinion!

Quote from: "Gawen"As far as I'm concerned, every person who believes that the laws of Nature/physics changed or were tweaked to allow a god to impregnate a human female, create himself with flesh, sacrifice himself to himself to save naughty humans from his own wrath, and resurrect himself so he could sit on the right hand of himself is a fundamentalist.

Therefore, there are only degrees of fundamentalism.

I would agree here.

I don't think that free will can exist completely at all, even in a godless universe. Add an omniscient god into the equation and you're just shit out of luck concerning free will.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that free will can exist completely at all, even in a godless universe. Add an omniscient god into the equation and you're just shit out of luck concerning free will.

That is very true ;P

Well Ad, I read your reply to me, but....the Bible does not support your version of free will:
Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7:13, Ephesians 1: 3-6, Ephesians 2: 4-10, Acts 13:48, Acts 15:18, Romans 8: 28-30, Roman 9: 10-21, 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-13, Titus 3:4-5, Revelation 13:8, Jude verse 4, Job 4:18, 2 Chron. 6:36, Ps. 51:5, Prov. 20:9, John 3:6,
St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and Calvin do not support your version.

The Bible denies free will and any element of choice in whatever good works one does because God has picked, before creation,who will do what good or bad deeds. God also punishes and rewards people on account of what God has chosen, in accordance with God's plan and purpose. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? It's immoral by any standard. A good god would simply choose everyone to conform to Jesus, to be blessed, to be 'blameless', but this still does away with free will.

Satan (2 Corinthians 11:14) is shown to have been created by God to be "a murderer from the beginning" â€" that is, from the very commencement of his creation he was already reckoned by God to be a murderer (John 8:44). So much for Lucifer's free will.

The Bible shows that evil is as much a part of God’s creation: 1 Samuel 2:6:7, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 54:16, Proverbs 16:4, Lamentations 3:37â€"38, Daniel 4:35, James 4:12, Acts 15:18

Also, an Omni-God cannot have free will. An all good god always chooses the path that causes the most good and therefore has no real choice. Because an all-knowing god instantly knows all of its future actions and its knowledge cannot be wrong, it therefore has no free will to choose otherwise. However a god with no free must adhere to its alignment (good, bad or morally indifferent). Now, if an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists, this automatically denies free will in humans. Paul, Aquinas, et al., seemed to figure this out. Why they, or anyone for that matter would believe in such a concept is beyond my ken.

If God has no free will but is good then there was no point creating evil to give humans free will because it is possible to be good with no free will. If God, angels and other beings in heaven have free will where there is no evil or suffering, then it cannot be true that god lets evil exist because it is a required side-effect of free will.

The way I see it, you simply have three choices:
1) God is Evil or
2) God is Amoral or
3) The Bible is not the Word of God

Quote from: "Gawen"Well Ad, I read your reply to me, but....the Bible does not support your version of free will:
Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7:13, Ephesians 1: 3-6, Ephesians 2: 4-10, Acts 13:48, Acts 15:18, Romans 8: 28-30, Roman 9: 10-21, 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-13, Titus 3:4-5 and Revelation 13:8, Jude verse 4, Job 4:18.
St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and Calvin do not support your version.

The Bible denies free will and any element of choice in whatever good works one does because God has picked, before creation,who will do what good or bad deeds. God also punishes and rewards people on account of what God has chosen, in accordance with God's plan and purpose. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? It's immoral by any standard. A good god would simply choose everyone to conform to Jesus, to be blessed, to be 'blameless', but this still does away with free will.

Satan (2 Corinthians 11:14) is shown to have been created by God to be "a murderer from the beginning" â€" that is, from the very commencement of his creation he was already reckoned by God to be a murderer (John 8:44). So much for Lucifer's free will.

The Bible shows that evil is as much a part of God’s creation: 1 Samuel 2:6:7, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 54:16, Proverbs 16:4, Lamentations 3:37â€"38, Daniel 4:35, James 4:12, Acts 15:18
You have two choices:

    * God is Evil or Amoral
      or
    * Much of The Bible is Not the Word of God

Also, an Omni-God cannot have free will. An all good god always chooses the path that causes the most good and therefore has no real choice. Because an all-knowing god instantly knows all of its future actions and its knowledge cannot be wrong, it therefore has no free will to choose otherwise. However a god with no free must adhere to its alignment (good, bad or morally indifferent). Now, if an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists, this automatically denies free will in humans. Paul, Aquinas, et al., seemed to figure this out. Why they, or anyone for that matter would believe in such a concept is beyond my ken.

If God has no free will but is good then there was no point creating evil to give humans free will because it is possible to be good with no free will. If God, angels and other beings in heaven have free will where there is no evil or suffering, then it cannot be true that god lets evil exist because it is a required side-effect of free will.

The way I see it, you simply have three choices:
You have two choices:
1) God is Evil or
2) God is Amoral or
3) The Bible is not the Word of God

What's even funnier is that GOD even asks Lucifer why he killed as if he was completely ignorant of it, or as if Lucifer didn't already know that he knew.  :rant:  

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that free will can exist completely at all, even in a godless universe. Add an omniscient god into the equation and you're just shit out of luck concerning free will.

That is very true ;P

Yes and no. I have enough free will to walk down to the corner store to buy some chips. I also know that my free will can be preempted by a multitude of factors (known and unknown) that would prevent me walking to the corner store at any step of the way or even buying the chips. Free will is free until something prevents the freedom.

Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Quote from: "TheJackel"What's even funnier is that GOD even asks Lucifer why he killed as if he was completely ignorant of it, or as if Lucifer didn't already know that he knew.  

I know. A veritable plethora of contradictions. Eh, but then again, maybe God was looking for some small talk with one of his angels....

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Oooops....fixed it...thanks.

I'm going to leave this topic alone for now. It'll be interesting to see how Ad and voter reconcile this. I don't see how it is possible, but I'm sure they will find a way.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't think that free will can exist completely at all, even in a godless universe. Add an omniscient god into the equation and you're just shit out of luck concerning free will.

That is very true ;P

Yes and no. I have enough free will to walk down to the corner store to buy some chips. I also know that my free will can be preempted by a multitude of factors (known and unknown) that would prevent me walking to the corner store at any step of the way or even buying the chips. Free will is free until something prevents the freedom.

You have some free will that is allowed. But true free will doesn't really exist as it's a logical fallacy itself :)

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Gawen"Yes and no. I have enough free will to walk down to the corner store to buy some chips. I also know that my free will can be preempted by a multitude of factors (known and unknown) that would prevent me walking to the corner store at any step of the way or even buying the chips. Free will is free until something prevents the freedom.

You have some free will that is allowed. But true free will doesn't really exist as it's a logical fallacy itself :)

yup...I agree

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Oooops....fixed it...thanks.

I'm going to leave this topic alone for now. It'll be interesting to see how Ad and voter reconcile this. I don't see how it is possible, but I'm sure they will find a way.

I'd say you've pretty much nailed it to the cross anyway (which is the main reason I've spectated and not posted much; no need to).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Oooops....fixed it...thanks.

I'm going to leave this topic alone for now. It'll be interesting to see how Ad and voter reconcile this. I don't see how it is possible, but I'm sure they will find a way.

I'd say you've pretty much nailed it to the cross anyway (which is the main reason I've spectated and not posted much; no need to).

*wicked evil grin*

It's why I chose my signature and avatar. I don't shoot from the hip (pray and spray). Set that bugger up on  a tripod, take deliberate aim and then give 'em the whole belt.

Thanks, though, for the compliment.

Quote from: "TheJackel"9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Jer. 23:24: "Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD."

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "TheJackel"9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Jer. 23:24: "Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD."

That would be an argument of Solipsism :) However to counter that:

Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things

This is a fun one too :P[/b]

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Oooops....fixed it...thanks.

I'm going to leave this topic alone for now. It'll be interesting to see how Ad and voter reconcile this. I don't see how it is possible, but I'm sure they will find a way.

I already have. Repeating an argument doesn't fortify it. Neither does patting each other on the back.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.  

Oooops....fixed it...thanks.

I'm going to leave this topic alone for now. It'll be interesting to see how Ad and voter reconcile this. I don't see how it is possible, but I'm sure they will find a way.

I already have.

Not to anyone's satisfaction except your own. Not a good way to win converts. And here I would have thought the holy spirit would have spoken through you to make it plain beyond belief how the bible says one doesn't have free will and voter says one does have free will.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Erm, that's three choices.

Otherwise, keep rockin' the logic.   :headbang:

Anyways, this was a debate and was never intended to offend your beliefs vs debate them. Cheers mate!  

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again intentionally ignoring the definition of Omniscience.

I have already and completely debunked your assertion; that omniscience precludes freewill.
It is wrong and cannot stand even on layman's terms.

Knowing the end infinitely does not remove the freewill choice given to choose.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Example with 4 words I can imagine countless iterations of the same thing, and develop an entire folklore, and ideological construct around it:

One
Eyed
Green
Monster

Produce ancient books/letters claiming such as there is a "Bible" to substanciate God and I'll take you more serious.
Without this, you're green god IS AS YOU SAY MINE IS, just an existence in your mind.

Quote from: "TheJackel"The problem is, it can't under the rules of Omniscience.

Rules?  LOL  You, a finite being is proposing rules for something infinite?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Your argument is as follows: It is Omniscience, but I don't acknowledge that in his omniscience, GOD knew Lucfier would do what he did

That, sir, is either you twisting my words to establish your own or simply unable to read and/or comprehend because of your bias.  I totally and completely do not deny God's omniscience...in fact I've stated that in His omniscience, God knew before hand that Lucifer would do/think what he did.  The fact is that Lucifer chose on his own to think...it was of his own making, and not Gods because of freewill God Himself gives/allows.

[strike:31ydb5pa]Get your arguments against me and omniscience straight plz.[/strike:31ydb5pa]

Edit: On second thought, that sounds rude.  Apologies.

Quote from: "Gawen"Not to anyone's satisfaction except your own.

If I don't get a response, I conclude it's to my opponents satisfaction (or consternation). Sorry if I missed a response. Also note that this isn't tag-team, and I'm not reading Jackel's stuff.

QuoteNot a good way to win converts.

I'm not trying to convert you.

QuoteAnd here I would have thought the holy spirit would have spoken through you to make it plain beyond belief how the bible says one doesn't have free will and voter says one does have free will.

I didn't argue in favor of free will, except to note that conclusions depend on definitions. Rather, I pointed out that, if you conclude that omniscience precludes free will, the greater argument - that God is unjust - fails. Again, sorry if I missed a response to that point, and if so please repeat it.

Thought there'd be a response by now. Let me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions, and define free will based on possible alternatives, then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

However, recall the main argument. People get so hung up on free will, they forget why it's important in the first place. The Bible doesn't come out and say that we have it, so it's not a direct Biblical defense. The point is that most people believe it's unjust to punish someone for an action if the person didn't have sufficient free will to choose to commit or not commit the act. So, critics think that if they establish that God's omniscience precludes man's free will, God is unjust for punishing man.

However, note that there is an unstated presumption in this argument - that man has a right to justice. This needs to be supported. Once on another site I posed the question, What gives something a right to justice? on its own. While opinions varied in detail, they all were based on some sort of autonomy. But, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice. So, the argument is self-defeating.

Similarly, the argument that omniscience precludes free will can usually be extended to god himself. So, if god has no free will, you have no right to judge him as unjust.

Another response takes omniscience a step further. Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god? If so, he can justly judge you on that basis. Or a corollary: an omnipotent, omniscient god could determine what we would be like without an omniscient god, and then in his omnipotence create that world.

Then there are the time travel analogies. Suppose there is no god and we have free will. I invent a time machine and go back to last Saturday with videotapes of last Sunday's football games. I keep them to myself. Does the mere existence of those tapes now preclude the players' free will?

And the definition of free will is important. The critic usually uses a definition based on possible alternatives, but you can also define it based on mental processes.

If you've read up on this topic, then you're aware of an interesting scenario that blends the alternatives and processes approaches. Suppose I'm an evil neuroscientist and want to kill Fred. I know that Alan also hates Fred and Alan owns a gun and will have opportunity. So, I proposition Alan to kill Fred, and he agrees. But, I don't trust that, so I drug Alan and implant a chip in his brain that gives me control over his actions. I'll watch him at the opportune time. If he kills Fred on his own, I do nothing. If he changes his mind, I flip the switch and he kills Fred anyway. In this scenario, Alan has no possible alternatives - he will kill Fred. But, is his moral culpability the same either way?

Another point - is an omniscient/omnipotent god necessarily continuously omniscient? I.e., can he turn omniscience off as he chooses? If so, then there are more scenarios to consider.

Quote from: "Voter"Another point - is an omniscient/omnipotent god necessarily continuously omniscient? I.e., can he turn omniscience off as he chooses? If so, then there are more scenarios to consider.

If it is by nature, I would say He can't turn it off.  By that scenario one could conclude He could simply turn off His Righteousness and omni-Judgeness and simply wave a wand and deem all perfect.

It is therefore my conclusion that God cannot simply turn on and off that which makes Him God.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"Another point - is an omniscient/omnipotent god necessarily continuously omniscient? I.e., can he turn omniscience off as he chooses? If so, then there are more scenarios to consider.

If it is by nature, I would say He can't turn it off.  By that scenario one could conclude He could simply turn off His Righteousness and omni-Judgeness and simply wave a wand and deem all perfect.

It is therefore my conclusion that God cannot simply turn on and off that which makes Him God.

Then he isn't omnipotent?

And, Voter, your argument fails -- because evil is evil, no matter if we have free will or not. Any omnipotent, omniscient, good god that would purposefully subject his beings to pain and suffering, especially on this magnitude, is evil, even if he's a puppet master (in this case, the master of puppets).

[youtube:3kvgum6w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-hEyVQDRA[/youtube:3kvgum6w]

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Then he isn't omnipotent?

I suppose you are able to turn off your humanity?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Then he isn't omnipotent?

I suppose you are able to turn off your humanity?

No. And you know why I'm not able to? I'm not omnipotent.

Quote from: "Voter"Thought there'd be a response by now.

Some of us have to work.

QuoteLet me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions,[strike:r8jnrj1c]and define free will based on possible alternatives[/strike:r8jnrj1c], then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

I do not define it that way, the Bible does. God is all knowing everywhen. I've given enough Biblical support that God has chosen all humans actions (before creation) until such time (that we have no clue when) he stops. If that is true, and the Bible says it is, there is no free will to define.

QuoteHowever, recall the main argument. People get so hung up on free will, they forget why it's important in the first place. The Bible doesn't come out and say that we have it, so it's not a direct Biblical defense.

That is true. But you can't go from no direct Biblical defense (support) to...

QuoteThe point is that most people believe

What should have come next is...

QuoteGod's omniscience precludes man's free will, God is unjust for punishing man.

Because that is precisely what is happening.

QuoteHowever, note that there is an unstated presumption in this argument - that man has a right to justice.

No.....nope. This only works if it's God's justice and we already know, through the Bible that god's justice does not exist.

QuoteThis needs to be supported.

It can't be supported because the Bible says otherwise.

QuoteOnce on another site I posed the question, What gives something a right to justice? on its own.

Totally different argument.

QuoteBut, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice. So, the argument is self-defeating.

Nope.

QuoteSimilarly, the argument that omniscience precludes free will can usually be extended to god himself.

Right.

QuoteSo, if god has no free will, you have no right to judge him as unjust.

Nope. If God has no free will...well, you see how corrupt the concept of an omni God is.

QuoteAnother response...Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god?

Non sequitor. I have no clue. All I can deal with is the one you claim is here now and what the Bible says about it.

 

QuoteThen there are the time travel analogies. Suppose there is no god and we have free will.

There is no suppose of time travel or a god that gives free will. The argument is fallacious. Another non sequitor and a red herring. Begs the question...etc. You are playing the "is-ought" problem. The Bible says what 'is'. You're saying what 'ought' to be.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Voter"Thought there'd be a response by now.

Some of us have to work.

QuoteLet me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions,[strike:3r61ihks]and define free will based on possible alternatives[/strike:3r61ihks], then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

I do not define it that way, the Bible does. God is all knowing everywhen.

Please support that. Jesus was able to give up omniscience.

QuoteI've given enough Biblical support that God has chosen all humans actions (before creation) until such time (that we have no clue when) he stops. If that is true, and the Bible says it is, there is no free will to define.

QuoteHowever, recall the main argument. People get so hung up on free will, they forget why it's important in the first place. The Bible doesn't come out and say that we have it, so it's not a direct Biblical defense.

That is true. But you can't go from no direct Biblical defense (support) to...

QuoteThe point is that most people believe

What should have come next is...

QuoteGod's omniscience precludes man's free will, God is unjust for punishing man.

Because that is precisely what is happening.

QuoteHowever, note that there is an unstated presumption in this argument - that man has a right to justice.

No.....nope.

Yes.....yep. No one faults Shakespeare for killing Romeo and Juliet because they have no right to justice. By your argument, we are just more complex characters in a more complex play. Explain why we have a right to justice.

Quote

QuoteThis needs to be supported.

It can't be supported because the Bible says otherwise.

It's not a Biblical point. What gives something a right to justice?

Quote

QuoteOnce on another site I posed the question, What gives something a right to justice? on its own.

Totally different argument.

No it's not. I've made the clear connection. Explain why we have a right to justice, or the argument collapses.

Quote

QuoteBut, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice. So, the argument is self-defeating.

Nope.

Why not?

Quote

QuoteSimilarly, the argument that omniscience precludes free will can usually be extended to god himself.

Right.

QuoteSo, if god has no free will, you have no right to judge him as unjust.

Nope. If God has no free will...well, you see how corrupt the concept of an omni God is.

What I see is hypocrisy on your part. God is unjust for judging despite lack of free will, but you're allowed to judge despite lack of free will. I also see a lot of Nopes with little explanation.

Quote

QuoteAnother response...Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god?

Non sequitor.

Of course it's a non sequitur - hence Another.

QuoteI have no clue. All I can deal with is the one you claim is here now and what the Bible says about it.

Why couldn't an omniscient being know this?

 

Quote

QuoteThen there are the time travel analogies. Suppose there is no god and we have free will.

There is no suppose of time travel or a god that gives free will. The argument is fallacious. Another non sequitor and a red herring. Begs the question...etc. You are playing the "is-ought" problem. The Bible says what 'is'. You're saying what 'ought' to be.

[/quote]
I'm making an analogy to explore the concept of free will and you're dodging. Suppose everyone has free will. Tomorrow I gain omniscience of all things past, present and future. Are all past events now devoid of free will?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"Another point - is an omniscient/omnipotent god necessarily continuously omniscient? I.e., can he turn omniscience off as he chooses? If so, then there are more scenarios to consider.

If it is by nature, I would say He can't turn it off.  By that scenario one could conclude He could simply turn off His Righteousness and omni-Judgeness and simply wave a wand and deem all perfect.

It is therefore my conclusion that God cannot simply turn on and off that which makes Him God.

Then it's not a defining characteristic of his nature, as Jesus plainly said there were some things that he didn't know - unless you deny the divinity of Christ?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, Voter, your argument fails -- because evil is evil, no matter if we have free will or not. Any omnipotent, omniscient, good god that would purposefully subject his beings to pain and suffering, especially on this magnitude, is evil, even if he's a puppet master (in this case, the master of puppets).

This fails in a number of ways, but first, I'm curious - where does omniscience even come into this argument? Is a being of limited power allowed to inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil? Or are you just tossing terms in without even thinking?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, Voter, your argument fails -- because evil is evil, no matter if we have free will or not. Any omnipotent, omniscient, good god that would purposefully subject his beings to pain and suffering, especially on this magnitude, is evil, even if he's a puppet master (in this case, the master of puppets).

This fails in a number of ways, but first, I'm curious - where does omniscience even come into this argument? Is a being of limited power allowed to inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil? Or are you just tossing terms in without even thinking?

Omniscience rules out any chance that he doesn't know the effects evil cause, or anything like that -- basically, it rules out the chance of mistake.

QuoteI have already and completely debunked your assertion; that omniscience precludes freewill.
It is wrong and cannot stand even on layman's terms.

 lol. You seriously think you are going to win a debate you had lost by magically claiming you debunked something you never even directly addressed? If you think circular logic and avoiding the argument is winning or debunking, it's no wonder why you can't seem to handle reality. sheesh, all people want from you and Voter is some honesty discourse :sigh:

QuoteProduce ancient books/letters claiming such as there is a "Bible" to substanciate God and I'll take you more serious.
Without this, you're green god IS AS YOU SAY MINE IS, just an existence in your mind.

Remember where I told you to grow up above? Try addressing the argument within it's context and stop deflecting into irrelevant subjects that aren't even related to argument I posted. Stop preaching AnimatedDirt and learn how partake in honest discourse! It's irrelevant when Books are written kiddo!, And "Letters" in a book don't substantiate the existence of anything other than the letters, or that someone had an idea or belief! When you can actually be honest AnimatedDirt, you might actually start becoming relevant in this discussion.

QuoteRules?  LOL  You, a finite being is proposing rules for something infinite?

Really, If I am finite there is no infinite Omniscient being, Hello! Myself alone automatically would make any other mind finite! Separated.Hence there is informational boundaries between my consciousness and everyone else! So unless you want to call me GOD AnimatedDirt, I suggest you rethink your position! It it were Omniscient kiddo, it would have to posses my own consciousness as it's own! It would have to literally be ME! You clearly don't understand what infinite means do you? Omniscient being would have to be the sum total of all existence! AKA THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL INFORMATION! Pure Solipsism lol. The highlighted text was in contradiction of many of your own arguments Animated dirt... You keep saying gives and allows as if that magically makes any sense under omniscience! So again, get out that video camera and pretend to play GOD!. Try creating something that you know everything about infinitely and then try and have it have free will that would or could defy that path to which you already know! NOT GUNNA HAPPEN!!! The creation could never choose it's own path!

So try and choose your own path Animated dirt apart from your Omniscient GOD's knowing to which extends back to the moment of your supposed creation :P Just like a movie character in a movie already recorded! It will never magically just start doing it's own thing!.. Nice placebo free will you got that sir!

Quote[strike:1dz7auoa]Get your arguments against me and omniscience straight plz.[/strike:1dz7auoa]

Edit: On second thought, that sounds rude.  Apologies.

[/quote][/quote]

If you Learn how to use definitions of words properly, we wouldn't have this problem  :pop:

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, Voter, your argument fails -- because evil is evil, no matter if we have free will or not. Any omnipotent, omniscient, good god that would purposefully subject his beings to pain and suffering, especially on this magnitude, is evil, even if he's a puppet master (in this case, the master of puppets).

This fails in a number of ways, but first, I'm curious - where does omniscience even come into this argument? Is a being of limited power allowed to inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil? Or are you just tossing terms in without even thinking?

Just to make this clearer, you can look at it like this:

Energy and information are two sides of the same coin literally! Everything that exists can be considered information. To be Omniscent would require the entity to be existence itself in it's entirety! To know everything infinitely it would have to BE everything in the literal most infinite context! Pure Solipsism! You may as call existence one giant brain and anything it imagines is just figments of it's imagination and nothing more! However, that would be rather funny to have GOD worship itself as GOD or damn little parts of itself to hell :headbang:

However, if you actually take the time to address the paradox that nullifies Omniscience to the point of being nothing more than a logical fallacy, you wouldn't even still be arguing this. :sigh:

QuoteI'm making an analogy to explore the concept of free will and you're dodging. Suppose everyone has free will. Tomorrow I gain omniscience of all things past, present and future. Are all past events now devoid of free will?

First read the above post of mine, next define omniscience, and then directly address the paradoxes below please. I do appreciate to see at least one of you heading in that direction and trying to address the issue :)  


The Paradoxes :

Can an Omnipotent and Omniscient Entity design and create something that can do or think that which it would not already know in complete infinite detail before it was created, during it's entire existence, and after it's existence?

OR:

Can an Omniscient Entity Create something that which it does not already know? Could it create anything at all if it's Omniscient (infinitely all knowing)?


Omniscient entity would also defy creation itself because the action could never exist if something infinitely knows everything! It would be like a giant picture it couldn't do anything with or to because itself would be the picture! It would just be a picture of the infinite past and future! It would be impossible to have created anything at all! It would all just simply have existed! All purpose, and free will would be lost!

Either please address these Paradoxes AnimatedDirt, and Voter, or don't bother arguing the subject.  :) If you say yes, I suggest you lay out in detail how exactly that would happen in scientific like logic, and not in fantasy land "just because I have faith it can". ok?  

I just have to ask (a test for perversity    ) would Yahweh's excuse for allowing evil be superior for some reason to other gods? In other words, you can understand why, say, Allah had to make/allow for evil to come into existence yes?

Quote from: "Sophus"I just have to ask (a test for perversity  :P As in it couldn't out of free will just let existence be an utter place of pure bliss :headbang:

So everyone go make them GOD's happy and start killing things like baby bunnies!

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI'm making an analogy to explore the concept of free will and you're dodging. Suppose everyone has free will. Tomorrow I gain omniscience of all things past, present and future. Are all past events now devoid of free will?

First read the above post of mine, next define omniscience, and then directly address the paradoxes below please. I do appreciate to see at least one of you heading in that direction and trying to address the issue :)  


The Paradoxes :



OR:

Can an Omniscient Entity Create something that which it does not already know? Could it create anything at all if it's Omniscient (infinitely all knowing)?


Omniscient entity would also defy creation itself because the action could never exist if something infinitely knows everything! It would be like a giant picture it couldn't do anything with or to because itself would be the picture! It would just be a picture of the infinite past and future! It would be impossible to have created anything at all! It would all just simply have existed! All purpose, and free will would be lost!

Either please address these Paradoxes AnimatedDirt, and Voter, or don't bother arguing the subject.  :) If you say yes, I suggest you lay out in detail how exactly that would happen in scientific like logic, and not in fantasy land "just because I have faith it can". ok?  :(
Why do you people think it's bad to kill baby's or rape women or murder for money?

About your Paradox.

1. You use your own human logic  (Human capacity has limits).

2. I'll try to answer.
Omnipotent - Creating is as in physical shape, in matter.
Omniscience - As in knowing all and KNOW what to create without giving it a shape(life) in physical form.


A human examle.
I do know how to cook eggs, without doing it.
how do I know? I did it before.
This is an example of limits, humans only learn by experience.
Your paradox is true for humans because it transcends our limits.
But you can't use this paradox for God, therefore it's false.

God is not limitted by human intellect. (point 1)
He already knows how to create eggs without ever have done it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, Voter, your argument fails -- because evil is evil, no matter if we have free will or not. Any omnipotent, omniscient, good god that would purposefully subject his beings to pain and suffering, especially on this magnitude, is evil, even if he's a puppet master (in this case, the master of puppets).

This fails in a number of ways, but first, I'm curious - where does omniscience even come into this argument? Is a being of limited power allowed to inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil? Or are you just tossing terms in without even thinking?

Omniscience rules out any chance that he doesn't know the effects evil cause, or anything like that -- basically, it rules out the chance of mistake.

You ruled that out by saying "purposefully." Again I ask, is a being of limited power/knowledge allowed to (this time I'll add for consistency) purposefully inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Can an Omnipotent and Omniscient Entity design and create something that can do or think that which it would not already know in complete infinite detail before it was created, during it's entire existence, and after it's existence?[/size]

Possibly. If an entity is omniscient now, that does not necessarily imply that it has continuously been omniscient. I raised that topic in my main post.

QuoteCan an Omniscient Entity Create something that which it does not already know?

Possibly. See above.

QuoteCould it create anything at all if it's Omniscient (infinitely all knowing)?[/size][/b][/color]

Sure. If it's infinitely all knowing, it would know the outcome of all possible creations, and copuld then choose which, if any, to create.

BTW your use of sizes and colors is really annoying and immature. ETA: and the overuse of smilies, too. Drama is a coverup for a weak position.

QuoteI thought I already explained this issue of evil in my topic, but no one bothered to react= lol As if defecting to the other side of the argument would win the argument    

QuoteGod is not limitted by human intellect. (point 1)
He already knows how to create eggs without ever have done it.

I am not limited to your intellect point 2. And please provide evidence of this.. Because again under that argument you fail to realize no limits to knowledge base would require me to be GOD himself! You can not know infinitely everything without knowing exactly what it's like to actually and literally BE INFINITELY everything at all times, and within every infinitely eternal moment! Omniscience would require your supposed deity to be the entire sum total of existence! And even then it would FAIL under the paradoxes.

Quote from: "Voter"You ruled that out by saying "purposefully." Again I ask, is a being of limited power/knowledge allowed to (this time I'll add for consistency) purposefully inflict pain and suffering on others without being evil?

It depends on the circumstances, but generally, no. I'd say it depends on how much pain and suffering  that being causes, though, and his intentions.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"Another point - is an omniscient/omnipotent god necessarily continuously omniscient? I.e., can he turn omniscience off as he chooses? If so, then there are more scenarios to consider.

If it is by nature, I would say He can't turn it off.  By that scenario one could conclude He could simply turn off His Righteousness and omni-Judgeness and simply wave a wand and deem all perfect.

It is therefore my conclusion that God cannot simply turn on and off that which makes Him God.

Then it's not a defining characteristic of his nature, as Jesus plainly said there were some things that he didn't know - unless you deny the divinity of Christ?

Great point.  I was thinking about this last night.  While it is true, Jesus, was able to lay down some nature of God, omnipresent, (and omniscience seemingly on one point specifically that comes to mind) it was that God took on physical form or created form.
I do not deny the divinity of Christ.  Christ was fully God and fully Man.

My above point was speaking of God as in God the Father...as a Trinity, in His/its natural form and function.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuotePossibly. If an entity is omniscient now, that does not necessarily imply that it has continuously been omniscient. I raised that topic in my main post.

Fail, you are now pleading a contradiction. It either is or isn't! make up your mind .

Why must omniscience be continual? Can you give a reason, rather than (or at least in addition to) pronouncements of failure?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuotePossibly. If an entity is omniscient now, that does not necessarily imply that it has continuously been omniscient. I raised that topic in my main post.

Fail, you are now pleading a contradiction. It either is or isn't! make up your mind :|  So where does all that information GO Voter? It magically falls out of your deities head and on to the floor? And what purpose would that server anyways :drool  Must evolve again!... Sounds an awful lot like existence itself and everything that makes up existence to me to where you are arguing that it would only finitely know everything as currently is. Even then you are arguing for Solipsism! That however would defy Omniscient entity to infinitely know everything infinitely!. Especially when you try and argue something to be eternal and not bound to time to where it would be the eternal future and past.


Regardless, what makes a GOD not a GOD voter is the very fact that it's slave to require many of those things on that list I gave you. It's the substance to which all things are made of and require that is the source origin of existence. The substance of existence itself. This is why no mind can solve infinite regress or ever be the source origin as to why things are here, and why existence exists!. It's what we and everything else is made of to which can be considered the GOD element of existence.. We all require and are slave to those very same rules in order to exist.

So yes, there is no such thing as consciousness without cause

Quote from: "TheJackel"Because if it's not.. How does one thing go from being infinitely everything to a finite something?

First, it's a matter of knowledge, not being, unless you want to support your claim that energy and information are one and the same.

Second, don't you understand the meaning of the word omnipotent?

QuoteAnd worse you are making the argument that your so called GOD goes from being a GOD to not being a GOD and back again as if that makes any logical sense.

No I don't, unless you support that a god must necessarily be continually omniscient.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Great point.  I was thinking about this last night.  While it is true, Jesus, was able to lay down some nature of God, omnipresent, (and omniscience seemingly on one point specifically that comes to mind) it was that God took on physical form or created form.
I do not deny the divinity of Christ.  Christ was fully God and fully Man.

My above point was speaking of God as in God the Father...as a Trinity, in His/its natural form and function.

Personally I don't logically see why God couldn't completely lay aside omniscience for a time. However, I don't think that happened. I put it out there as one possible explanation, but I think some of the others are better.

QuoteWhy do you think it's bad to do anything of the sort at all?

See my topic 'Why are we here? - Islam'

QuoteThe reaction was simple I believe in the answer that those could all simply be rendered non-existent, especially when Free will is already a Logical Fallacy anyways. Apparently theists think a supposed all Powerful and Omniscient being is in capable of creating a Universe of pure bliss! Right there contradicts Power and Omniscience.

Once again, see my topic.

QuoteNeither here answered the paradoxes ore even remotely addressed them. In fact both your answers completely avoided doing so.  Your first answer was an excuse/deflection entirely to which is shown as an admission that yourself is not capable of addressing the argument what-so-ever. The second answer actually contradicts Omniscience entirely and thus fails  entirely.

First of all, do you acknowledge that the human intellect has limits?
Second, why do you imply that a paradox invented by humans would also be applicable to God?

I really don't understand what you're saying, you did not respond to my answer at all.
Actually you ignored my respond by not even quoting parts. just saying 'you're ignoring me'.

QuoteIrrelavent to the argument entirely!

Why? Explain. My human interpretations are irrelevant but yours are towards God?

QuoteAnd I most certainly can use this paradox for your supposed GOD because I just did!.

I missed something...

QuoteNot our problem that you can't handle dealing with direct Contradictions that are impossible logical fallacies! It's the same logical fallacy that Theists make when they say their GOD transcends material-physicality and is magically non-material Hence the NOTHING made of NOTHING! GOD  :raised:

Not about the paradox anymore, but jumping to other subjects. I am not following you anymore.

Give a more clear respond, I am not following you at all.
Somehow you apply limits of human logic like you can't be positive and negative at the same time on God.
This is no argument....

Quote from: "iSok"

QuoteWhy do you think it's bad to do anything of the sort at all?

See my topic 'Why are we here? - Islam'

QuoteThe reaction was simple I believe in the answer that those could all simply be rendered non-existent, especially when Free will is already a Logical Fallacy anyways. Apparently theists think a supposed all Powerful and Omniscient being is in capable of creating a Universe of pure bliss! Right there contradicts Power and Omniscience.

Once again, see my topic.

QuoteNeither here answered the paradoxes ore even remotely addressed them. In fact both your answers completely avoided doing so.  Your first answer was an excuse/deflection entirely to which is shown as an admission that yourself is not capable of addressing the argument what-so-ever. The second answer actually contradicts Omniscience entirely and thus fails  entirely.

First of all, do you acknowledge that the human intellect has limits?
Second, why do you imply that a paradox invented by humans would also be applicable to God?

I really don't understand what you're saying, you did not respond to my answer at all.
Actually you ignored my respond by not even quoting parts. just saying 'you're ignoring me'.

QuoteIrrelavent to the argument entirely!

Why? Explain. My human interpretations are irrelevant but yours are towards God?

QuoteAnd I most certainly can use this paradox for your supposed GOD because I just did!.

I missed something...

QuoteNot our problem that you can't handle dealing with direct Contradictions that are impossible logical fallacies! It's the same logical fallacy that Theists make when they say their GOD transcends material-physicality and is magically non-material Hence the NOTHING made of NOTHING! GOD  :raised:

Not about the paradox anymore, but jumping to other subjects. I am not following you anymore.

Give a more clear respond, I am not following you at all.
Somehow you apply limits of human logic like you can't be positive and negative at the same time on God.

So, you're saying that God is above all human logic and intellect. Why? He made us, supposedly in his image to boot -- why would he make it so that we couldn't understand him at all? Furthermore, why wouldn't he make himself fit into the rules of logic, rules he made?

Why would you try to understand a being that can't be understood? Why bother worshiping it?

Quote from: "TheJackel"lol  You have done no such thing. Saying you did does not magically make is so :blink:

What I think is funny is that you're so blind as to not see the comedic irony in that you did the same thing a page or two back, got a few pats on the back from some individuals, then claim the opposite for me when I do as you did but where you're not completely correct, I am.

The fact is, omniscience has been addressed.  It has not been avoided.  Infinite knowledge does not preclude a being with absolute freewill, freewill/free choice.  

If God is omni- then He has the power and the knowledge to create a being with absolute freewill.  The failure is not in the Creator, but in the agent that is able to choose death over life.  God created a perfect freewill agent.  That is no mistake.  That Evil entered into creation actively and didn't remain conceptual, isn't the "will" of God that it happen, but a natural by-product of a freewill agent (that God set out to make and did so perfectly) that isn't God AND that doesn't have knowledge of Good and Evil.  His omnipotence shines through that He is able to reconcile this freewill agent BACK to Himself (legally) even though the agent is tainted.  His omnilove shines through in that God Himself pays the penalty of evil to do so.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackass"lol  You have done no such thing. Saying you did does not magically make is so :blink:

What I think is funny is that you're so blind as to not see the comedic irony in that you did the same thing a page or two back, got a few pats on the back from some individuals, then claim the opposite for me when I do as you did but where you're not completely correct, I am.

The fact is, omniscience has been addressed.  It has not been avoided.  Infinite knowledge does not preclude a being with absolute freewill, freewill/free choice.   :headbang:   That Evil entered into creation actively and didn't remain conceptual, isn't the "will" of God that it happen, but a natural by-product of a freewill agent (that God set out to make and did so perfectly) that isn't God AND that doesn't have knowledge of Good and Evil.  His omnipotence shines through that He is able to reconcile this freewill agent BACK to Himself (legally) even though the agent is tainted. :yay:

I formatted it in a way he might better understand.

Quote from: "Voter"Why must omniscience be continual? Can you give a reason, rather than (or at least in addition to) pronouncements of failure?

Talk about splitting hairs...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God is omni- then He has the power and the knowledge to create a being with absolute freewill.  The failure is not in the Creator, but in the agent that is able to choose death over life.  God created a perfect freewill agent.  That is no mistake.  

The Bible does not support this view.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God is omni- then He has the power and the knowledge to create a being with absolute freewill.  The failure is not in the Creator, but in the agent that is able to choose death over life.  God created a perfect freewill agent.  That is no mistake.  

The Bible does not support this view.

The tree is the support, the entering of pride is THE support.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God is omni- then He has the power and the knowledge to create a being with absolute freewill.  The failure is not in the Creator, but in the agent that is able to choose death over life.  God created a perfect freewill agent.  That is no mistake.  

The Bible does not support this view.

The tree is the support, the entering of pride is THE support.

I don't know. The Hebrew Bible lays it all down. It's pretty much cut and dried. It seems to me with your "The Way" religion, you have created for yourselves a false Yahweh. Obviously such a group has a deep seated hatred against the True Yahweh of the Jews...

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Voter"Why must omniscience be continual? Can you give a reason, rather than (or at least in addition to) pronouncements of failure?

Talk about splitting hairs...

No, let's talk about the several arguments I put up in refutation of your position.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Voter"Why must omniscience be continual? Can you give a reason, rather than (or at least in addition to) pronouncements of failure?

Talk about splitting hairs...

No, let's talk about the several arguments I put up in refutation of your position.

Sure, which pages are they on?

Quote from: "Gawen"I don't know. The Hebrew Bible lays it all down. It's pretty much cut and dried. It seems to me with your "The Way" religion, you have created for yourselves a false Yahweh. Obviously such a group has a deep seated hatred against the True Yahweh of the Jews...

Care to support this?
Here's an excerpt from a Jewish page on the nature of man (http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm):
People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.

And on the nature of God (http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm):
G-d is Omnipresent
G-d is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope. He is always near for us to call upon in need, and He sees all that we do. Closely tied in with this idea is the fact that G-d is universal. He is not just the G-d of the Jews; He is the G-d of all nations.

G-d is Omnipotent
G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d's omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.

G-d is Omniscient
G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.

Quote from: "Gawen"Sure, which pages are they on?

Looks like you quit responding on page 17 in my view.

Maybe we should restart this debate. It seems to have gotten slightly out-of-hand.

And since we're on the subject of why God made evil, let's talk about the conundrum called...*cue ominous Dum dum duuuuum music here*...Satan. The Hebrew word "HaSatan" means "the adversary."
Satan is depicted as tempting humans before God, but the Bible paints a picture of a humanity which is inclined towards evil anyway. Satan is like the kid down the block who egged you on to do something bad that you wanted to do anyways and then he's the prosecuting attorney, bringing charges against humanity. But, is Satan against God's plans for man or is he part of God's plans for man?

To some degree, God appears to allow Satan limited autonomy, or free will. He is confined to Earth, for example. When Jesus makes his second coming, Satan gets locked up for 1,000 years so humanity will continue to sin in his absence, proving to us that we are wretched sinners and it was never Satan's fault in the first place. Finally, Satan is released from prison so that God can throw him in a pit of fire, where he will burn forever.  

I mean, really...could one think Satan would go along with God's plans for him if he had the choice? If not, then would it be too much of a stretch to say Satan would do whatever he can to prevent the circumstances that would lead to his demise? It seems that he would if he could, but he can't. Every time Satan tries to thwart God, it turns out God was playing him all along.

I have wondered this from time to time. What happens when Satan reads the Book of Revelation? If God has put his entire game plan in there, Satan must surely have a winning plan ready for the big day. I mean, it's not like God's going to interfere with his Free Willâ,,¢ and make him forget he read it, right? On the other hand, if what is written in Revelation is what's going to happen, Satan has no Free Willâ,,¢. He's not a sock puppet....he's a character in a film that's been foreordained - predestined to fail. As are we all. And the sad part is Satan knows it. What an awful existence that must be.

Quote from: "Gawen"I don't know.

Finally. Some honest reflection.

Quote from: "Gawen"I mean, really...could one think Satan would go along with God's plans for him if he had the choice? If not, then would it be too much of a stretch to say Satan would do whatever he can to prevent the circumstances that would lead to his demise? It seems that he would if he could, but he can't. Every time Satan tries to thwart God, it turns out God was playing him all along.

It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

If that's true, then Satan is truly an idiot. The biggest idiot in all of literature. His stupidity cannot be calculated.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

If that's true, then Satan is truly an idiot. The biggest idiot in all of literature. His stupidity cannot be calculated.

I'd agree that Satan's idiocy is part of the Judeo-Christian model.  It's a bit of propaganda really.  Nobody wants to be thought of as following an idiot, do they?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Gawen"Sure, which pages are they on?

Looks like you quit responding on page 17 in my view.

I reckon I did. I don't remember seeing this post. Sorry 'bout that.

QuoteLet me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions,and define free will based on possible alternatives, then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

QuoteI do not define it that way, the Bible does. God is all knowing everywhen.

QuoteI do not define it that way, the Bible does. God is all knowing everywhen.

Quote[1]Please support that. [2]Jesus was able to give up omniscience.

1. I already have. 2. Then Jesus was not God. You have a very large paradox here or you're splitting hairs. God the father knew what was happening - going to happen to Jesus. Jesus, the God would have to know what was going on.
Mark 2:5: "Son, your sins are forgiven".
Isaiah 43:25, and 44:22, God states that the forgiveness of sins is something that the true God does as opposed to Idols.
Mk 2:7: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Note that Jesus does not say that they were incorrect in their belief. Instead he says:
Mark 2:9:"Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'?"  
Jesus could do both, he could forgive sins as easily as he could heal. Since only God can forgive sins Jesus had to believe he was God. God is Omnipresent (Psalms 139:7-12), yet Jesus also claimed this.
Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Note that this happens before the resurrection. After the resurrection:
Matt 28:20: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I can give you more instances, but this should suffice. The paradox is God the father is omniscient. God Jesus is not. The paradox is of your own doing. A paradox that needs not be.

QuoteYes.....yep. No one faults Shakespeare for killing Romeo and Juliet because they have no right to justice. By your argument, we are just more complex characters in a more complex play. Explain why we have a right to justice.

As social beings, we have a right for justice. If I punch you in the face, you have 4 choices:
1) Eye for an eye - reciprocate accordingly
2) Turn the other cheek - no justice at all
3) Seek justice in a legal fashion - police and attorneys
4) Forget about it - no justice at all

I honestly think I do not need to explain to you why there is a justice system. And I (along with several others) have already told you that God is unjust for punishing man for something God had written (planned) before creation.

QuoteBut, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice.

That is true and the Bible supports it. I have given you scriptural evidence in support of it.

QuoteI also see a lot of Nopes with little explanation.

It has already been explained by others and myself. I can't MAKE you wrap your head around it.

QuoteI'm making an analogy to explore the concept of free will and you're dodging.

The analogies do not fit.

QuoteSuppose everyone has free will. Tomorrow I gain omniscience of all things past, present and future. Are all past events now devoid of free will?

Nope. But if you predestine our every thought and deed, like YHWH, then all our free will is moot.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Gawen"I don't know.

Finally. Some honest reflection.

Quote from: "Gawen"I mean, really...could one think Satan would go along with God's plans for him if he had the choice? If not, then would it be too much of a stretch to say Satan would do whatever he can to prevent the circumstances that would lead to his demise? It seems that he would if he could, but he can't. Every time Satan tries to thwart God, it turns out God was playing him all along.

It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

*huge sigh*....but what you're not understanding is Satan was MADE that way. It isn't his fault. Preordained...predestined....whatever you wish to call it, God's plan was already made up before it was put into motion.

Quote from: "Gawen"*huge sigh*....but what you're not understanding is Satan was MADE that way. It isn't his fault. Preordained...predestined....whatever you wish to call it, God's plan was already made up before it was put into motion.

*huge sigh right back*... what you don't understand is that Satan was a perfectly made agent with absolute freewill able to choose regardless of the known outcome.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

If that's true, then Satan is truly an idiot. The biggest idiot in all of literature. His stupidity cannot be calculated.

Is a child who knows they are wrong but insists on stomping their feet screaming, "No, no, no!" truly an idiot or just an intelligence refusing to acknowledge the truth.  Pride makes all of us do many stupid things, doesn't necessarily mean we are stupid.

Quote from: "Gawen"1. I already have.

No you haven't. Please give a logical reason that an omniscient being must necessarily be continuously omniscient.

QuoteI can give you more instances, but this should suffice. The paradox is God the father is omniscient. God Jesus is not. The paradox is of your own doing. A paradox that needs not be.

It's not a paradox, as omniscience is apparently not a defining attribute of deity in Christianity.

QuoteAs social beings,

If our every thought is put there by God, we are not beings, social or otherwise.

QuoteI honestly think I do not need to explain to you why there is a justice system. And I (along with several others) have already told you that God is unjust for punishing man for something God had written (planned) before creation.

Don't I know it. You guys just keep repeating it and dancing around my arguments.

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose I had the time to program a series of thoughts to run through a computer. As the program's running, I kick the computer. Am I evil? Why?
 

Quote

QuoteBut, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice.

That is true and the Bible supports it. I have given you scriptural evidence in support of it.

Here you're agreeing that we have no right to justice. I presume this is an error.

If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

Quote from: "Voter"Here's another way to look at it. Suppose I had the time to program a series of thoughts to run through a computer. As the program's running, I kick the computer. Am I evil? Why?

No, because the program is not human -- it is not intelligent, it does not have feelings or emotions, it cannot feel pain or suffer. Your analogy fails.

Quote from: "Voter"If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

And what if one accepts neither?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

And what if one accepts neither?

Then we have free will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's called pride in thinking he is right/equal/better than God.

If that's true, then Satan is truly an idiot. The biggest idiot in all of literature. His stupidity cannot be calculated.

Is a child who knows they are wrong but insists on stomping their feet screaming, "No, no, no!" truly an idiot or just an intelligence refusing to acknowledge the truth.  Pride makes all of us do many stupid things, doesn't necessarily mean we are stupid.

Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

Quote from: "Voter"If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

A good point, one I am struggling with. It is one of the reasons why I think our legal system should focus entirely on rehabilitation, not vengeance or punishment.

Suppose we have free will. I then invent a time machine and go back in time to Saturday with tapes of last Sunday's football games. Does the mere existence of these tapes remove the players' free will? This goes directly to the point of whether foreknowledge (what you guys should really be arguing, rather than omniscience) precludes free will.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

I agree Satan is a bit dim but it's ok, he's a fictional figure, as you say - lacking believability can be one of such a character's main characteristics.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

Satan obviously doesn't believe all the facts you list. How can you not see this... :brick:  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

You know your ultimate future...are you stupid to endeavor to have joy or freedom, to not harm others?  If there is no meaning to life and each puts meaning into their own life, then from one on the outside looking in, you are just as stupid.

Thank you for establishing that Lucifer/Satan isn't all that smart to continue in his folly.  So his driving force is not intelligence, but... P-R-I-...  I'll let you finish the word.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

And what if one accepts neither?

Then we have free will.

Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

Quote from: "Davin"Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

So your point in asking about what one accepts was...?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

So your point in asking about what one accepts was...?

So what you had to say about what accepting things has to do with reality.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

So your point in asking about what one accepts was...?

So what you had to say about what accepting things has to do with reality.

I don't think you're so stupid that you don't understand the expression in context, so I presume you're bored and trolling. Good-bye.

Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god? If so, he can justly judge you on that basis. Or a corollary: an omnipotent, omniscient god could determine what we would be like without an omniscient god, and then in his omnipotence create that world.

Quote from: "Voter"I don't think you're so stupid that you don't understand the expression in context, so I presume you're bored and trolling. Good-bye.

There wasn't much context to go off of, assumptions make a troll, not asking for clarification. As I wasn't trying to provoke you, cause any drama nor was I rude, I really think calling me a troll is at odds with my behavior. I had not even called your thoughts, you or AnimatedDirt stupid or even implied it in this conversation, only sought to understand your point of view.

In fact I had bowed out of the conversation when it had appeared that we both had no more new ground to cover on the conversation, which as people know of trolls is not troll behavior. We likely would still be going over the same things right now if I had not left the conversation. I'm sure AnimatedDirt appreciates me not continuing when we reached a stand still in the discussion even though I probably still continued longer than I should have. Still not a trollish behavior.

Quote from: "Voter"Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god? If so, he can justly judge you on that basis. Or a corollary: an omnipotent, omniscient god could determine what we would be like without an omniscient god, and then in his omnipotence create that world.

So... wait- what? How does this justify allowing evil exist if he knows how you would act under every hypothetical circumstance? That means this life isn't a test. He can virtually simulate it in his mind and, according  to you, cast fair judgement in doing so.

QuoteFirst, it's a matter of knowledge, not being, unless you want to support your claim that energy and information are one and the same.

False! To know everything infinitely Voter you would have to be infinitely everything! You want to know what it is to be me in every infinite way Voter, You would have to actually and literally BE ME! The concept of information is applicable to all matter, energy, and things that exist Voter. I think this is where you get confused, and that is probably because you seem to have the concept that information is only data while neglecting to realize all data is material physical patterns  or arrangements of material. That includes everything that I am, and what makes me what and who I am!  This is the definition of infinite information in the context within Omnsicience! So the concepts of information is not just "DATA".  Information is all that makes up any person, place, object, pattern, structure, or thing.

QuoteSecond, don't you understand the meaning of the word omnipotent?

I do know what it means. You clearly do not properly apply it's meaning to understand why it's a logical fallacy! Nor do you address why that is a logical fallacy. Go back and read that list I gave you please. Your supposed GOD can not create or be the source origin to existence LOL. Nor can it solve infinite regress!

Your argument is like trying to suggest that your GOD can created existence in order to create himself into existence so he himself could exist LOL. EPIC AND TOTAL FAIL at being Omnipotent!.. Nor can you "Know" how to create Knowledge, or all those things itself requires to exist, into existence! It's a total self-collapse my friend.


So let's reformat this Paradox:

Can an omniscient entity know how to create consciousness, information, knowledge, intelligence, self-identity, awareness, mental processing, cognition, material physicality (just to name a few) into existence when itself is slave to require them?

Right there you have a total collapse of Omniscience and Omnipotence!

QuoteNo I don't, unless you support that a god must necessarily be continually omniscient.

 So when exactly am I ever GOD Voter?  lol  Even when you think your supposed entity isn't in a state of Omniscience, it still couldn't create new information or anything to which it wouldn't already know when it's in a state of Omniscience .

Now trying again, and this time actually address the paradox from the position of Omniscience! More specifically, try tackling that list I gave you. In fact your GOD would be powerless and non-existent entirely without information! It wouldn't even be an IDEA, or concept. A true GOD is the base to all existence Voter, not that which is slave to require information in order to exist! A conscious entity can neither be a universal set of all sets, or the answer to solving infinite regress. Especially when it takes more cause to support consciousness than it does to support existence without consciousness! In fact, consciousness is entirely irrelevant to existence itself.

QuoteWhat I think is funny is that you're so blind as to not see the comedic irony in that you did the same thing a page or two back, got a few pats on the back from some individuals, then claim the opposite for me when I do as you did but where you're not completely correct, I am.

You are incorrect!

QuoteThe fact is, omniscience has been addressed.  It has not been avoided.  Infinite knowledge does not preclude a being with absolute freewill, freewill/free choice.  

You are incorrect!

QuoteIf God is omni- then He has the power and the knowledge to create a being with absolute freewill.  The failure is not in the Creator, but in the agent that is able to choose death over life.  God created a perfect freewill agent.  That is no mistake.  That Evil entered into creation actively and didn't remain conceptual, isn't the "will" of God that it happen, but a natural by-product of a freewill agent (that God set out to make and did so perfectly) that isn't God AND that doesn't have knowledge of Good and Evil.  His omnipotence shines through that He is able to reconcile this freewill agent BACK to Himself (legally) even though the agent is tainted.  His omnilove shines through in that God Himself pays the penalty of evil to do so.

Nonsensical Preaching! And here is where you completely failed! This is why you ignored 99.9 percent of what I had posted!:

The Paradox with more clarity so it's easier to understand.

Can an Omniscient Entity know how to design and create that which itself requires to exist into existence? when you can show me how you can design and create the following into existence, I will then consider your argument that a possible Omnipotent and Omniscient entity would exist!

----

So now I'm going to teach you a few things about consciousness, awareness and information.. And when I am done, you can then have fun with that list I provide you. Both you and Voter need to carefully read these definitions and how they are applied to consciousness ect.

INFINITE REGRESS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress)
The unknown beginning or base/source of origin.. To where everything had to come from somewhere or something. Making potentially all things infinitely regressive until regression becomes impossible.

INFORMATION:
1) "Information is any type of sensory input and output or source to inquiry."

2) "Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, energy, perception, matter, and representation."

3) "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern." It's the sum representation of all things.. it's what gives things relevance, substance, and meaning... It's the core to anything that has an awareness or anything that exists...A self-awareness requires knowledge! An intelligence Must have knowledge to apply!, A Self identity must have knowledge to know of itself!

INTELLIGENCE:
1) Intelligence is only The ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment. Or the processing of knowledge to formulate a response to stimuli..
2) Wiki: "Intelligence (abbreviated int. or intel.) refers to discrete information with currency and relevance, and the abstraction, evaluation, and understanding of such information for its accuracy and value"

KNOWLEDGE:
1) Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation
2) Simple efficient definition: The collection of information on a subject or experience processed and then stored which provides a base for mechanisms such as intelligence, reason, choice, response, consciousness, and awareness... to which a method of inquiry must be based on. Hence, none of those can exist without first a base of inquiry, or the complex structure of information into a base of knowledge. There is a reason why one must always Know it exists in order to be conscious, aware, or even self-aware!

AWARENESS:
Wiki: “Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sensed data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. To receive and respond to input.”

UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION FORMATION:
EVOLUTION PART 6

We human beings seem at times to be unable to understand information formation because we think information has to be the result of processing by something with intelligence Since our brains are developed to process information. Some people can not seem to quantify, in many cases, the idea of information developing it's own structures and meanings through the combining, or the merging of other pieces of information in a process called formation. A natural cause and effect process vs a calculated intelligent process. We also seem to fail to understand sometimes that anything, or place of existence, or anything in or of existence could be considered a form of information, or a source of information.. All places and things of existence have information to offer! Thus all things can be considered pieces of information themselves. Hence, information isn't just merely a concept of data or mathematics! Information is matter, anything with mass, color, energy, or simply existence or place of existence...

Example:
“Two colors merging to form another color.. Or two color patterns coming together to form another pattern of color. Hence, the cause and effect process to where color is a representation of information even if it were black and white... Sound is another prime example..”

MIND CONTAINMENT:
EVOLUTION PART 7

Here is your Infinite GOD problem AnimatedDirt lol

Actually, I will try make this very simple since all the above is a bit much to read through. I hope this will help in understanding my position, and cut down on all the confusion in regards to the things we have been deeply discussing in a heated debate.  So I will simplify the argument here:

(applying infinite regress here)
If you Voter, or AnimatedDirt can reply to this post without matter, information, energy, material-physicality, or knowledge (base of inquiry).. I will completely concede to the existence of an Omnipotent and Omniscient GOD! :)[/color][/b]

Quote from: "TheJackass"False! To know everything infinitely Voter you would have to be infinitely everything! You want to know what it is to be me in every infinite way Voter, You would have to actually and literally BE ME!

Incorrect. If someone knew everything there was to know about you, even your every smallest thought, that wouldn't transform them into you.

Quote

QuoteSecond, don't you understand the meaning of the word omnipotent?

I do know what it means.

Then you understand that God could create a world based, in whole or part, on a world in which there was no omniscient god. He would know how such a world would operate due to his omniscience.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Actually, I will try make this very simple since all the above is a bit much to read through. I hope this will help in understanding my position,

The problem isn't that I don't understand your position, it's that you haven't supported it. I ask you for support, and you repeat it, with more exclamation points, but no support. You can believe what you want about energy and information, but don't expect everyone else to accept it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"I don't think you're so stupid that you don't understand the expression in context, so I presume you're bored and trolling. Good-bye.

There wasn't much context to go off of, assumptions make a troll, not asking for clarification. As I wasn't trying to provoke you, cause any drama nor was I rude, I really think calling me a troll is at odds with my behavior. I had not even called your thoughts, you or AnimatedDirt stupid or even implied it in this conversation, only sought to understand your point of view.

In fact I had bowed out of the conversation when it had appeared that we both had no more new ground to cover on the conversation, which as people know of trolls is not troll behavior. We likely would still be going over the same things right now if I had not left the conversation. I'm sure AnimatedDirt appreciates me not continuing when we reached a stand still in the discussion even though I probably still continued longer than I should have. Still not a trollish behavior.

OK, but then I have to change my initial assumption about your intelligence/education. In context my use of "accept" was common and correct.

Quote from: "Voter"Satan obviously doesn't believe all the facts you list. How can you not see this... :brick:  :bananacolor:

Neither do you. Look up Indeterminism.

It really is amazing to me how voter and Ad willingly try to pull invisible rabbits out of the hat. Their only evidence (such as it is) of a god and its attributes come from their Bible and whatever perceived religious experience they may have had. But they scramble about looking for extra - biblical outs to support that which is not evidence in the Bible or a perceived religious experience. They ask us to support our position, well, maybe I should just speak for myself. They asked me to support my position and I have done so using their Bible's scripture...verse after verse after verse. And I've used several of the greatest Christian philosophers in support of my position. These philosophers may be "extra - biblical", but at least they used the Bible in support of their position.

But no, that's just not good enough for voter and Ad. "What if...", they ask. "How so..." they ask. They divert to "energy" and "Information" and garbage like "Then you understand that God could create a world based, in whole or part, on a world in which there was no omniscient god."

Piss on that. I don't recall reading that in the Bible.

Ad's and voters theodicy - an argument that seeks to justify God's righteousness and God's justice despite the presence of evil and suffering in the world is flawed. The Bible lists what God does and one of these is - he creates evil. Another is that due to his omniscience, we have no free will. Until they can show us otherwise, without using extra - biblical sources, I'm simply not interested in further debate. Likewise, I will not be holding my breath for any Biblical evidence that outweighs the evidence I have given.

Quote from: "Gawen"It really is amazing to me how voter and Ad willingly try to pull invisible rabbits out of the hat. Their only evidence (such as it is) of a god and its attributes come from their Bible and whatever perceived religious experience they may have had. But they scramble about looking for extra - biblical outs to support that which is not evidence in the Bible or a perceived religious experience. They ask us to support our position, well, maybe I should just speak for myself. They asked me to support my position and I have done so using their Bible's scripture...verse after verse after verse. And I've used several of the greatest Christian philosophers in support of my position. These philosophers may be "extra - biblical", but at least they used the Bible in support of their position.

But no, that's just not good enough for voter and Ad. "What if...", they ask. "How so..." they ask. They divert to "energy" and "Information" and garbage like "Then you understand that God could create a world based, in whole or part, on a world in which there was no omniscient god."

Piss on that. I don't recall reading that in the Bible.

What utter nonsense. I don't recall reading in the bible that God's omniscience precludes him from justly judging. In fact, the bible directly addresses this in Romans 9 (which I referenced way back) and says God can, indeed judge justly. Therefore you are going beyond the Bible in making your charge, and we have every right to go beyond the Bible in making a defense. With this post you're trying to weasel around the fact that we've put up good counterarguments. Unlike you guys, I won't pronounce victory (except perhaps in parody), as it's a complex issue which philosophers of all beliefs have debated for millenia without reaching concensus.

QuoteAd's and voters theodicy - an argument that seeks to justify God's righteousness and God's justice despite the presence of evil and suffering in the world is flawed. The Bible lists what God does and one of these is - he creates evil. Another is that due to his omniscience, we have no free will. Until they can show us otherwise, without using extra - biblical sources, I'm simply not interested in further debate. Likewise, I will not be holding my breath for any Biblical evidence that outweighs the evidence I have given.

If we're sticking to the Bible, then why are you doing all this background stuff on omniscience, when there's a passage that directly deals with it:
Romans 9
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€"prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryâ€" 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Actually, I will try make this very simple since all the above is a bit much to read through. I hope this will help in understanding my position,

The problem isn't that I don't understand your position, it's that you haven't supported it. I ask you for support, and you repeat it, with more exclamation points, but no support. You can believe what you want about energy and information, but don't expect everyone else to accept it.

What a load of intentional denial.. If you can't understand those very basic and simple concepts Voter, you are not intellectually ready to even have this discussion yet. You failed utterly here because you just replied using matter, energy, information, and what you think is clever use of knowledge to post a reply. Your very post here is 100% proof and support to my argument and you don't even get it.    I will say this one more time for both of you..


Try posting a reply without using INFORMATION, MATTER, ENERGY, KNOWLEDGE, INTELLIGENCE, or MATERIAL PHYSICALITY!


If you can't do that AnimatedDirt, or Voter, you have lost this debate entirely! Start dealing with reality you two, It's scary but for intellectual integrity, respect, and honesty, actually attempt to deal with the reality of why you are both entirely wrong!

QuoteIncorrect. If someone knew everything there was to know about you, even your every smallest thought, that wouldn't transform them into you.

Information doesn't just have to do with DATA! HELLO! WOW, are you really this intentionally ignorant? For petes sakes kid, I defined what information is in the above post LOL. It's not just my thoughts LOL, It's everything that I am, materially and physically!  lol. Go back and read my posts kid, and really take the time to comprehend why you are playing a game of delusional ignorance! This has nothing to do with whether or not something could create a supposed "world" :rant:  You can't know how to create Knowledge into existence lol  You can't know how to create existence into existence .. Nor would he have the power to do that, or know how to create that which he himself would require to exist!.. I'm walking all over that logical pile of crap you call Omniscience, and Omnipotence!. Your failure to not comprehend this is utterly not our problem! Your failure not to comprehend what information is, is also not our problem! Stop with the intentional ignorance, and actually take the time to address things in proper definition and context!


GAH! the dishonest discourse here is on that line of being absolutely amazing! I've never seen people other than Flat Earther's be in so much denial of reality!.

Quote from: "TheJackass"Information doesn't just have to do with DATA! HELLO! WOW, are you really this intentionally ignorant? For petes sakes kid, I defined what information is in the above post LOL. It's not just my thoughts LOL, It's everything that I am, materially and physically!  lol. Go back and read my posts kid, and really take the time to comprehend why you are playing a game of delusional ignorance! This has nothing to do with whether or not something could create a supposed "world" :rant:  You can't know how to create Knowledge into existence lol

Why not? Our posts contain information. We created them.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

Satan obviously doesn't believe all the facts you list. How can you not see this... :brick:  :bananacolor:

...Uh, yes, he does, according to the Bible.

QuoteNo, I'm neither ignorant nor incorrect. Here's the first two entries from a dictionary definition of information (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information):
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

Ahh yes, cherry picking websites that don't fully define what information is.. GJ.. You need to use google a little more son. And I love how you singled out "Knowledge" as the definition of 'information" . The following quote is from the very same site you posted:

Quote.  Knowledge  is an organized body of information, or the comprehension and understanding consequent on having acquired and organized a body of facts:

Now head over to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information)

QuoteInformation is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind.

QuoteSystems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

QuoteIf, however, the premise of "influence" implies that information has been perceived by a conscious mind and also interpreted by it, the specific context associated with this interpretation may cause the transformation of the information into knowledge

QuoteIn 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

Another link is demonstrated by the Maxwell's demon thought experiment. In this experiment, a direct relationship between information and another physical property, entropy, is demonstrated. A consequence is that it is impossible to destroy information without increasing the entropy of a system; in practical terms this often means generating heat. Another, more philosophical, outcome is that information could be thought of as interchangeable with energy. Thus, in the study of logic gates, the theoretical lower bound of thermal energy released by an AND gate is higher than for the NOT gate (because information is destroyed in an AND gate and simply converted in a NOT gate). Physical information is of particular importance in the theory of quantum computers.

Example:

A rock before you requires information to exist. This is to where itself is information, a structure of information, or source of out put and input. Hence, if there wasn't any information there to experience, perceive, or process, the rock simply would not exist!. Even empty space has information to offer!. This is why in the real world Voter, information is considered the sum total of all things in the form of energy! They are considered two sides of the same coin voter! You can't have one without the other lol.. And I find it funny that religious people claim that it is Atheists that believe in Nihilism. And we already had a theist here try to make the argument for a Nothing GOD  

Materialist/Realist:

Understands that nothing can not be a person, thing, object, substance, thought, emotion, feeling, place, or form of existing existence!. All things must have material physical value, substance, information, structure, and complexity in order to exist! All things begin with the substance of existence! Hence we believe in what is actually possible and real!

EDIT:

This is also why AnimatedDirt had lost this debate a long time ago when I had posted all this information before. His laziness to not take the time to actually read and comprehend the arguments posted only showed his willingness to simply ramble on while dishonestly ignoring other peoples posted arguments. And I could tell that neither of you even bothered to read them, or even acknowledge them. This includes arguments posted by GAWEN to. If you don't want to hear things that go against your ideological contructs, don't engage in arguments like this! Just stick your fingers in your ears and walk away saying LALALALALALLALA! like other theists do.

Hmmmm....

Why did God make evil? That's the title of this thread. The Bible says God made evil and some of us here have shown the Biblical evidence. There are theist here that claim God didn't, but I haven't seen the Biblical evidence they should provide that counters the evidence we gave.

The thread degenerates to Omniscience and free will. I have shown Biblical evidence (and evidence from several of the greatest Biblical philosophers) that God is omniscient and we have no free will. The theists here have not shown why God is omniscient AND we have free will (or that God is not omniscient) to any satisfaction.

The thread further degenerates into a bunch of off topic tangents, baseless assertions, hundreds of logical fallacies, semantics and still the two base questions left unanswered.

I can deduce several things from this:
1) The Bible is not the word of God.
2) Some Christians claim parts of the Bible true only when it suits them.
3) The Bible may or may not be the word of God, but some Christians refuse parts of it anyway.
4) Some Christians inject their own meaning of parts of the Bible even when it clearly states otherwise.
5) Some Christians do not read the Bible.
6) Some Christians do not like to be proved wrong.
7) Some Christians do not have the Holy Spirit in them, guiding their thoughts to prove us wrong.
8) Some Christians may have the Holy Spirit in them but it can't debate either.
9) There is no Holy Spirit.
10) The Christian God is evil.
11) The Christian God does not exist.
12) Christians have no or no good evidence for or against (where applicable):
a) The existence of God
b) God does not make evil
c) God is evil
d) God is omniscient and humans have free will

Quote from: "Voter"OK, but then I have to change my initial assumption about your intelligence/education. In context my use of "accept" was common and correct.

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided, to which you replied with a bold statement without any qualifiers as an answer to what one accepts. Which brings us to this ad hominem. I wasn't talking about your use of accept I was talking about your answer to my question:

Quote from: "Davin"And what if one accepts neither?

Quote from: "Voter"Then we have free will.

Maybe you'd like to add some qualifiers, but as it stands: you said we have free will on the condition that one accepts neither of the two options you provided.

Quote from: "Davin"You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

Quote from: "Sophus"So... wait- what? How does this justify allowing evil exist if he knows how you would act under every hypothetical circumstance?

Just as I said - if God knows you would have sinned even without his omniscience, then the omniscience precludes free will argument is rendered moot.

QuoteThat means this life isn't a test. He can virtually simulate it in his mind and, according  to you, cast fair judgement in doing so.

Yes, that follows from omniscience as you guys have defined it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

Satan obviously doesn't believe all the facts you list. How can you not see this... :brick:  :bananacolor:

...Uh, yes, he does, according to the Bible.

Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

Quote from: "TheJackel"Ahh yes, cherry picking websites that don't fully define what information is..

Going to a standard dictionary and choosing the first definitions that fit the context is not cherry picking. As to the rest of your post, tl;dr.

Quote from: "Gawen"The thread degenerates to Omniscience and free will. I have shown Biblical evidence (and evidence from several of the greatest Biblical philosophers) that God is omniscient and we have no free will. The theists here have not shown why God is omniscient AND we have free will (or that God is not omniscient) to any satisfaction.

I'm feeling pretty satisfied. AD seems satisfied.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"So... wait- what? How does this justify allowing evil exist if he knows how you would act under every hypothetical circumstance?

Just as I said - if God knows you would have sinned even without his omniscience, then the omniscience precludes free will argument is rendered moot.

QuoteThat means this life isn't a test. He can virtually simulate it in his mind and, according  to you, cast fair judgement in doing so.

Yes, that follows from omniscience as you guys have defined it.

The definition of Omniscience is quite clear Voter, either you abide by it, or you can not use it. We have shown that Omni-powers are logical fallacies, and that is all that really matters here. If you still want to believe that some magical entity in the sky knows and watches your every thought and action, that's up to you. however, GODS are still purely concepts of opinion Voter, even if some entity were to exist that is more powerful or intelligent than man. And free will argument isn't moot Voter, free will is actually a logical fallacy because you don't have free will over every aspect of your existence in relation to existence itself. There is no free will to not die, as one example of countless of others. Freedom to choose and do is finite at best. To really be free and a free agent voter, it would have to be without bounds or limits. And we all know that is impossible!

QuoteI'm feeling pretty satisfied. AD seems satisfied.

With all that circular fallacious logic, I can imagine any theist feeling satisfied.. Not once have you actually confronted any of the arguments here without running around in ignorant intentional circles that fail entirely to actually apply and acknowledge even the definition of Omniscience, much less contradictions, or concepts of information.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Ahh yes, cherry picking websites that don't fully define what information is..

Going to a standard dictionary and choosing the first definitions that fit the context is not cherry picking. As to the rest of your post, tl;dr.

Incorrect... I corrected your use of the standard dictionary LOL. The rest of my post is hardly Tl.. But DR is like the case with just about every post you can't handle here in this discussion. That's typical intentional laziness, if not a means to keep ones fingers in their ears.  It's not our problem that you intentional play games of ignorance. If you have to lie to yourself to keep yourself happy Voter, so be it. :blink:   In fact is makes you out to be something very similar to this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macdoctor.co.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Ftroll.jpg&hash=6702414cc9c4abf045e1f40acf6b5d7e07412b6e)


BTW, FAIL! (in regards to having to use information (matter, energy, material physicality)(again for constructive purposes only)

I would also love to see you make a choice without information to be weighed and chosen from.

Quote from: "Voter"Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

This one, for starters. (http://bible.cc/revelation/12-12.htm) He knows his time is short.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

I think Voter might have come from the Evolution Fairytale Forum.

QuoteI think Voter might have come from the Evolution Fairytale Forum.

That's possible, but what makes you think that  

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

No, my (rather a) definition of troll in this case is someone who doesn't follow the thread and then asks stupid questions. Those two points were repeats, and were two of a number of independent arguments previously submitted but which had not been addressed by the opposition.

ETA: Look three or so posts down for a repeat of the original. Your position that the two I later posted were, in my view, the only options is shown to be incorrect.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

This one, for starters. (http://bible.cc/revelation/12-12.htm) He knows his time is short.

Sure, at that late point. I meant that he probably doesn't believe it now. Yes, obviously when he's finally beaten he's going to believe it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Incorrect... I corrected your use of the standard dictionary LOL.

No, you have proposed a different usage from the standard dictionary definition.

Heck, anyone can win any argument if they give themselves sole authority to define the terms. I'm not giving you that. Without unorthodox definitions, you have nothing.

Quote from: "Voter"Thought there'd be a response by now. Let me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions, and define free will based on possible alternatives, then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

However, recall the main argument. People get so hung up on free will, they forget why it's important in the first place. The Bible doesn't come out and say that we have it, so it's not a direct Biblical defense. The point is that most people believe it's unjust to punish someone for an action if the person didn't have sufficient free will to choose to commit or not commit the act. So, critics think that if they establish that God's omniscience precludes man's free will, God is unjust for punishing man.

However, note that there is an unstated presumption in this argument - that man has a right to justice. This needs to be supported. Once on another site I posed the question, What gives something a right to justice? on its own. While opinions varied in detail, they all were based on some sort of autonomy. But, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice. So, the argument is self-defeating.

Similarly, the argument that omniscience precludes free will can usually be extended to god himself. So, if god has no free will, you have no right to judge him as unjust.

Another response takes omniscience a step further. Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god? If so, he can justly judge you on that basis. Or a corollary: an omnipotent, omniscient god could determine what we would be like without an omniscient god, and then in his omnipotence create that world.

Then there are the time travel analogies. Suppose there is no god and we have free will. I invent a time machine and go back to last Saturday with videotapes of last Sunday's football games. I keep them to myself. Does the mere existence of those tapes now preclude the players' free will?

And the definition of free will is important. The critic usually uses a definition based on possible alternatives, but you can also define it based on mental processes.

If you've read up on this topic, then you're aware of an interesting scenario that blends the alternatives and processes approaches. Suppose I'm an evil neuroscientist and want to kill Fred. I know that Alan also hates Fred and Alan owns a gun and will have opportunity. So, I proposition Alan to kill Fred, and he agrees. But, I don't trust that, so I drug Alan and implant a chip in his brain that gives me control over his actions. I'll watch him at the opportune time. If he kills Fred on his own, I do nothing. If he changes his mind, I flip the switch and he kills Fred anyway. In this scenario, Alan has no possible alternatives - he will kill Fred. But, is his moral culpability the same either way?

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I'm pretty sure the Bible supports the view that he knows what will happen to him, though. I can't quote specific scripture, just my general memory of it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:3bh57gyw]Satan[/strike:3bh57gyw] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:23x34dxy]Satan[/strike:23x34dxy] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

Oh, okay, okay. So, just like Satan (I am demon-possessed after all), I know God exists, I just don't believe in him. Presumably so I can masturbate without guilt.

Makes perfect sense.

QuoteNo, you have proposed a different usage from the standard dictionary definition.

That is incorrect.. Learn how to use the damn dictionary! And do learn that the OXford Dictionary defines it as:

Quoteinformation(in·for·ma·tion)
Pronunciation:/ˌinfərˈmāSHən, ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/
noun

    *
      1 facts provided or learned about something or someone:a vital piece of information
    *
      Lawa formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury:the tenant may lay an information against his landlord
    *
      2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value:genetically transmitted information
    *
      Computingdata as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
    *
      (in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

Or:

QuoteThings that are or can be known about a topic; Data that have been processed into a format,  Any unambiguous abstract data, the smallest possible ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/information

Or:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_I ... astructure (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_Information_Infrastructure)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics)

I can literally sit here all day ripping apart your argument Voter!

QuoteHeck, anyone can win any argument if they give themselves sole authority to define the terms. I'm not giving you that. Without unorthodox definitions, you have nothing.

Heck, anyone can win with an education without playing intentionally ignorant!. Many dictionaries use basic examples to define "information" because Information is the sum to all to which can be knowable! It's any pattern, sequence, object, thing, place, volume, substance, representation, structure, and complexity. There is a reason why an order of sand grains in a sand dune are considered pieces of information that have sequenced to form a sand dune. Same with the arrangements of atoms in a sand grain! This include equilibrium of patterns, or states of existence!  

Please Voter, stop being that GUY to which denies reality! My argument only means that things are real, and that all things with complexities greater than ground-state are products of existence, or emerging properties! There is no "Creator" to existence Voter, that is as impossible as nothing being an existent object!. If you want to be more realistic and worship some possibly more powerful and intelligent being than man, you go do that! But when you start pulling logical fallacies out and start proclaiming magical sky fairy done it, it can't help but notice someone so ignorant to reality!

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:nxexwjm8]Satan[/strike:nxexwjm8] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

Oh, okay, okay. So, just like Satan (I am demon-possessed after all), I know God exists, I just don't believe in him. Presumably so I can masturbate without guilt.

Makes perfect sense.

You both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

Quote from: "Voter"You both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

You and all the other Christians know your fate and don't believe it (that there's no afterlife and you'll just die). None of you believes in a materialistic universe. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

No, my (rather a) definition of troll in this case is someone who doesn't follow the thread and then asks stupid questions. Those two points were repeats, and were two of a number of independent arguments previously submitted but which had not been addressed by the opposition.

ETA: Look three or so posts down for a repeat of the original. Your position that the two I later posted were, in my view, the only options is shown to be incorrect.

As can be seen by this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6552&start=270#p99138) link, this is the entire post:

Quote from: "Voter"If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

Secondly look at my wording: "You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided[...]" it contradicts your statement that I hold the position that you view the two options provided as the only two options. In fact not once did I ever say that you thought those were the only two options, I did the opposite of that and asked you a question.

I have not been rude to you, I have not implied that you're lacking in mental faculties and/or education, I have not implied that your questions are stupid... and yet you call me a troll. A bit of the pot calling the flame black.

QuoteYou both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

FAIL!

QuoteI have not been rude to you, I have not implied that you're lacking in mental faculties and/or education, I have not implied that your questions are stupid... and yet you call me a troll. A bit of the pot calling the flame black.

That is true.. However, I have been rude to him in the form of trying to keep him honest. He can't seem to do that. I don't think he "lacks education" because we all do in many areas of life and the world around us. However, I am nearly 100 percent sure that he is definitely playing an intentional game of ignorance. The biggest clue is his circular logic, irrationality, and inability to seemingly grasp very basic concepts to which shows all the signs of being intentionally ignorant. As in "LALALALALLALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Prime example: I have asked him to try and post without using information (energy, matter, and material-physicality).. I would like to see him even try to make a choice or decision without the weighing of information between two choices :rant:

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"Then we have free will.

Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

I just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

QuoteI just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

False, that was stating an obvious fact about reality!  Hence, consciousness is not required for reality to exist, it's the other way around! Once you realize that, the better off you will be in this discussion Voter. Existence simply exists because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! Consciousness is entirely irrelevant to it. If you were reasonable, you would have addressed the context of it.  Is it that hard to be honest? Hell, I even still believe that some entity could have possibly sparked the Big Bang voter, it's a matter of physics. But I would never worship such things as "GODS". That would be equal to micro organisms being cultivated in a science lab worshiping Man as if they were "GODS". I just make the realization that no entity can represent the source origin to existence, or be the creator of. Especially when consciousness requires far more cause to support its existence than 99.999(infinite) other percent of existence.  Causation doesn't start with consciousness, it starts with information and then the increasing complexity of it in order to have emerging properties such as consciousness!

There is no you Voter without the information that makes you who you are!, and you are made of the same substance as the rest of existence is (energy). You are your own individual conscious and finite representation of existence just as every mind or conscious entity is.  It means that you are real, your feelings and emotions are real! It means you have actual purpose and value. Without it, you simply wouldn't exist regardless of what your beliefs are.  It's that simple!

However, this doesn't mean that our consciousness won't transcend (stay intact) after we die, and that is because nobody can answer that question with 100 percent certainty. We don't know if it can escape, or if it will fade, disperse, or merge with other states of energy. However in all cases, there is never a loss of purpose. So, I am spiritually not worried at all myself. I in fact find more worth in being truly unique as an emerged property from a system of chaos than being a pre-fabricated doll on some magical assembly line. I also find more worth in knowing that regardless of what form I end up in, I will always have a purpose.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

False, that was stating an obvious fact about reality!  Hence, consciousness is not required for reality to exist, it's the other way around! Once you realize that, the better off you will be in this discussion Voter. Existence simply exists because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! Consciousness is entirely irrelevant to it. If you were reasonable, you would have addressed the context of it. :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

Quote:bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

A very poor attempt at a reversal

Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

Quote from: "Voter"FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "elliebean"Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

Quote from: "Voter"FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

I've been (quite obviously) mocking him with stuff like that for some time now.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "elliebean"Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

Quote from: "Voter"FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

I've been (quite obviously) mocking him with stuff like that for some time now.

It's against the forum rules. And I was quite aware of your childish mockery.. Those don't win arguments, they make you nothing more than a troll. Or worse yet, they can make you look like a complete idiot to others around you.  :drool  Btw, if you were mocking my use of "FAIL", it was in regards to you, stated as "constructive criticism" to get you to address an argument you keep intentionally avoiding and ignoring.

Nothing worse than someone who has zero intellectual integrity. It reminds me of the thread "Thinking Too Hard (http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13051)", a thread where a theist tries to make the argument that critical thinking skills are some how retarded, or that atheists try to think to much.

QuoteI feel that people who do not understand who or what God is are THINKING to hard.

 

Quote from: "Voter"I've been (quite obviously) making a fool of myself with stuff like that for some time now.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Voter"I've been (quite obviously) making a fool of myself with stuff like that for some time now.

Fixed that for you.

Hey, if you want to publicize your hypocrisy, be my guest.

Seriously though, if most of the people here think that TheJackel is a good debater and I'm not, I'll go. It wouldn't be worth my time to continue.

Quote from: "Voter"Seriously though, if most of the people here think that TheJackel is a good debater and I'm not, I'll go. It wouldn't be worth my time to continue.

It's a big Internet. Anyone can stay or leave. No virtual bars on the virtual doors and windows here.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "elliebean"Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

Quote from: "Voter"FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

I've been (quite obviously) mocking him with stuff like that for some time now.

I may not catch everything around here but admitting to breaking the rules yet not being sorry about it is a good way to get a warning.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=99733#p99733 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=99733#p99733) .

Quote from: "Voter"Seriously though, if most of the people here think that TheJackel is a good debater and I'm not, I'll go. It wouldn't be worth my time to continue.

A good debater will actually address the arguments being debated vs trying to weasel their way around and out of them. You want to debate me and others here, get more intellectually honest with your arguments. That includes admitting the faults in your arguments to which simply ignore some other persons arguments.  :pop:

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Voter"I've been (quite obviously) making a fool of myself with stuff like that for some time now.

Fixed that for you.

Hey, if you want to highlight my hypocrisy, be my guest.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "elliebean"Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

Quote from: "Voter"FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

I've been (quite obviously) mocking him with stuff like that for some time now.

I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

Think I found it:

Quote from: "Matthew""But FAIL unto you, scribes and Pharisees, trolls! for ye clog up the interwebs against men and say GTFO: for ye neither have any original thoughts, neither suffer ye them that LOL." :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

Think I found it:

Quote from: "Matthew""But FAIL unto you, scribes and Pharisees, trolls! for ye clog up the interwebs against men and say GTFO: for ye neither have any original thoughts, neither suffer ye them that LOL." :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor: was following close behind him." Rev 6:7-8

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

Think I found it:

Quote from: "Matthew""But FAIL unto you, scribes and Pharisees, trolls! for ye clog up the interwebs against men and say GTFO: for ye neither have any original thoughts, neither suffer ye them that LOL." :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor: was following close behind him." Rev 6:7-8

Yo! I like had this Orca call me today and ask:

Orca: YO JACKEL, I was told by GOD to rip apart baby seals and eatenz them so I canz stay alive! Why teh evilz man?
Jackel: Cuz you be hungry yo!

10 mins later I get a phone call from baby seals mother:

Seals mother: OMG! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH OMG SOMEONE SAVE MY BABY!  :devil:

GOD: Tehee, Perfect!

murder by design? You be the judge

I just hope poor Magic Pudding manages to avoid this thread somehow.  

Quote from: "Recusant"I just hope poor Magic Pudding manages to avoid this thread somehow.  

Banana Nut Bread

125g butter/marg
1cup sugar
2 large eggs
3 [strike:27mae4jk]ripe[/strike:27mae4jk] psycodelic bananas
2 cups flour plain or SR doesn't matter
1 tea spoon bicarb
a handfull of nuts

Just beat the eggs and mix the other stuff in with a fork, but remember to give them bananas a good mushing.
Cook for about 45 minutes at 160 Celsius

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"a handfull of nuts

...Can be replaced by one Dennis Markuze if no other nuts can be found... Like on a sunday morning  

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

No, I don't think you will.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

Is that why we have genitals? It seems your GOD has a Hate problem, and anger issues.. The basic message of that argument is to fear monger people into conforming to the religious ideology by use of social dogma as a form of peer pressure. It's no different than threatening people with eternal burning in hell for their difference of opinion. It's also an argument to keep people from actually doing their own critical thinking and questioning that might steer them away from the religion. Hence, the concept born of the forbidden Knowledge posted as an ultimate sin should you seek it out!. They post that as good vs evil..This translation is specifically coded in subliminal terms (anything against the religion is evil, and anything for it is good). Well, it's a good thing I didn't take your GOD's advice at eating anything that bares seed, or I would be dead already! And the funny part about that GOD comment is that the forbidden fruit is a fruit! All fruits bare seed! lol

Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

Oh boy...here we go.



So you can grow, evil is not seen as a punishment.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

Oh boy...here we go.



So you can grow, evil is not seen as a punishment.

And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "iSok"And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

You want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.
And you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "iSok"And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

I don't see the arguments you give as valid.

QuoteYou want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.

It's not science, it's simple logic.

QuoteAnd you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

...What. That's not what I'm saying.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "iSok"And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

You want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.
And you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

That isn't the argument at all. None of us have claimed to be gods. Nowhere on this forum will you find anyone claiming to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, or the creator of the universe, or that we rely on any combination of those for our existence.

The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

The only way th wheedle out of it is to eliminate contradictory elements from the list of God's necessary attributes, but by doing this the word "God" quickly loses meaning and relevance, to the point where believing in its existence makes no difference to the believer.

Quote from: "elliebean"The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "elliebean"The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

St. Diadochus of Photiki: "Evil does not exist by nature, nor is any man naturally evil, for God made nothing that was not good. When in the desire of his heart someone conceives and gives form to what in reality has no existence, then what he desires begins to exist. We should therefore turn our attention away from the inclination to evil and concentrate it on the remembrance of God; for good, which exists by nature, is more powerful than our inclination to evil. The one has existence while the other does not, except when we give it existence through our actions"

I think Diadochus sums up my position quite well, and I excerpted this from a lengthy post a few pages back.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "elliebean"The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

And yet some finite beings do somehow know enough to be able to make the claim that God does exist. Interesting.

If omniscience is required to even understand the argument, then everyone should be atheists or agnostics, except God.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

Don't be confused.  It's just to say that both you and I cannot be sure in our own finite knowledge.  (we are finite and our knowledge is limited, agreed?) If omni-all exists, then we, of non-omni-all cannot understand it fully.  We can only have our interpretations of these terms/characteristics.  If God exists, then He is all of these things (speaking of the Abrahamic God).  One has evidence that the other rejects, the other has his/her science and philosophies that disagree.  Absolute proof of God will either never come or come when He says He will be revealed.  Until then, BOTH of our stance remain in, for me, Faith, and for you, Conjecture.  We are without absolute proof on the matter of God and on His characteristics.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

Don't be confused.  It's just to say that both you and I cannot be sure in our own finite knowledge.  (we are finite and our knowledge is limited, agreed?) If omni-all exists, then we, of non-omni-all cannot understand it fully.  We can only have our interpretations of these terms/characteristics.  If God exists, then He is all of these things (speaking of the Abrahamic God).  One has evidence that the other rejects, the other has his/her science and philosophies that disagree.  Absolute proof of God will either never come or come when He says He will be revealed.  Until then, BOTH of our stance remain in, for me, Faith, and for you, Conjecture.  We are without absolute proof on the matter of God and on His characteristics.

Again this fails to address separation of entities or minds. Claiming one to be infinite to where it would have to be existence itself while stating others as being finite makes no logical sense. And when your GOD can Know what it is to be me in total to the point of actually and literally being me AnimatedDirt, your argument of Omniscience is silly..Unless of course you want to call me GOD

Anyone want to Bow before your Jackel?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again this fails to address separation of entities or minds. Claiming one to be all while others to be finite makes no logical sense.

It does not fail.  It claims simply that which a set of books/letters makes as a claim.  It's as simple as the old BASIC if x then y.

Are you suggesting you're not finite?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again this fails to address separation of entities or minds. Claiming one to be all while others to be finite makes no logical sense.

It does not fail.  It claims simply that which a set of books/letters makes as a claim.  It's as simple as the old BASIC if x then y.

Are you suggesting you're not finite?

Does, because you apparently don't know the difference between finite, and infinite. If your GOD is infinite that would make me GOD.., and well all the other 6.x billion + people on Earth GOD too. Earth would be GOD. Isn't he Omni-present to :/

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Again this fails to address separation of entities or minds. Claiming one to be all while others to be finite makes no logical sense.

It does not fail.  It claims simply that which a set of books/letters makes as a claim.  It's as simple as the old BASIC if x then y.

Are you suggesting you're not finite?

Does, because you apparently don't know the difference between finite, and infinite. If your GOD is infinite that would make me GOD.., and well all the other 6.x billion + people on Earth GOD too. Earth would be GOD. Isn't he Omni-present to ? Damn them atoms that make up my body! They are GOD atoms!

And yet you die...which make YOU finite.

death is irrelevant.. All that made me exist will still eternally exist and serve a purpose. I may even arise again in living form. You still didn't answer the question properly..

I don't think you grasp that setting limits and boundaries automatically makes your deity not infinite but finite itself. So if there are boundaries between me and your GOD, I can clearly point of the logical fallacy of you claiming an infinite GOD. So are we all individuals or not? Can you even prove that you are not me arguing with myself? Or that you are not me worshiping myself?

Quote from: "TheJackel"death is irrelevant.. All that made me exist will still eternally exist and serve a purpose. I may even arise again in living form. You still didn't answer the question properly..

I don't think you grasp that setting limits and boundaries automatically makes your deity not infinite but finite itself.

Setting limits?  All I can give you is what this Diety says of Himself.

TheJackel has no ability to create a freewill agent.

Another form may arise, but YOU won't.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"death is irrelevant.. All that made me exist will still eternally exist and serve a purpose. I may even arise again in living form. You still didn't answer the question properly..

I don't think you grasp that setting limits and boundaries automatically makes your deity not infinite but finite itself.

Setting limits?  All I can give you is what this Diety says of Himself.

TheJackel has no ability to create a freewill agent.

Another form may arise, but YOU won't.

I really need to stop arguing with myself, such GODLY drama :O But soo hard to resist And GOD JACKEL SAYS he does not have the free will to create free will since he is already free willed! If the GOD Jackel is infinite, such that he is, he is everything infinitely! He rises as what and where he pleases.

I've tried hard to follow this thread but I can't figure out what we're saying here. It's really confusing.

Quote from: "pilchardo"I've tried hard to follow this thread but I can't figure out what we're saying here. It's really confusing.

I Myself "AnimatedDirt" claimed that his GOD is infinite while stating something else is not without thinking about the paradox of boundaries and limits to such an argument. But I Myself "TheJackel" refutes that claim :)

Quote from: "TheJackel"I really need to stop arguing with myself, such GODLY drama :O But soo hard to resist And GOD JACKEL SAYS he does not have the free will to create free will since he is already free willed! If the GOD Jackel is infinite, such that he is, he is everything infinitely! He rises as what and where he pleases.

Yes, this explains it all.

In the context of being infinite, without beginning or end, you are finite.  You were born and you will die.  You will end.  We all will at some point.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"I really need to stop arguing with myself, such GODLY drama :O But soo hard to resist :devil: ..Wait..I don't want to burn in hell, so I'll just pretend!..cause I can!  Again, you can not grasp the failure of your entire argument my dear self AnimatedDirt! Ye must understand that if one thing is finite, all other things are thus finite unless all things are one!

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I can't be an infinite cycle of creation and destruction? You mean I can't be the sum total of existence itself? LOL. How dare you say such blasphemous words to your GOD JACKEL! YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!  :drool

We are done then.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I can't be an infinite cycle of creation and destruction? You mean I can't be the sum total of existence itself? LOL. How dare you say such blasphemous words to your GOD JACKEL! YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!  :drool

We are done then.

It wasn't my logics, it was our logics!

Infinity (sometimes symbolically represented by ∞) is a concept in many fields, most predominantly mathematics and physics, that refers to a quantity without bound or end. People have developed various ideas throughout history about the nature of infinity. The word comes from the Latin infinitas or "unboundedness".

I think I have an answer for this question. (Why did God make evil?)
Had a 'eureka!' moment a few weeks ago.

Anyone still interested?

Quote from: "iSok"I think I have an answer for this question. (Why did God make evil?)
Had a 'eureka!' moment a few weeks ago.

Anyone still interested?

Sure.

Quote from: "TheJackel"death is irrelevant.. All that made me exist will still eternally exist and serve a purpose. I may even arise again in living form. You still didn't answer the question properly..

I don't think you grasp that setting limits and boundaries automatically makes your deity not infinite but finite itself. So if there are boundaries between me and your GOD, I can clearly point of the logical fallacy of you claiming an infinite GOD. So are we all individuals or not? Can you even prove that you are not me arguing with myself? Or that you are not me worshiping myself?

According to your logic, you might be arguing with yourself.  There might be atoms in his body that were part of your body in your own current lifetime, or vice versa, if you really think about it.  He could be part atheist and you could be part Christian.  By talking about your atoms rising again in living form, you are an atheist offering ideas about a possible afterlife.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, this explains it all.

In the context of being infinite, without beginning or end, you are finite. You were born and you will die. You will end. We all will at some point.

So after the atheist just argued for an afterlife, here is a Christian arguing for the absence of one by saying we are finite, we will end.  There is irony here, methinks.  It has been fun to watch this argument  

Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.
Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

Quote from: "iSok"Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

Generally, yes; but we can also be very charitable and selfless at times.

QuoteBut he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.

So, anytime we do something for others, it's so selfish reasons? Not buying it. That's surely the case some of the time, but not all the time.

QuoteConcept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

What if you buy food, so you can feed yourself and your family?

Quotein the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.

It sure seems like he doesn't want us to use it in most religions.

QuoteOur intellect can not be found in any place in nature.

I don't know; other animals seem to be pretty darn close to us concerning intelligence.

QuoteDo we all agree on this?

Not really.

Quote from: "iSok"Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.
Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

Failed at the underlined, God is a myth.
Also you have never owned a dog or you could never possibly have written what you wrote about the puppy.

Quote from: "Tank"Failed at the underlined, God is a myth.
Also you have never owned a dog or you could never possibly have written what you wrote about the puppy.

I said, in the case of God.
I'd rather be cripple, then to lose my intellect.
Our intellect is the most important thing we have.
Wether you believe in God or not.


I do have a parrot, but I did save a cute puppy a couple of years ago.
Nonetheles.

Every philosopher agrees that man is egocentric, selfish.

Why are you doing charity?
Because it makes you feel good.
You settle your conscience, if I take away your conscience, something that is within you, you will no longer give.
So ultimately, everything you do, you do it settle your your conscience. You give charity, you take care for someone else, because in the end
your conscience will tell you 'good job!', it'll make you happy.

For example if we kill someone, we are troubled by it. Our conscience is troubling us.

Conscience: In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms. (wiki)

Charity is the concept of giving just to feel good. So we do it for ourselves.
We are egocentric in every aspect. But I see two levels of egocentric behaviour.

Concept of giving (charity for example).
Concept of taking (materialism for example).

Do we agree?

If not.

Q: Why did you save the puppy?
A: Because he's cute and was looking sad.
Q: So why did you not leave him alone and walked on?
A: Because I would feel bad if I left him.

Conclusion: You saved the puppy because your conscience would trouble you.

iSok

Your world view is your world view. It won't be mine unless you can quit the head games and talk to me in the language of science and reality not mysticism and superstition.

When ALL theists believe in one God I'll start considering the arguments. Until then I'm frankly not interested in what you have to say. I've read it all before.

Regards
Chris

Quote from: "iSok"Does everybody agree on the following:


Man is a being which is egocentric.

People consider themselves separate from other things. However there are many people who consider themselves part of everything, so for a hasty generalization, sure. But not enough to make an absolute point off of it.

Quote from: "iSok"But he gets egocentric in two fundamental ways:

Concept of giving. --> You save a puppy, just to make yourself more happy, we don't really care about the puppy, even if he's very cute.

I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

Quote from: "iSok"Concept of taking. --> You buy something with your money, to make yourself more happy.

Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

Quote from: "iSok"in the case of God.

The biggest gift He has given us is our intellect, our reason.
Our intellect can not be found in any place in nature.


Do we all agree on this?

No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

Quote from: "Tank"iSok

Your world view is your world view. It won't be mine unless you can quit the head games and talk to me in the language of science and reality not mysticism and superstition.

When ALL theists believe in one God I'll start considering the arguments. Until then I'm frankly not interested in what you have to say. I've read it all before.

Regards
Chris

I would expect more from  a curious atheist.

I have not even started, basically I'm starting with a few points that are critical for my argument.
I just want to make these points clear before I present my argument, to make my claim understandable.
You'll see that it's not superstition or mysticism, but actually very rational.

This argument counts in every case, wether you are an poly/mony/apa/a/pan-theist, it will make sense.
Bear with me.

Quote from: "Davin"People consider themselves separate from other things. However there are many people who consider themselves part of everything, so for a hasty generalization, sure. But not enough to make an absolute point off of it.

Not many things are absolute, but sometimes we need it to explain certain phenomenon.

Quote from: "Davin"I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

And why did you save the puppy Davin?

- Because I cared for them.

Where does this concept of 'care' come from?

- From my conscience

How is your conscience formed?

- By an unknown combination of Nature and Nurture (starting at the age of 3).

So what would happen if you did not save them?

- I would trangress my upbringing, the morals laws that I have, it would make me sad.

So you were doing it, just to ease your conscience?

- Yes, I was doing it for myself.

or am I wrong? Did you have other motives?

Quote from: "Davin"Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

It's taking. You can get money to sustain yourself by different methods.
You can rob a bank, you can rob a store, you can steal from your neighbour, or you can work for it.

Now that you have money, a part of your possesion.
What are you going to do?

Give or Take.
You can give, by donating to charity to feel more happy. The money you give, will represent the time you had to work for the money. Eventually you give the time you've worked to earn the sum of money.
You can take, by buying a new flatscreen. The time you've worked for money will be taken by you, to make yourself more happy.

Quote from: "Davin"No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

Okay, delete God and fill in 'Nature'. (On a side note: I don't see why God and evolution can't be co-exist, I see it as absolutely critical for God, I don't see an argument for atheism in evolution)

If I ask you, what is the most importang thing that you treasure?
You'll answer most likely, that it's your reason.


Nonetheless the question you people ask here is:
"Why did God have to make evil?"

As it says, in the case of God.
I will give an argument why 'evil' has to exist in the case of God and also in the case of no God.

Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.


1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.


Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

None whatsoever. I'd much rather you were posting here than somewhere that might actually be paying attention to you. Feel free to waffle on if it pleases you  

Quote from: "Tank"None whatsoever. I'd much rather you were posting here than somewhere that might actually be paying attention to you. Feel free to waffle on if it pleases you  

Did I say something wrong, that I deserve this personal attack?
If you have any objection towards my claims, then enlighten me.

Quote from: "iSok"Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.


1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.


Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

I don't agree that the egocentricity of man is so absolute.  There are many animal species that do things for others that don't seem to have an egocentric motive.  A dolphin saves a human from drowning.  To get food or positive emotional stimulation?  Or is it just because a life needed saving?  I've thrown money into a hat of a homeless man before without even thinking about it.  I didn't receive emotions from doing so, nor was that my intention.  I was just hoping the dude would be able to have a meal.  You say that doing work and receiving money for it is taking.  That's providing one service in exchange for another... NOT taking.  It's either mutual giving or mutual taking or both, but not exclusively taking.  I was just throwing money in.  Nor do I agree that life is about developing, but that developing is just part of life.  However, I'll humor you for now.  Is there a point in our near future?

Quote from: "iSok"'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

So we can say: Life is about developping.

You do realize that you said the purpose of life being to be happy is not objective yet went on to say the purpose is to develop because developing makes us happy.  Sounds like you think the ultimate purpose is to be happy too.  Of course each individual takes a different route to try to achieve happiness.  Not everyone is able to nor cares about development though...some are happy sitting on their butts watching tv all day eating junk until their belly pops.

Quote from: "fester30"I don't agree that the egocentricity of man is so absolute.  There are many animal species that do things for others that don't seem to have an egocentric motive.  A dolphin saves a human from drowning.  To get food or positive emotional stimulation?  Or is it just because a life needed saving?

Sure, it's not absolute, as I said before: we need to view it as an absolute to understand it a bit.
There are of course examples that do not fit within this model.
But it certainly explains a lot, on how man thinks and acts.

The Dolphin could have saved the human being out of instinct. The instinct that he has to protect his family, could now
be used to save a human being.

Quote from: "fester30"I've thrown money into a hat of a homeless man before without even thinking about it.  I didn't receive emotions from doing so, nor was that my intention.  I was just hoping the dude would be able to have a meal.

If you do it a lot, you won't think about it any longer.
There are a lot of things which we don't think about but merely do, it's because we often did it and now it has become casual, like brushing your teeth.
The reason that you hope, comes from conscience.

If you'd grown up in a different environment, you wouldn't do that any longer.
So somehow this signal comes from you and if you do not accept the signal, you'll be troubled by yourself.
Egocentricity doesn't mean that we're bad..It only explains how we do things and why we do it.

Quote from: "fester30"You say that doing work and receiving money for it is taking.  That's providing one service in exchange for another... NOT taking.  It's either mutual giving or mutual taking or both, but not exclusively taking.  I was just throwing money in.  

I understand that in order to make money you've to work.
But once you own the money, the choice is their. Give or take?

Quote from: "Whitney"You do realize that you said the purpose of life being to be happy is not objective yet went on to say the purpose is to develop because developing makes us happy.  Sounds like you think the ultimate purpose is to be happy too.  Of course each individual takes a different route to try to achieve happiness.  Not everyone is able to nor cares about development though...some are happy sitting on their butts watching tv all day eating junk until their belly pops.

With 'objective claim' I meant, that  'enjoying life' might be the purpose for many of us.
But where lies the happiness of life, the source of 'enjoyment'?
I think in a few keywords: Experience, curiousity, overcoming obstacles  are some of our sources for example.
Development sums these sources in my opinion pretty much up.

As for the couch potatoes, they might watch television, they experience something new and out of that they get happiness.
They do develop, in a way that many of us would not like, nonetheless they do develop.

Why do we want children for example?
Because we want to experience the love that we will have for them, to see them walking around, to experience their innocence.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Davin"I adopted several animals in order to save them from suffering and death. I really cared about them and they very much appeared to appreciate my care as well.

And why did you save the puppy Davin?

- Because I cared for them.

I did not care for them at the time I adopted them.

Quote from: "iSok"Where does this concept of 'care' come from?

- From my conscience

Don't know, I however would not assume that I have a conscience.

Quote from: "iSok"How is your conscience formed?

- By an unknown combination of Nature and Nurture (starting at the age of 3).

So what would happen if you did not save them?

- I would trangress my upbringing, the morals laws that I have, it would make me sad.

It would not make me sad just as not saving the other millions of animals that need saving doesn't make me sad.

Quote from: "iSok"So you were doing it, just to ease your conscience?

- Yes, I was doing it for myself.

There is no easing of my conscience, because it does not require easing.

Quote from: "iSok"or am I wrong? Did you have other motives?

Yes, you were wrong. Do not put words into other peoples mouths, you asked the questions, I answered them. Just because you work a certain way does not mean everyone works like you. Remove this assumption that you can understand someone else by looking inward.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Davin"Buying something with money is not taking, the money you use to buy things with is generally earned by practicing a trade in exchange for money, which is then exchanged for things you need/want. Instead of having to grow my own vegetables and meat, kill the food and prepare it myself, build my own home, make my own computer parts... etc. all I have to do is program crap for other people, they give me money that I trade for those things. It's not taking, it's trading.

It's taking. You can get money to sustain yourself by different methods.

Yes you can. You can also get the things by other methods.

Quote from: "iSok"You can rob a bank, you can rob a store, you can steal from your neighbour, or you can work for it.

Robbing a bank and/or your neighbor is still work, as well as being rewarded for ones risk (unless they get caught, then they are punished for taking the risk).

Quote from: "iSok"Now that you have money, a part of your possesion.
What are you going to do?

Trade the money for stuff.

Quote from: "iSok"Give or Take.
You can give, by donating to charity to feel more happy. The money you give, will represent the time you had to work for the money. Eventually you give the time you've worked to earn the sum of money.
You can take, by buying a new flatscreen. The time you've worked for money will be taken by you, to make yourself more happy.

Trading.
Do you just go in and pick up the TV? No, you give them something for the TV.
What is that thing you give them in order to take the TV? Money.

You are not just taking a TV, you are trading money for the TV. How you acquired that money is a different topic and doesn't change the fact that you're trading money for a TV.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Davin"No. We do not know if our kind of intellect is the only in existence and there is no reason to suppose that a god gave us the intellect (however there are thousands of reasons to infer that our intellect evolved naturally).

Okay, delete God and fill in 'Nature'. (On a side note: I don't see why God and evolution can't be co-exist, I see it as absolutely critical for God, I don't see an argument for atheism in evolution)

God and evolution can co-exist. The point was that there is no reason to posite a god, while there are many reasons to posite scientific theories.

Quote from: "iSok"If I ask you, what is the most importang thing that you treasure?
You'll answer most likely, that it's your reason.

Right now I'll answer nothing. Nothing comes to mind that I treasure.

Quote from: "iSok"Nonetheless the question you people ask here is:
"Why did God have to make evil?"

He did not, if the god was all powerful, then by that definition; the god doesn't have to do anything.

Quote from: "iSok"As it says, in the case of God.
I will give an argument why 'evil' has to exist in the case of God and also in the case of no God.

Just make your case already, but please look it up to see if it hasn't already been disputed several times before.

Quote from: "iSok"Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.

You should just propose your thing, people not telling you they object to your claims does not solidify your claims.

Quote from: "iSok"1. Man is egocentric in two fundamental ways

1.1 --> Egocentric in the concept of taking --> materialism for example --> not linked with your conscience but instinct --> The instinct that has come from nature. Since man had to take food to maintain his physique, he needed this instinct. Food and shelter are in abundant, man now wants real estate, money, cars to fulfill the instinct given by nature.
Once again: The concept of taking has NO link with your conscience, only your instinct gices you the desire.

I disagree. For the reasons I stated earlier: buying things is trading for those things, almost everyone is trading their time and work.

Quote from: "iSok"1.2 --> Egocentric in the concept of giving --> charity for example --> Linked with your conscience,AGAINST your instinct. --> Stimulation by conscience. 'If you do good, your conscience stimulates you to do more 'good'.

Giving doesn't make me feel good. Hardly anything makes me feel good, but that doesn't mean that I only do the things that make me feel good.

Quote from: "iSok"Instinct does not stimulate, it wants to be fulfilled, there comes only desire from instinct.
Conscience stimulates, when you ignore it, you will be troubled by your conscience.

I do not understand this, I've never been troubled by a conscience. Please describe this.

Quote from: "iSok"Now, what is life about? There are many different opinions about this.
The question should rather be: What is the difference between the common 12 year old and the common elderly?

Age. So life is about getting older.

Quote from: "iSok"I think it's development. The elderly learned a lot, saw a lot, experienced a lot. Today he is who he is of what he has experienced.
So I am of the opinion that the primary role of life is: development of the intellect.

Even when many elderly lose their developed mind?

Quote from: "iSok"'Enjoying life' is not an objective claim, for every person it's something different.
One enjoys life because of his education, the other enjoys life because of his kids (emotional development). Others experience certain phenomenon, that brings them happiness.

This doesn't make "enjoying life" a subjective claim and "enjoying life" may very well be objective. The means by which one enjoys life may be subjective, but gaining enjoyment from life seems to fit almost every single person. While "development" fits hardly anyone.

Quote from: "iSok"So we can say: Life is about developping.

Any objections so far?

Yes, still all my old ones and these new ones.

Quote from: "iSok"Since no one has objected my claims, I'll continue.

I'm sure there was an objection or two, but what the fuck trundle on.

For the record I still disagree even after the clarification...I just don't feel like bothering to debate it further.

Too avoid further delay, I'll give my argument.

Why did God have to make evil?

Man is a being which came forward from evolution, man has a lot of qualities that also occur in nature.
There are qualities, that only man has, which nature can hardly grasp on. One of these qualities is intellect.

Every man is egocentric, whether we want this or not, but this is reality.
This is reality in the case of God and without God.

Evil is caused by both man and God.

1. Evil is caused by man, because of his free-will.
2. Evil is caused by God, for the benefit of man.

In my opinion, is the root of all evil: the love for wordly gains, powered by the instinct that nature has given man, to maintain his physical health, NOT his mental health.
In the first case, we have a constant desire for more, just to fulfill our desire, fueled by instinct. The concept of taking. Evil occurs when we do not set a limit, the desire for more, more and more.
When we forget the negative output on society just to fulfill our desires. Because of this evil comes into existence.

Religion teaches the opposite. Once man has the basic needs to maintain his physical health (enough food, water and a shelter), man should switch to a different egocentricism.
Man should no longer adopt the attitude of continuosly taking, but rather giving.
Charity for example. This is the source of happiness for man, in this life and the life after.
Conscience plays a crucial role in this. It's actually the feedback for man: 'Are you doing it alright?.
We do good things, just to please our conscience.

But according to religion (particulary Islam), conscience has too develop.
A child is born in a state of Al-Fitrah (=A sound nature), society has the task to give the child a good upbringing.
Once the child is old enough, he can play a role in the everlasting battle between: 'take' or 'give'.

But sometimes, society gives the child a not so good upbringing. (ritual rape was quite common among the Aztecs).
In that case, according to Islam, there should be no blame on the child. Because he could not distinguish between good and evil.
But once given the message and the criterium for good and wrong, and man with his choice still rejects it, then there is blame to be put.


Now, what role does evil play in all this?
Man's life is about developping. During his life he has to fight obstacles that we see as 'evil'.

Evil: Everything that which we want too overcome.
This could be: illiteracy, wars, injustice, diseases, murder, pollution and so on...

The source for all this lies within man. Greediness, ignorance, arrogance and rage bring forward evil.
Concepts that man should fight against. That is the true purpose of life, called 'Jihad' in Islam.
If there was no injustice in the world, then there would be no struggle for justice in the world.

God for example causes natural disasters.
Because when there's an external calamity, that is not caused by man, we tend to unite more.
In case of an internal calamity, caused by man, we don't unite. Take a look at wars.
Another reason is too stimulate our intellect.
For a scientist the question comes: "How does and When does the earth shake?"

Our whole society is based on this:

We send our children to school, to educate them.
Some of our children become scientists, who are looking for ways to treat cancerpatients.
Some of them become politicians, to organise society and give society a better direction.
Other's join the police force, to oppose injustice on the streets.

Evil is absolutely needed in the world.
For our development.

You can throw away all that I have said, just take a look at this:

Now, what happens if somehow God decides to delete all evil.
Society would crumble, because our whole purpose is based on defeating evil.
Every aspect of society is based on this --> Fight 'Evil'.



No evil = No purpose for society = No society = Chaos = Evil


The result is impossible within our reality (absence of evil), it's the journey that is extremely important.
In my opinion is the purpose life: fulfilling this journey in succes and adding your part to beat the unbeatable.


A heaven on earth is simply not possible, it would turn into a hell on earth.
Evil is bound to exist, you might ask: Why not a little less evil than now?
The problem with man is always the limit.

We want more proof of God.
We want more money.
We want more happiness.
We want to live longer.
and so on....

Honestly: Is there anything in our life, when we'll say: We have enough.

Now some of us might find the concept of God a bit silly.
You do good, He rewards, You do bad, He punishes.

But we take a look at our reality, we can conclude.
That we are already subjected to laws.
In the materialistic universe, there are already laws that confine us.

If I jump off a building, gravity will harm me.
If I put my hand in fire, the activity of particles will harm me.
If I jump into ice, the low activity of particles will harm me...and so on.

There's only one thing that is not connected to these 'laws'.
These are our thoughts, that transcend reality (imagination).
And somehow these thoughts that we have are constantly stored in our subconscious. Like a recordplayer, 'writing' down everything we think.
So why wouldn't we get punishment for our overal thought process in this life while we are already being punished for everything else?

Quote from: "iSok"And somehow these thoughts that we have are constantly stored in our subconscious. Like a recordplayer, 'writing' down everything we think.
So why wouldn't we get punishment for our overal thought process in this life while we are already being punished for everything else?

To be honest, I skipped your novel and went straight to the climactic conclusion.
Society rightly judges people based on actions not thoughts. We are free to imagine whatever we like, poor Megan Fox and Jessica Alba would blush if they knew what I had imagined about them. Should I be punished by society for these thoughts? Is it natural that I might be attracted to beautiful people and hence have some passionate thoughts? Was there a victim? Do I really care that some theist may think poorly on my "impure" thoughts? What's impure about imagined sex?

Think what you like, but think twice when turning thought into action, actions have consequences.

Quote from: "iSok"Religion teaches the opposite. Once man has the basic needs to maintain his physical health (enough food, water and a shelter), man should switch to a different egocentricism.
Man should no longer adopt the attitude of continuosly taking, but rather giving.

Religion also teaches to TAKE territory that belongs to “God’s people” (Jews and the land of Canaan, Muhammad and Mecca).

Quote from: "iSok"But according to religion (particulary Islam), conscience has too develop.

But sometimes, society gives the child a not so good upbringing. (ritual rape was quite common among the Aztecs).

Where is the Islamic conscience when a woman is punished for being raped, as if the man who raped her was the victim?  Or when a Muslim father is killing his daughter to restore honor because she had premarital sex or disobeyed him?

Quote from: "iSok"God for example causes natural disasters.

No God doesn’t.  Natural disasters occur independent of any supposed God.  Just like we, as humans, have found out there is no lightning god, we have also found out there’s no volcano or earthquake god.

Quote from: "iSok"You can throw away all that I have said.

Something we can agree on.

Quote from: "iSok"We want more proof of God.
We want more money.
We want more happiness.
We want to live longer.
and so on...

“MORE proof?”  I’m looking for ANY proof.  I haven’t seen any yet.  
I would like more money and to live longer.  Of course more happiness would be fine, but that’s more of a philosophical idea.  Would I reject more happiness because I’ve been conditioned to accept the level of happiness I have now?  Not sure.

Quote from: "iSok"Honestly: Is there anything in our life, when we'll say: We have enough.

No.  I have only one chance at life.  If I ever say I have enough, I’ll stop making an effort for more and turn into a vegetable.

Quote from: "iSok"Now some of us might find the concept of God a bit silly.

You picked up on that, eh?

Quote from: "iSok"If I jump off a building, gravity will harm me.

If I jump off a building, gravity won’t harm me, it will make me accelerate toward the center of the earth until I reach terminal velocity based upon air friction.  What will harm me is the force that will stop my inertia (the ground).

Quote from: "iSok"There's only one thing that is not connected to these 'laws'.
These are our thoughts, that transcend reality (imagination).
And somehow these thoughts that we have are constantly stored in our subconscious. Like a recordplayer, 'writing' down everything we think.
So why wouldn't we get punishment for our overal thought process in this life while we are already being punished for everything else?

Our thoughts, imagination, and memory are connected to the laws of nature.  These are all results of biochemistry.  Atheists understand that even when we have knowledge gaps, we no longer need a god to fill in those gaps.  We understand that those gaps are simply undiscovered knowledge of science that will one day be uncovered.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"And somehow these thoughts that we have are constantly stored in our subconscious. Like a recordplayer, 'writing' down everything we think.
So why wouldn't we get punishment for our overal thought process in this life while we are already being punished for everything else?

To be honest, I skipped your novel and went straight to the climactic conclusion.
Society rightly judges people based on actions not thoughts. We are free to imagine whatever we like, poor Megan Fox and Jessica Alba would blush if they knew what I had imagined about them. Should I be punished by society for these thoughts? Is it natural that I might be attracted to beautiful people and hence have some passionate thoughts? Was there a victim? Do I really care that some theist may think poorly on my "impure" thoughts? What's impure about imagined sex?

Think what you like, but think twice when turning thought into action, actions have consequences.

Can a child deny brocolli and go for the candy, even if we tell him that it's bad for him?

Nonetheless, This was my conclusion to the thread question:

You can throw away all that I have said, just take a look at this:

Now, what happens if somehow God decides to delete all evil.
Society would crumble, because our whole purpose is based on defeating evil.
Every aspect of society is based on this --> Fight 'Evil'.



No evil = No purpose for society = No society = Chaos = Evil


The result is impossible within our reality (absence of evil), it's the journey that is extremely important.
In my opinion is the purpose life: fulfilling this journey in succes and adding your part to beat the unbeatable.


A heaven on earth is simply not possible, it would turn into a hell on earth.
Evil is bound to exist, you might ask: Why not a little less evil than now?
The problem with man is always the limit.

We want more proof of God.
We want more money.
We want more happiness.
We want to live longer.
and so on....

Honestly: Is there anything in our life, when we'll say: We have enough.


Fester,


Honour revenge, killing of a rape victim and so on...are cultural concepts.
There's no such thing honour revenge within Islam. Islam is against it, because honour comes from the ego.

The primary life lesson within the Qur'an is that Iblis did not bow down for Adam, just because he was a human. Iblis found himself better.
The Qur'an asks us not too make the same mistake, but unfortunately, man still acts in this way.

Quote from: "fester30"No God doesn’t.  Natural disasters occur independent of any supposed God.  Just like we, as humans, have found out there is no lightning god, we have also found out there’s no volcano or earthquake god.

The question is here "Why did God create evil?". As it says, in the case of God. Why do you start waffeling (Tank taught me this word) around as soon as I mention the word, God.
"GOD DOES NOT EXIST YOU IDIOT!!"...I already know that you think that way Fester, repeating it won't make it more 'true'.
I'm simply trying to give an argument on why evil has too exist. So far you did not refute.

Quote from: "fester30"“MORE proof?”  I’m looking for ANY proof.  I haven’t seen any yet.  

I'll let the Qur'an answer this one.
Did you imagine that We created you without any purpose, and that you will not be brought back to Us?"
Does man imagine that whatever he wishes for is right for him?
And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: 'We have heard. We could, if we willed, compose the like of it. They, are nothing but fables of the ancient times.'

Did they come into being without any creator? Or were they their own creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

If We were even to open for them a way to the heavens, and they could continually climb up to it in broad daylight.
they would still have said: "Surely our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we have been enchanted."

I apologize if this question has already been answered and I simply missed it; however, would someone care to define exactly what evil is? Preferably a theist since the original question is asking, "why did god have to make evil?" I realize that some theists will argue that evil is a result of sin and if it is god who decides what is and is not a sin, then it just seems like sin is at the mercy of the opinion of this deity.

I do have one question for any theists who believe that this deity is omnipotent and omniscient: If god or goddess or deity is omnipotent and omniscient, then wouldn't he or she or it be able to have the knowledge and the power to create a world without what people commonly refer to as "evil"? An all-powerful and all-knowledgeable being would be able to have the power and knowledge to do anything and everything. Therefore something that may be impossible for us mere mortals, would be completely doable for an omnipotent and omniscient being. If you do not believe in a deity that is omnipotent and omniscient, then feel free to disregard this question.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "fester30"No God doesn’t.  Natural disasters occur independent of any supposed God.  Just like we, as humans, have found out there is no lightning god, we have also found out there’s no volcano or earthquake god.

The question is here "Why did God create evil?". As it says, in the case of God. Why do you start waffeling (Tank taught me this word) around as soon as I mention the word, God.
"GOD DOES NOT EXIST YOU IDIOT!!"...I already know that you think that way Fester, repeating it won't make it more 'true'.
I'm simply trying to give an argument on why evil has too exist. So far you did not refute.

You're right, I forgot for a moment you were trying to answer the question in this thread.  My bad.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "fester30"“MORE proof?”  I’m looking for ANY proof.  I haven’t seen any yet.  

I'll let the Qur'an answer this one.
Did you imagine that We created you without any purpose, and that you will not be brought back to Us?"
Does man imagine that whatever he wishes for is right for him?
And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: 'We have heard. We could, if we willed, compose the like of it. They, are nothing but fables of the ancient times.'

Did they come into being without any creator? Or were they their own creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

If We were even to open for them a way to the heavens, and they could continually climb up to it in broad daylight.
they would still have said: "Surely our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we have been enchanted."

This has been mentioned many times in this forum: "holy" books are not proof of God.  I can write a book that claims I'm a god, and point to that book as proof that I'm a god.  That doesn't make it true.

Quote from: "iSok"Evil: Everything that which we want too overcome.
This could be: illiteracy, wars, injustice, diseases, murder, pollution and so on...

That seems a bit broad, we may be egocentric but we can recognise this and try to get beyond tree with fruit good, tree without fruit bad.  I'm not so egocentric as to see the world as put here for my benefit/punishment.

Quote from: "iSok"The source for all this lies within man. Greediness, ignorance, arrogance and rage bring forward evil.
Concepts that man should fight against. That is the true purpose of life, called 'Jihad' in Islam.
If there was no injustice in the world, then there would be no struggle for justice in the world.

Yes and we could concentrate on positive things such as science, art or the art of living.

Quote from: "iSok"God for example causes natural disasters.
Because when there's an external calamity, that is not caused by man, we tend to unite more.
In case of an internal calamity, caused by man, we don't unite. Take a look at wars.

Wars unites people, in either heroic defence or wicked slaughter, shared adversity will often unite people, we can share our hatred of the other, a bonding experience.

Quote from: "iSok"Another reason is too stimulate our intellect.

The adversity of our environment caused our intellect to develop through evolution, a god could have just given us one, maybe without the baggage left by our species battles with tooth and claw.

Quote from: "iSok"Now, what happens if somehow God decides to delete all evil.
Society would crumble, because our whole purpose is based on defeating evil.
Every aspect of society is based on this --> Fight 'Evil'.



No evil = No purpose for society = No society = Chaos = Evil

It would take a bit more than bold red font to convince me this so.

Quote from: "iSok"There's only one thing that is not connected to these 'laws'.
These are our thoughts, that transcend reality (imagination).
And somehow these thoughts that we have are constantly stored in our subconscious. Like a recordplayer, 'writing' down everything we think.
So why wouldn't we get punishment for our overal thought process in this life while we are already being punished for everything else?

Ah good old punishment, it's always about the punishment, and if I'm real good I get a stick and get to join in the punishing.

TMP, I think I gave a sufficient argument.
Instead of nitpicking each line, you can try to refute it.

We're all egocentric, I don't understand what's so bad about that.
It's just a layman talk when you say:

'I just care a lot for my children, I'm not egocentric'
If I'd ask: Why do you care?
answer: I just care.

I rest my case.

You say that you would focus on science and art if there was no injustice.
First, define what injustice is.
Is war injustice? Is murder injustice? Is cancer injustice?
The problem is we can't set a limit to say: To here and no further.
I see illiteracy also as a form of injustice.

Art and the art of living are just tools to ease the dangerous mind of the human being, to avoid injustice.
Science is looking for answers, to cure disease, to understand the world a bit more, to avoid injustice.

Instead of commenting on the colour, rather tell me what is wrong with my claim.

No evil = No purpose for society = No society = Chaos = Evil

(Do you like blue?)


As for punishment, it's the most basale instinct of the human mind.
If God wouldn't threat mankind, then He wouldn't know His creation, we would probably negotiate on the terms to follow.

We are constantly asked to make choices. If there was no choice, there would be no good or evil.
We can choose for Good or we can choose for Evil, it's upto us, and the choice is our responsibility. Do wrong and you will destroy yourself, it's as clear as that.

Quote from: "fester30"This has been mentioned many times in this forum: "holy" books are not proof of God.  I can write a book that claims I'm a god, and point to that book as proof that I'm a god.  That doesn't make it true.

I think you didn't read it well, it's not just a Book.
The Qur'an attacks with fury, directly, personally and it debates, shames, criticizes and challenges. And above all demands complete submission.

Did you imagine that We created you without any purpose, and that you will not be brought back to Us?"
(Life has a purpose)

Does man imagine that whatever he wishes for is right for him?
(Stevil having dirty thoughts about Megan Fox)

And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: 'We have heard. We could, if we willed, compose the like of it. They, are nothing but fables of the ancient times.'
(Many of us, say today that religion is just a myth)

Did they come into being without any creator? Or were they their own creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
(Adressing the uncertainty of man)

Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
(Giving proof for the origin of the universe)

Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?
(Is this proof enough for you?)

If We were even to open for them a way to the heavens, and they could continually climb up to it in broad daylight.
they would still have said: "Surely our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we have been enchanted."
(Adresses man's everlasting desire for more, more and more. Also the proof of God. That some people will simply not believe with all the proof in the world)

I mentioned multiple times here:

The scholar who translated the Qur'an, translated verse 51:47 in the following way.

"(51:47) And heaven â€" We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so."
But in his tafseer, he adds that the verse also has a second meaning. That is both equal in the context.

The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something. According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us. Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean: "This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.  

This line is written by a man with zero scientific knowledge, in the mountains of Pakistan, in 1979.
But at the same time, he adresses with astonishing precision on how the universe works.

I simply don't agree with you, if you say: We have NO proof.
The question is: Is this enough proof for you? I assume not.

I didn't read the whole post because I don't care about what the quran says...but:

To claim that evil must exist because it creates purpose for society is ignoring that it doesn't have to be that way.  A society could be formed around simply enjoying each other's company.  We could have no society at all and just live in nomadic family groups.  We could go back to tribal culture.  There are a lot of viable alternatives in which human life can exist without the need for evil and even without the need for society.  Not to mention that just because we have labeled the dichotomy of good vs evil, light vs dark etc doesn't mean that's how some other intelligent species would view the world nor if that is the only way a universe could be set up.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "fester30"This has been mentioned many times in this forum: "holy" books are not proof of God.  I can write a book that claims I'm a god, and point to that book as proof that I'm a god.  That doesn't make it true.

[quote="iSok]I think you didn't read it well, it's not just a Book.
The Qur'an attacks with fury, directly, personally and it debates, shames, criticizes and challenges. And above all demands complete submission.

[/quote]

I've read a couple Tom Clancy books that did the same thing, and I don't worship Jack Ryan.

Quote from: "iSok"No evil = No purpose for society = No society = Chaos = Evil

This logic does not necessarily follow:
Having no evil doesn't necessarily lead to no purpose for society, no purpose for society doesn't necessarily lead to no society.
Even if the only purpose of society is to remove evil, if there is no evil to remove then society would be useless.
The lack of society doesn't lead to chaos in itself. There could be a chaotic society even, like an anarchistic commune.
Chaos doesn't lead to evil, just as order doesn't prevent evil. Chaos doesn't even lead to bad things in itself.

So this entire string of stuff doesn't follow.

To answer the question of the thread: If the god is all powerful, then the god doesn't need to do anything, anything the god does and anything that happens/will happen is the intention of the god. So if the god is all powerful, it did not need to create evil, if the god isn't all powerful then it might have needed to create evil.

By arguing that the god needed to create evil for whatever reason, you're arguing that the god is not all powerful.

Quote from: "iSok"Did you imagine that We created you without any purpose, and that you will not be brought back to Us?

This statement is meaningless unless one already accepts what the Quran says is true.

Quote from: "iSok"Does man imagine that whatever he wishes for is right for him?

No.

Quote from: "iSok"And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: 'We have heard. We could, if we willed, compose the like of it. They, are nothing but fables of the ancient times.'

So the people that wrote the Quran already knew that they were saying the same things that other religions had said many times before.

Quote from: "iSok"Did they come into being without any creator? Or were they their own creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

The dichotomy that either a thing must be created by a sentient entity or create itself is completely ridiculous. There is also far less wrong about remaining uncertain than by assuming and commiting to those assumptions for the rest of ones life.

Quote from: "iSok"Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water?
(Giving proof for the origin of the universe)

The origin of the universe is not water. The heavens and the earth were not one solid mass. The heavens and the earth were not torn apart... so how does this explain the origin of the universe?

Quote from: "iSok"Will they, then, not believe (that We created all this)?

Who? Just some humans writing something down in a book claiming that it's devine... how many books do this? No, I do not believe that men created everything.

Quote from: "iSok"If We were even to open for them a way to the heavens, and they could continually climb up to it in broad daylight.
they would still have said: "Surely our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we have been enchanted."
(Adresses man's everlasting desire for more, more and more. Also the proof of God. That some people will simply not believe with all the proof in the world)

Oh how convenient for the book to talk about how people will reject such crappy evidence of a book that promotes itself as true.

Quote from: "iSok""(51:47) And heaven â€" We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so."
But in his tafseer, he adds that the verse also has a second meaning. That is both equal in the context.

The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something. According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us. Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean: "This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.

This line is written by a man with zero scientific knowledge, in the mountains of Pakistan, in 1979.
But at the same time, he adresses with astonishing precision on how the universe works.

So a man with zero scientific knowledge saying something unscientific is evidence for?