DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Quadrochosis on October 19, 2010, 10:01:34 PM
-
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/
Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.
Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?
-
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/
Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.
Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?
The psychology of religion is fascinating stuff. I have caught myself at times trying to justify my evolving politics in light of the Bible. But then I think of what a frivolous exercise that is and get on with my day. As I get older, I'm trying to avoid coloring my views of God by not filtering my information consumption. For example, who cares what the Assemblies of God (my church denomination) or TV preacher Joe say about gay marriage? What does the text say about the issue? Does it say anything? That helps, though no one can completely abstain from making assumptions. Just part of being human, I suppose.
-
Yeah, I guess that's not too surprising to read. After all, all those people, from moderates to gay-haters believe they are acting on God's behalf.
What that means of course is that this also happened 2,000 years ago.
rumborak
-
it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.
Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?
-
it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.
Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?
Pretty sure rumby is agnostic/atheist.
-
it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.
Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?
That's how I'd interpret his remark. God was/is a construct of man. The current one, God v. Abraham, was created in the image of men from 2000 years ago with different values.
It'd actually be damned interesting to figure out what God2K would be like.
If a man taketh in the intellectual property of another man, without offering fair compensation, then he shall surely be put to death, for I shall hold true the value of all creative works. Sony, Chapter 7, verse 12
-
That's how I'd interpret his remark. God was/is a construct of man. The current one, God v. Abraham, was created in the image of men from 2000 years ago with different values.
Yeah, that's what I meant. If you look at the OT God, He was a clear result of the times he was "created", and the NT God once again conforms to an evolved morality at that time.
Just as the Norse gods were as warlike as their terrestrial counterparts, and the Roman gods were as intriguing and decadent as the people who created them.
rumborak
-
I'm a firm believer the to average Joe the plumber is more moral than the god they worship.
-
while I completely agree with our human nature to see god according to our personal thinking and the danger therein, and the need to think biblically rather than according to what I think, Jesus was counter culture on every level. just look at the beattitudes. they are the incarnation of the antithesis of what any normal person would think. similarly, the god of the jews was completely counter culture. they were a monotheistic religion in the midst of a polytheistic world.
-
just look at the beattitudes. they are the incarnation of the antithesis of what any normal person would think.
How so? "The meek shall inherit the Earth" or "The mourners will be comforted" is what these days any commentator would call "pandering to the masses". Jesus was essentially doing the 0AD equivalent of promising tax cuts to the middle class.
rumborak
-
Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind. Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them. You find that throughout. Just read Romans 1.
-
Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind. Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them. You find that throughout. Just read Romans 1.
One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.
-
Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind. Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them. You find that throughout. Just read Romans 1.
One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.
I'm willing to bet you're right.
-
Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind. Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them. You find that throughout. Just read Romans 1.
One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.
I'm willing to bet you're right.
Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.
-
Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.
The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.
Human's these days have a limited will. We have our will tarnished and completely infiltrated by sin. Adam and Eve had a completely free will which was untarnished. Because of our completely sinful nature we can't choose to not sin and everything we do it because of our nature wchich is proud and selfish.
What differentiates Christians from the rest of humanity is the work of God in us by his Holy spirit. Only with God's help can we fight sin's subversion of our free will. Unfortunately we can't have a completely free will again until Christ comes back.
-
I still don't believe the idea of Original Sin, even if I did believe in the bible.
Possibly it was mankind developing freedom.
They didn't have freedom in the garden, they were told they couldn't have knowledge. They chose to knowledge over servitude. I don't see that as sin.
-
The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.
And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.
And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.
Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.
rumborak
-
Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.
The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.
Human's these days have a limited will. We have our will tarnished and completely infiltrated by sin. Adam and Eve had a completely free will which was untarnished. Because of our completely sinful nature we can't choose to not sin and everything we do it because of our nature wchich is proud and selfish.
What differentiates Christians from the rest of humanity is the work of God in us by his Holy spirit. Only with God's help can we fight sin's subversion of our free will. Unfortunately we can't have a completely free will again until Christ comes back.
You just proved my point on the issues I take with Christianity. If its in our nature, why should it be evil? I mean, if God has created all of us, he is in one way or another responsible for that. If God is all-knowing, then he certainly knew that this would happen, wouldn't he? If he didn't, then that would contradict the idea that he knows all and sees all. Assuming that much, God would know that Adam and Eve would disobey and eat from the tree and gain knowledge. Now, knowing that much, God has two options.
1. Make it so that the nature of Adam and Eve would be able to resist eating the fruit.
2. Sit back and do nothing and watch the rest of humanity fall into despair.
Looking back, it seems like God chose option #2. Now, God being omnipotent and all, that's his choice to do that. But at the same time, God apparently created the will of Adam and Eve and created everything else in between. If the will that God bestowed onto them was his own creation, then isn't it possible that the betrayal was in essence, partially God's own doing?
I still don't believe the idea of Original Sin, even if I did believe in the bible.
Possibly it was mankind developing freedom.
They didn't have freedom in the garden, they were told they couldn't have knowledge. They chose to knowledge over servitude. I don't see that as sin.
Me neither.
-
The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.
And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.
And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.
Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.
rumborak
This is my personal favorite argument against the bible.
-
The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.
And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.
And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.
Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.
rumborak
This is my personal favorite argument against the bible.
Good story. The only problem is that it is easily debunked by Christian enemies if false. If that's how it started, how did it get legs to go the distance? Particularly in the first century with Jesus. All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead. With the political power of the Christian prosecutors it would have been simple.
-
That applies to every other religion too, BrotherH. I mean, even when we can trace Scientology's origins of it's decidedly less than convincing doctrines, it hasn't stopped it from being one of the fastest emerging religions.
-
Also, christianity didn't matter for quite a number of years. It probably didn't have any "enemies" and wasn't seen as anything worth worrying. It grew underground for a while and then quickly became the official religion of constantine. At that point, it's "enemies" were easily killed.
And don't think that millions of people weren't killed for that reason.
-
Particularly in the first century with Jesus. All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead.
It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.
rumborak
-
It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts.
???
Where'd you get this idea?
-J
-
There was a thread a while ago about Bart Ehrman who compared the different existing manuscripts. I think the earliest manuscripts just end with the three women seeing an empty tomb, but never tell anybody. Only later version suddenly have this fabulous part of Jesus talking to disciples and whatnot.
rumborak
-
You just proved my point on the issues I take with Christianity. If its in our nature, why should it be evil? I mean, if God has created all of us, he is in one way or another responsible for that. If God is all-knowing, then he certainly knew that this would happen, wouldn't he? If he didn't, then that would contradict the idea that he knows all and sees all. Assuming that much, God would know that Adam and Eve would disobey and eat from the tree and gain knowledge. Now, knowing that much, God has two options.
1. Make it so that the nature of Adam and Eve would be able to resist eating the fruit.
2. Sit back and do nothing and watch the rest of humanity fall into despair.
Looking back, it seems like God chose option #2. Now, God being omnipotent and all, that's his choice to do that. But at the same time, God apparently created the will of Adam and Eve and created everything else in between. If the will that God bestowed onto them was his own creation, then isn't it possible that the betrayal was in essence, partially God's own doing?
God knew that sin was going to happen. I don't disagree. He did make sure that Adam and eve were able to resist eating the fruit. They just didn't. God knowing it was going to happen didn't mean he ordained it to happen. (I'd refer you to the westminster confessions/catechism but I haven't studied it very well yet. Gimme a couple of years :P) The basic principle is that the bible says both that God is sovereign and that humanity is responsible for it's own actions.
He didn't just sit back after they introduced sin into the human race. He ordained to send Jesus to redeem his people. Then he chose his people (the Israelites) and entered into a covenant with them to redeem them and even they broke the covenant after they had direct access to him. Then he opened it up so that people of all nations had the opportunity to be counted with Christ's righteousness.
-
If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.
-
If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.
That proves nothing. You're playing with philosophy. I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen. It doesn't violate free choice.
Scripture lends itself to the idea that God knows what will happen even if individuals made choices other than what they made. I recall an instance where he told David that David was going to be killed. David altered his fate by fleeing, and something different happened.
You can hit the cue ball an infinite number of ways, and Scripture indicates that while God knows the way you will choose to hit the ball, he even knows what would happen had you chosen to hit the ball a different way.
-
If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.
That proves nothing. You're playing with philosophy. I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen. It doesn't violate free choice.
No offense, but Adami's argument isn't just some armchair philosophy argument. If God knew what was going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Adam and Even perceived themselves to have a choice. It was a setup by God, and thus unethical.
BTW, the number of times you used the word "scripture" in your post is somewhat worrisome. Interpreting the Bible shouldn't be an exercise of how much you can shun yourself from common sense and logic.
rumborak
-
If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.
That proves nothing. You're playing with philosophy. I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen. It doesn't violate free choice.
Scripture lends itself to the idea that God knows what will happen even if individuals made choices other than what they made. I recall an instance where he told David that David was going to be killed. David altered his fate by fleeing, and something different happened.
You can hit the cue ball an infinite number of ways, and Scripture indicates that while God knows the way you will choose to hit the ball, he even knows what would happen had you chosen to hit the ball a different way.
1. Sorry, but saying "the bible proves they work together" is not an argument, neither is just saying they work together.
2. If David changed his fate, then god didn't know what was going to happen. If god knew david wasn't going to REALLY die, then he lied to him as part of the choiceless plan.
-
Particularly in the first century with Jesus. All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead.
It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.
rumborak
I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie. It's missing in some of the oldest manuscripts, particularly from the ending of the book of Mark, but appears consistently in all the others. Even playing devil's adocate and assuming they weren't originally there like you said, Jesus still fulfilled all the first advent Messianic prophecies, a statistical impossibility, even if a group of hogeys fabricated the whole thing.
If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.
That proves nothing. You're playing with philosophy. I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen. It doesn't violate free choice.
No offense, but Adami's argument isn't just some armchair philosophy argument. If God knew what was going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Adam and Even perceived themselves to have a choice. It was a setup by God, and thus unethical.
BTW, the number of times you used the word "scripture" in your post is somewhat worrisome. Interpreting the Bible shouldn't be an exercise of how much you can shun yourself from common sense and logic.
rumborak
You think it was a setup by God? God provided the opportunity so man would have free choice to do God’s will or not. Otherwise, we’d be drones.
Since we’re talking about the Bible and how it talks about free choice, I don’t see the harm in referring to Scripture. I understand that there exists a philosophy that knowing the future somehow violates human rights, but there’s also philosophies that argue the opposite. You can’t select one philosophy, approach the Bible, and say, “Look! It doesn’t match up to this philosophy! Therefore, it’s wrong!” You have to consider other philosophical possibilities as well. It could very well be that Adami’s view is incorrect.
I certainly don’t think his view is the only possible conclusion from “common sense and logic.” Even many secular philosophers would disagree. And by the way, I think that you’re claim that I’m abandoning common sense and logic is extremely distasteful, and makes me understand why people like Vivace are choosing to leave P/R.
-
The idea is that God told David what would happen if David continued doing what he was doing without an attempt to change. It would be the equivalent of saying this thread is going nowhere. That is true as of this moment, but can certainly change.
-
I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie.
I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion, with these kinds of arguments. You are personally so invested in the "truth" of your argument that everything to the opposite is clearly a "lie".
The guy who "lied" here is a scriptural scholar, who I would think knows a LOT more about scripture than you do. Only, that he fell from faith during his studies, which of course means he lies.
rumborak
-
And after reviewing this thread, it's become evident that what we're discussing has squat to do with the thread topic. Later.
-
1. Jesus only fulfilled the prophecy if you start reading the prophecies in extremely specific odd ways.
2. I didn't say anything about human rights. I said free will. You can't say "well that might not be true". You kind of have to explain. I explained my point of view, and so far the only response has been "yea...well I don't see it that way". You have to have a reason.
3. I like bullet point posts in cases like this, so sue me
4. ?????
5. Prophet.
-
The idea is that God told David what would happen if David continued doing what he was doing without an attempt to change. It would be the equivalent of saying this thread is going nowhere. That is true as of this moment, but can certainly change.
Yes, but if someone knows exactly how this thread will turn out....then saying that would be part of the plan to make it change. If the thread didn't turn out 1 specific way, that person wouldn't "know" what he knew. And since god has to "know" the future, it can't go any other possible way.
-
:rollin
-
I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie.
I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion, with these kinds of arguments. You are personally so invested in the "truth" of your argument that everything to the opposite is clearly a "lie".
rumborak
If you were a bit more careful in reading my post with that statement, you would have seen that I played along with your claim.
And Adami,
1. So?
2. I wasn't talking about human rights either. The fact is, philosophically, we can't know with 100% certainty whether or not we have free will or not. There have been centuries of secular discourse on this. Since we can't know with much certainty, you can't say with certainty that the Bible violates the fundamental truth of free will, since it really isn't that fundamental. (at least from any capacity that we have to determine it's fundamentalism.)
-
1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.
2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.
-
It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.
rumborak
I can't seem to have two separate quotes in here so i'm going to have to multi-post sorry.
"The earliest manuscripts" being Mark. You're right it ends with the women seeing the tomb and running away in fear. that is *after* ch 16:6,7 the part where he talked to the apostles *In Mark* was tacked on afterwards. not so with Matthew, Luke of John. Matthew was written in the 50s (i think remembering from the top of my head) Luke-Acts was written in the...50s or 60s I think. might be 61? It ends with Paul in Rome during Nero's reign so between 54 and 68. It was before the great fire in 64 because Paul got killed as a result of that fire. Paul is very much alive at the end of Acts. John was written in before the destruction of the Temple so before AD 70. The latest clocks in at at the most 40 years after Jesus death and resurrection.
Stuff after the resurrection of Jesus isn't as important to Mark. His gospel climaxes at the 15:37-39. Mark is about the unfolding revelation of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah/Son of Man/Son of God etc. (Interesting tidbit: Jesus attributes the title Son of man to himself the most in Mark. it's referencing Daniel Chapter 7:13,14) so naturally the climax is Jesus dying, the temple veil being torn and the centurion (a non Jew) confessing Jesus as the "Son of God"
If you look at Matthew and luke and John they go into more depth after the resurrection.
If you look at the history of the church after Jesus Ascension in Acts You'll see how quickly belief in Jesus resurrection spread. It comes to a point in Acts (18:2) where the Emperor of Rome (Claudius, He was emperor from 47-51. 17-21 years after Jesus death) had expelled Jews and Christians (at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism) from Rome. This was during Pauls second missionary journey.
If you read 1 Corinthians 15 You find evidence of creeds already circulating in the Christian church. This was written in AD 55.
So Christianity *was* relevant 17-21 years after Jesus died. Indeed it had reached Rome so efficiently that 'Jews' had been expelled from Rome by that point. If you read Acts you see countless riots started against christians. Not only this but you also see time stamps in there like Acts 18:12 Gallio becoming Proconsul of Achaia. This is while Paul was again on his second journey.
As a side note. if you're going to use mass murder against christianity don't forget to hate your favourite romans who killed Christians for sport. It got to be such a fun past time for Romans they actually used us as torches or street lamps while they burned us alive. During the 1st century.
EDIT: stop posting so quickly I can't keep up :D
-
1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.
2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.
-
1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.
2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.
Ok Free will and God's sovereignty aren't mustually exclusive.
God can know what's going to happen without ordaining it to happen. Man doesn't know what's going to happen but somehow everything we do takes the world in the direction God wants it to go.
-
1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.
2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.
Ok Free will and God's sovereignty aren't mustually exclusive.
God can know what's going to happen without ordaining it to happen. Man doesn't know what's going to happen but somehow everything we do takes the world in the direction God wants it to go.
Once again, simply saying "it works" doesn't say anything. You have to some how back it up.
-
It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.
rumborak
I can't seem to have two separate quotes in here so i'm going to have to multi-post sorry.
"The earliest manuscripts" being Mark. You're right it ends with the women seeing the tomb and running away in fear. that is *after* ch 16:6,7 the part where he talked to the apostles *In Mark* was tacked on afterwards. not so with Matthew, Luke of John. Matthew was written in the 50s (i think remembering from the top of my head) Luke-Acts was written in the...50s or 60s I think. might be 61? It ends with Paul in Rome during Nero's reign so between 54 and 68. It was before the great fire in 64 because Paul got killed as a result of that fire. Paul is very much alive at the end of Acts. John was written in before the destruction of the Temple so before AD 70. The latest clocks in at at the most 40 years after Jesus death and resurrection.
Stuff after the resurrection of Jesus isn't as important to Mark. His gospel climaxes at the 15:37-39. Mark is about the unfolding revelation of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah/Son of Man/Son of God etc. (Interesting tidbit: Jesus attributes the title Son of man to himself the most in Mark. it's referencing Daniel Chapter 7:13,14) so naturally the climax is Jesus dying, the temple veil being torn and the centurion (a non Jew) confessing Jesus as the "Son of God"
If you look at Matthew and luke and John they go into more depth after the resurrection.
If you look at the history of the church after Jesus Ascension in Acts You'll see how quickly belief in Jesus resurrection spread. It comes to a point in Acts (18:2) where the Emperor of Rome (Claudius, He was emperor from 47-51. 17-21 years after Jesus death) had expelled Jews and Christians (at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism) from Rome. This was during Pauls second missionary journey.
If you read 1 Corinthians 15 You find evidence of creeds already circulating in the Christian church. This was written in AD 55.
So Christianity *was* relevant 17-21 years after Jesus died. Indeed it had reached Rome so efficiently that 'Jews' had been expelled from Rome by that point. If you read Acts you see countless riots started against christians. Not only this but you also see time stamps in there like Acts 18:12 Gallio becoming Proconsul of Achaia. This is while Paul was again on his second journey.
As a side note. if you're going to use mass murder against christianity don't forget to hate your favourite romans who killed Christians for sport. It got to be such a fun past time for Romans they actually used us as torches or street lamps while they burned us alive. During the 1st century.
You can take over for me bro, haha. Anyway, I think as a small disclaimer, we should be open to the possibility that Mark in fact DID include the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances. After doing some research, the "long ending" of Mark is only missing in two manuscripts, although they are the two earliest that we have. From what I've read, there is indication of either possibility.
And as far as quoting, all you have to do is click "insert quote" to the right of each post in the Topic Summary on the "Post Reply" page.
-
Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.
-
Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.
Ok here's this then.
A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.
-
1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.
2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.
well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2
Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".
https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.
-
1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.
2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.
well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2
Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".
https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.
Doesn't it say that they were expelled for rioting because they didn't want to accept jesus? I don't see how that says that christians were popular enough to get expelled from anywhere at that point.
-
Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.
Ok here's this then.
A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.
again you're confusing foreknowledge and predestination. Two different things.
for the movie example.
We've all seen Star Wars. we know how it goes. We know that Luke is going to Kiss Leia and then find out that she's his sister. But we didn't direct/write/edit/produce the movies.
To address these points in that manner let's assume that "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day" to God. He's outside time and can see time unfolding, rewind, fast forward or see it all in one instant. Sometimes he steps in and imposes himself on the situation and others he just watches. Adam and Eve eating the fruit is one of the times he just watched. He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?
-
Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.
As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.
Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.
-
1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.
2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.
well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2
Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".
https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.
Doesn't it say that they were expelled for rioting because they didn't want to accept jesus? I don't see how that says that christians were popular enough to get expelled from anywhere at that point.
Did you read it? let me quote it for you. "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name. The former seems probable because of the absence of "quodam". Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius], he expelled them from Rome."
There's even a little commentary in there for you. Tert. refers to Tertullian...he was second century i think and I don't remember when Tacitus was.
-
A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.
Well, point E is where the question arises.
If there were an all-knowing God that existed outside of time, how would his *knowledge* of everything past, present, and future necessarily preclude free will? God knows that man will take path X because of his point of reference. For all practical purposes, man has ALREADY taken path X, so it's a foregone conclusion.
I think your first question was much better: If God knew how all of this would play out, he was effectively damning a large swath of his so-called "beloved creations" to hell from the outset. Even if it's argued that it was a necessary consequence of giving man free will, why not just forget about free will and bring everyone to eternal paradise?
-J
-
Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.
As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.
Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.
-
Edit: sorry, dodgy net. accidental double post.
-
A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.
Well, point E is where the question arises.
If there were an all-knowing God that existed outside of time, how would his *knowledge* of everything past, present, and future necessarily preclude free will? God knows that man will take path X because of his point of reference. For all practical purposes, man has ALREADY taken path X, so it's a foregone conclusion.
I think your first question was much better: If God knew how all of this would play out, he was effectively damning a large swath of his so-called "beloved creations" to hell from the outset. Even if it's argued that it was a necessary consequence of giving man free will, why not just forget about free will and bring everyone to eternal paradise?
-J
He was 'letting' man get what he deserves. God is Just.
At the same time he 'chose' some people (not based on merit of works) to not suffer his punishment. God is Loving.
To this end God sent Jesus to atone for our sin so that we could be seen through his righteousness.
Humanity isn't damned as an unescapable result of having free will. Humanity is damned because despite having a properly free will they chose to reject God and continue to do this to this day and will until God chooses to end this age.
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.
-
Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.
As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.
Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.
I don't care about ordaining it or not. It's a set path, there's no possible way to deviate from it.
Who created time? It's a relative law of physics. No one created it. It's just there.
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
Humanity's downfall didn't happen *because* of free will. It happened *despite* free will.
By the way I'm not stopping you from you know...Stopping yourself from going to Hell here. Jesus death ensured the free gift of salvation was available to all. It's your responsibility to accept that though.
-
Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.
As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.
Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.
I don't care about ordaining it or not. It's a set path, there's no possible way to deviate from it.
Who created time? It's a relative law of physics. No one created it. It's just there.
Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.
-
You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
I can already tell you are going to be great in P/R. Don't let anyone bring you down.
-
Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.
It's very hard to take this post seriously, but I'll try.
Whether you use the term.....glarbles or poglooks, or minutes, or light years...it doesn't matter. You're still measuring the same thing, you're just choosing your units of measurement. Time is the abstract of which you're measuring, not the units of measurement or the results of said measurment.
You can say the same thing about distance, but I doubt you'd say distance is a human creation as well.
-
I'm gonna have to agree with Adami on this one. Although, with Einstein's theory of relativity, it's hard to know if either time or distance really exist outside from human perspective.
-
Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.
It's very hard to take this post seriously, but I'll try.
Whether you use the term.....glarbles or poglooks, or minutes, or light years...it doesn't matter. You're still measuring the same thing, you're just choosing your units of measurement. Time is the abstract of which you're measuring, not the units of measurement or the results of said measurment.
You can say the same thing about distance, but I doubt you'd say distance is a human creation as well.
I never said you couldn't laugh lol.
You mean you doubt I wouldn't. Distance is a measurement. I'm not denying they exist I'm saying that Humans created time and distance to measure things. Distance is a measurement of the gaps between things. Time is a measurement of the gaps between events.
God doesn't need either of these because he's everywhere all the time so there's no gaps. This is the thrust of my argument. An infinite being doesn't need measurements because measurements are for the gaps seen by *finite* beings.
-
I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.
We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.
-
1. Jesus only fulfilled the prophecy if you start reading the prophecies in extremely specific odd ways.
2. I didn't say anything about human rights. I said free will. You can't say "well that might not be true". You kind of have to explain. I explained my point of view, and so far the only response has been "yea...well I don't see it that way". You have to have a reason.
3. I like bullet point posts in cases like this, so sue me
4. ?????
5. Prophet.
I SEE WHAT U DID THAR
-
I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.
We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.
:facepalm:
How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?
-
I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.
If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.
-
I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.
If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.
You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"
-
I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.
Huh? Only if the parents were omniscient.
You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
:lol No, I'm not. The cause is irrelevant.
God knew what the outcome of his actions would be. Without free will, how would we choose to reject God? We could not. It's as simple as that. Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?
By the way I'm not stopping you from you know...Stopping yourself from going to Hell here. Jesus death ensured the free gift of salvation was available to all. It's your responsibility to accept that though.
Who said I was talking about myself?
*dodges lightning bolt* :neverusethis:
-J
-
I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.
then how can you say that God is affected by it?
If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.
-
I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.
then how can you say that God is affected by it?
If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.
I never said god was affected by time.
And why does lacking physical mass equal lacking time of distance?
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.
Huh? Only if the parents were omniscient.
You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
:lol No, I'm not. The cause is irrelevant.
God knew what the outcome of his actions would be. Without free will, how would we choose to reject God? We could not. It's as simple as that. Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?
well that's where Jesus comes in. The first time we see Jesus predicted is right after the fall when God is cursing the serpent in Gen 3:15. You can just trust the umpteen biblical scholars on that one.
I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.
then how can you say that God is affected by it?
If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.
I never said god was affected by time.
And why does lacking physical mass equal lacking time of distance?
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.
Actually it's a perfect example of creating a god in the image you desire.
You actually did say that God was effected by time when you said over and over again that he can't have forknowledge without foreordaining it to happen. you limited God to a guy who sits here in the present with us telling us all what to do. My argument was that he is in the future as well as the past and present. He knows what's going to happen because he saw it happen and can see it happening and saw it happening infinity ago.
-
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.
-
EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.
mm Things did get a little out of hand.
-
I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.
We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.
:facepalm:
How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?
There is quite a lot in physics that shows that time is irreversible and that everything does indeed age.
Time is not absolute, which we know from the effects of relativity (the faster something moves, the more time speeds up from their point of view and slows down from the point of view of a stationary observer).
Time does appear to only move forward though, according to the second law of thermodynamics. There's a concept called entropy, which can be seen in more layman's terms as basically being a measure of how chaotic and variable the structure of something is, which the second law shows will only increase with time in the absence of energy being put in (and we also know that there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe so it cannot just be created from nothing). Let's take the example of:
1) a glass, and
2) an identical glass that has been shattered into pieces.
The glass is a stable structure, its molecules cannot really move around so the configuration is pretty much static. That would have low entropy. The shattered glass you can do anything with, you could separate the pieces and put them anywhere, in any configuration, so the entropy is higher. It is very easy to get from 1 to 2 with minimal energy expended (just drop it on the floor) but to get from 2 to 1 is impossible without melting down the glass and starting again from scratch, which takes a whole load of energy to do. This is essentially the science behind the fact that everything ages.
Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.
-
I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.
We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.
:facepalm:
How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?
There is quite a lot in physics that shows that time is irreversible and that everything does indeed age.
Time is not absolute, which we know from the effects of relativity (the faster something moves, the more time speeds up from their point of view and slows down from the point of view of a stationary observer).
Time does appear to only move forward though, according to the second law of thermodynamics. There's a concept called entropy, which can be seen in more layman's terms as basically being a measure of how chaotic and variable the structure of something is, which the second law shows will only increase with time in the absence of energy being put in (and we also know that there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe so it cannot just be created from nothing). Let's take the example of:
1) a glass, and
2) an identical glass that has been shattered into pieces.
The glass is a stable structure, its molecules cannot really move around so the configuration is pretty much static. That would have low entropy. The shattered glass you can do anything with, you could separate the pieces and put them anywhere, in any configuration, so the entropy is higher. It is very easy to get from 1 to 2 with minimal energy expended (just drop it on the floor) but to get from 2 to 1 is impossible without melting down the glass and starting again from scratch, which takes a whole load of energy to do. This is essentially the science behind the fact that everything ages.
Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.
Well good on you! Thankyou for proving my point lol. I don't dispute that time can't go backwards. my claim that God has no need of time because he's omnipresent.
the result of that doctrine is that he can foreordain some things and foreknow others. He foreknows because he sees it happen as it happens. to wear the star wars metaphor to shreds let's look at it again.
Umm I guess we could say that god is a bit like Schroedingers cat. He's outside time thefore is both a spectator (and see's Vader cut Luke's hand off) and editor at the same time (and makes sure yoda is at the right place at the right time when Luke crashes) and then not at the exact same time. We wont know until the end of this age when the box is opens.
Does that make sense?
-
But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself". Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell. We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.
-J
That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.
Huh? Only if the parents were omniscient.
You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
:lol No, I'm not. The cause is irrelevant.
God knew what the outcome of his actions would be. Without free will, how would we choose to reject God? We could not. It's as simple as that. Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?
well that's where Jesus comes in. The first time we see Jesus predicted is right after the fall when God is cursing the serpent in Gen 3:15. You can just trust the umpteen biblical scholars on that one.
Right. My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary. The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.
Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.
God is said to exist *outside* of time. He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them. Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either. He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J. This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.
But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead. That's where things get confusing, IMO.
-J
-
Right. My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary. The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.
-J
well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.
The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.
-
Right. My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary. The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.
-J
well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.
The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.
And that quite frankly, disturbs me. Why would God create the entire human race for the sole purpose of glorifying him? That seems to be a bit of an ego trip, and rides on the edge of pretentiousness if you ask me. If God is perfect, then I would assume that God would not be belittled by petty things like an ego trip.
I also can't help but feel that if my existence is nothing more than to glorify some deity I've never laid eyes on, well to me that's a very hallow existence. It says to me that all humans are good for is slavery and servitude, something I take a good degree of offense to. If such a God were truly loving, I think humanity's worth would be more than just being God's little bitch.
Now, reading through the thread, I do think rumborak went a bit far in his arguments and even though I'm not religious I don't even agree with what he said. I mean no hostility at all either, in case it seems that way or something.
-
Right. My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary. The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.
-J
well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.
The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.
God is perfect and complete. Why does he need to "glorify himself"?
-J
-
Right. My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary. The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.
-J
well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.
The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.
And that quite frankly, disturbs me. Why would God create the entire human race for the sole purpose of glorifying him? That seems to be a bit of an ego trip, and rides on the edge of pretentiousness if you ask me. If God is perfect, then I would assume that God would not be belittled by petty things like an ego trip.
I also can't help but feel that if my existence is nothing more than to glorify some deity I've never laid eyes on, well to me that's a very hallow existence. It says to me that all humans are good for is slavery and servitude, something I take a good degree of offense to. If such a God were truly loving, I think humanity's worth would be more than just being God's little bitch.
Now, reading through the thread, I do think rumborak went a bit far in his arguments and even though I'm not religious I don't even agree with what he said. I mean no hostility at all either, in case it seems that way or something.
mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
See how that's semi-chiastic? lol
If a perfectly loving God were to not say look at me look at me look how good and how awesome I am and how much better I am than any alternative (because He IS good and awesome and infinitely better than any alternative) He would be depriving us of Love. So He glorifies himself out of his Love for us.
Unfortunately we go to the broken cisterns of the world tell them to quench our thirst.
I'm gonna say that it's 2:30 am here and i'm tired. I haven't got alot of study on this subject in so i'm not very good at explaining it but what I've said (though confusing) is the gist of it. You could have a look at John Piper's book Desiring God or even listen to some of his sermons at www.desiringgod.org He has a really good handle on the subject.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego and pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.
As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
-
Fair enough. Have a good time.
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.
As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?
I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.
As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?
I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.
How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?
by a/ not sticking to the subject and b/ making unsubstantiated assertions and then saying people don't undertstand what they're talking about.
-
mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Lost me. That is not logic.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
What was the point of creating us and loving us at all? If your answer is "to glorify himself", you have yet to demonstrate why a perfect and complete being would need to glorify himself.
And furthermore, how does that constitute "loving" us, if we assume love is based on selfless sacrifice, and all God is doing is glorifying himself?
-J
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?
by a/ not sticking to the subject and b/ making unsubstantiated assertions and then saying people don't undertstand what they're talking about.
a. He made an observation about your arguing style that I happen to agree with.
b. I must have missed this part, care to link w/context?
c. I still don't see how that makes someone a troll.
-
I realize Ariich answer much of this post already...
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
Omnipotence and omniscience cannot coinside with each infact omnipotence cannot coinside with itself. If God knows what he's going to do tomorrow, could he do something else? If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent. If god is omnipotent could he take that omnipotence away?
When attributing infinity to a sentient being it often fails.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
Well since time is the 4th dimesion and basically the flow of reality, the earliest measurement of time is the big bang. You could ask who create the singularity that produced this grand expansion, but then that would leave an infinite regression. Who creat the big bang? Who created the who that created the big bang? etc etc...
There is no point what-so-ever to assume there is a god.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.
Time is a dimension that can be measured, not a law. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22
Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days).[1][2][3] It is measured using a clock.
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is used in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.[1][2][3]
I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.
If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.
You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"
Everything ages whether or not it experiences decay is another matter. Things at Abolute Zero theroretically will not decay.
Physics and Chemistry do not cover Thermodynamics in high school I guess... don't know never took em.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Laws_of_thermodynamics
Wikipedia has though.
mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
This is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.
The God you discribe is egotistical, childish, undeserving, arrogant and self serving. You cannot see this because you have duped yourself into believing such nonsence. Doing mental flips to justify why this god is such a jerk.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.
As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?
I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.
How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.
how many times can i refer you to an expert on the subject? He phrases it better than me and he's done quite alot more study on it than I have.
I'm assuming the hypothesis that God is perfect here.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect joy. to hide his perfection from us is to separate us from Joy. This is bad.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect love. To hide this perfect love from us is to separate us from his love. This is bad.
So he tells us to worship him and shows how much joy and love he has to us. It's better than the alternative.
-
That doesn't make any sense.
Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.
It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.
In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?
What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.
As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?
I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.
How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.
how many times can i refer you to an expert on the subject? He phrases it better than me and he's done quite alot more study on it than I have.
I'm assuming the hypothesis that God is perfect here.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect joy. to hide his perfection from us is to separate us from Joy. This is bad.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect love. To hide this perfect love from us is to separate us from his love. This is bad.
So he tells us to worship him and shows how much joy and love he has to us. It's better than the alternative.
Because you're talking to someone who doesn't believe it despite numerous attempts by many people where I live to forcefully convert me (Once even to the point of someone threatening to kill me for it), so the hypothesis that "God is perfect" doesn't mean the same to me. I suppose looking at it from your view it would, but there's a big difference in someone who believes it with all their heart and a non-believer. However, taking your hypothesis into account....
1. If God has "perfect joy" (Whatever that is), then I would presume God would be so happy as to never experience any kind of anger ever, correct? God would never express any negative emotions that clearly deviate from "perfect joy".
2. Well, what makes love perfect? If his love is so strong, then would God do anything and everything in his power (Which in infinite, assuming he is omnipotent) to protect his own creations assuming he holds perfect love for them. If he truly loved them perfectly, any past transgressions wouldn't even be considered, so there would be no need for hell.
-
I realize Ariich answer much of this post already...
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
Omnipotence and omniscience cannot coinside with each infact omnipotence cannot coinside with itself. If God knows what he's going to do tomorrow, could he do something else? If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent. If god is omnipotent could he take that omnipotence away?
When attributing infinity to a sentient being it often fails.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
Well since time is the 4th dimesion and basically the flow of reality, the earliest measurement of time is the big bang. You could ask who create the singularity that produced this grand expansion, but then that would leave an infinite regression. Who creat the big bang? Who created the who that created the big bang? etc etc...
There is no point what-so-ever to assume there is a god.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.
Time is a dimension that can be measured, not a law. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22
Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days).[1][2][3] It is measured using a clock.
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is used in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.[1][2][3]
I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.
If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.
You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"
Everything ages whether or not it experiences decay is another matter. Things at Abolute Zero theroretically will not decay.
Physics and Chemistry do not cover Thermodynamics in high school I guess... don't know never took em.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Laws_of_thermodynamics
Wikipedia has though.
mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
This is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.
The God you discribe is egotistical, childish, undeserving, arrogant and self serving. You cannot see this because you have duped yourself into believing such nonsence. Doing mental flips to justify why this god is such a jerk.
I never claimed to be an expert or anything but you actually proved my point a couple of times there.
1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
3/ thankyou for proving the above point.
4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.
5/ then use logic to debunk mine.
You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.
I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.
I would appreciate it if you were to refrain from that from hereonin.
-
Seventh. i'll get back to you later but here in melbourne it's 4am and I need to sleep.
Sorry.
-
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
:lol Gaps in WHAT?
-J
-
These days I stay out of these kinds of discussions because I remind myself that, if this were a discussion about whether an airplane takes off a conveyor belt, the same guys who here don't allow the use of time, physics, logics, whathaveyou because it would speak against their scripture, would be perfectly fine with those arguments in the case of the airplane (or any other discussion that doesn't touch religious aspects for that matter).
rumborak
-
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
:lol Gaps in WHAT?
-J
Gaps in time, silly. Wait a sec... *brainsplode*
-
I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.
-
I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.
It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself. I doubt anyone really can. It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.
-
1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.
I did not; I put forth a rebuttal to your statements regarding omnipotent and omniscience. If this is an objection to the use of infinity, than you are mistaken. Infinity is not only defined within time.
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
That is duration of time. Time itself I explained briefly and providing a link that defines it. It is not only a measurement.
3/ thankyou for proving the above point.
How is your point proven?
4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.
Ok, fine.
5/ then use logic to debunk mine.
Ok.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
So perfection demands glorification? There is no logical step or link between the two. If someone wished to glorify something because they percieve that thing as perfect then that is there choice. If I created a bucket to hold water and it holds that water, it is perfect. I don't need to worship it. I also do not need to worship my creators (parents), I do not need to even respect them.
The only reason anything would create something to glorify one self is for self gratification, to inflate ones ego.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
This makes no sense what-so-ever... So god is perfect? So not to glorify himself, he is not loving to the nonexistant us which do not exist because he has not created us yet. He can't have that because who needs perfection if there is no one to mental masterbate you. So as a result of his perfection (which should be always and makes no sence since our beginnings are finite) he creates us to inflate his ego because he's perfect.
This is retarded woo woo.. Do you have any idea how stupid this is? This is almost as bad as saying "God is real because the Bible says so and the bible is the word of god.".
You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.
What was my causality?
I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.
I stand by my statement; feel free to state something similar if I say something equally dumb.
-
I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.
It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself. I doubt anyone really can. It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.
Sorry for saying this bluntly, but just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean nobody can. Have you ever even bothered trying to understand what physics says about what time is?
rumborak
-
I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.
It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself. I doubt anyone really can. It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.
Sorry for saying this bluntly, but just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean nobody can. Have you ever even bothered trying to understand what physics says about what time is?
rumborak
Yeah, but I don't buy it. It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.
-
1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.
I did not; I put forth a rebuttal to your statements regarding omnipotent and omniscience. If this is an objection to the use of infinity, than you are mistaken. Infinity is not only defined within time.
huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
That is duration of time. Time itself I explained briefly and providing a link that defines it. It is not only a measurement. [/quote]
:facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.
He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.
3/ thankyou for proving the above point.
How is your point proven?[/quote]
My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.
4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.
Ok, fine.
5/ then use logic to debunk mine.
Ok.
God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
So perfection demands glorification? There is no logical step or link between the two. If someone wished to glorify something because they percieve that thing as perfect then that is there choice. If I created a bucket to hold water and it holds that water, it is perfect. I don't need to worship it. I also do not need to worship my creators (parents), I do not need to even respect them.
The only reason anything would create something to glorify one self is for self gratification, to inflate ones ego.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.
This makes no sense what-so-ever... So god is perfect? So not to glorify himself, he is not loving to the nonexistant us which do not exist because he has not created us yet. He can't have that because who needs perfection if there is no one to mental masterbate you. So as a result of his perfection (which should be always and makes no sence since our beginnings are finite) he creates us to inflate his ego because he's perfect.
This is retarded woo woo.. Do you have any idea how stupid this is? This is almost as bad as saying "God is real because the Bible says so and the bible is the word of god.". [/quote]
the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.
I don't know why people separated one statement into two.
I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.
If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.
If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.
You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.
What was my causality? [/quote]
you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.
I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.
I stand by my statement; feel free to state something similar if I say something equally dumb.
[/quote]
Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.
-
Yeah, but I don't buy it. It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.
What part is sketchy?
rumborak
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
Watch it, Phil. He made an observation and a suggestion. Don't act like this, it definitely won't help you make an argument here. And it may act toward curtailing your time here.
-
Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.
Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you c an "take notice"
Kindly stick to the subject.
Watch it, Phil. He made an observation and a suggestion. Don't act like this, it definitely won't help you make an argument here. And it may act toward curtailing your time here.
With all due respect Hef, he patronised me. How do you expect me to respond to being baited so often? :-[ He's been pushing my buttons since I got on...I wasn't commenting on that comment with my "unsubstantiated assertions" quip. It was to do with the majority of his comments.
-
If you feel that something crosses the line, then report it. I haven't seen him be patronizing to you. I only saw that post, with which there was nothing wrong.
-
huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.
You said this..
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.
I was informing the thread readers of the difficulties of being omnipotent and omniscient.
:facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.
He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.
If you say that then you are wrong, dimesions are not different ways to measure gaps..Rread the links.
Regardless of what Adami said, what you were stating is wrong in the context of how you were using it. If you had said time is a measurment of duration as well a dimension you would be correct but no you said this.
He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?
I was correcting you.
My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.
We only agree in a minor proportion you are still completely wrong in your use of time.
the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.
Please do and I'll start reporting people that say the earth is flat. It is equally ridiculous.
I don't know why people separated one statement into two.
You stated two different things; he has to glorify himself as a result of perfection and not to do so is unloving to us. Two seperate statements.
I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.
You shouldn't assume he created the universe and you shouldn't claim to know the mind of said god.
If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.
So forcing people to love him is better? I don't care if he is "perfect" and is all full of "glory", no one is deserved worship. Further more if he did not create us in the first place there would be no need to force his love or us into worship. And don't say he isn't, that's what hell is for.
If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.
His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?
you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.
I didn't actually ask what caused the big bang, I was giving an example of infinit regression. Sure you can take the diest approach and say the a god create the expansion of the universe but you have all the work cut out for you if you are going to insist it is the christian god.
Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.
I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.
-
Yeah, but I don't buy it. It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.
What part is sketchy?
rumborak
-
Im 100% sure God looks like Pam Anderson in about 1990
-
huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.
You said this..
Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.
If time isn't a human concept then who created it?
And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.
I was informing the thread readers of the difficulties of being omnipotent and omniscient.
yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.
:facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.
He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.
If you say that then you are wrong, dimesions are not different ways to measure gaps..Rread the links.
Regardless of what Adami said, what you were stating is wrong in the context of how you were using it. If you had said time is a measurment of duration as well a dimension you would be correct but no you said this.
I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.
He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?
I was correcting you.
My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.
We only agree in a minor proportion you are still completely wrong in your use of time.
the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.
Please do and I'll start reporting people that say the earth is flat. It is equally ridiculous.
the difference is that they would be arguing a point. All you're doing is sticking your tongue out and blowing a raspberry.
I don't know why people separated one statement into two.
You stated two different things; he has to glorify himself as a result of perfection and not to do so is unloving to us. Two seperate statements.
but the progression fits together as a unit.
I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.
You shouldn't assume he created the universe and you shouldn't claim to know the mind of said god.
well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.
As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that. Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.
If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.
So forcing people to love him is better? I don't care if he is "perfect" and is all full of "glory", no one is deserved worship. Further more if he did not create us in the first place there would be no need to force his love or us into worship. And don't say he isn't, that's what hell is for.
He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.
It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?
[/quote]
If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.
His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?[/quote]
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.
Along with that he gave us the bible.
Along with that He came down among us.
you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.
I didn't actually ask what caused the big bang, I was giving an example of infinit regression. Sure you can take the diest approach and say the a god create the expansion of the universe but you have all the work cut out for you if you are going to insist it is the christian god.
Gen 1 and 2?
Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.
I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.
Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.
-
I have a quick clarification to the omniprescence issue. It is to my understanding that God is not literally everywhere (like burning in Hell) nor is he in all times at once, but rather that all things are in his presence. For example, all the things on my desk are in my presence, and I can move things around as I will, but I am not literally inside my pencil cup.
That's just my take on it, if that helps anyone.
-
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/
Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.
Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?
God can never change. This is a theological fact and it is consider infallible by just about any religious body be it Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Our opinions change, like my opinion on homosexuality. I can start with a rather negative view and learn and few new things, especially from other people whom have a closer and better view of the truth and thus my opinion "should" change to fit the truth. There is a truth to all things and we simply cannot have it perfect. Nobody here has complete and perfect truth of all things, that is only God. The idea of being in the image of God reflects our "being" not our materialistic corpus body. That is we are beings of reason. We are rational beings just as God is a rational being. We have properties to this rational being that reflect the exact same properties of rational being in God. We do not contain all of the properties nor are the properties we do have created perfectly. As a human being we are imperfect creatures. We are not born as people doing devious things, we are born with the capacity to do devious things. This is what it means to be born into sin. You are not born evil, you are born with the capacity to sin. As a human being you have this property and it is simply a part of the nature of human beings. This part of our being is not in the image of God as God is not a human being. Sin is only applicable to the human being. So we can equate the human being to God insofar as both have reason and intellect, not in sin and the corpus or materialistical sense.
-
heyyy straight back into it :D nice to see there.
So would you say that because we're made in the image of God if we use our reasoning to "divine the mind of God" It should be right?
-
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
:rollin
-
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
:rollin
YAY you laughed at my funny!
(https://www.catherineseven.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/happy-cat.jpeg)
-
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
:rollin
:lol How did I miss that?
Also, glad to have you back Viv.
-J
-
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/
Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.
Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?
God can never change. This is a theological fact and it is consider infallible by just about any religious body be it Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Our opinions change, like my opinion on homosexuality. I can start with a rather negative view and learn and few new things, especially from other people whom have a closer and better view of the truth and thus my opinion "should" change to fit the truth. There is a truth to all things and we simply cannot have it perfect. Nobody here has complete and perfect truth of all things, that is only God. The idea of being in the image of God reflects our "being" not our materialistic corpus body. That is we are beings of reason. We are rational beings just as God is a rational being. We have properties to this rational being that reflect the exact same properties of rational being in God. We do not contain all of the properties nor are the properties we do have created perfectly. As a human being we are imperfect creatures. We are not born as people doing devious things, we are born with the capacity to do devious things. This is what it means to be born into sin. You are not born evil, you are born with the capacity to sin. As a human being you have this property and it is simply a part of the nature of human beings. This part of our being is not in the image of God as God is not a human being. Sin is only applicable to the human being. So we can equate the human being to God insofar as both have reason and intellect, not in sin and the corpus or materialistical sense.
I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. :p Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.
-
^ That's definitely a mind effer. God can do anything, due to being 100% powerful, but at the same time, he can't, due to being 100% holy. I think there was even a verse that said "God cannot lie."
-
I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. :p Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.
Here's an interesting question. If we postulate the existance of God we therefore must place God somewhere and best place for God is above all things for if anything were above God then God would be subject to that thing, so why not that thing be God? Now if in God exists all reason and rationality and from God came the creation of all things then if God were to change, what would he change into? If God CAN change, then how do we describe His current "state" for there must some defining state then and then we must define other states for God to exist and change into. Take for example a family tree. At some point there must be a first cause to your family. There cannot be two possible causes to a single family line nor can your first cause to your family change or else you change the very existance of your family. You change creation by changing your first cause. But with God, He is in all creation as we postulate God as "the" first cause. Thus if God were to change then he is no longer our first cause which I'm sorry... but that messes with my mind so much I have to stop writing and get drunk off some Rolling Rock. ;)
-
I think that God is just BEYOND and OTHER. I don't attempt to classify him by what he can or can't do. He's just God.
-
/lurkermodeoff
@Phil let me try and see if this line of reasoning makes sense to you.
Hypothesis: Time is a measurement of duration
1: Assume "Time is a measurement of duration"
2: We can measure time.
3: By measuring a physical quantity X, we get a measurement of the quantity, X.
4: Time is a physical quantity.
5: (by 3 and 4) By measuring time, we get a measurement of time.
6: (by 1 and 5) By measuring time, we get a measurement of a measurement of duration.
7: 6 is false because you cannot measure a measurement.
8: (by 1 and 7) The hypothesis is false.
...am I doing it right?
-
"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan
-
^^^ I do like that quote. :tup
-
/lurkermodeoff
@Phil let me try and see if this line of reasoning makes sense to you.
Hypothesis: Time is a measurement of duration
1: Assume "Time is a measurement of duration"
2: We can measure time.
3: By measuring a physical quantity X, we get a measurement of the quantity, X.
4: Time is a physical quantity.
5: (by 3 and 4) By measuring time, we get a measurement of time.
6: (by 1 and 5) By measuring time, we get a measurement of a measurement of duration.
7: 6 is false because you cannot measure a measurement.
8: (by 1 and 7) The hypothesis is false.
...am I doing it right?
...sure...
that wasn't my hypothesis lol I don't actually care all that much about what time is. It passes. Good enough for me :P Besides I conceded ElJonno's point yesterday :)
-
ohh. okay. sorry phil!
-
yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.
It falls apart regardless if he is omnipresent. Omnipresense also falls apart; unless - and I hate pointing this out because it gives you an alternative arguement - if God was not omnipresent but omni-observant whom has influence over all. Basically if we look at it from an M-theory point of view God would be a 7th (you could go as far as 10 if you wish) dimensional creature looking at the infinite timelines from the big bang. This way he would know all outcomes and we would have freewill. Still no proof that it is the Christian god :P lol
Also if he is omnipresent he should realize when he makes a mistakes and not make them, but he does. Paticularly his biggest mistake allowing Satan too screw with humanity.
I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.
I suppose so; in light of philosphy in which I am not well versed.
but the progression fits together as a unit.
No it doesn't the is no logical step or go between the two. One does not beget the other, you made two statements.
well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.
Where does love come into the equation? There is horrible suffering going on not just on humans, but in the animal kingdom. Most of the planet is inhospitible to humans; he knew the future and yet he didn't make anything to prevent us from making the planet even more inhospitible. The universe; if created with us in mind he did a shitty job.
As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that.
You do claim to know the mind of God, you claim he is loving and omnipresent. If I were to say based on everything around God is a malevalent jerk, I believe you would claim otherwise. You have made the claim.
Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.
Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.
He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.
If the OT is true, than he isn't worth my spit.
It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?
Well if you want a literal bible definition, I an antichrist. Typically called an Atheist, I prefer anti-theist.
If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.
His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?[/quote]
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
Aww yes the argumentum ad ignorantiam aka argument from ignorance. You know very well that is not what the what the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution: by Natural selection state. Funny thing though with all the knowledge, complexity and work it requires to study the universe it is still better than "God created it".
Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.
and China to the chinese...
Along with that he gave us the bible.
Something which even he can't keep in it's original form. Oh and men wrote it nothing else...Well maybe there might have been a woman or two.
Along with that He came down among us.
Going to need proof of Jesus' divinity to believe that one. If you say the bible just remember even it does not agree with itself. Plus using something that claims something to varify itself just doesn't work.
Gen 1 and 2?
That proves nothing.
"ElJoNNo created everything in space including the earth. The earth was without form and lifeless. He sneeze and life appear and it was good."
The Awesomica of ElJoNNo
Bitchin' verse 1
Mine is newer it trumps yours :. You can't use the bible as evidence for creation. If that were the case all of the other creation myth are equally valid.
Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.
I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.
[/quote]
Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.
[/quote]
This? https://www.desiringgod.org/
It might be better if you point to a specific article, otherwise I doubt anyone will look at it. No one links the to just wikipedia homepage, right.
"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan
He also wrote in The Demon Haunted World
Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I especially like the bold part.
He was a great man.
-
yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.
It falls apart regardless if he is omnipresent. Omnipresense also falls apart; unless - and I hate pointing this out because it gives you an alternative arguement - if God was not omnipresent but omni-observant whom has influence over all. Basically if we look at it from an M-theory point of view God would be a 7th (you could go as far as 10 if you wish) dimensional creature looking at the infinite timelines from the big bang. This way he would know all outcomes and we would have freewill. Still no proof that it is the Christian god :P lol
Also if he is omnipresent he should realize when he makes a mistakes and not make them, but he does. Paticularly his biggest mistake allowing Satan too screw with humanity.
thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)
Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?
I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.
I suppose so; in light of philosphy in which I am not well versed.
but the progression fits together as a unit.
No it doesn't the is no logical step or go between the two. One does not beget the other, you made two statements.
the logical step is the question "why?".
well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.
Where does love come into the equation? There is horrible suffering going on not just on humans, but in the animal kingdom. Most of the planet is inhospitible to humans; he knew the future and yet he didn't make anything to prevent us from making the planet even more inhospitible. The universe; if created with us in mind he did a shitty job.
That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.
As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that.
You do claim to know the mind of God, you claim he is loving and omnipresent. If I were to say based on everything around God is a malevalent jerk, I believe you would claim otherwise. You have made the claim.
To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.
It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.
Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.
Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.
don't just say it. back yourself up.
He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.
If the OT is true, than he isn't worth my spit.
That's not exactly relevant.
It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?
Well if you want a literal bible definition, I an antichrist. Typically called an Atheist, I prefer anti-theist.
Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.
If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.
His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?
His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"
Aww yes the argumentum ad ignorantiam aka argument from ignorance. You know very well that is not what the what the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution: by Natural selection state. Funny thing though with all the knowledge, complexity and work it requires to study the universe it is still better than "God created it". [/quote]
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.
and China to the chinese...
Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.
Along with that he gave us the bible.
Something which even he can't keep in it's original form. Oh and men wrote it nothing else...Well maybe there might have been a woman or two.
I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.
Along with that He came down among us.
Going to need proof of Jesus' divinity to believe that one. If you say the bible just remember even it does not agree with itself. Plus using something that claims something to varify itself just doesn't work.
I'm going to say the bible and again I'm going to request proof.
Gen 1 and 2?
That proves nothing.
"ElJoNNo created everything in space including the earth. The earth was without form and lifeless. He sneeze and life appear and it was good."
The Awesomica of ElJoNNo
Bitchin' verse 1
Mine is newer it trumps yours :. You can't use the bible as evidence for creation. If that were the case all of the other creation myth are equally valid.
Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)
On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.
Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.
I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.
Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.
[/quote]
This? https://www.desiringgod.org/
It might be better if you point to a specific article, otherwise I doubt anyone will look at it. No one links the to just wikipedia homepage, right.[/quote]
good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.
"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan
He also wrote in The Demon Haunted World
Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I especially like the bold part.
He was a great man.
...cool
-
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
-
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses :D
-
thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)
As you said this is the only universe that matters to you, there is no need to place him in the 10th spacial dimesion. The 7th would be the lowest dimesion to achieve what is needed out of the said hypothesis .
Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?
He allowed an entity with capabilities far beyond man to roam free. He supposedly is able to fool the very same senses humans use to make decisions about the known reality. If any human faulters because of his middling that person is condemned to hell, hardly fair or loving. Granted he is supposed to be in hell, but he seems to be able to do what he wants.
the logical step is the question "why?".
That's not a logical step, that's a reason, but not a logical result.
That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.
God introduce sin; he is "omnipresent" remember. He knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, worse yet before he even created man he knew. If he knew that billions were going to suffer in hell, he had two choices A) Not create us B) Prevent "sin"; but no he went C) Create them and then judge them for being human.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.
Ok, let put this a little more simply. You say he is loving; that is a state of mind. You claim to know the mind of God. He if indeed exists maybe completely indifferent.
It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.
There is a difference between the two. Stephen Hawking is manifested, your God is not.
Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.
Have you ever heard of the website godhatesfags.com? If you believe that god it perfect, than perfection need not change. According to the OT homosexuals are abominations and should be destroyed. Granted I don't recall Jesus saying anything at all about homosexuals, but we're not talking about Jesus. God is perfect.
That's not exactly relevant.
How is it not relevent? If he is indeed the same perfect god of the OT then he is not worthy of any worship. He is a tyrant.
Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.
I fail to see how it does not answer your question? You asked "What do you worship?".
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
Educated yourself on the subjects, you have a long way too go. :facepalm
Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.
This leads me back to the China quip. It's awfully dumb to make your messiah appear in such an illiterate part of the world. Should have been China at least in China they were more advanced.
I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.
Original form eh? Is that why there are so many varitions?
I'm going to say the bible
Circular reason.
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
See the problem?
and again I'm going to request proof.
Proof that it doesn't agree with itself?
MAT 1:16
LUK 3:23
Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)
How is your source more reliable? It was written over 2000 years ago by people you have never met. You don't know my abilities; how do you know I'm not God talking to you online?
On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.
What does this even mean? What does the bible having been created have to do with anything? Why does the bible being in history have anything to do in comparison with lack of a belief?
Really don't know what you are saying here?
good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.
I will listen to this, but not tonight. It is going to 2am here, so I'll have to listen another day.
...cool
Indeed.
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses :D
I really don't think he's laughing with you...
-
We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple. Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage. He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.
By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can. Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. :biggrin:
-
We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple. Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage. He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.
By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can. Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. :biggrin:
Fair enough, I will admit in my haste and not really feeling like looking up the specific verses in each book I copied and pasted a google search.
Here
Exodus 34:6
Numbers 25:4
-
To this day I know quite a few religious who struggle with the idea that "God created evil" and then why. Most of the time they come back with the following statements (and let me say this, these are catholic priests saying this)
1) God did create evil
2) God also created good
3) Why does a hurricane destroy? Why can't it be peaceful?
4) Why does a virus exist? Why can't a virus not de destructive?
5) Where is this evil located? Is evil located in God? Does this make God evil? If so then why did he create good? Isn't evil the absense of good?
and the questions go on and on. Why can ask ourselves the same question. If we knew that our child was going to be a paralytic would we still bring him into this world? If not, why? What if this child made a huge impact on those around him? What if this child was the key to a cure? What if this child made a lot of friends in his life? What have you ultimately done by preventing the life of this child?
This are all very important questions in the light that most of the time we think we are doing the greater good but fail to see the ultimate good. Why is their evil? I don't think anyone can answer this in an "ultimate" way. The most general answer is evil exists because God created that which has free-will and the nature of free-will is towards the movement of either goodness or evil and the free ability to choose either one. If evil did not exist then we could very easily declare that free-will can no longer exist for if there is only one singular movement for us to take then how can we make a choice?
In the end, these questions have been asked for a VERY long time and they're actually quite a few answers to these questions. I point to many Catholic philosophers, greatest example being Aquinas. But to answer the question "Why did God create evil?" by saying, "God is evil" ignores many many other possible and more logical answers to the question and just takes the easy road by stating the following
A) God created all evil
B) All evil is devoid of good
C) God is devoid of good.
Looks good but it doesn't have validity. I'm surprised Dawkin's of all people holds onto this kind of logic when it blatantly ignores the material consideration of the topic at hand. That is, B assumes that God never created good and we all know this to be false thus B cannot be true and thus C must be false.
-
thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)
As you said this is the only universe that matters to you, there is no need to place him in the 10th spacial dimesion. The 7th would be the lowest dimesion to achieve what is needed out of the said hypothesis .
cool. cheers! :D
Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?
He allowed an entity with capabilities far beyond man to roam free. He supposedly is able to fool the very same senses humans use to make decisions about the known reality. If any human faulters because of his middling that person is condemned to hell, hardly fair or loving. Granted he is supposed to be in hell, but he seems to be able to do what he wants.
well, not really.
Satan is a spirit yes. however spirits are not made in the image of God. The bible tells us that man will be superior to the Angels.
I'm not sure what you mean by fooling the senses, but he is very good at convinving us that what we do isn't actually wrong or that God is mistreating us. Human's don't faulter because of him as we are responsible for our actions. He just puts us close to the edge and tells us to jump. We actually jump.
God ought to punish us all for what we do wrong but some he chooses to save because he is gracious. Satan isn't supposed to be in hell at the moment. He's still the prince of this realm. He'll get semt there at the judgement.
the logical step is the question "why?".
That's not a logical step, that's a reason, but not a logical result.
sure whatever lol. It's still the link between the statements. The statements are to be read as a unity though.
That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.
God introduce sin; he is "omnipresent" remember. He knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, worse yet before he even created man he knew. If he knew that billions were going to suffer in hell, he had two choices A) Not create us B) Prevent "sin"; but no he went C) Create them and then judge them for being human.
God let sin happen. He created man with a free will. He made people responsible for their actions as soon as he gave us free will. We rejected God and as a result we deserve his punishment. He knew we would reject him so he ordained to send Jesus to come and atone for our sins with his death.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.
Ok, let put this a little more simply. You say he is loving; that is a state of mind. You claim to know the mind of God. He if indeed exists maybe completely indifferent.
It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.
There is a difference between the two. Stephen Hawking is manifested, your God is not.
He did but that's beside the point. Manifest or not if he exists then the difference is moot.
Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.
Have you ever heard of the website godhatesfags.com? If you believe that god it perfect, than perfection need not change. According to the OT homosexuals are abominations and should be destroyed.
references Granted I don't recall Jesus saying anything at all about homosexuals, but we're not talking about Jesus. God is perfect.
Jesus condemned Sexual immorality and adultery which Homosexuakity fell under. however back then Homosexuality was less about love than it was an orgasm. Homosexual people have only emerged recently. (please let's not start a flame war about homosexuality ok?)
That's not exactly relevant.
How is it not relevent? If he is indeed the same perfect god of the OT then he is not worthy of any worship. He is a tyrant.
again with the lack of references
Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.
I fail to see how it does not answer your question? You asked "What do you worship?". {/quote]
And you told me what you don't worship. It didn't answer my question.
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
Educated yourself on the subjects, you have a long way too go. :facepalm
Point out precisely where i'm wrong.
Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.
This leads me back to the China quip. It's awfully dumb to make your messiah appear in such an illiterate part of the world. Should have been China at least in China they were more advanced.
Illiterate? You're calling the Egyptians, Persians, Israelites, Greeks, Romans and Arabs Illiterate? learn your history mate.
secondly. The bigger the disadvantage you have (miltarily, economically, politically) the more God is glorified in his victory.
I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.
Original form eh? Is that why there are so many varitions?
are you talking about the different translations? We still have the manuscripts in the original Greek and Hebrew. They're more accurately copied than any of their contemporary texts so yeah. Original form.
I'm going to say the bible
Circular reason.
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God and is historically accurate."
See the problem?
Fixed the last statement.
and again I'm going to request proof.
Proof that it doesn't agree with itself?
MAT 1:16
LUK 3:23
https://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/jesusgenealogy.htm
The genealogies trace different aspects.
Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)
How is your source more reliable? It was written over 2000 years ago by people you have never met. You don't know my abilities; how do you know I'm not God talking to you online?
parts of it were written before that but they haven't changed since then.
The newer parts (under 2000 years still) are just plain historically accurate.
On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.
What does this even mean? What does the bible having been created have to do with anything? Why does the bible being in history have anything to do in comparison with lack of a belief?
Really don't know what you are saying here?
I'm saying that The bible places itself in history for historical scrutiny. Atheism's doctrines can't. After(or before as the case may be) a certain point they're just hypotheses.
good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.
I will listen to this, but not tonight. It is going to 2am here, so I'll have to listen another day.
cool
...cool
Indeed.
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses :D
I really don't think he's laughing with you...
I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.
-
We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple. Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage. He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.
By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can. Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. :biggrin:
Fair enough, I will admit in my haste and not really feeling like looking up the specific verses in each book I copied and pasted a google search.
Here
Exodus 34:6
Numbers 25:4
Exodus 20:3-5
-
I really, really wish you guys were more focused in what you are discussing and replying to. The vast majority of these posts are tl;dr for me. I don't have the time or inclination to read a novel every time you post.
-
I really, really wish you guys were more focused in what you are discussing and replying to. The vast majority of these posts are tl;dr for me. I don't have the time or inclination to read a novel every time you post.
i'm starting to feel the same way but if he's going to keep replying i'm going to respect him enough to reply. I like it. It gets me investigating and thinking.
-
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses :D
I really don't think he's laughing with you...
I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.
Phil, I think he was laughing because you tried to make it sound like a joke, but it really is (well sorta, some parts could be worded better) the current accepted idea and its just going over your head. Unlike your previous post which claimed we had no idea how it happened, this one showed you at least know what the current ideas are. Yet, you still asserted that its 'so complex that we dont understand'.
At least, that's what I picked up.
-
Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.
:rollin
This is actually better than the previous post.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses :D
I really don't think he's laughing with you...
I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.
Phil, I think he was laughing because you tried to make it sound like a joke, but it really is (well sorta, some parts could be worded better) the current accepted idea and its just going over your head. Unlike your previous post which claimed we had no idea how it happened, this one showed you at least know what the current ideas are. Yet, you still asserted that its 'so complex that we dont understand'.
At least, that's what I picked up.
I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began. They have theories but none of them a able to be recreated. They can replicate conditions very close to just AFTER the Big bang but not replicate a big bang.
Sure I'll accept a premise that a cosmic egg could have exploded after the universe before it imploded. However from my understanding of Rutherford (matter is not destroyed, simply transferred) and E=mc^2 and gravity; for the universe previous to have imploded it would have needed alot of energy to turn into matter (to contract into the cosmic egg) and then in it's collision spontaneously change back into energy before it exploded again. All this despite the fact that it can't be an eternal process. There would be too much decay and the quality of the universe would decrease every time until it just didn't work again. If it's finite at one end it can't be infinite at the other.
This brings us back to Nothing exploding and creating a universe and lucking out with the position of earth to the sun.
-
You're applying a historical bias to it. You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not. Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.
-
You're applying a historical bias to it. You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not. Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.
what?
do you know the odds against that statement being true? in fact the size of the of the odds against it is so large that the only word possible to use reflects the topic: Astronomical. there is literally more chance that everyone on earth will die in the next 24 hours than there are that chance brought intelligent life around.
-
You're applying a historical bias to it. You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not. Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.
what?
do you know the odds against that statement being true? in fact the size of the of the odds against it is so large that the only word possible to use reflects the topic: Astronomical. there is literally more chance that everyone on earth will die in the next 24 hours than there are that chance brought intelligent life around.
I don't think you understand how large the universe is.
Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
-
I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. :p Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.
Something else I heard from my metaphysics teacher today. I hope I get it right.
"You can only understand that which does not change. For if an object changes then you would have to spend additional time in order for you to understand its new form. If we apply such an idea of change to first principles and causes then there can never be a "true" knowledge of these principles. And since the highest form of knowledge are the first principles for which all other principles below it are subject to, then these first principles must remain "true", unchanging or else we can never know that which these first principles cause, for if the first principles are to change then they must also change that which is subject to them".
-
I don't think you understand how large the universe is.
Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
Well actually, according the Gospel of Shatner, Space is the Final Frontier and who are we to question the wisdom that is William Shatner? :P
-
I don't think you understand how large the universe is.
Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
Well actually, according the Gospel of Shatner, Space is the Final Frontier and who are we to question the wisdom that is William Shatner? :P
Adams trumps Shatner.
-
My astronomy is horrid, but...I can try.
I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began
Are you hoping for 100% certainty? Because that is something that science will never achieve. There are hard facts that support the falsifiable big bang theory, and it has predicted many things like finding certain patterns of radiation in certain places.(exact details escape me at the moment, sorry.)
In that sense, we only 'know' about the big bang as much as we know about other abstract physical objects, like electrons. The existence of said electrons is similarly a falsifiable theory, yet we do not see very many people who say that they 'don't 100% know how it works, therefore a mysterious unknown force/holy power/etc(depending on your choice of faith) instead is the one lighting up my TV'.
I'm not so sure I get what you're saying but I suppose the jist of it is that the logic doesn't add up? I won't pretend to understand the theories that try to explain how we oscillate between universes every big bang or stuff like that, but
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
My astronomy is horrid, but...I can try.
I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began
Are you hoping for 100% certainty? Because that is something that science will never achieve. There are hard facts that support the falsifiable big bang theory, and it has predicted many things like finding certain patterns of radiation in certain places.(exact details escape me at the moment, sorry.)
In that sense, we only 'know' about the big bang as much as we know about other abstract physical objects, like electrons. The existence of said electrons is similarly a falsifiable theory, yet we do not see very many people who say that they 'don't 100% know how it works, therefore a mysterious unknown force/holy power/etc(depending on your choice of faith) instead is the one lighting up my TV'.
I'm not so sure I get what you're saying but I suppose the jist of it is that the logic doesn't add up? I won't pretend to understand the theories that try to explain how we oscillate between universes every big bang or stuff like that, but
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
wait. We don't know about electrons?
You just blew my mind.
-
We 'know' its there alright. But please tell me what it looks like? The lack of this information does not mean that something else powers our lightbulbs.
-
We 'know' its there alright. But please tell me what it looks like? The lack of this information does not mean that something else powers our lightbulbs.
remember this quote. Remember it well for it states that our senses are not necessarily required to "know" about something. ;)
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.
That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.
I hope that clears it up :)
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
Many many philosophers have asked this question. For example Dawkins was once probed about a scientific question, I can't remember about what, but his response was, "just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it can't exist". This was said about something scientific, but if you were to ask him if such a statement could be used in theological setting he would outright refuse, balking that science and theology must remain separate. If theology can learn from science, why can't science learn from theology? Many outspoken people again theology balk on how theologians act bias towards science when in the end, scientists can be just as biased. There is a middle ground and that middle ground should be the reality, but right now, there is a very large gap in between science and theology.
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.
That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.
I hope that clears it up :)
This works both ways btw. ;)
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.
That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.
I hope that clears it up :)
This works both ways btw. ;)
I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.
That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.
I hope that clears it up :)
This works both ways btw. ;)
I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.
I'm also aware of that. I get just as pissed when I see atheists calling people like myself idiots or delusional for believing in a God and pushing down my throat why God can't exist.
-
SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you. Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc. or 2) because they genuinely care about you and whoever else they talk to (even if they are ultimately wrong about what they think). Usually you can tell which of the two it is if they talk to you....but I wouldn't write an individual off as if they were just a part of the "machine." You know what I'm saying?
-
What an amazing insight, kaelvin. That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know. For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer. If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?
I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.
That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.
I hope that clears it up :)
This works both ways btw. ;)
I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.
I'm also aware of that. I get just as pissed when I see atheists calling people like myself idiots or delusional for believing in a God and pushing down my throat why God can't exist.
Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.
SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you. Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc. or 2) because they genuinely care about you and whoever else they talk to (even if they are ultimately wrong about what they think). Usually you can tell which of the two it is if they talk to you....but I wouldn't write an individual off as if they were just a part of the "machine." You know what I'm saying?
I'm sure some of them have good intentions. I'm just at the point where I look at it and know I don't believe the same thing and get chastised over and over when I share no interest in converting to Christianity. And I don't think of it as a "Machine". If you believe it, you believe it. Good for you! I just know deep down I look at Christianity, shake my head because I know I don't really feel it and know that I don't, so its rather frustrating to have people yell at you when you refuse to convert.
However as for your first comment, I can elaborate more on that privately, if you wish and don't mind.
-
Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.
I know exactly what it means. No reason to get angry. :\
-
Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.
I know exactly what it means. No reason to get angry. :\
I'm not angry though. :|
-
There's militant atheism? I had no idea.
-
There's militant atheism? I had no idea.
On a much smaller scale, maybe...
-
.
-
There's militant atheism? I had no idea.
On a much smaller scale, maybe...
Umm... no. You need not look any further than Dawkins, Fry and Hitchens and his followers to find Miltant Atheism.
-
.
-
mil·i·tant
–adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
I wouldn't call any of those you named "militant".
-
Yes. If Dawkins is militant just for being so close minded, you have to call any Christian who preaches their beliefs with conviction to be militant. Do I believe this? No! There is a fine line between pronouncing one's beliefs and being aggressive against others'. I don't think there is much argument against the notion that Christians have, in various denominations and forms, been incredibly agressive and inconsiderate towards other's beliefs. There might have been some Atheists who were violent to Christian groups here and there, but when was the last time you heard of an organized "militant atheist" group being truly aggressive?
-
SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you. Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc...
I've always seen this as a failing on the part of God. It doesn't give Christians a chance to be good or evil on their own, because everything a true believer does will be coloured by their beliefs. If a person helps someone else in order to gain heaven points, or whatever, then that's a selfish act. Surely only an atheist can act in a genuinely good way, untempered by expectation of reward, and so shouldn't only (good) atheists go to heaven? Of course, here I run into the question of what "good" means, so I'll refer you to Moore (not Kevin) and throw in the towel on that score.
Um, no an atheist can and has been known to act in a selfish way by taking away religion on the basis that it is evil and delusional. Exactly who is the most discoloured by their beliefs in this regard. I'd say the deck is evenly shuffled here.
On a separate note, I'd also question the assertion above that because some events in the Bible can be historically validated, it's all accurate. I read a Stephen King short story a while back that was set in New York and was about 9/11. NY exists and 9/11 happened, but obviously the other events in the story didn't. Claiming that X in the Bible can be proven historically, so Y and Z which cannot be proven are therefore accurate by association, smacks of someone finding a copy of Just After Sunset in two thousand years and claiming that, because NY existed (e.g. from archaeological evidence) and 9/11 is documented as having occurred (e.g. historical records), that the other (fictional) events described in the story are also accurate.
I don't think anyone is claiming that if one event is historically accurate all events must be. I do know that the idea of if one event is not accurate then the all events are probably if not definitely false. However basing your faith on historical accuracies on the Bible does not lead you to faith in God. Believe in the Word of God found in the Bible does. Also a belief that along the way we learned more things and were able to clear things up and made sure those places in the Bible were "enhanced" to clear up confusing as a means to discredit the whole thing is a bit irrational.
I don't think the Bible can be claimed as evidence for God. But if you accept that, then where is the evidence that there is a God at all? Personally I lost my faith years ago, despite honestly trying to find a reason to keep believing, because I couldn't find one.
Try researching Aristotle and Aquinas about the idea of First Principles. Nothing new in this field. Gotta love the Greeks and Scholastic Philosophy.
-
mil·i·tant
–adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
I wouldn't call any of those you named "militant".
I'm not talking about Al-Queda or Hamas militant, I'm about the "general" usage of the term that means an "overly agressive" attitude in either a violent or non violent. In no way will I or anyone equate Dawkins with Bin Laden. Two COMPLETELY different ideas there. Dawkins is not a sociopath. But I will equate him with groups like that of Terry Jones and partially with the Westboro Baptist Church in that they equate religion and religious people as "evil". I don't know, I think that's kind of agressive in my mind. Cause if we are going split hairs on the usage of Militant then we better stop calling most Christians militant because I don't know many groups out there Christian-wise that are using overly violent means and warfare other than Al Queda and Hamas (who aren't christian) unless the News has completely decided to not report this stuff.
-
SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you. Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc...
I've always seen this as a failing on the part of God. It doesn't give Christians a chance to be good or evil on their own, because everything a true believer does will be coloured by their beliefs. If a person helps someone else in order to gain heaven points, or whatever, then that's a selfish act. Surely only an atheist can act in a genuinely good way, untempered by expectation of reward, and so shouldn't only (good) atheists go to heaven? Of course, here I run into the question of what "good" means, so I'll refer you to Moore (not Kevin) and throw in the towel on that score.
This is an interesting observation. But I'd add that everybody has underlying motivations for their actions (in addition to their professed ones) that they may not even be consciously aware of at all times. Take helping an old lady across the street. For a lot of Christians, the real motivation is "earning points with the big guy" or wanting to appear pious, when outwardly, they'd claim to be acting selflessly. They're still acting in what they perceive to be their own best interests. That applies to everybody. Theirs just happens to be based on their religious beliefs.
I agree, that sort of eliminates the possibility of *true* selflessness, since the motive for righteousness is either fear of punishment or hope of earning a reward for oneself. I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
-
Yes. If Dawkins is militant just for being so close minded, you have to call any Christian who preaches their beliefs with conviction to be militant. Do I believe this? No! There is a fine line between pronouncing one's beliefs and being aggressive against others'. I don't think there is much argument against the notion that Christians have, in various denominations and forms, been incredibly agressive and inconsiderate towards other's beliefs. There might have been some Atheists who were violent to Christian groups here and there, but when was the last time you heard of an organized "militant atheist" group being truly aggressive?
I just named three of them. Are you selectively categorizing today?
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
-
.
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain. But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined. I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure. How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion? Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?
-J
-
.
-
.
-
But what other than faith alone makes you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God at all? There doesn't seem to be anything other than the Bible itself saying so, plus tradition.
The Word of God is found in the Bible. No human being can prove this, you have only God's Word that guides you to this faith. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear before.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is irrational, sorry. Are you saying that a belief that the Bible has been changed shouldn't be reason to dismiss the whole thing? I wasn't saying that, though if I was still a Christian then I'd be troubled by the idea that the original holy word had been changed at all. How can you know what's the word of God and what has been changed by man?
How do you know what was written wasn't a mistake made by the human imperfection? Why are people so quick to judge that God Himself picked up a pen wrote the Bible and dropped it from the sky when we know the Bible was written by Man? If we know the Bible was written by Man then why do we assume that in our human condition which is imperfect that we are able to hear and understand completely and without error the Word of God? Why are people so quick to judge that God should make himself more clear when God is not the problem, it's our limitations. So know the question stands, knowing that human are imperfect, knowing that we cannot plausibly understand and come to know God 100% because of the human limitations nor are we capible of taking this Word of God and making it 100% accurate due to our limitations still inclined to force the idea of 100% accuracy or you cannot justify faith in the Bible? This is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole without adding to or taking away from the square peg and the round hole. You cannot rationally concluded that the Bible should be 100% perfectwhen we know the Bible was written by those who under no circumstances were 100% nor could have been made 100% perfect. The only person that was 100% perfect was Christ himself if you chose to believe that or not and if people want to question why He didn't write anything I state the following, "if they are not going to believe in these writers, then they wouldn't believe if Christ himself wrote it." I'd stake my life on that claim.
But the idea of First Causes, Prime Movers and so on just leads to infinite regression. The cosmological argument for God isn't terribly well-supported, in my view.
No it doesn't. It leads to a first cause and to say that this argument isn't well supported is not true at all. It is quite well supported and still is supported to this day by quite a few 10s of millions of people.
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain. But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined. I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure. How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion? Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?
-J
What makes you the bearer of truth of what goes on in a person's mind when they are performing an act of charity? Why is it hard for you to believe that a person is capible and does frequently give to charity without a selfish motivation? What act of logic and reason has led to this conviction of the human person? The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.
Why so negative?
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.
So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious. :)
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.
So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious. :)
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
Purely speculation
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.
So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious. :)
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
Purely speculation
Why so negative?
-
I don't see why people couldn't do good deeds 100% out of the love for their god. Or bad deeds, or whatever deeds.
rumborak
-
I don't see why people couldn't do good deeds 100% out of the love for their god. Or bad deeds, or whatever deeds.
rumborak
First off, the concepts of Heaven and Hell mix the motives of anyone claiming to do something out of their love for god. Then there's about a million other complications of motivation for doing "good deeds" simply because one is a human being.
However, I do think it's silly to say that someone who actually believed that they were given everything they own by one being could not find it in them to do something out of love in return for that being. (in this case, God) So I'm leaning towards Vivace's side here.
-
Yeah, but the "there's always going to be another factor" argument is the same as the argument that there are no altruistic deeds since there's always a benefit to the person doing it. It's disingenous because it focuses on a negligible side factor and dismisses the main one.
rumborak
-
Yeah, but the "there's always going to be another factor" argument is the same as the argument that there are no altruistic deeds since there's always a benefit to the person doing it. It's disingenous because it focuses on a negligible side factor and dismisses the main one.
rumborak
Under normal circumstances, I would completely agree with you. However, when discussion something as "100%" and "pure," I think it is not a completely invalid argument.
-
To restate, I think the presence of the "negligible side factor" is unavoidable when discussing if it's possible to do something with "pure" and "100%" motivation or love.
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain. But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined. I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure. How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion? Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?
-J
What makes you the bearer of truth of what goes on in a person's mind when they are performing an act of charity? Why is it hard for you to believe that a person is capible and does frequently give to charity without a selfish motivation? What act of logic and reason has led to this conviction of the human person? The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.
Why so negative?
True, neither of us know. That was my point. But in my experience, people's motivations for their actions are rarely "selfless" in the truest sense of the word. And like dtismajesty said, there are a million confounding factors at play, just because we're humans.
But I don't mean to downplay the significance of such acts. If a person does good deeds, the good is still done regardless of his motive. And I also didn't mean to imply that it's always impossible to do things out of "pure" selflessness. I just question it because of my experiences with others, and because of my own struggles with it, i.e. asking myself "am I really doing this good deed with absolutely no regard for myself"?
Not trying to be negative, just realistic. What have you experienced that would lead you to assume that so many people are capable of such purely motivated action? I'd certainly hope that it were true, but my experiences lead me to believe otherwise. *shrug*
-J
-
Vivace,
The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light[1] than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction[2] Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
IMO one should refrain from '100% conviction'[2]. It may seem trivially obvious to you and thus absolutely correct, but as you said, only God can know for certain, rather it is your own wishful thinking[1] that causes you to conclude with 100% certainty that those people are entirely 'pure' in their actions. In the case of the soup kitchen, its entirely possible they are also doing it for themselves, such that they don't have to feel worried for the poor children. Not necessarily true at all but it is possible(it would be part of my own rationale, were I to run a soup kitchen), and thus to claim 100% is a bit much.
Edit: Oh, and hope you don't mind if I backtrack a bit? in defense of Dawkins, I don't think he said that its impossible for a God to exist. He does allow for the possibility that a God exists but maintains that he has not seen any compelling evidence for it. Hitchens as far as I've seen has been a bit more convinced but I do believe that he is open to new evidence, if any were to be found.
-
Not trying to be negative, just realistic.
That's a rather narcissitic view of the world ;)
What have you experienced that would lead you to assume that so many people are capable of such purely motivated action? I'd certainly hope that it were true, but my experiences lead me to believe otherwise. *shrug*
I've seen it. I'm not bullshiting this. People here can either believe my statement or not. I have seen people act purely out of the love of God. I cannot 100% prove it, but I don't see why that's a requirement to believe this person is acting in this way. I'll even cite examples. Those people who become "religious" for example, priests, monks, nuns, friars, etc. these people are acting completely out of love for God and no they are not doing it for "brownie points" either. ;)
-
Vivace,
The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light[1] than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction[2] Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
IMO one should refrain from '100% conviction'[2]. It may seem trivially obvious to you and thus absolutely correct, but as you said, only God can know for certain, rather it is your own wishful thinking[1] that causes you to conclude with 100% certainty that those people are entirely 'pure' in their actions. In the case of the soup kitchen, its entirely possible they are also doing it for themselves, such that they don't have to feel worried for the poor children. Not necessarily true at all but it is possible(it would be part of my own rationale, were I to run a soup kitchen), and thus to claim 100% is a bit much.
I agree that no one is 100% certain but I will not fall into the narcisstic point of view that realistically people do things for selfish reasons. there are some people who do and there are some people who simply do not. I'm pointing at those who "realistically" would not. In my rationale these people are doing it for pure reasons and that should not be seen as unrational or unrealistic either.
-
I've seen it. I'm not bullshiting this. People here can either believe my statement or not. I have seen people act purely out of the love of God. I cannot 100% prove it, but I don't see why that's a requirement to believe this person is acting in this way. I'll even cite examples. Those people who become "religious" for example, priests, monks, nuns, friars, etc. these people are acting completely out of love for God and no they are not doing it for "brownie points" either. ;)
I'm willing to believe that what I'm going to say is in the extreme minority, but there are 'priests' who wear lots of bling and hide behind the premise of working for god. For these people I find it quite hard to think he really is in this out of the pure good in his heart...
and I wasn't expecting a reply so soon ;p probably shouldn't play with the edit button here. Just gonna copy-paste this;
Edit: Oh, and hope you don't mind if I backtrack a bit? in defense of Dawkins, I don't think he said that its impossible for a God to exist. He does allow for the possibility that a God exists but maintains that he has not seen any compelling evidence for it. Hitchens as far as I've seen has been a bit more convinced but I do believe that he is open to new evidence, if any were to be found.
-
I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.
-J
I can point out quite a few .....thousands.
Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.
So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious. :)
Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.
Purely speculation
Why so negative?
What is negative about my statement?
-
What is negative about my statement?
Why is it necessary to force the idea that people do things purely out of love for God into mear speculation when #1) it only served to shoot down my statement of conviction to which I will not let go of just because you think it's mear speculation and #2) you never bother to say anything more which leads me back to number #1 which makes me wonder why is it mere speculation to think that there are people out there who do things out of the love for God alone especially since friends and family make this statement in biographies written of these people. Yes, we cannot know for certain, but why side with the negative idea that it must be scrutinized rather than side with a more positive light in the idea that maybe it might be true. given the only thing you said was "pure specularization" basically tells me you have no interest in sheding a positive light on the subject and only interested in shoot down the hope that pure love of God does in fact exist.
-
Sorry that you read so much into the statement. Perhaps you should step back and not take things personally. I merely said "knowing" someone else's true intentions is purely speculation. n One cant know another persons true intentions, even if the person says what they are....many times a person isnt even aware of some motives, or may be unwilling to acknowledge them. Sorry you dont agree, but it is simply something you cant know for 100% certainty. And chill out with the "stop shooting down the hope that pure love of god exists" crap. Never said anything of the sort. It may exist....my point was that it isnt possible for you to determine that in another person. You can believe/have faith in whatever you want...but so can I, and I am allowed to express my view here just the same as you. My view is no less "positive" than yours.
-
Sorry that you read so much into the statement. Perhaps you should step back and not take things personally. I merely said "knowing" someone else's true intentions is purely speculation. n One cant know another persons true intentions, even if the person says what they are....many times a person isnt even aware of some motives, or may be unwilling to acknowledge them. Sorry you dont agree, but it is simply something you cant know for 100% certainty. And chill out with the "stop shooting down the hope that pure love of god exists" crap. Never said anything of the sort. It may exist....my point was that it isnt possible for you to determine that in another person. Its called speculation. :\
:chill
-
.
-
I wasn't absolutely sure that this was your point, so thank you for clarifying. However, as long as the Bible can only be trusted to be God's Word by those of faith, it isn't evidence of God to non-believers. Faith is only proof to those who have it.
Bingo! ;D
Well, I'm not arguing that the Bible is or should be considered perfect. I'm aware that it's believed to be God's word filtered through his followers. Again, I'm just dubious of the value of the Bible in the discussion we're having, because its validity is a matter of faith. It seems that you either have faith or you don't; if you have faith then the Bible is meaningful, but if you don't then it's meaningless as a method of proof.
Two for two! ;D ;D
Well, so are many weak theories. For instance, there are many people who will tell you that a lack of serotonin causes depression (not the best example, but the first one off the top of my head). Logically that argument is utter crap for many reasons, but people believe it - so the fact that tens of millions of people believe in the cosmological argument doesn't come to much for me. I don't need anyone else to believe in a theory, provided that I can see for myself that it's logical. And to me, exempting the Prime Mover from causation "just because" isn't logical.
um... it's not a "just because" clause. I highly recommend you read Aristotle and Aquinas on First Principles because it's most certainly not a just because clause. An example from Aristotle. "You can only know a thing through the senses and truly understand a thing through its cause. Eventually as you being to study causes you must therefore reach a universal cause and from this universal causes branches out the effects such which are particular. You can only have one universal cause for if you have two then you are still talking about particulars for which both have a universal cause."
Remember this is a philosophical position and can be rejected for other philosophical positions but like other philosophical positions the argument of a "first principle" has just as much validity and logic behind it when it comes the rules of philosophy than does those philosophical arguments that argue for other causes. So in my mind you cannot just argue away philosophical logic and reason under the flag of "just because".
Please bear in mind that I don't intend to attack you, or to change your mind about your faith. (I doubt that would be possible anyway.) My argument is that belief is God is a leap of faith and can't be justified by logic; you either believe or you don't. Hence, no amount of faith-based argument will convince an atheist.
Three for three! Which has been my point from the very beginning. Atheists look to human beings in order to make a leap of faith to God. This is not possible for a human being alone and all the faculties that come from human beings alone which is logic, reason and the intelliect cannot bring you to faith in God. Logic and reason can present the "idea" of a God but it cannot make you have faith in that God. This has always been a pet peeve of mine from Atheists. that is, "your God is not logical and you therefore must prove God is logical before I can believe". this frustrates me because it ignores the logical and reasonable positions that have been created for thousands of years as rubbish because since you cannot prove God through the senses you therefore cannot provide a logical reason for the existance of God. Well sorry, but that's complete bullshit. If I can prove God exists through the senses in a way that will make you fully 100% believe then I have just eliminated faith from the equation completely. Faith does not need to exist anymore. But since this requirement is impossible to fulfill through the senses it becomes impossible to 1) prove the existance of God to an atheist and 2) Prove that logic and reason CAN explain the existance of God without the senses. Because of the these two issues arguing for historical accuracy in the Bible becomes a regular discourse that ignores the "purpose" of the Bible only to force feed the idea that without a 100 accuracy the Bible and everything that is contained therein and has been written must also be forthwith ignored and dismissed as errancy. If you want to believe that fine. But I find it completely irrational and I have explained my reasons for it. Honestly I don't know if I can add anything new from this point.
-
Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.
God is said to exist *outside* of time. He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them. Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either. He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J. This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.
But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead. That's where things get confusing, IMO.
-J
Sorry about the delay, but I'd like to respond to this.
I understand your point, but I still don't see how that negates pre-determinism. Even if God is outside of time, it still means that somewhere in the infinite stretches of existence the information on our decisions exists. Whether it is "outside of time" or not is not really relevant.
-
Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.
God is said to exist *outside* of time. He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them. Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either. He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J. This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.
But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead. That's where things get confusing, IMO.
-J
Sorry about the delay, but I'd like to respond to this.
I understand your point, but I still don't see how that negates pre-determinism. Even if God is outside of time, it still means that somewhere in the infinite stretches of existence the information on our decisions exists. Whether it is "outside of time" or not is not really relevant.
But just because that information exists (hypothetically), doesn't mean it has been *influenced* (or "determined"). That has no bearing on free will.
However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree. Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God. God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it. Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell. In that sense, I agree with you.
-J
-
An interesting point that I pretty much agree with, and which a large part of why I don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God who created us.
-
However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree. Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God. God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it. Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell. In that sense, I agree with you.
-J
Not necessarily. If sinning at any point in your life meant you were condemned to hell no matter what then no one would ever be saved. Everyone is born with a propensity for many sinful things, it's how you act out on those urges and what you do with the rest of your life that determines what happens after life on earth.
As for the topic of God always knowing everything and what exactly will happen, I don't know. Maybe there are passages in the Blible that explicitly state that, but I've always seen it as God having his own plan. Man is free to do whatever he wants, but he'll never be able to truly defy God's will because he will make man's action (even an act of defiance) his will. For a situation like Judas I suppose you could say he was "cursed" ahead of time to be put into a situation that would challenge him (then again, who isn't?), but you can't really place all of the blame on that. He clearly decided of his own will to betray Jesus. Men are sinful creatures and if Judas hadn't filled that particular role then someone else inevitably would have.
As for what happened to him after his death, I have no idea.
-
However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree. Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God. God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it. Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell. In that sense, I agree with you.
-J
Not necessarily. If sinning at any point in your life meant you were condemned to hell no matter what then no one would ever be saved. Everyone is born with a propensity for many sinful things, it's how you act out on those urges and what you do with the rest of your life that determines what happens after life on earth.
Well, it was an oversimplification on my part, but it still applies. God knows that the sum of Man A's life/actions/choices will get him a one-way ticket to hell. He creates Man A anyway.
-J
-
But what I said still applies, they're not destined to hell at all because they can still take the actions necessary to be saved (and as a side note I don't really believe in "hell" at all. You either get to spend all of eternity at God's side or you're gone, in which case it makes perfect sense that those who accept the gift of salvation receive that gift after death and those that didn't simply don't).
Parents know their kids are eventually going to experience pain, suffering, and sadness, and must eventually face death but there's still plenty of good reasons to still bring another person into life.
-
But what I said still applies, they're not destined to hell at all because they can still take the actions necessary to be saved (and as a side note I don't really believe in "hell" at all. You either get to spend all of eternity at God's side or you're gone, in which case it makes perfect sense
that those who accept the gift of salvation receive that gift after death and those that didn't simply don't).
God chooses to create a person. He sees the end of that person's life before he ever creates them, and sees that the choices that the person will make will warrant eternal damnation. He sees that millions upon millions of people will "choose" the same fate. He still creates those people, knowing that they will be damned. You can say it's because of their choices, but even if God doesn't pre-determine each of their individual choices, he knows what the end result will be before they ever come into being.
And yeah, I'm arguing from a more traditional Christian view of "hell". Not an area of theology I was ever too well-versed in, so take that for what it's worth.
Parents know their kids are eventually going to experience pain, suffering, and sadness, and must eventually face death but there's still plenty of good reasons to still bring another person into life.
Yeah, there are reasons for us *humans* to reproduce. Lots of reasons. But what would be reasons for *God* (assuming he has the attributes we've been discussing) to bring people into life?
-J
-
God knows a person before they're born, he doesn't make it's parents have sex. If he did everyone would live exactly as the law instructs.
However humans are born with a (limited/cursed/tarnished/saturated) will of their own and choose to have sex conceiving xyz. This is an act of the parents and the faetus grows on it's own. God knew it would happen but didn't force the sperm to fertilise the egg.
That person then CHOOSES to turn their back on God. They turn to Hell and say "I want that, it looks attractive to me" and so they run as fast and hard as they can towards Hell.
-
God chooses to create a person. He sees the end of that person's life before he ever creates them, and sees that the choices that the person will make will warrant eternal damnation. He sees that millions upon millions of people will "choose" the same fate. He still creates those people, knowing that they will be damned. You can say it's because of their choices, but even if God doesn't pre-determine each of their individual choices, he knows what the end result will be before they ever come into being.
Very limited point of view on God. What makes you think that our lives are "pre-determined"? Why does free-will suddenly get overlooked because we wish to see God as a being that sees things only the way we see it. God sees it all. He sees where we can go and guides our souls in that direction. We have a choice to go either left or right, only one of the those choices results in the "perfect" direction, not necessarily the wrong direction. Again, don't limit God to the realm of the human mind.
-
But what I said still applies, they're not destined to hell at all because they can still take the actions necessary to be saved (and as a side note I don't really believe in "hell" at all. You either get to spend all of eternity at God's side or you're gone, in which case it makes perfect sense
that those who accept the gift of salvation receive that gift after death and those that didn't simply don't).
God chooses to create a person. He sees the end of that person's life before he ever creates them, and sees that the choices that the person will make will warrant eternal damnation. He sees that millions upon millions of people will "choose" the same fate. He still creates those people, knowing that they will be damned. You can say it's because of their choices, but even if God doesn't pre-determine each of their individual choices, he knows what the end result will be before they ever come into being.
But does he really know how they're going to end up ahead of time? Like I was mentioning in my last post, I'm not really sure if God really does "absolutely know every single thing that will ever happen ever" so much as "he's got a plan and he's going to make it happen, no matter what actions anyone takes contrary to what he might intend."
edit: And, to be honest, I don't really know about the "God individually creates every person" thing. We know how people are created and if someone is born with some kind of defect then we can typically point towards some worldly cause of it, not just say "oh, I guess God just hates this person."
Yeah, there are reasons for us *humans* to reproduce. Lots of reasons. But what would be reasons for *God* (assuming he has the attributes we've been discussing) to bring people into life?
-J
Personally, creating or introducing new life to the world seems like one of the most "good" things that a person could do. I don't see why this would be any different for God. I don't see what'd be wrong with God creating for its own sake (meaning both the sake of the act of creating and the sake of what's being created).
-
But does he really know how they're going to end up ahead of time? Like I was mentioning in my last post, I'm not really sure if God really does "absolutely know every single thing that will ever happen ever" so much as "he's got a plan and he's going to make it happen, no matter what actions anyone takes contrary to what he might intend."
Yes, he knows every single thing that will ever happen...ever. That sounds riduculous but if you follow the philosophy of First Causes, then you must inevidable end up with a cause that must know of all things.
edit: And, to be honest, I don't really know about the "God individually creates every person" thing. We know how people are created and if someone is born with some kind of defect then we can typically point towards some worldly cause of it, not just say "oh, I guess God just hates this person."
A question that gets dismissed is the following, "why does a human being with a defect ultimate lead to a person to think God's does not exist or God is evil?" the one thing I have pointed out to many people before is the idea that a person will use the argument "God doesn't exist because anyone who would create a human being with a defect is evil". Well, if God doesn't exist, him being evil has nothing to do with him existing or not, it's a condition of His personality. So if God doesn't exist, he's neither evil or good, he doesn't exist. But if God does exist then the question of why have evil or why have defects becomes interesting. And again the answer is obvious and yet a mystery. Human beings are born with defects in that it's just a part of the natural human being. Why did God make us this way? I have no idea, but ask yourself why a person with a defect is automatically an evil thing? To me evil is malicious intent so are we really saying God created this person with malicious intent. This person exists solely for God to mock and laugh at and spit upon and fuck with us? If you say yes, then I would like you to tell me more about this God because I can tell you with 99% certainity this is not the God "most" faithful believe in. In fact if such a God did exist, I doubt few would give Him glory. This sort of description fits another "figure" that gets the attention it deserves.
-
edit: And, to be honest, I don't really know about the "God individually creates every person" thing. We know how people are created and if someone is born with some kind of defect then we can typically point towards some worldly cause of it, not just say "oh, I guess God just hates this person."
A question that gets dismissed is the following, "why does a human being with a defect ultimate lead to a person to think God's does not exist or God is evil?" the one thing I have pointed out to many people before is the idea that a person will use the argument "God doesn't exist because anyone who would create a human being with a defect is evil". Well, if God doesn't exist, him being evil has nothing to do with him existing or not, it's a condition of His personality. So if God doesn't exist, he's neither evil or good, he doesn't exist. But if God does exist then the question of why have evil or why have defects becomes interesting. And again the answer is obvious and yet a mystery. Human beings are born with defects in that it's just a part of the natural human being. Why did God make us this way? I have no idea, but ask yourself why a person with a defect is automatically an evil thing? To me evil is malicious intent so are we really saying God created this person with malicious intent. This person exists solely for God to mock and laugh at and spit upon and fuck with us? If you say yes, then I would like you to tell me more about this God because I can tell you with 99% certainity this is not the God "most" faithful believe in. In fact if such a God did exist, I doubt few would give Him glory. This sort of description fits another "figure" that gets the attention it deserves.
How about thinking about it this way. We're all "defective". We were all born that way and will be until Jesus comes back. If we weren't born "defective" there would be no evidence of sin (because sin wouldn't have affected us) and notice that there is something wrong with the world.
Paul talks in Romans about Creation "groaning" under the weight of sin. Babies that are born "defective" are a visible manifestation of all that is not right in the world because of our sin. (remember that it's "defective" as well as us, not instead of us) Of course the natural human reaction is to want this fixed but it can't happen yet. This is why we look to God and pray "Our father in heaven, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
-
Babies that are born "defective" are a visual example that all is not right in the world because of our sin.
I take it you skipped biology class?
rumborak
-
But does he really know how they're going to end up ahead of time? Like I was mentioning in my last post, I'm not really sure if God really does "absolutely know every single thing that will ever happen ever" so much as "he's got a plan and he's going to make it happen, no matter what actions anyone takes contrary to what he might intend."
Yes, he knows every single thing that will ever happen...ever. That sounds riduculous but if you follow the philosophy of First Causes, then you must inevidable end up with a cause that must know of all things.
Sorry, could you explain this to me? I don't get why creating everything means you must know ahead of time absolutely every thing that everyone and everything will ever do. Take something like AI, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the ultimate goal to create something who's actions and reactions aren't 100% predictable?
-
Babies that are born "defective" are a visual example that all is not right in the world because of our sin.
I take it you skipped biology class?
rumborak
And you theology.
I know that babies have been born with things that are wrong but what makes you think you're better than them? do you think that because you don't have a lazy eye you're better than someone that does? I know plenty of people that have "defects" that are smarter/stronger/faster than I am. My point is that they're "defective" alongside us. Part of their "defect" is just manifest in a way we can see
-
Babies that are born "defective" are a visual example that all is not right in the world because of our sin.
I take it you skipped biology class?
rumborak
And you theology.
I know that babies have been born with things that are wrong but what makes you think you're better than them? do you think that because you don't have a lazy eye you're better than someone that does? I know plenty of people that have "defects" that are smarter/stronger/faster than I am. My point is that they're "defective" alongside us. Part of their "defect" is just manifest in a way we can see
...
We get it. You skipped biology class.
-
Babies that are born "defective" are a visual example that all is not right in the world because of our sin.
I take it you skipped biology class?
rumborak
And you theology.
I know that babies have been born with things that are wrong but what makes you think you're better than them? do you think that because you don't have a lazy eye you're better than someone that does? I know plenty of people that have "defects" that are smarter/stronger/faster than I am. My point is that they're "defective" alongside us. Part of their "defect" is just manifest in a way we can see
...
We get it. You skipped biology class.
Are you denying that something is wrong with this world?
People get sick through no fault of their own. man gets lymphatic cancer. child gets leukemia. They didn't do anything to get their cancers yet they get them still. Trees get cancer. People age and they get dementia. There isn't anything wrong with that?
I see that and think "This is wrong" It isn't right that there is so much wrong with the world.
-
See, there's this thing called DNA. It doesn't care what's "right" and "wrong". It doesn't care whether people are "sinful" or gay or lighting puppies on fire and then catapulting them into the sides of buildings.
-
See, there's this thing called DNA. It doesn't care what's "right" and "wrong". It doesn't care whether people are "sinful" or gay or lighting puppies on fire and then catapulting them into the sides of buildings.
And cancer ensues when DNA gets broke. I know this. what's your point?
EDIT: Just because i'm *really* not sure where you guys are coming from...
DNA gets less and less perfect every time it replicates. We get cancers every singles day (or at least very frequently) but our immune system fights it off (kills the corrupted DNA)
DNA is broke and the only way it can be fixed is to get rid of the broken parts.
i'm saying that it shouldn't be that way. If DNA worked properly we wouldn't have "defects" i'm arguing however that problems with people's DNA is just a symptom, not a problem in itself. This is why i say people who have "defects" are not separated from us by inequality as they are in every way equal to us. They are just different. Like I am to you. Like blue eyes to brown, and tall to short.
-
How about thinking about it this way. We're all "defective". We were all born that way and will be until Jesus comes back. If we weren't born "defective" there would be no evidence of sin (because sin wouldn't have affected us) and notice that there is something wrong with the world.
Sin a result of our human nature due to our free-will and our ability to not choose the greater good when given a choice and to often do so. Babies are born into sin only insofar that babies are human beings. They are not born sinful, that is to say, they are guilty of sin they have committed, they are simply capible of sinning. Take a brand new car. The car itself is capible of breaking down but when it's brand new it's hasn't done so yet. Due to its mechanical nature it will break down. It's inevidable.
Also as others are doing, "defective" does not equate to "born without toes. born with autism. born with with diabetes. etc." It simply means born as human beings. If you want to prove mankind is 100% perfect, I would love to see that proof.
Sorry, could you explain this to me? I don't get why creating everything means you must know ahead of time absolutely every thing that everyone and everything will ever do. Take something like AI, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the ultimate goal to create something who's actions and reactions aren't 100% predictable?
How would you like me to explain God's omnipotence? I have a feeling it can't be done. the best I can do is guide you to the book Metaphysics by Aristotle. This is a philosophical position to which I fully agree with the "core". There are predicates proposed of course that are arcane and have been shown to be false but these are predicates that show an ignorance towards current scientific knowledge like the Earth rotating around the sun or the purpose to the stars in the sky. The "core" which deals with universality andfirst principles is where your answer to this question lies. In fact you don't have to read the whole thing: Book's Alpha and small Alpha (Text 1-7) offer enough reason to promote and illustrate how something like "full knowledge" is possible in a first cause. It's much too large to print and as I am currently studying the topic I have to admit a certain failure in the ability to articulate the proper summary in order to make it somewhat understandable.
-
See, there's this thing called DNA. It doesn't care what's "right" and "wrong". It doesn't care whether people are "sinful" or gay or lighting puppies on fire and then catapulting them into the sides of buildings.
I dunno. I bet there's a DNA strand out there that loves puppies and will snuff your ass through mutation if you touch even one hackle of a puppy with intent to set it on fire. :P
-
Vivace, why would Aristotle have more knowledge of God than any of the Hebrew prophets?
-
God chooses to create a person. He sees the end of that person's life before he ever creates them, and sees that the choices that the person will make will warrant eternal damnation. He sees that millions upon millions of people will "choose" the same fate. He still creates those people, knowing that they will be damned. You can say it's because of their choices, but even if God doesn't pre-determine each of their individual choices, he knows what the end result will be before they ever come into being.
Very limited point of view on God. What makes you think that our lives are "pre-determined"? Why does free-will suddenly get overlooked because we wish to see God as a being that sees things only the way we see it. God sees it all. He sees where we can go and guides our souls in that direction. We have a choice to go either left or right, only one of the those choices results in the "perfect" direction, not necessarily the wrong direction. Again, don't limit God to the realm of the human mind.
I'm not arguing for strict "pre-determinism". ??? I'm saying that yes, we have free will. But God still allows all of us to come into existence, knowing that a lot of us (and knowing which ones) will go to hell. Not that complicated.
But does he really know how they're going to end up ahead of time? Like I was mentioning in my last post, I'm not really sure if God really does "absolutely know every single thing that will ever happen ever" so much as "he's got a plan and he's going to make it happen, no matter what actions anyone takes contrary to what he might intend."
I don't know. Like I said, I'm just arguing from the assumption that God is omniscient. Meaning, yes, he knows everything.
edit: And, to be honest, I don't really know about the "God individually creates every person" thing. We know how people are created and if someone is born with some kind of defect then we can typically point towards some worldly cause of it, not just say "oh, I guess God just hates this person."
I don't believe it either, but it's usually accepted in some sense by mainstream Christians (i.e. God is somehow responsible for me being here). Stop muddling this discussion with science! :lol
Personally, creating or introducing new life to the world seems like one of the most "good" things that a person could do. I don't see why this would be any different for God. I don't see what'd be wrong with God creating for its own sake (meaning both the sake of the act of creating and the sake of what's being created).
I agree with the first sentence. But if God is perfect and complete, why would he create for the sake of it? There would be no point. And if I am going to end up in hell, why would he create me if it would be better had I never been born?
@Phil: you're killin' me bro.
-J
-
See, there's this thing called DNA. It doesn't care what's "right" and "wrong". It doesn't care whether people are "sinful" or gay or lighting puppies on fire and then catapulting them into the sides of buildings.
And cancer ensues when DNA gets broke. I know this. what's your point?
EDIT: Just because I'm *really* not sure where you guys are coming from...
DNA gets less and less perfect every time it replicates. We get cancers every singles day (or at least very frequently) but our immune system fights it off (kills the corrupted DNA)
DNA is broke and the only way it can be fixed is to get rid of the broken parts.
i'm saying that it shouldn't be that way. If DNA worked properly we wouldn't have "defects" i'm arguing however that problems with people's DNA is just a symptom, not a problem in itself. This is why i say people who have "defects" are not separated from us by inequality as they are in every way equal to us. They are just different. Like I am to you. Like blue eyes to brown, and tall to short.
First of all, I don't think you quite understand the function/workings of DNA, but whatever. I don't understand what you mean by "DNA is broke". We don't control our own DNA; it's not a matter of "getting rid of the broken parts."
More importantly, I have zero clue what that last paragraph is getting at. You brought it up before. I have no idea what you mean by "People's DNA is just a symptom". A symptom to what?
And it sort of seems like you think the rest of us support eugenics or something, the way you keep repeating that people with what you're labeling as defects shouldn't be looked down upon. I'm really confused.
-
In fact you don't have to read the whole thing: Book's Alpha and small Alpha (Text 1-7) offer enough reason to promote and illustrate how something like "full knowledge" is possible in a first cause.
I realize that it's certainly possible, but why "must" this be the conclusion of how God works?
But does he really know how they're going to end up ahead of time? Like I was mentioning in my last post, I'm not really sure if God really does "absolutely know every single thing that will ever happen ever" so much as "he's got a plan and he's going to make it happen, no matter what actions anyone takes contrary to what he might intend."
I don't know. Like I said, I'm just arguing from the assumption that God is omniscient. Meaning, yes, he knows everything.
I guess that explains why we seem to be going in circles with the "God knows person A will go to hell but makes them anyway" thing. :P
I admittedly haven't read the bible as much as I should, but I haven't really gotten the feeling yet that he knows ahead of time what will happen. When he tells Abraham that he's going to blow away Sodom and Abraham begs him not to for the sake of any of the "righteous people" still in the city, God says "If I find *number* righteous people, I will not destroy it [Sodom]." He doesn't say "I already know there aren't any, now gtfo" he says he would have to find them. Of course, this could be an issue with translation... I'm looking at a New International copy.
Personally, creating or introducing new life to the world seems like one of the most "good" things that a person could do. I don't see why this would be any different for God. I don't see what'd be wrong with God creating for its own sake (meaning both the sake of the act of creating and the sake of what's being created).
I agree with the first sentence. But if God is perfect and complete, why would he create for the sake of it? There would be no point.
Well, you agree with the first sentence don't you? The very act of doing it is good, and I'd say the wording even implies that he was proud of his creation (taking a step back every day and saying it was good). He did it because the act of it was good and it made him glad.
-
Vivace, why would Aristotle have more knowledge of God than any of the Hebrew prophets?
In what way did I ever claim that to be the case? I question placed was, "explain why God is omnipotent", my response was I don't think I can explain why, however you might get a better idea as to why we have reasoned for it through Aristotle's philosophy. This is no way declares that Aristotle knows God better than the prophets, it's just that Aristotle developed a very interesting philosophy behind it.
-
I'm not arguing for strict "pre-determinism". ??? I'm saying that yes, we have free will. But God still allows all of us to come into existence, knowing that a lot of us (and knowing which ones) will go to hell. Not that complicated.
I'm not quite too sure how strict "pre-determinism" and what I bolded above is supposed to be different. How does free will automatically make us damned?
I realize that it's certainly possible, but why "must" this be the conclusion of how God works?
It must work that way through Aristotle's philosophical predicates of the ideas. Who says a single philosophical idea is the absolute 100% correct one or even the superior one? Aristotle's philosophy most certainly has flaws just like any other philosophy out there but his ideas of first principles and how they link to God's omnipotence is incredible.
-
I guess that explains why we seem to be going in circles with the "God knows person A will go to hell but makes them anyway" thing. :P
I admittedly haven't read the bible as much as I should, but I haven't really gotten the feeling yet that he knows ahead of time what will happen. When he tells Abraham that he's going to blow away Sodom and Abraham begs him not to for the sake of any of the "righteous people" still in the city, God says "If I find *number* righteous people, I will not destroy it [Sodom]." He doesn't say "I already know there aren't any, now gtfo" he says he would have to find them. Of course, this could be an issue with translation... I'm looking at a New International copy.
Yeah the God portrayed in the bible is definitely inconsistent in his omniscience, omnipotence, etc. There are times when it seems like he changes his mind, and there are times when he demonstrates his all-knowing capacity. That's another issue altogether though.
Personally, creating or introducing new life to the world seems like one of the most "good" things that a person could do. I don't see why this would be any different for God. I don't see what'd be wrong with God creating for its own sake (meaning both the sake of the act of creating and the sake of what's being created).
I agree with the first sentence. But if God is perfect and complete, why would he create for the sake of it? There would be no point.
Well, you agree with the first sentence don't you? The very act of doing it is good, and I'd say the wording even implies that he was proud of his creation (taking a step back every day and saying it was good). He did it because the act of it was good and it made him glad.
If it made him glad, then that would imply that he was in a state of "less glad" beforehand, which is impossible for a perfect, immutable being.
As for it being objectively good, I don't know. I guess I've always viewed it as a generally good thing for humans to procreate (although I call this opinion into question more and more every day :lol), but what purpose would God have for creating humans? Why would he need or want to?
I'm not arguing for strict "pre-determinism". ??? I'm saying that yes, we have free will. But God still allows all of us to come into existence, knowing that a lot of us (and knowing which ones) will go to hell. Not that complicated.
I'm not quite too sure how strict "pre-determinism" and what I bolded above is supposed to be different. How does free will automatically make us damned?
Huh? As I said above, God knowing what we will do does not mean he influences it. I agree with you on free will. It does not "automatically make us damned" or anything of the sort.
Say God creates 100 people. He knows everything they will do. They are still free to do what they want during their lives, he merely knows what they will choose. Therefore, he knows that 80 of them will eventually spend eternity in hell. He proceeds to create those 80 people anyway. Why?
-J
-
It must work that way through Aristotle's philosophical predicates of the ideas. Who says a single philosophical idea is the absolute 100% correct one or even the superior one? Aristotle's philosophy most certainly has flaws just like any other philosophy out there but his ideas of first principles and how they link to God's omnipotence is incredible.
Ok, fair enough. I thought you were arguing that this was an answer for why God absolutely is one way or another.
-
Say God creates 100 people. He knows everything they will do. They are still free to do what they want during their lives, he merely knows what they will choose. Therefore, he knows that 80 of them will eventually spend eternity in hell. He proceeds to create those 80 people anyway. Why?
-J
100 people are created and thus 100 people have the potential to go heaven or hell. Not 80, not 20, not 1, all 100. That's been my point from the beginning.
-
Say God creates 100 people. He knows everything they will do. They are still free to do what they want during their lives, he merely knows what they will choose. Therefore, he knows that 80 of them will eventually spend eternity in hell. He proceeds to create those 80 people anyway. Why?
-J
100 people are created and thus 100 people have the potential to go heaven or hell. Not 80, not 20, not 1, all 100. That's been my point from the beginning.
:facepalm:
I'm not disputing that. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
God creates 100 people, all of whom have the potential to go to heaven or hell. But in his omniscience, he knows that persons 1-80 will go to hell, and yet he still creates them. This does not negate their "free will", but his knowledge of where their free will will lead them in their individual circumstances, and subsequent creation of them in spite of that, makes God an "accessory", if you will.
This is the last time I will try to explain this. Am I really being that unclear?
-J
-
Say God creates 100 people. He knows everything they will do. They are still free to do what they want during their lives, he merely knows what they will choose. Therefore, he knows that 80 of them will eventually spend eternity in hell. He proceeds to create those 80 people anyway. Why?
-J
100 people are created and thus 100 people have the potential to go heaven or hell. Not 80, not 20, not 1, all 100. That's been my point from the beginning.
:facepalm:
I'm not disputing that. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
God creates 100 people, all of whom have the potential to go to heaven or hell. But in his omniscience, he knows that persons 1-80 will go to hell, and yet he still creates them. This does not negate their "free will", but his knowledge of where their free will will lead them in their individual circumstances, and subsequent creation of them in spite of that, makes God an "accessory", if you will.
This is the last time I will try to explain this. Am I really being that unclear?
-J
No I think I am so let me try and explain clearer.
God does not create man because he knows that man will go to Hell. This is simply not a property of the Abrahamic God and if you feel that God creates people knowing they will go to hell then I seriously have no idea what God it is you are referring to. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti monster but certainly not the Abrahamic God. We know this to be true because of the Divine Word that states God is eternal Good. There is no malice in God, so for God to create man knowing that this particular man is going to go to Hell shows that God is acting under malice which therefore makes God a liar and again, this must be impossible or else we are again referring to some other God and not the Abrahamic God.
Mankind is created with God knowing that in his being he will either fall away from God or enter back into God. God sees this in all of entirety. There is nothing here that presents the theory that God creates people knowing they will go heaven or to Hell, God creates people so they may live and in the end return or not return to God. If we are going to assume that in the end God only sees this person in Heaven or Hell then we have therefore proven pre-determination and nothing you do will ever change that God sees you in Heaven or in Hell. God sees the potentiality which to us is undetermined. Therefore there is no pre-determination in that sense, because as God sees it we have the potential to go heaven or to hell. God does not sees us in one or the other, God sees us in potentia as both. How? I can't explain omnipotence. Have no idea how it works and my explanation before is just a limited guess. So in conclusion I cannot understand why you think God creates mankind knowing that a subset of this collection will end up in Hell? It reinforces the idea that God therefore sees you in Hell, not in Heaven and it proves that Pre-determination exists so why even try? All my choices are just meaningless if I'm going to hell, so why even live? I think we assured that the meaning of Life is not subject to God rolling dice and throwing us into baskets marked "heaven" and "hell". the meaning of life is to "be" and in the end we either return to God or we don't in whatever sense that means.
If this isn't clear enough then I ask someone else to give it a try because I will never agree to a God who creates a subselection of man knowing those people will go to Hell. Sorry, but that's just not what God told us about Him.
Oh and please. Settle down. Relax. It's just the internet. ;)
-
Say God creates 100 people. He knows everything they will do. They are still free to do what they want during their lives, he merely knows what they will choose. Therefore, he knows that 80 of them will eventually spend eternity in hell. He proceeds to create those 80 people anyway. Why?
-J
100 people are created and thus 100 people have the potential to go heaven or hell. Not 80, not 20, not 1, all 100. That's been my point from the beginning.
:facepalm:
I'm not disputing that. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
God creates 100 people, all of whom have the potential to go to heaven or hell. But in his omniscience, he knows that persons 1-80 will go to hell, and yet he still creates them. This does not negate their "free will", but his knowledge of where their free will will lead them in their individual circumstances, and subsequent creation of them in spite of that, makes God an "accessory", if you will.
This is the last time I will try to explain this. Am I really being that unclear?
-J
No I think I am so let me try and explain clearer.
God does not create man because he knows that man will go to Hell. This is simply not a property of the Abrahamic God and if you feel that God creates people knowing they will go to hell then I seriously have no idea what God it is you are referring to. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti monster but certainly not the Abrahamic God. We know this to be true because of the Divine Word that states God is eternal Good. There is no malice in God, so for God to create man knowing that this particular man is going to go to Hell shows that God is acting under malice which therefore makes God a liar and again, this must be impossible or else we are again referring to some other God and not the Abrahamic God.
Mankind is created with God knowing that in his being he will either fall away from God or enter back into God. God sees this in all of entirety. There is nothing here that presents the theory that God creates people knowing they will go heaven or to Hell, God creates people so they may live and in the end return or not return to God. If we are going to assume that in the end God only sees this person in Heaven or Hell then we have therefore proven pre-determination and nothing you do will ever change that God sees you in Heaven or in Hell. God sees the potentiality which to us is undetermined. Therefore there is no pre-determination in that sense, because as God sees it we have the potential to go heaven or to hell. God does not sees us in one or the other, God sees us in potentia as both. How? I can't explain omnipotence. Have no idea how it works and my explanation before is just a limited guess. So in conclusion I cannot understand why you think God creates mankind knowing that a subset of this collection will end up in Hell? It reinforces the idea that God therefore sees you in Hell, not in Heaven and it proves that Pre-determination exists so why even try? All my choices are just meaningless if I'm going to hell, so why even live? I think we assured that the meaning of Life is not subject to God rolling dice and throwing us into baskets marked "heaven" and "hell". the meaning of life is to "be" and in the end we either return to God or we don't in whatever sense that means.
Yes, God is said to be perfectly good, but I thought he was also omniscient? If he is, then he knows who will and will not go to hell. Period. That doesn't mean he "pre-determines" anything; I'm not sure why that keeps coming up. An all-knowing God by definition knows what "subset of his collection will end up in hell". That does not preclude our freedom, but it is a necessary consequence of his infinite knowledge.
I'm not trying to reconcile this attribute of God with his other supposed attributes. I have no answers to your rhetorical questions about "what would the meaning of life be" in this case, etc. I'm just pointing out one of the contradictions that I perceive in the traditional Christian understanding of God.
If this isn't clear enough then I ask someone else to give it a try because I will never agree to a God who creates a subselection of man knowing those people will go to Hell. Sorry, but that's just not what God told us about Him.
He told us that he was all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfect, good, etc. It seems to me that, given what else we know about God from the bible, it would be impossible for all of those characteristics to apply to him. Based on my own imperfect human intellect and understanding, of course. :)
Oh and please. Settle down. Relax. It's just the internet. ;)
???
-J
-
Yes, God is said to be perfectly good, but I thought he was also omniscient? If he is, then he knows who will and will not go to hell. Period. That doesn't mean he "pre-determines" anything; I'm not sure why that keeps coming up. An all-knowing God by definition knows what "subset of his collection will end up in hell". That does not preclude our freedom, but it is a necessary consequence of his infinite knowledge.
I'm not trying to reconcile this attribute of God with his other supposed attributes. I have no answers to your rhetorical questions about "what would the meaning of life be" in this case, etc. I'm just pointing out one of the contradictions that I perceive in the traditional Christian understanding of God.
This is not a contradiction and here is the reason why. If we can agree that God must be eternally good without malice and creates all things with perfect intention then we must conclude that God cannot create that which he knows will be damned. To do so means that we have proved God is not eternally good unless we want to say being damned is a good thing. We therefore MUST conclude the following, "we have no idea what omnipotence means in its entirely". If Omnipotence means that God must know that certain people are going to hell and we know that God cannot nor will not create life knowing that it will go to hell then we must abandon our current idea of omnipotence and perhaps realize there must be elements to it that we simply do not know or understand. You are assuming you know full well what omnipotence is and I find that incredible if you do. Please write a book if that is the case. ;)
Another thing to point out is that the above doesn't mean we should abandon all knowledge of God either. It is far more likely we know God better than we know the idea of omnipotence if we are to believe in the Divine Word and furthermore, if we want to believe in omnipotence in general we are most likely then going to believe in God so why not just take The Bible as a definition of God by taking the Divine Word and applying it properly and therefore create an image of that God. In doing so you have created the criteria above in order to define the properties of God.
He told us that he was all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfect, good, etc. It seems to me that, given what else we know about God from the bible, it would be impossible for all of those characteristics to apply to him. Based on my own imperfect human intellect and understanding, of course. :)
In what way does the Bible contradict the Divine Word of God if we are to believe that the Bible contains the Divine Word of God? in a sense that means, that God in his words has contradicted Himself with his words. That's got to be the most imcompetent God I've ever heard of. The human word is what is in contradition. It is in contradiction due to our human limitations and imperfections. The Divine word as we are to believe is perfect and cannot be in contradiction or else the Divine Word is therefore not perfect and in conclusion neither is God. No imperfect human intellect can mistake contradiction with perfection as being workable with each other. ;) You either believe in the Divine Word that God is in perfection or you don't believe in God. I can't see any reason for anyone to believe in an imperfect God. Maybe Hercules. Should have know to kill the hydra by hitting the heart not chopping off the head. Stupid God. :P
-
Yes, God is said to be perfectly good, but I thought he was also omniscient? If he is, then he knows who will and will not go to hell. Period. That doesn't mean he "pre-determines" anything; I'm not sure why that keeps coming up. An all-knowing God by definition knows what "subset of his collection will end up in hell". That does not preclude our freedom, but it is a necessary consequence of his infinite knowledge.
I'm not trying to reconcile this attribute of God with his other supposed attributes. I have no answers to your rhetorical questions about "what would the meaning of life be" in this case, etc. I'm just pointing out one of the contradictions that I perceive in the traditional Christian understanding of God.
This is not a contradiction and here is the reason why. If we can agree that God must be eternally good without malice and creates all things with perfect intention then we must conclude that God cannot create that which he knows will be damned. To do so means that we have proved God is not eternally good unless we want to say being damned is a good thing. We therefore MUST conclude the following, "we have no idea what omnipotence means in its entirely".
Well, that is one possible conclusion. Another would be "God must be EITHER omnipotent OR good, or neither". All assuming he exists of course.
If Omnipotence means that God must know that certain people are going to hell and we know that God cannot nor will not create life knowing that it will go to hell then we must abandon our current idea of omnipotence and perhaps realize there must be elements to it that we simply do not know or understand. You are assuming you know full well what omnipotence is and I find that incredible if you do. Please write a book if that is the case. ;)
Everything we know is rooted in our own language and limited to what we are capable of expressing and understanding. Of course I'm adopting a particular definition of omniscience for the purpose of discussion. I'm sure I don't understand a lot of things, but I'd like to think that God would have made our human intellects capable of at least deducing that he could logically exist with all of the attributes he has claimed to have.
He told us that he was all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfect, good, etc. It seems to me that, given what else we know about God from the bible, it would be impossible for all of those characteristics to apply to him. Based on my own imperfect human intellect and understanding, of course. :)
In what way does the Bible contradict the Divine Word of God if we are to believe that the Bible contains the Divine Word of God? in a sense that means, that God in his words has contradicted Himself with his words. That's got to be the most imcompetent God I've ever heard of. The human word is what is in contradition. It is in contradiction due to our human limitations and imperfections. The Divine word as we are to believe is perfect and cannot be in contradiction or else the Divine Word is therefore not perfect and in conclusion neither is God. No imperfect human intellect can mistake contradiction with perfection as being workable with each other. ;) You either believe in the Divine Word that God is in perfection or you don't believe in God. I can't see any reason for anyone to believe in an imperfect God. Maybe Hercules. Should have know to kill the hydra by hitting the heart not chopping off the head. Stupid God. :P
The bible is chock full of contradictions, some of which are being discussed in about 32578625983 other threads right now. I agree there has to be a distinction made between man's words and God's. But where can we see the "Divine Word" in its untainted form? If man's interpretation of God's word is not reliable, then what is?
-J
-
See, there's this thing called DNA. It doesn't care what's "right" and "wrong". It doesn't care whether people are "sinful" or gay or lighting puppies on fire and then catapulting them into the sides of buildings.
And cancer ensues when DNA gets broke. I know this. what's your point?
EDIT: Just because I'm *really* not sure where you guys are coming from...
DNA gets less and less perfect every time it replicates. We get cancers every singles day (or at least very frequently) but our immune system fights it off (kills the corrupted DNA)
DNA is broke and the only way it can be fixed is to get rid of the broken parts.
i'm saying that it shouldn't be that way. If DNA worked properly we wouldn't have "defects" i'm arguing however that problems with people's DNA is just a symptom, not a problem in itself. This is why i say people who have "defects" are not separated from us by inequality as they are in every way equal to us. They are just different. Like I am to you. Like blue eyes to brown, and tall to short.
First of all, I don't think you quite understand the function/workings of DNA, but whatever. I don't understand what you mean by "DNA is broke". We don't control our own DNA; it's not a matter of "getting rid of the broken parts."
More importantly, I have zero clue what that last paragraph is getting at. You brought it up before. I have no idea what you mean by "People's DNA is just a symptom". A symptom to what?
And it sort of seems like you think the rest of us support eugenics or something, the way you keep repeating that people with what you're labeling as defects shouldn't be looked down upon. I'm really confused.
Then explain it to me. The way I understand DNA is that it has al ot of information and has to replicate alot so that cells can reproduce. The DNA tells the new cell what it should look like. Unfortunately the process of DNA replication doesn't work perfectly and (more often than expected) cancerous cells develop. Luckily the body has an immune system that works and gets rid of the cell with the broke DNA and all the cells that have used the broken DNA to form rather than "good" DNA.
I'm saying that when I look at the problems even the most basic building block of life and see that it isn't working the way it should my reaction is that the world isn't right. It's not as it should be. So I look to the bible which tells me the root of the cause. (Romans 8:18-25, Gen 3:16,18) It tells me that "creation" was damaged in the fall. humans (for me) fall under creation and so we are damaged.
The point of my constantly saying that we are no less "defective" than other people is this: We're all suffering from the same root problem. therefore there is no cause saying "God hates this person" or "God created this person 'defective' so God can't be a good God."
-
:|
-
I can easily go the rest of my life without hearing or reading the phrase "broke DNA". In fact, I think simply using that phrase negates any credibility one might have in any scientific discussion. As does the theory that people get cancer because Eve ate an apple.
-
Then explain it to me. The way I understand DNA is that it has al ot of information and has to replicate alot so that cells can reproduce. The DNA tells the new cell what it should look like. Unfortunately the process of DNA replication doesn't work perfectly and (more often than expected) cancerous cells develop. Luckily the body has an immune system that works and gets rid of the cell with the broke DNA and all the cells that have used the broken DNA to form rather than "good" DNA.
Actually, while not perfect, DNA replication is remarkably accurate, and there are even mechanisms in place to correct for mistakes in replication and other processes. As for the rest of your post...I don't really know where to start.
I'm saying that when I look at the problems even the most basic building block of life and see that it isn't working the way it should my reaction is that the world isn't right. It's not as it should be.
Why do you assume that?
-J
-
Then explain it to me. The way I understand DNA is that it has al ot of information and has to replicate alot so that cells can reproduce. The DNA tells the new cell what it should look like. Unfortunately the process of DNA replication doesn't work perfectly and (more often than expected) cancerous cells develop. Luckily the body has an immune system that works and gets rid of the cell with the broke DNA and all the cells that have used the broken DNA to form rather than "good" DNA.
Actually, while not perfect, DNA replication is remarkably accurate, and there are even mechanisms in place to correct for mistakes in replication and other processes. As for the rest of your post...I don't really know where to start.
But mistakes still happen. It's an imperfect process. Yes I know it's pretty close but it's not perfect.
I'm saying that when I look at the problems even the most basic building block of life and see that it isn't working the way it should my reaction is that the world isn't right. It's not as it should be.
Why do you assume that?
-J
If the world was as it should be no mistakes would happen. People have known that the world isn't right since the beginning. Look at Plato and his Utopian "Republic".
-
Nothing in existence is perfect. Is that ALL to blame for Adam and Eve?
-
Would this be an inconvenient time to point out this is all pointless hypothesizing because Adam and Eve never existed?
-
Nothing in existence is perfect. Is that ALL to blame for Adam and Eve?
This is what the Bible says.
Would this be an inconvenient time to point out this is all pointless hypothesizing because Adam and Eve never existed?
That in itself is a hypothesis. a Pointless hypothesis to make. Evidence is on my side for that. I actually have evidence that they existed. If you want to claim they never existed; prove it.
-
The bible doesn't say anything about universal imperfections. Nor does it attribute DNA.....wait, it never mentions DNA.
-
The bible doesn't say anything about universal imperfections. Nor does it attribute DNA.....wait, it never mentions DNA.
I'm pretty sure it says "all creation" in Romans 8 and DNA is part of creation isn't it? Wait, you didn't read the passages I referenced.
-
Paul wasn't aware of DNA or anything outside of his field of vision. His "all creation" is limited.
-
Would this be an inconvenient time to point out this is all pointless hypothesizing because Adam and Eve never existed?
That in itself is a hypothesis. a Pointless hypothesis to make. Evidence is on my side for that. I actually have evidence that they existed. If you want to claim they never existed; prove it.
uhhhhhhhhh
Could I see this evidence? Where do you even draw the line at what is and what is not human?
-
Paul wasn't aware of DNA or anything outside of his field of vision. His "all creation" is limited.
Actually his "creation" referred to everything that has been created. Jews knew acutely about heredity (they were very proud of family lines and made great attempts to trace their family lines back as far as possible). They knew that sin had tarnished their worldly bodies. This is why they looked forward to their resurrected bodies which wouldn't age and wouldn't have imperfections.
So while they didn't know what DNA was, they know that the body is imperfect and it decays. You don't need to know about DNA to know that things aren't right.
-
Would this be an inconvenient time to point out this is all pointless hypothesizing because Adam and Eve never existed?
That in itself is a hypothesis. a Pointless hypothesis to make. Evidence is on my side for that. I actually have evidence that they existed. If you want to claim they never existed; prove it.
uhhhhhhhhh
Could I see this evidence? Where do you even draw the line at what is and what is not human?
Gen 1-3
-
That's your proof for Adam and EVe?
Genesis?
Really?
-
I can't remember, does Genesis say Adam is an Australopithicus or a Homo?
-
I can't remember, does Genesis say Adam is an Australopithicus or a Homo?
Hetero.
-
Would this be an inconvenient time to point out this is all pointless hypothesizing because Adam and Eve never existed?
That in itself is a hypothesis. a Pointless hypothesis to make. Evidence is on my side for that. I actually have evidence that they existed. If you want to claim they never existed; prove it.
uhhhhhhhhh
Could I see this evidence? Where do you even draw the line at what is and what is not human?
Gen 1-3
fuck
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
-
I can't remember, does Genesis say Adam is an Australopithicus or a Homo?
it says "man" and "woman".
It says God's image. It traces humans which we know were Homo Sapiens back to Adam and Eve. As a result I have no reason to believe that they weren't Homo Sapiens.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
That's a plot hole that ALWAYS bugged me, but I hadn't seen anyone mention 'til now.
@Phil
But we clearly have about 4 million of divergent evolution from other primates. When were they given souls? Was it all Garden of Eden up in here up until ~150,000 years ago? Where do you draw the line between homo sapiens and other species of the genus? How can you reconcile this with other elements of natural history that clearly show the rest of Genesis has no bearing on our natural history?
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
Cain's wife came from Eve.
Which isn't so bad considering that Eve came from Adam, she didn't haver any dissemination. The bible has no problem with Adam having sex with a derivitive of himself. As a result of that it's safe to assume that God set things up so that weird things didn't happen seeing they were the "proto"family so to speak.
I hold no qualms with believing that God set up some really strong DNA in Adam and Eve that held for extreme variations among their children. After that natural selection and micro evolution set in and we have variations in skin colour and eye colour etc. where people have adapted to the climate and culture etc.
-
The bible doesn't say that caines wife came from eve. You're assuming.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
That's a plot hole that ALWAYS bugged me, but I hadn't seen anyone mention 'til now.
@Phil
But we clearly have about 4 million of divergent evolution from other primates. When were they given souls? Was it all Garden of Eden up in here up until ~150,000 years ago? Where do you draw the line between homo sapiens and other species of the genus? How can you reconcile this with other elements of natural history that clearly show the rest of Genesis has no bearing on our natural history?
"4 million of divergent evolution" 4 million of what?
look we're both arguing from different perspectives here. I'm arguing from what the bible tells me wich is: God created man and woman in his image" which is what separates humans from the primates.
On the note of evolution, you show me solid evidence of a species jump (or "macro" evolution) and I'll find evidence of a mistake or a hoax.
-
The bible doesn't say that caines wife came from eve. You're assuming.
You're right. i'm assuming that when the Bible says God created Adam and Even and doesn't mention anyone else that there was in fact, no one else.
-
The bible doesn't say that caines wife came from eve. You're assuming.
You're right. i'm assuming that when the Bible says God created Adam and Even and doesn't mention anyone else that there was in fact, no one else.
You'd think since they spend page after page mentioning every person from every generation in Gen, they'd at least make mention of Caines wife being born.
But they didn't. Strange eh?
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
That's a plot hole that ALWAYS bugged me, but I hadn't seen anyone mention 'til now.
@Phil
But we clearly have about 4 million of divergent evolution from other primates. When were they given souls? Was it all Garden of Eden up in here up until ~150,000 years ago? Where do you draw the line between homo sapiens and other species of the genus? How can you reconcile this with other elements of natural history that clearly show the rest of Genesis has no bearing on our natural history?
"4 million of divergent evolution" 4 million of what?
look we're both arguing from different perspectives here. I'm arguing from what the bible tells me wich is: God created man and woman in his image" which is what separates humans from the primates.
On the note of evolution, you show me solid evidence of a species jump (or "macro" evolution) and I'll find evidence of a mistake or a hoax.
Sorry, meant 4 million years.
And a serious wut. We have a number of observable examples of "macro"evolution (which is just plain old-fashioned evolution; I don't understand why creationists believe this is impossible considering the time scales we are dealing with). Human evolution is fairly well mapped out, for one. Evolution of land mammals similar to cows to whales is extremely well documented. The development of most amphibians is pretty well preserved by the fossil record, too.
-
On the note of evolution, you show me solid evidence of a species jump (or "macro" evolution) and I'll find evidence of a mistake or a hoax.
Well, this sentence is definitely true.
-J
-
The bible doesn't say that caines wife came from eve. You're assuming.
You're right. i'm assuming that when the Bible says God created Adam and Even and doesn't mention anyone else that there was in fact, no one else.
You'd think since they spend page after page mentioning every person from every generation in Gen, they'd at least make mention of Caines wife being born.
But they didn't. Strange eh?
Not really. They genealogy of Genesis 5 only covers the first born son. It doesn't even mention Cain but we know he existed.
Genesis goes through all of it's genealogies by the father. Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Joseph. Generally the wives only come up for storytelling purposes. So no I don't find it hard to believe that Eve had daughters.
-
I'm just thinking this through right now. Cain's wife comes from Eve, and the father can also only be Adam. So, Cain's wife is actually his sister. The offspring of Cain has the option to either too mate with their own siblings, or with their parents.
Didn't know Eden was in West Virginia.
rumborak
-
I'm just thinking this through right now. Cain's wife comes from Eve, and the father can also only be Adam. So, Cain's wife is actually his sister. The offspring of Cain has the option to either too mate with their own siblings, or with their parents.
Didn't know Eden was in West Virginia.
rumborak
Yea, phil already said that god gave them strong DNA so that they'd be ok. I guess the bible mentioned that.
-
Ah, I see. Phil doesn't really know what DNA is. Fair enough.
rumborak
-
Ah, I see. Phil doesn't really know what DNA is. Fair enough.
rumborak
Just that it's broke and causes cancer cause we sinned.
-
I'm just thinking this through right now. Cain's wife comes from Eve, and the father can also only be Adam. So, Cain's wife is actually his sister. The offspring of Cain has the option to either too mate with their own siblings, or with their parents.
Didn't know Eden was in West Virginia.
rumborak
Back in the day 'keeping it in the family' wasn't a terribly big thing. It still happens (to a lesser extent) these days; Hindus marry Hindus, Jews marry Jews etc etc. When your prospects are limited you go with what you have.
These days incest is bad because there are options and not using them is just lazy.
-
Ah, I see. Phil doesn't really know what DNA is. Fair enough.
rumborak
Just that it's broke and causes cancer cause we sinned.
you're very good at reducto ad absurdum
-
I'm just thinking this through right now. Cain's wife comes from Eve, and the father can also only be Adam. So, Cain's wife is actually his sister. The offspring of Cain has the option to either too mate with their own siblings, or with their parents.
Didn't know Eden was in West Virginia.
rumborak
Back in the day 'keeping it in the family' wasn't a terribly big thing. It still happens (to a lesser extent) these days; Hindus marry Hindus, Jews marry Jews etc etc. When your prospects are limited you go with what you have.
These days incest is bad because there are options and not using them is just lazy.
That's not why incest is bad.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
The Bible has a bunch of problems but I seriously fail to see how this is one of them. Just seems like a case of filling in the blank.
-
The bible is chock full of contradictions, some of which are being discussed in about 32578625983 other threads right now. I agree there has to be a distinction made between man's words and God's. But where can we see the "Divine Word" in its untainted form? If man's interpretation of God's word is not reliable, then what is?
You simply just have to have faith that the word of God in the Bible is the best possible form even with man's imperfections. We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all. Given that #2 for me again creates an impossible quandry, "why would an eternal good God creates mankind and make it impossible for us to know him?" The Divine Word of the Bible is untainted. It must be so but again, that's my faith talking and my trust in about a million plus people who are wiser than I and have given me the assurance that it truly is the Word of God.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
The Bible has a bunch of problems but I seriously fail to see how this is one of them. Just seems like a case of filling in the blank.
Unless that blank is that the wife is his sister, then it's not very easy.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
The Bible has a bunch of problems but I seriously fail to see how this is one of them. Just seems like a case of filling in the blank.
Unless that blank is that the wife is his sister, then it's not very easy.
Cain, Abel, and Seth weren't the only children Adam and Eve had. One of the genealogies states that they had daughters as well.
-
Phil, old buddy, since you take the bible so literally. I am curious, where did Caines wife come from?
The Bible has a bunch of problems but I seriously fail to see how this is one of them. Just seems like a case of filling in the blank.
Unless that blank is that the wife is his sister, then it's not very easy.
It's Mesopotamian black humor ::)
-
Wow, has this thread digressed. ???
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
Either God's Word is perfect or the Divine is a lie. I'll take door #1.
-
.
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
Either God's Word is perfect or the Divine is a lie.
Well, again, why are these the only two options?
-
Great Post Sixdegrees.
I would never claim to have the answers.. but those are good questions.
-
I have another question for the Christians in this thread, if one or more of you feel like relieving my curiosity. Why do you think that God has created some people who can have faith, i.e. believe in the existence of God without logical proof, and some who cannot believe in Him without that proof?
For example, many people believe in God despite what atheists, agnostics or those who believe in other religions perceive as inconsistencies or unproven hypotheses inn the doctrine. These people have faith, so are content to believe that (for instance), inconsistencies in the Bible can be attributed to imperfect Man being involved in the transcription of the Word, or that we simply don't have the intellectual comprehension of God necessary to resolve the Problem of Evil. Hence, because a person has faith, they can overlook what presents a problem to a purely logical approach.
There are also people like me, who don't believe in God but are honestly open to reasons to do so. However, it seems to me that God's existence cannot be arrived at through pure logic; at any rate, no inherently obvious, convincing, impossible to contradict and self-contained logical proof for God has been discovered in thousands of years of philosophical and theological work (that I know of). And yet, God has made people who are unable to believe without such a proof, therefore condemning those people to some horrible version of the afterlife simply because of how God made them.
Basically, my point is that faith is inherently illogical. If God's existence was logically evident, we wouldn't need faith. However, not everyone is capable of faith. And I may wrong, but my understanding is that non-Christians don't go to heaven. Surely this amounts to pre-selection of those who will go to heaven before they are born, in much the same way as (as mentioned by someone above), God effectively creates people with the knowledge that they will act immorally and go to hell?
I don't understand why God would make some people capable of faith in Him and others incapable. As one of those who He has left in the dark (if He is in fact responsible for me), I resent it.
God doesn't create man without faith, it is man that either loses his faith or find it. For opinions and views of faith are exactly that of a person without faith. It's as if a person wants the faith without the faith. There is no pre-selection. Each person is capible of faith and I rather resent the idea that those without faith are more logical than those with.
-
.
-
There are just some things that are beyond logic in the universe. It doesn't seem logical to me that the Universe could be eternal, However it can't be finite either.
if you'll follow me here: If the universe is infinite it could not age as aging includes decay. The universe is observably decaying ergo the universe is finite.
However the universe cannot be finite as that would denote a beginning. This beginning cannot be explained by logic. It is impossible for the universe to have sprung from nothingness.
So what then? Do you put your faith in Science which tells you "we'll figure it out" or do you put your faith in God who says "I created the universe, then i created you"
-
An infinite universe can age.
That's why we theorize about big bangs and crunches.
-
An infinite universe can age.
That's why we theorize about big bangs and crunches.
Is that the theory that the universe just explodes every now and then and expands until it somehow gets sucked back into the cosmic egg before exploding again?
-
An infinite universe can age.
That's why we theorize about big bangs and crunches.
Is that the theory that the universe just explodes every now and then and expands until it somehow gets sucked back into the cosmic egg before exploding again?
As much as god is an invisible man in the sky.
-
sure, I over simplified, explain what big bangs and crunches are.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
-
I cannot envisage myself coming to believe in God without logical proof, hence I am incapable of faith in God. I suspect that others posting in this thread may feel the same way. What makes you think that I am capable of faith?
What makes me think you are capable of faith? You are human being with a will an intellect. Unfortunately if you wish to believe that faith is impossible for you, then this can only mean that you do not have a will or intellect as the intellect and the will are required for faith. And since we both know that you DO have a will and you DO have intellect then you have the capacity within you to believe in God. The only thing that is stopping you is your will. You've heard of it. It's called free-will. It's those choices you make everyday. ;)
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
Either God's Word is perfect or the Divine is a lie.
Well, again, why are these the only two options?
Is there a third?
-
How about this. Faith isn't just in God. I have faith in my girlfriend to not cheat on me. Just because you dont' put your faith in God doesn't mean you don't have faith. It just means that yuo've put your faith in something else. Those of you who choose to believe science over the bible have just put their faith in the human capacity to measure and recreate phenomena.
Let's be very clear. Just because you've rejected any god doesn't mean you've chosen to not worship anything. Instead you've chosen to worship science or music or sex or whatever.
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
Either God's Word is perfect or the Divine is a lie.
Well, again, why are these the only two options?
Is there a third?
Of course there is. The Bible is exactly what it appears to be given the context of everything we know about textual criticism, science, and everything else: the written record of God's revelation to man, written by ordinary, fault-ridden humans just like all the rest of us, who occasionally make mistakes or overextend themselves.
If by God's Word you mean the Bible, then there wouldn't be any mistakes or contradictions in it, because if God is perfect, then those things can't exist on his part.
-
.
-
If you believe that anyone can have faith, then I can't change your mind based on my inner certainty that I can't have faith. But why do you insist that what I know of my own mind is superseded by your general view of humanity? I am the expert on my inner world, not you, so your insisting that I am capable of faith despite my own belief that I'm not (not watertight, perhaps, but the only "evidence" available) is unfounded. Why do you think that everyone is capable of faith? More specifically, why do you believe that I, who have the intellect and the will to believe in God, am capable of doing it despite a total lack of evidence for your position?
Here. Try this. I want you to read this syllogysm (if I spelled that right or not)
1) All human beings have a will
2) The Will provides a capacity for faith and is required for faith.
3) Therefore all humans have a capacity for faith.
You must fault this syllogysm in order for your statement to hold, that is, that you are incapible of having faith. I think we can without a doubt accept #1 as valid since if it were invalid then we would have other problems. However #2 is where the crux of the argument stems from. You insist that you are incapible of faith. You must then prove that faith does not require the will and that it can be achieved in some other way AND that this method MUST NOT be possessed by all human beings. If you can provide for me proof that #2 is not valid then I will accept that some people cannot have faith, but if you cannot fault this syllogysm than by your own convictions that you are a logical position, must abandon your idea that some people are incapible of faith. I'm not doing this to anger you. I'm doing this because I know for a fact that you are capible of faith based on the above argument that I have provided. The argument above IS proof. It is a logical proof however it MAY contain invalidity, however I don't think it does. You must prove it invalid. I am eager to read whatever you come up with.
-
We either accept that what we have is correct or we anguish in the idea that we can never come to know God at all.
Why are these the only two choices? Complete perfection or hopeless despair?
Either God's Word is perfect or the Divine is a lie.
Well, again, why are these the only two options?
Is there a third?
Of course there is. The Bible is exactly what it appears to be given the context of everything we know about textual criticism, science, and everything else: the written record of God's revelation to man, written by ordinary, fault-ridden humans just like all the rest of us, who occasionally make mistakes or overextend themselves.
If by God's Word you mean the Bible, then there wouldn't be any mistakes or contradictions in it, because if God is perfect, then those things can't exist on his part.
Like I said in the Bible History thread, if people insist that the Divine Word of God can be faulted on the human level, then there is nothing I can say or do that will help anyone on that position. If you insist on placing God and mankind on the same level, then so be it. It's wrong, but that conviction is irrevelant again too because again for some reason my faith in the divine word isn't enough to convince one person here that maybe there is something the perfect of God. The Divine Word is perfect because we have FAITH that is perfect. If people insist on a 100% perfect Bible in order to believe in God then you have taken it upon yourself to define God as imperfect based completely on the fact that we are imperfect. This seems to be the place where many people seem to be and I don't know how I can tell you that it's not correct. You cannot place the Divine Word of God on the same playing field as humanity and expect that humanity will prove or disprove God in some way.
-
.
-
I am in the same boat as SixDegrees, and I'll chime in even though he's doing a better job than I could of articulating everything. I have no contempt or hatred for religion like some here. I think both good and bad things come from faith in God. But if I were to "choose" to have faith right this instant, it would be nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. It would be a sham, and God would know it. Likewise, I could not simply "choose" to believe that I could jump off of the roof of my apartment complex and fly. The things that I know and perceive suggest so strongly otherwise, and what else do I have to go on?
From what I can tell, I think faith has more to do with the sum of an individual's experiences, the way the individual thinks, his propensity to ask questions, self-examination, etc.
-J
-
So, your premise is that the will provides the capacity for faith. I don’t think that the will is involved in faith at all. You either have faith or you don’t; people don’t choose to have it. Could you choose to stop having faith in God right now, like flicking a switch? I suspect that you couldn’t, any more than I could suddenly decide that I have faith right this moment. I don’t even know how one would go about doing so.
You are providing a counter-argument based alone on the premise that you are not in charge of your will. Ask yourself the question, are you capible of killing another human being? Then ask yourself are you "willing" to kill another human being. I suspect most people if not everyone will say yes to the first and no to the second. Just because you are unwilling to do something doesn't mean you are incapible of the act itself. I won't will myself to not believe in God but I sure am capible of willing myself to not believe in God. I think this is where your confusion lies and where you are having difficulty separating terms. There is a twofold difference in the capacity to do something and the will do to something. The capacity of an act does not mean the action of an act. I have the capacity to jump off a 50 story building. The will of an act DOES mean the action of an act. I do NOT will to jump off a 50 story building.
You’re equating faith to something that you are in charge of, like choosing to pick up a ball. I can will myself to pick something up through use of the central and peripheral nervous system; granted, there are automatic processes that I don’t control (e.g. action potentials along the neural pathways), but the initial command comes from me and the output is that I pick up the ball. Will means that I choose to make something happen and it happens, unless I am prevented by an outside agency (for instance, someone grabs my hand and stops me picking up the ball).
But again as stated above you have willed to pick up that ball. your intellect might prevent you, for example the ball happens to be a grenade. Then through your intellect you will therefore will to NOT picked up the ball. Unless you still want to pick it up. In either action the will is still involved. The intellect does not provide action, only the will provides action. your intellect takes the information in and your will decides upon the right action.
Faith is more like an emotion, something that happens to you rather than being done by you. I don’t choose to be happy; it’s a response to events (e.g. I have a nice day, so I’m happy); likewise other emotions. Presumably you agree that emotions are not a product of willed behaviour (otherwise depression, for instance, is inexplicable because you could simply will yourself better).
I don't think faith can be classified as an emotion however since I guess the object of faith is God and the object of love could be your spouse, I suppose we can argue faith is an emotion. However using the same example, does love simply happen is it something that you will to happen. For example can you love something without wanting to love it, you just love it without cause? For example if you are married, is it possible that your love for your spouse was just a spontaneous act that did not require your will in order to make it happen? Of course your will made it happen, because at some point you will to meet her, talk to her, share with her and the list goes on. Your will was essential in directing your emotion or your love towards the object of that emotion with is your spouse. Faith works in exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons. At like above you are certainly capable of not loving your spouse but you are certainly unwilling to not love your spouse. To say that you incapable of not loving implies that you are not capable of loving in the first place.
If you want to argue that faith depends on will, then you have to accept that wanting to have faith will make you have faith. This simply isn’t accurate.
New syllogism:
1) Humans have a will which dictates willed behaviour.
2) However, faith is not a willed behaviour.
3) Therefore faith is not dictated by the will.
You’ll have to prove that faith is a product of the will, if you want to keep your argument.
The will is a mover. It provides an action unlike the intellect that provides information. The intellect cannot provide a "motion" for example, picking up a ball or loving another person. The intellect provides the knowledge of the object but it does not move you towards the object. Let's take Faith as an emotion. Let's say for the sake of argument Faith is like love. If we make this analogy which I think we can provided you still agree that faith is an emotion then in order for a person to love either the intellect will love or the will will love. Given that I have just shown that the intellect cannot "move" towards something, it can only acquire knowledge of the object, then love is not the product of the intellect, it therefore must be a product of the will which moves you towards loving an object.
Again I think you are confusing the terms "incapable" and "unwilling" which are two very different ideas. You are unwilling to have faith, but are certainly not incapable of it.
-
I am in the same boat as SixDegrees, and I'll chime in even though he's doing a better job than I could of articulating everything. I have no contempt or hatred for religion like some here. I think both good and bad things come from faith in God. But if I were to "choose" to have faith right this instant, it would be nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. It would be a sham, and God would know it. Likewise, I could not simply "choose" to believe that I could jump off of the roof of my apartment complex and fly. The things that I know and perceive suggest so strongly otherwise, and what else do I have to go on?
From what I can tell, I think faith has more to do with the sum of an individual's experiences, the way the individual thinks, his propensity to ask questions, self-examination, etc.
-J
Faith has nothing to do with asking the right logical questions in order to convince yourself in some logical way that a being that cannot be proven to exist through any known scientific means, does in fact exist. Faith is that which must be done outside the human intellect and since humanity has both the intellect and the will as its foundational faculties, we must therefore conclude that if faith cannot be attained through the intellect then faith must come from the will.
-
Like I said in the Bible History thread, if people insist that the Divine Word of God can be faulted on the human level, then there is nothing I can say or do that will help anyone on that position.
I'm not talking about the Divine Word of God. I'm talking about the Bible.
If you insist on placing God and mankind on the same level, then so be it.
I haven't once done such a thing.
The Divine Word is perfect because we have FAITH that is perfect.
Again, assuming that by "Divine Word" you mean the Bible, why do you have faith that the Bible is perfect? Why do you have faith that the Bible is the Divine Word of God?
If people insist on a 100% perfect Bible in order to believe in God then you have taken it upon yourself to define God as imperfect based completely on the fact that we are imperfect.
I'm not insisiting on a 100% perfect Bible in order to believe in God. I'm perfectly fine with the flawed Bible that we have. I'm asking why would someone perfect produce something that is imperfect?
This seems to be the place where many people seem to be and I don't know how I can tell you that it's not correct. You cannot place the Divine Word of God on the same playing field as humanity and expect that humanity will prove or disprove God in some way.
I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God and I am a Christian. But if you can't answer my questions and tell me why I'm not correct about the Bible, then please stop telling me that I'm not correct.
-
.
-
I am in the same boat as SixDegrees, and I'll chime in even though he's doing a better job than I could of articulating everything. I have no contempt or hatred for religion like some here. I think both good and bad things come from faith in God. But if I were to "choose" to have faith right this instant, it would be nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. It would be a sham, and God would know it. Likewise, I could not simply "choose" to believe that I could jump off of the roof of my apartment complex and fly. The things that I know and perceive suggest so strongly otherwise, and what else do I have to go on?
From what I can tell, I think faith has more to do with the sum of an individual's experiences, the way the individual thinks, his propensity to ask questions, self-examination, etc.
-J
Faith has nothing to do with asking the right logical questions in order to convince yourself in some logical way that a being that cannot be proven to exist through any known scientific means, does in fact exist. Faith is that which must be done outside the human intellect and since humanity has both the intellect and the will as its foundational faculties, we must therefore conclude that if faith cannot be attained through the intellect then faith must come from the will.
But intellect and will are not independent of one another. The will relies on the intellect to make judgments.
-J
-
.
-
And why bunch together all things remotely faith related? Having faith in a girlfriend and that she wont cheat on you is drastically different than having faith in a god and that it wont allow you to burn in eternity. These are drastically different.
-
In that case, you’re saying that I believe myself to be willing to have faith, but I’m actually not because my intellect (unknown to me) is blocking my ability to have faith. Correct?
No your will is preventing you. Your intellect cannot bring you to faith. Your will must act with the intellect in order to make that transistion.
Laying aside the obvious issue of how the intellect appears to exert itself as a conscious process, and assuming that the intellect can have influences on the will that I’m not aware of: how is that different to an essential incapability in my will?
Your will is not "incapible" of doing those things you cannot find the logic to do. Your will is "unwilling" to do those things you cannot find the logic to do. I really don't know how to make that any clearer. Just because something doesn't make any sense doesn't negate the fact that I can still will myself to believe in it or even do it. As someone mentioned, the will and intellect act in tandem, but the intellect doesn't move you the will does. So if the will is your mover how can logic prevent you from having faith without an act of the will. Again, I can find a million reasons to never jump into a volcano, but there is nothing in my will that states that action can never happen. It's highy unlikely that I would ever jump into a volcano but the "act" itself canot be impossible.
God has still made me with an uncontrollable incapability to have faith, you’re just relocating the source of the block to another unconscious area (the proposed unconscious part of the intellect instead of the will). You’re still concluding that I consciously seek to have faith but am prevented by an unconscious process, which – again – means that God has created me unable to have faith and unable to do anything about it.
No I have and always will locate the block to the will because the intellect cannot arrive at faith alone. The intellect is ALWAYS blocked. It's not the intellect that blocks faith, it is the will. Whether you seek faith or not is irrelevant to the discussion. I can have the capacity to eat molten lava but I will probably never think about it or seek it in my lifetime. This doesn't mean the act itself is impossible for me to do, nor do I have to actually seek this action in order the action itself to be possible. So whether you are seeking faith or not is irrevelant.
I would love to touch upon that leg analogy at some point, but not today.
-
Faith has nothing to do with asking the right logical questions in order to convince yourself in some logical way that a being that cannot be proven to exist through any known scientific means, does in fact exist. Faith is that which must be done outside the human intellect and since humanity has both the intellect and the will as its foundational faculties, we must therefore conclude that if faith cannot be attained through the intellect then faith must come from the will.
But intellect and will are not independent of one another. The will relies on the intellect to make judgments.
-J
Also, Vivace is assuming that there is only the will and the intellect. There may be a third variable of some sort which is responsible for the ability to have faith.
Then supply that variable and disprove my posit that the will is not nor cannot be a vehicle to faith. ;)
-
.
-
First thing, on the idea of the Leg Paralysis.
In a sense I think you are stating that you are willing to have faith, but are blocked by some barrier. Alas, from below this is exactly what you are stating. Well, congratulations but you just defined faith but from the other direction. That is you feel willing to have faith in God but logic makes it impossible for you do so and you find that it will never make it possible. Well, again, as I have stated before, logic can't bring you to faith in God, your will does, so when you state I must have logic to believe in God, you are asking for that which is not possible. you asking your intellect to bring you to God and I have already established (btw this is not just my logic but this is logic you can look up and read in just about any theological book about faith. Try reading the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. Your answer is also in there as well) the intellect is not capible of bringing you to faith, only your will.
Take this quote from Sun Tzu
The essential thing is action. Action has three stages: the decision born of thought, the order or preparation for execution, and the execution itself. All three stages are governed by the will. The will is rooted in character, and for the man of action character is of more critical importance than intellect. Intellect without will is worthless, will without intellect is dangerous.
In a nutshell to believe in God without the intellect brings us to fringe groups like the KKK or WBC or crazy world cults, and as complimented here and as I stated before the will puts into action the intellect and that action is defined above.
You say that the block is in the will, because you say that I am unwilling to do what I cannot find logical support for. Once again, though, I feel willing to do it. All of my consciously available thought processes are willing to do it. So if I’m still not able to, the unwillingness is unconscious. That means it’s not my choice, and wherever the block is located, it’s not within my reach.
You also say that just because something doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean you can’t will yourself to believe in it. In that case, I ask you to believe that two plus two equals five. This doesn’t make sense, and I don’t believe that you can honestly come to believe in that because you can’t force yourself to believe something on cue. Belief of any kind is not a consciously available process.
I’m going to re-state the original question here; no matter where the block is located, we seem to have established that either I don’t have the capacity to have faith, or some part of me is unconsciously blocking my ability to have faith. God knew this would be the case when He made me, so I can’t go to heaven because He made me in a way that precludes me having faith. Why?
I think we can easily establish the block is in the intellect and not the will. However taking your example again, if you are willing to believe in God but logic forces you to not believe in God then you have placed yourself in a paradox. Which makes sense given your question above. "I want to believe in God and God made me, but God made me without faith, thus I do not have faith in God". In this case you have to make a choice, you either have faith in God or you don't. A belief that God made you without faith posits a belief in God which posits faith. If you disagree with this then I give up, because clearly you are only looking to accept that which you are posited to be true using logic you are inventing along the way. I can't argue against that. But if you want to posit that "You were born without faith and thus do not believe in God", that can certainly be posited and we can then take the idea that "I am incapable of having faith" to which we have already covered. It seems you are arguing that you have a will to believe in God but not the intellect to believe thus are not capable of moving your will to believe in God. But here's the million dollar question, "Why must logic be required to move the will?" Take your 2+2 = 5 analogy. Logic clearly dicates this statement to be false, but I can will myself to believe in it. I'll be mocked and pointed at and laughed off the planet, but I can still will to believe that 2+2 = 5. The intellect and the will are not independant but our will's are not always rational. I can believe that killing a person and drinking their blood will make me a vampire and therefore will myself to do it, and yet just because I would never do such a thing again cannot prove that I am not capable of performing the act of will in general.
You cannot believe in God because you need logic to show you God and you "feel" as if you cannot move your will in that direction. Hey. That's fine! No problem there. That's something I can certainly hold to and agree with 100% but I cannot understand for the life of me why a person would cannot believe in God because you just can't, because I am incapable of moving my will in that direction. Umm.. you are more than capiable, you are just blocked by logic which to which you have will to not believe in God.
Also if you are going to posit that God made you without faith, then I will argue that on the theological side since you are now in the theological area. God has states that all people are called to holiness. If all people are called to holiness and you are made without faith and ergo cannot be called to holiness then God lied. Positing god as a liar means that God is not perfect, thus God is not immutable but changes and thus God cannot be known because he changes thus how can you know that God made you without faith. Maybe the devil made you since we can no longer posit the idea that God is the Prime mover if we have already established that God is not immutable. He still may be the primer mover but we can never know thus we can never posit with certain that God made us like this. The tooth fairy could have made us then. But since we take in faith that God is perfect and that God doesn't not lie then God called all to holiness and your convictions that you are made without the capacity for faith are unfounded on a theological level. If you don't want this to be the case then we have to remove that sentence and just have the following
"I don't have the capability for faith. Why?"
We've already covered this ground.
In the end, I really don't know how I can make myself any clearer but one thing I do know that is clear you are insistant that you are incapable of faith. If that's your opinion on the matter, then fine, but don't blame God for it. If you do, then see the above quote. in the end, I think I've covered everything that needs and can be covered on this matter. I hope I have helped in some way with it. If not, oh well. Ce La Vie.
-
.
-
Okay, we obviously essentially disagree on whether belief is a conscious choice. I can’t understand what you mean by it being possible to consciously manipulate your own beliefs, so you’re right, let’s drop that.
I’m really not arguing that faith is located in the will or intellect; I don’t know where it’s located, and maintain that it doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s an unconscious process to which I don’t have access, meaning that God (if He made me) made me without the capacity to believe and without a way to influence that. As you say, I’m blocked by the need for logic – God made me the sort of person who needs logic to accept His existence, and will then chuck me into hell for my lack of acceptance, hence why this is wholly unreasonable.
However, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to agree on this. So, let’s move on.
In a spirit of curiosity as opposed to debate - why can’t God be immutably imperfect? Also, why does imperfection in God mean that we can’t know Him?
I have already answered this question in another thread, and I honestly don't feel like repeating myself 1000 times over. I have posited my reasons against your opinion and have shown why it appears your convictions are illogical. I the end, I really don't know what to tell you other than you have convinced yourself that you cannot have faith, like many others on this forum, you have conviced yourself that you are familiar with faith even though you have never experienced, like many others on this forum, and you have therefore posited some idea of God even though you have stated that you cannot have faith in God (ergo come to know God), like many do on this forum. What this boils down to is the following. Nothing I say will convince anyone of anything when it comes to faith and God until you experience it yourselves and since it is established that people have convinced themselves this is not possible, then I have to convince myself that I cannot answer your questions given that you have set terms that I cannot enter into.
In the end... I really don't know how to contribute anymore in this forum. :( Sad isn't?
-
.
-
But if you want to posit that "You were born without faith and thus do not believe in God", that can certainly be posited and we can then take the idea that "I am incapable of having faith" to which we have already covered. It seems you are arguing that you have a will to believe in God but not the intellect to believe thus are not capable of moving your will to believe in God. But here's the million dollar question, "Why must logic be required to move the will?" Take your 2+2 = 5 analogy. Logic clearly dicates this statement to be false, but I can will myself to believe in it. I'll be mocked and pointed at and laughed off the planet, but I can still will to believe that 2+2 = 5. The intellect and the will are not independant but our will's are not always rational. I can believe that killing a person and drinking their blood will make me a vampire and therefore will myself to do it, and yet just because I would never do such a thing again cannot prove that I am not capable of performing the act of will in general.
You cannot believe in God because you need logic to show you God and you "feel" as if you cannot move your will in that direction. Hey. That's fine! No problem there. That's something I can certainly hold to and agree with 100% but I cannot understand for the life of me why a person would cannot believe in God because you just can't, because I am incapable of moving my will in that direction. Umm.. you are more than capiable, you are just blocked by logic which to which you have will to not believe in God.
I think this is the key point.
Can you *really* will yourself to believe that 2+2=5? How? Your intellect *knows* that it is false, how can you completely shirk your intellect and deceive yourself that way? Sure, you can try or pretend to believe that 2+2=5, and you can go around telling others that you believe it, but that doesn't mean you actually do. Completely divorcing the will and the intellect seems impossible for me, as they are necessarily linked, and if it IS possible, it would seem not to be advisable. When you know enough about something that it's reasonable to draw a conclusion one way or the other, you do, otherwise, you withhold judgment.
In all of your other examples of putting aside the intellect (jumping into a volcano, killing a person and drinking their blood to become a vampire, etc), the result is disastrous. Why/how should we know (with our intellects, mind you) that THIS (faith in God) is the one time it's advisable to will ourselves to do something that our intellect isn't on board with?
Also, you say several times that only the will can lead you to faith, but then also that the intellect MUST be incorporated. Maybe you could clarify that?
In the end... I really don't know how to contribute anymore in this forum. :( Sad isn't?
???
You're contributing just fine. You can't expect to immediately change people's minds with your arguments in every debate. I enjoy reading your posts and I find them informative, though. What seems to be the problem?
-J
-
.
-
I wouldn't expect DTF at large, or yourself in particular, to accept that I had seen the ghost of Jack the Ripper dancing the fandango on Blackpool Pier just because I believed that I had.
I believe you.