god is omnipotent, omniscient and what not. he knows the past cause he's not an idiot, he knows the present because he's not blind and he knows the future cause he's god. he also created everything we see today, and , supposedly, he is a loving god too. now when he created me, or the average afghan muslim.. he did so knowing that i (or the average non christian) was not going to become a christian in future. hence he created me knowing full well that at the end of my life he would cast me forth to eternal damnation to roast on a spit in the pits of hell. now ive been told that i have free choice but what about all the people who dont? are they to be condemed for being born into a muslim or bhuddist family? now it seems to me, that he created all these people for the fun of chucking them in hell. any thoughts to the contrary?

Praise to Allah!

Yea, he gave them free will and they choose to not believe in him. He cant let them in heaven and theres only one other place to go.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Yea, he gave them free will and they choose to not believe in him. He cant let them in heaven and theres only one other place to go.

1. How can there be free will if he already knows what is going to happen, before you are born? Before you even know what you're going to be decide!

2. He can can let them go into Heaven, if not, he wouldn't be omnipotent. He deliberately decides not to.



---

This thread has been done to death. It will probably get closed.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-11-2005).]

God is not real, got that, NOT REAL!

I'll prove it when you die.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. How can there be free will if he already knows what is going to happen, before you are born? Before you even know what you're going to be decide!

Knowing what someone/thing will do does not hinder free will. Knowing the way that a fight will turn out does not make it turn out that way. If god were to make these people make those decisions, then you'd be correct, but considering he just knows what decisions they will make, they stilll have free will.

However, I have discussed this ad nauseam with you and I really don't feel like discussing it any more.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Knowing what someone/thing will do does not hinder free will. Knowing the way that a fight will turn out does not make it turn out that way. If god were to make these people make those decisions, then you'd be correct, but considering he just knows what decisions they will make, they stilll have free will.



If he knows I will choose A over B, before I even know that A and B exists as choices - an infinite amount of time before I even knew they existed as choices - then I cannot choose B over A, because if I did, I would refute his omniscience. Hence, he either is not omniscient or we do not have free will.

You're right. We HAVE discussed this ad nauseum and nobody has ever reconciled that fact, except by claiming that he is omnipotent, therefore he can break the rules of logic, which is perfectly reasonable, yet brings with it another refutation of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god.

I think that it makes sense(my point of view) without breaking any logic.

I think it basically boils down to a difference of interpretation, something that surely will never be rectified on an internet message board.

No. For your point to make sense you must justify that the ability to choose from more than one choice (free will), is preserved in a scenario where you cannot possibly choose 1 out of two choices.

You have not hence your interpretation is illogical.

It's perfectly logical.

A man in 2007 will eat an apple. I know this. This will happen no matter what. Nothing can possibly change this even from happening.

Now the question is, did I make him eat that apple? Does my knowledge force him into a decision he wouldn't make normally? This is where the difference in interpretation comes in. You think it does force him, I think it doesn't. Why do I think that? Well, because he would have made that decision anyways. There is no outside force acting on him, none. God doesn't force the man to make a decision in order to fulfill his knowledge, he simply has knowledge of his future decision.

I see where you're coming from, but I simply disagree. No outside interference whatsoever in decision making = free will.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

... I think it doesn't. Why do I think that? Well, because he would have made that decision anyways.

Circular logic. You have absolutely no way of knowing he would have eaten the apple anyways.

Your inability to answer the question, without using circular logic, shows that your argument is incorrect and illogical.

quote:God doesn't force the man to make a decision in order to fulfill his knowledge, he simply has knowledge of his future decision.

He does since you have yet to prove otherwise.

Again, show me how free will is preserved in a scenario where I cannot possibly choose 1 out of the two "choices".

And do so without using circular logic.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-12-2005).]

the idea of circular logic is slightly screwed up. can god build a house a can;t break? erm, well for he purpose of this argument let's stick with no. lets assume that the meaning of all words is that stated in the fikkin dictionary.

Well if he's omniscient, he knew we'd be so wicked that he'd have to drown the lot of us and send a whole lot more of us to hell, all before he created us. So he brought billions into existence whom where already doomed to an eternity of suffering. Sadistic, ain't it?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He does since you have yet to prove otherwise.

So I take it we should assume god exists because no one has proved otherwise?

I think my logic is fine, you don't; I can live with that.

You haven't exactly shown anything close to resembling proof yourself.....

napoleon, God made the man eat the apple in 2007 because he created the man in the first place with the knowledge that the man would eat the apple 2007. Not a tough concept.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. How can there be free will if he already knows what is going to happen, before you are born? Before you even know what you're going to be decide!

Weve been over this debate (or was it Rusticus?). Anyway free will exists because you are not God and dont know the future.

2. He can can let them go into Heaven, if not, he wouldn't be omnipotent. He deliberately decides not to.

You right. He cannot allow those whose sins have not been paid for. Or should i rather say the people who dont consider their sins paid for.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

napoleon, God made the man eat the apple in 2007 because he created the man in the first place with the knowledge that the man would eat the apple 2007. Not a tough concept.



Really? He made the man with the intention of making him eat that apple? Seems like a waste of time if you ask me.

God created the man, god knows everything that the man will do in his life. He did not create the man with the intention of making him do these things, but he knows anyways. The man will do those things, not because god or anyone/thing else is making him, but because he is choosing to do those things.

God is just a watcher. He knows, but he doesn't force or act.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

now when he created me, or the average afghan muslim.. he did so knowing that i (or the average non christian) was not going to become a christian in future. hence he created me knowing full well that at the end of my life he would cast me forth to eternal damnation to roast on a spit in the pits of hell. now ive been told that i have free choice but what about all the people who dont? are they to be condemed for being born into a muslim or bhuddist family? now it seems to me, that he created all these people for the fun of chucking them in hell. any thoughts to the contrary?

i'm going to try to show, from the Bible, that worrying about the salvation of the people in history that never had the chance to hear the Word (i.e. baby who dies right after birth, cannibals on some deserted island 500 b.c...whatever), may be in less danger of Hell than those who have heard but still refuse to believe (for whatever reason)-- in otherwords, i think God has a plan for this:

John 9:41

but to understand what is being said and why, i'll first give the background of the account, then vs 35-38 where Jesus basically DECLARES that He is God and Christ, and then vs. 39-41 where He confronts the Pharisees and... well, the point of this post.

background John 9:1-34; Jesus heals a blind man. Blind from birth. The Pharisees question the dude; then question the dudes parents -- the parents are afraid to say that the Christ musta done it, cuz they would be put out of the synagogue; then question the dude again (the guy basically says the same thing as the -Jewish TOTSE member.. Ryanl:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003898.html

ill paraphrase ryanl and the former blind guy:

any prophet that emmerses self in the torah, God will listen to his prayers, and allow said prophet to perform miracles

now the blind guy: it doesnt matter that you (pharasees) think He is a sinner and not the Christ, He fixed my eyes so He must be someone special..



Jesus basically DECLARING that He is God and the Christ:

John 9:35-38

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

John 9:39-41

39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.

40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind?



41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

I think that the ones that didnt have a chance to have heard about Jesus i.e. died shortly after birth, etc. are the ones that have no sin... they will be judged, yes. But by a different standard. I dont know what standard that is, but in one of the parables, Jesus talks about the workers that were hired at three different times of day but still get the same wage. God is Just. He will give everyone their opportunity to have eternal life.

We never know when our chances are over.

Worry less about those that have never heard, and more about using your own opportunity.

I just want to put a small disclaimer here. This is my understanding of what this text is saying. I have never seen or heard this idea taught as doctrine. So, to you Christians that are more learned, correct me if this is wrong. If you agree, speak up. But if you dont know one way or the other, keep still.

freewill and predestination: are there verses in the Bible that demonstrate both of these, or are they concepts completely made up by Hippo and then argued by Luther and Calvin.. and then by us?

*****************

Joh 6:27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.

Joh 6:28 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Most religions teach that certain works are required in order to be saved. Here God tells us the only "work" He considers; "believe on him whom he has sent."

Freewill, yes?

**************

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Predestination?

******************

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.

Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Again, predestination?

**********************

And now, time for the biggie...?

Joh 7:6 Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready.

predestination and freewill married?

*************

The nature(s) of God i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent ; all three are in the Bible. Being omnipotent, God has the power and ability to use His knowledge and still allow freewill... by the very nature of being all powerful. He even gave us a demonstration of this: Jesus, being fully God AND fully human, was not allowed to know the time of the end.. only the Father.

But i apologize for using this as an example, since that is part of the Doctrine of the Trinity...Jesus is God (incarnate)... one antimony at a time.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Weve been over this debate (or was it Rusticus?). Anyway free will exists because you are not God and dont know the future.

I don't have to know the future or be god, for my furture to be predestined.

quote:You right. He cannot allow those whose sins have not been paid for. Or should i rather say the people who dont consider their sins paid for

So he isn't omnipotent?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So I take it we should assume god exists because no one has proved otherwise?

Huh?

quote:

I think my logic is fine, you don't; I can live with that.

You haven't exactly shown anything close to resembling proof yourself.....

Your logic is not fine, since it is illogical. Now you can convince yourself that it is fine, great, but it most certainly is not. That's a fact.

To answer your question, why would I? I don't care either way (i.e. I don't care if I have free will or not), and I didn't make the claim. I have no burden of proof, nor do I wish to carry a burden of proof by making a claim I cannot back up.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-12-2005).]

Don't forget that God didn't create just the man, but the apple, the tree, the road that took him there, etc.

You make a good point, napoleon, and if god had created just the man and nothing else in his environment, I think you'd be right. However, God created everything, gave people free will, AND certain preferences. This tends to negate their free will.

I may or may not have free will, but if someone tries to, say, drown me I WILL struggle uncontrollably.

Or maybe this works better: A born chocolate lover may have free will, but it doesn't take omniscience to know that if I take them to a chocolate festival, they will eat chocolate.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 05-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Don't forget that God didn't create just the man, but the apple, the tree, the road that took him there, etc.

You make a good point, napoleon, and if god had created just the man and nothing else in his environment, I think you'd be right. However, God created everything, gave people free will, AND certain preferences. This tends to negate their free will.



This all hinges on whether or not you think that god creates each individual human. Personally, I think it's a load of crap to think that god would go to the extent to create each individual human being and implant within those human beings preference.

If one were to attribute those tendencies to biology, then I feel that my point still stands.

Yeh, that's true.

Yeah. In the bible God is pretty mean sometimes.

I don't believe in Hell.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

[B] This all hinges on whether or not you think that god creates each individual human. Personally, I think it's a load of crap to think that god would go to the extent to create each individual human being and implant within those human beings preference.

i suppose that if it realy were god that created each and every human being one by one then there would be some argument to say that god is fundementaly evil right? cause then hes done some pretty nasty stuff creating all those physchopaths, blind, deformed and maimed people? not to mention creating all those afghan militants born into bin ladens family so they can kill people and be sent to hell. come to think of it i disagree too. if god created each and every person one by one, then he realy IS evil.

thanx a lot guys i think that pretty much sums it up... if an omniscient power exists, its either evil or apathetic towards us. unless someone still disagrees?

Think of it this way:

(stay with me here, ill get to my point)

Remember star wars episode 1? When obi-wan said that anakin was the one that was told of in the prophecy? He said that Anakin was destined to "Bring balance to the force". Well, Anakin went crazy and killed billions of people, as Darth Vader. But in the end of Return Of the Jedi, Anakin kills Darth Sideous, the emperor of the Galactic empire, and in the process he kills himself. The two leaders of the Galactic Empire are now dead, leaving the Republic to rebuild itself, and ending the reign of the Dark Side. Therefore, anakin fulfilled his destiny of bringing balance to the force.

Well, my point is that if god knows your destiny, the only way to judge you would be to look at how you fulfilled it. As Anakin DID eventually fulfill his destiny, but he became an evil overlord and killed billions of people in the process of doing so.

My opinion is that you do have some measure of free will, but you cant change your destiny (if that makes any sense at all)

[/two cents]

[/spelling]

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

thanx a lot guys i think that pretty much sums it up... if an omniscient power exists, its either evil or apathetic towards us. unless someone still disagrees?



I say that if there is an omniscient creator, he is apathetic towards us.

His knowing your choices does not change your ability to make them.

There is a fine line between being all knowing and predestination.

You are thinking that God's knowing you won't believe in Him means he does not love you, because He allowed you to exist anyway.

But rather, your decisions are known to Him, because He does not exist within the confines of "Time". Again, His knowing what you will choose does not change the fact that it is your choice.

You can choose at any time to become a Christian...it is never too late, until you are dead.

No matter whether you choose to believe in Him or not, He knows the outcome.

You cannot trick Him, confuse Him, or make Him think you won't believe when He knows you will.

See what I am saying ?

Napoleon, why would He create us, only to be apathetic towards us ? What purpose is there in that ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

His knowing your choices does not change your ability to make them.

There is a fine line between being all knowing and predestination.

You are thinking that God's knowing you won't believe in Him means he does not love you, because He allowed you to exist anyway.

But rather, your decisions are known to Him, because He does not exist within the confines of "Time". Again, His knowing what you will choose does not change the fact that it is your choice.

You can choose at any time to become a Christian...it is never too late, until you are dead.

No matter whether you choose to believe in Him or not, He knows the outcome.

You cannot trick Him, confuse Him, or make Him think you won't believe when He knows you will.

See what I am saying ?

not realy. It could be that it is my choice not to believe in him but this is my point... go wayayay back to 16 years ago when he created me. at that point he knew that i would not be a believer. right? so why create me? why create me at all when knowing full well that he would have to send me to hell? Why was he nice enough to create you into a christian family and cruel enough to create me into a bhuddist family? (im agnostic by the way, not bhuddist)Unless he is an outright cruel God he must either

a) not know the choice i am going to make therefore be kind enough to grant me free will. (also making him not omniscient anymore)

b) not be the creator of each and every person.

which is it?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon, why would He create us, only to be apathetic towards us ? What purpose is there in that ?

The idea behind the apathy argument is this. Firstly we are going to dismiss the idea that he created each and every one of us. Myabe just adam and eve but certainly not every single contributor to the circumstances we see today.

Now assume he is the only god. The universe is infinite. He has an infinite number of worlds to look after, an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of his creations, all of which he watches over. Now put yourself in his place. you are an entity, a conciousness, with no form, able to roam the universe at your will. For Several millenia you have studied, counted and catalogued each and every one of your little experiments with matter--humans, nebulae, black holes, the billion^500 other worlds with the Zillion^1000 other species. Would you realy be bothered with the thoughts of each and every single being in the universe? bit impractical when you think about it. Here is a much smaller scale example... You are the God of the sahara. Every grain of sand is a world like ours, with 6 billion people. Are you seriously going to watch over each and every one of those countless life forms? make sure they pray to you? love EVERY one of them? Tinker with their destinies (heaven or hell?) It just seems reeaally unlikely to us. To get an idea of what i mean read the prologue o arthur c clarkes 3001. picture god as one of the firstborn and you'll get an idea of the concept im getting at.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon, why would He create us, only to be apathetic towards us ? What purpose is there in that ?



Apathetic may not be the best word(s). Non-involved is probably better suited.

Apathetic could still be true though. I don't pretend to know the nature of god and he could very well be apathetic towards us, just like he could act lovingly, spitefully, etc... towards us.

God is all knowing and all loving, but at the same time, he can't (more like refuses) to rest his eyes upon sin. Jesus was sent for us to have a relationship w/God even though we aren't perfect hence can't meet him face to face. he gave humans the mental capacity to decide if they want that or not. (meeting God face to face would probably be a little to scary to live through... all u guys out there who meet a grls dad who is intimidating... times that by a couple billion)

God doesn't send people to hell... he simple doesn't spring them from their fate. hell is the absesnse of God and heaven... if you chose to go there, he's not going to beg and plead you to not.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

one last edit: ya it would seem that God is pretty mean in a lot of the bible... don't call it mean, call it vengeful. The people he ordered the Isrealites to kill were either a. idol worshipping satanic ppl, or b. opressing the Isrealites

Isrealites being God's chosen ppl... probably not the best group to mess around with.

true they have a hard time doing ANYTHING right (give the old testament a good read... they really make God mad), but they are still his people, and he looks out for them.



[This message has been edited by jonogt (edited 05-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B] 1. How can there be free will if he already knows what is going to happen, before you are born? Before you even know what you're going to be decide!

[B]

Think think think... thought experiment... Predestination is a common argument against free will.... but let us not be stuck in shallow thought.

So a thought experiment....

I'm walking in front of wally world with my girlfriend and there is a shiny penny on the groun in front of us. Knowing everything I know about her nature - I KNOW that if she sees that penny she'll pick it up and that because it is shiny she will see it... So I know that she will pick up that penny.

My girlfriend picks up that penny. Does that mean she had no free will? Just because I knew what she would decide ... does that really mean she didn't have a decision? My knowledge of her decision did not compromise the fact that she infact made a decision.

I only understand part of my girlfriends nature. She is no open book to me - rather a fucking Hebrew text. What I know of her are the things I've decrypted through empirical evidence - I understand parts of her nature through previous events and interactions so I know only some of the decisions she will make.

God being all-knowing knows her complete nature. God and I knew equally as well that she was going to decide to pick up that penny. But just because we knew better doesn't mean she didn't have the choice.

God might know a little bit more than me http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif), but in just the same that extra knowledge doesn't compromise decision.

Follow?

Transparent Entity

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Yea, he gave them free will and they choose to not believe in him. He cant let them in heaven and theres only one other place to go.

This is such linear thinking, not only do I pretty much discount the possibility of such a setup, but I think it's an obvious product of our linear thinking and it's limitations.

This doesn't just go for Christianity, it goes for any organized religion.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It's perfectly logical.

A man in 2007 will eat an apple. I know this. This will happen no matter what. Nothing can possibly change this even from happening.

Now the question is, did I make him eat that apple? Does my knowledge force him into a decision he wouldn't make normally? This is where the difference in interpretation comes in. You think it does force him, I think it doesn't. Why do I think that? Well, because he would have made that decision anyways. There is no outside force acting on him, none. God doesn't force the man to make a decision in order to fulfill his knowledge, he simply has knowledge of his future decision.

I see where you're coming from, but I simply disagree. No outside interference whatsoever in decision making = free will.



a) you arent omnipotent, so u cant actually know for a fact that a man will eat an apple.

b) its an extremely high probability that in 2007 a man will eat an apple. now if u bring the world population down to a hundred, then that probability is greatly reduced.

quote:Originally posted by TransparentEntity:



So a thought experiment....

I'm walking in front of wally world with my girlfriend and there is a shiny penny on the groun in front of us. Knowing everything I know about her nature - I KNOW that if she sees that penny she'll pick it up and that because it is shiny she will see it... So I know that she will pick up that penny.

My girlfriend picks up that penny. Does that mean she had no free will? Just because I knew what she would decide ... does that really mean she didn't have a decision? My knowledge of her decision did not compromise the fact that she infact made a decision.

I only understand part of my girlfriends nature. She is no open book to me - rather a fucking Hebrew text. What I know of her are the things I've decrypted through empirical evidence - I understand parts of her nature through previous events and interactions so I know only some of the decisions she will make.

God being all-knowing knows her complete nature. God and I knew equally as well that she was going to decide to pick up that penny. But just because we knew better doesn't mean she didn't have the choice.

God might know a little bit more than me http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif), but in just the same that extra knowledge doesn't compromise decision.

Follow?

Transparent Entity

You're argument is completely erroneous.

You do NOT know that she will pick up the penny. At best what you have is the knowledge that she is the type of person that likes to pick up pennies, or that she has done so in the past, and therefore there exists a high probability that she will pick up this penny. That IS NOT the same as KNOWING she will pick up the penny.

The minute you KNOW she will pick up the penny, without a shadow of a doubt, is the moment that she cannot 'not pick up the penny', since if she did, you wouldn't have known she would pick the penny in the first place, since she didn't!

You are confusing the vague, everyday definition of "knowledge" (i.e. "To have experience of; To have a practical understanding of.") with the empirical definition which is what is relevant in the discussion (i.e. "To regard as true beyond doubt").

Your example thusly fails.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're argument is completely erroneous.

You do NOT know that she will pick up the penny. At best what you have is the knowledge that she is the type of person that likes to pick up pennies, or that she has done so in the past, and therefore there exists a high probability that she will pick up this penny. That IS NOT the same as KNOWING she will pick up the penny.

The minute you KNOW she will pick up the penny, without a shadow of a doubt, is the moment that she cannot 'not pick up the penny', since if she did, you wouldn't have known she would pick the penny in the first place, since she didn't!

You are confusing the vague, everyday definition of "knowledge" (i.e. "To have experience of; To have a practical understanding of.") with the empirical definition which is what is relevant in the discussion (i.e. "To regard as true beyond doubt").

Your example thusly fails.

Well you did a great job at only accepting half of my statement. Yes I infact can tell you I know she will pick up that penny - in the same way that I KNOW that this golf club will fall when I drop it. If you want to throw out any semantic argument, go ahead - but that's the relevance... the golf club that is. Infact yes I do KNOW that beyond a doubt with my comprehension of her behavior that she will indeed pick up the penny. Just as I know that 2+2=4 ... and just as I know I can depend on gravity - yes, I do know.

You can attack my knowledge of the matter, but in that case are you going to tell me knowledge in unobtainable by any mortal creature? Craft your argument with understanding of what you're saying. Yes I do infact KNOW that she will pick up the penny. I understand that page in her nature.

I KNOW she will pick up that penny as God KNOWS she will pick up that penny. Just because we are aware of her decision - prior or after - does not compromise the fact that she has a decision.

However your only argument is to say the argument is WRONG without any logical proof... that's understood. Perhaps I'm quick to judge... and I've been known to do such; but you do not seem to be on this debate for any intention to gain any comprehension of truth... but rather to win. Like a lawyer who does not strive for truth but rather to assert his claim true or not.... yes this has it's application in certain realms of this world. However it's pretty fucking vain to strive for glory over truth on an internet forum.

On going - summary. Yes I do know that she will pick up the penny ... you told me yourself that I have an empirical understanding of her:

"she is the type of person that likes to pick up pennies, or that she has done so in the past"

My understanding is so indepth that I know that the chance of her picking that penny on sight is 100%. If I had less understanding maybe I'd understand the statistic a little differently... however regardless of my comprehension you're completely skirting the issue - it was a model... but yeah missing that made you miss the whole point.

God knowing what her decision will be - knowing her nature absolutely - does no compromise the fact that she has a decision. It is illogical to think that the knowledge of something has bearing on something.

To say that a pen is blue because one knows the pen is blue is obviously stupid... we're such not radical relativist... I hope. We're a little more rational than that. But that's the argument you're making.

And the penny THOUGHT EXPERIMENT *cough* was an excercise to kind of get you out of the box you made for yourself. The mere semantics of truth that you misinterpretted does not cause precede a failure in the thought experiment

-Transparent Entity



[This message has been edited by TransparentEntity (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by TransparentEntity:

Well you did a great job at only accepting half of my statement. Yes I infact can tell you I know she will pick up that penny - in the same way that I KNOW that this golf club will fall when I drop it. If you want to throw out any semantic argument, go ahead - but that's the relevance... the golf club that is. Infact yes I do KNOW that beyond a doubt with my comprehension of her behavior that she will indeed pick up the penny. Just as I know that 2+2=4 ... and just as I know I can depend on gravity - yes, I do know.

Wrong. You do not know she will pick the penny. You assume that she will, you guess, that with the knowledge you have of her personality, she will pick up the penny. But that is nothing other than an educated guess.

You have absolutely no proof that she will, and hence you do NOT know that she will.

If you are claiming that she will, then please present me the evidence you have that she will.

quote:

You can attack my knowledge of the matter, but in that case are you going to tell me knowledge in unobtainable by any mortal creature? Craft your argument with understanding of what you're saying. Yes I do infact KNOW that she will pick up the penny. I understand that page in her nature.

I KNOW she will pick up that penny as God KNOWS she will pick up that penny. Just because we are aware of her decision - prior or after - does not compromise the fact that she has a decision.

Wrong, see above. You DO NOT know that she will pick the penny.

quote:However your only argument is to say the argument is WRONG without any logical proof... that's understood. Perhaps I'm quick to judge... and I've been known to do such; but you do not seem to be on this debate for any intention to gain any comprehension of truth... but rather to win. Like a lawyer who does not strive for truth but rather to assert his claim true or not.... yes this has it's application in certain realms of this world. However it's pretty fucking vain to strive for glory over truth on an internet forum.

My motives for posting are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why I post here is none of your concern, neither in this thread, or anywhere else.

But to indulge you, if I "win" (to use the term YOU used) then wouldn't I have found the truth? Or at least, as close as we can get to the truth via debate? Or are you expecting me to believe the losing argument?

quote:On going - summary. Yes I do know that she will pick up the penny ... you told me yourself that I have an empirical understanding of her:

"she is the type of person that likes to pick up pennies, or that she has done so in the past"

That IS NOT evidence that she will do so in the future, that is evidence that she did so in the past.

I like to fuck people in the ass. I'm the type of person that fucks people in the ass. Must that mean that I will fuck the next person I sleep with in the ass? No. I could very well choose vaginal intercourse this day, to deviate from my normal actions.

Hence, "she being that type of person" IS NOT undeniable proof that she will pick up the penny.

quote:God knowing what her decision will be - knowing her nature absolutely - does no compromise the fact that she has a decision. It is illogical to think that the knowledge of something has bearing on something.

Completely incorrect.

If that is your argument, the please show me how, if god knows she will pick the penny, she would be able to not pick the penny, since that is what would prove that she had a choice.

You only prove you have a choice if there exist a possibility of doing it.

quote:To say that a pen is blue because one knows the pen is blue is obviously stupid... we're such not radical relativist... I hope. We're a little more rational than that. But that's the argument you're making.

That is certainly not the argument I am making. Please read and understand what I am saying, since what I am saying and your example are NOT analogous.

quote:And the penny THOUGHT EXPERIMENT *cough* was an excercise to kind of get you out of the box you made for yourself. The mere semantics of truth that you misinterpretted does not cause precede a failure in the thought experiment

It was a failure because YOU DO NOT know that she will pick up the penny!

---

This is actually entertaining. You're apparently unaware that you're actually setting yourself for defeat, by arguing that you know she will pick up the penny.

To reiterate, please show me how, if god knows she will pick the penny, she would be able to not pick the penny.



P.S. Your attempt at poisoning the well by calling this a "semantics argument", something yo do in a bad light, is completely unreasonable. What else should I argue, when the entire problem in your argument IS semantics? You are speaking of "known" as having "pass experience" which IS NOT the definition relevant to the argument. The definition relevant to the argument is "having undeniable proof of". Something you clearly do not have of her picking up the penny.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

To say one "wins" does not imply truth. Look at O.J. Simpson's laywer... he won - that does not imply justice.

Yes I can reiterate over and over again that I know - or whoever is in the experiment knows - that she will pick up that penny... Just as I can say that my hair is purple.... I have a comprehension of her nature - in this instance I can read her like a math problem. Yes, perhaps it is inductive even as our understanding of gravity - but that does not make it inaccurate.

How about this - would you tell me that the force of gravity will apply to a falling ball because I know before hand that gravity will apply force upon the ball?

The knowledge of the matter is dependent upon the action. The action is independent of the foreknowledge.

The fact that God knows she will pick up the penny depends on if she would pick up the penny. If she would NOT pick up the penny then God would know that she would NOT pick up the penny. Her picking up the penny does not depend upon God knowing she will pick up the penny.... how would that work?

God won't know that she won't pick up the penny if she will... God's knowledge has no bearing on her actions... he simply knows what her actions will be... just anyone who would have absolute knowledge of her nature would know she picked up that penny.... Remember I know the ball falls because the ball falls. NOT the ball falls because I know the ball falls.

-Transparent Entity

quote:Originally posted by TransparentEntity:

To say one "wins" does not imply truth. Look at O.J. Simpson's laywer... he won - that does not imply justice.

I clearly said, AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET VIA A DEBATE.

Also, justice and truth are two different things.

quote:

Yes I can reiterate over and over again that I know - or whoever is in the experiment knows - that she will pick up that penny... Just as I can say that my hair is purple.... I have a comprehension of her nature - in this instance I can read her like a math problem. Yes, perhaps it is inductive even as our understanding of gravity - but that does not make it inaccurate.

How about this - would you tell me that the force of gravity will apply to a falling ball because I know before hand that gravity will apply force upon the ball?

The knowledge of the matter is dependent upon the action. The action is independent of the foreknowledge.

I cannot possibly know if it will apply on the ball, before it does. All I can do is have a logical expectation of it, which DOES NOT equate KNOWLEDGE of it.

quote:

The fact that God knows she will pick up the penny depends on if she would pick up the penny. If she would NOT pick up the penny then God would know that she would NOT pick up the penny. Her picking up the penny does not depend upon God knowing she will pick up the penny.... how would that work?



God won't know that she won't pick up the penny if she will... God's knowledge has no bearing on her actions... he simply knows what her actions will be... just anyone who would have absolute knowledge of her nature would know she picked up that penny.... Remember I know the ball falls because the ball falls. NOT the ball falls because I know the ball falls.

It DOES depend because god knows it an infinite amount of time, before she even knows that she would have to make a desicion.

If god knows that she will pick up the penny, then when it comes time to make the desicion of picking up the penny, she CANNOT not pick it up, since if she did not, she would have proven that god didn't know what she was going to do.

Hence, her choice IS restricted, if we are to preserve gods omniscience. Of course, her choice musn't be restricted... IF GOD WASN"T OMNISCIENT!

----

You evaded the questions completely.

Again, either answer me what proof do you have that she will pick up the penny, and also how could she not pick the penny, if god knows that she will, or admit that you cannot.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

Well if he's omniscient, he knew we'd be so wicked that he'd have to drown the lot of us and send a whole lot more of us to hell, all before he created us. So he brought billions into existence whom where already doomed to an eternity of suffering. Sadistic, ain't it?

Him knowing doesn't constitute Him forcing.

Yes, He knew. Space and time are not constraints for Him.

He knew, and He did it anyway. But He didn't orchestrate every little detail.

He knew Lucifer would rebel, thus causing pain and suffering upon His people...He knew.

God didn't CAUSE suffering by creating Lucifer, who would eventually rebel against God, and bring sin into the world.

That was Lucifer's choice...God just knew He would make it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You haven't exactly shown anything close to resembling proof yourself.....

Don't hold your breath.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

napoleon, God made the man eat the apple in 2007 because he created the man in the first place with the knowledge that the man would eat the apple 2007. Not a tough concept.

No...whether the man eats the apple or not, God knew ahead of time.

The decision is not affected by God's knowledge of it...even if the guy changed his mind at the last second, and didn't eat the apple, God would still know.

Not a tough concept. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Don't hold your breath.



Show me what I must prove proof of, or please shut the fuck up. I don't think anyone wants to hear more of your baseless attacks.

Like I said, to him, I do not have to prove anything, since I DID NOT make a claim. HE did.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No...whether the man eats the apple or not, God knew ahead of time.

The decision is not affected by God's knowledge of it...even if the guy changed his mind at the last second, and didn't eat the apple, God would still know.

Not a tough concept. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Wrong. Please justify how the man could have not eaten the apple, even if god knew he would. You must be able physically choose something before it being a choice. If he cannot choose to not eat the apple, because if he would he would disrpove god's omniscience, then he does not have the choice, hence no free will.

ON THE SUBJECT OF FREE WILL

The issue of free-will and predestination is one that has raised its head in every generation of Christians. Do we exercise choice, or has everything already been decided? The resultant mental gymnastics leave many feeling confused, and others feeling disappointed. Did you choose to read this article, or has God already determined that you will…or won’t? Maybe if you get halfway through, put down the article, and then pick it up again, you might think that you have double-bluffed God. Yet we know that nothing takes Him by surprise. On the other hand, Christians throughout the ages reject the kind of fatalism seen in other parts of the world.

The problem with the question as presented is that it is not nearly difficult enough. In order to truly appreciate the magnitude of what we are discussing, we must first deal with an even greater one. And it is this: Imagine if I were able to stop time right now. What would you be thinking? What would you be feeling? The answer is nothing.

In the absence of time, we cannot think or feel or do. Everything is frozen. People sometimes complain that I speak too quickly--the problem being that there is not sufficient time for them to think about what has been said. I always try to cheer myself by saying that at least something has been said for them to think about! But it is a fair criticism because in the absence of sufficient time we cannot think things through. In the absence of time altogether, however, we cannot even begin to think, as there is literally no time to think in.

This is because we live and have our existence in a space-time continuum. Space and time are related. We "belong to eternity stranded in time," observes Michael Card.1 This also means that before God created there was no time. Time is not co-eternal with God. But we also know that God was a thinking, feeling, doing Being before He created. Can you imagine a Being who is able to think in the absence of time? Of course not, but we worship a God who not only can do this, He does do this.

Just think about that for a second. We almost feel that somehow a clock must start ticking in order to enable God to think and to act. Yet this is not the case. God was existent in a loving relationship before time began, and was able to act and plan in the absence of time.

Can you now see the enormity of the problem? The God whom we worship not only exists outside of time, He can think and act in the absence of time. We, however, can only think in time. Furthermore, we cannot even think what it is like to think in the absence of time, let alone do it.

Just reading about this is enough to make us feel overwhelmed. And so it should. Whenever we think about the person of God, we should rightly feel that we have come across something truly awesome. And maybe this is part of the problem with the way this particular issue has been addressed. We are not faced with a logical contradiction here. Rather, we are faced with the reality of it means for God to exist; for God to be God.

Think about God’s words to Moses: "I AM WHO I AM."2 The description only really makes sense when said by someone outside of time. Otherwise, it would be capricious--God is whatever He wants to be. However, God is not fickle. In this namesake by which God proclaims that He is to be remembered, He reveals Himself as the unchanging, faithful and living God, both now and forevermore. It is from Him, the great I AM, and because of Him that time even exists.

By now, some will have given up on this article. Don’t lose heart; it was ordained to be so! Yet in fact, because we are only able to think in time, God confronts us with choice: "Choose this day whom you will serve," "choose life," and so on.3 It is the only way we can understand our lives, analyze the past, and plan for the future. However, God, outside of time, sees all of history stretched out before Him. The problem comes, therefore, when we confine the God whom we worship within time. Part of me can’t help but think that this is why so many people get lost on this issue. The God we have come to worship becomes too small when trapped in time. A proper understanding of the tension drives us back both to God’s divine nature and to our knees, acknowledging how wonderful He is.

This understanding also helps us with the issue of eternal life. Many people find the idea of eternity frightening. What will we be doing for all of that time? After we have sung "O for a thousand tongues" a few hundred million times, then what? Once again, our faulty dilemma arises because we are captive both to an understanding of eternity concerned with the passage of time and a too small view of who God actually is.

People also then ask if God knew the world would fall after He created it. If He truly knows all things, then why did He create knowing that we would experience misery and pain in a fallen world? But we know that God did not create the world and then think of a plan to rescue it. In Revelation we are told that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the world were laid.4 This does not mean that the Crucifixion took place in our space-time history before creation, because there was no space-history for it to take place in! What it does mean is that even before God created, He also knew the price it would cost Him—the suffering of His Own Son--to redeem His creation and save us. He didn’t count that cost too great--and hence we sing of God’s amazing grace.

Let me conclude with the following: People who assert that everything comes down to choice and that the future is full of possibilities believe that they have a basis for hope, but acknowledge that the future is unknown. Of course, the French existentialist writers were famous for this. I was recently at a conference and asked all who had read any of the existentialists to raise their hands. A surprising number did. I then asked them to keep their hands in the air if they had ever read a happy one. Two things happened. Everyone put his or her hand down, and everyone laughed. There is no such thing as a happy existentialist novel! Why? For all the existentialists’ desire for hope, when their open future was realized, it always disappointed. Indeed, confronted with this void, some (like Camus) concluded that suicide was the "one truly serious philosophical problem."5 In this sense, hope becomes wishful thinking when it has no secure future.

On the other hand, fatalists believe they have a future, but no hope. Nothing is or can be done; all has been determined. However, only God is big enough to be able to say, "I know the plans I have for you…plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."6 There is no hope without a secure future. The future is frightening in the absence of hope. Only God is big enough to bring these two things together---hope and a future--and this is what He has done for us.

~ http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=79

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. Please justify how the man could have not eaten the apple, even if god knew he would. You must be able physically choose something before it being a choice. If he cannot choose to not eat the apple, because if he would he would disrpove god's omniscience, then he does not have the choice, hence no free will.

I didn't say that the man couldn't have eaten the apple, when God knew he would. What I am saying is, no matter what the man does, God knew he would do it.

You cannot double-bluff God, as the article above states.

He knows, no matter how many times you change your mind, what you will think.

He knows, no matter how many times you change your behavior, what you will do.

He knows. He doesn't CONTROL.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Show me what I must prove proof of, or please shut the fuck up. I don't think anyone wants to hear more of your baseless attacks.

Like I said, to him, I do not have to prove anything, since I DID NOT make a claim. HE did.



I wasn't attacking. I state the obvious.

Wasn't trying to pick a fight, Rust. Not in the mood, really.

Sorry if I offended you.

Peace.

quote:I didn't say that the man couldn't have eaten the apple, when God knew he would. What I am saying is, no matter what the man does, God knew he would do it.

The thing is, you MUST say that.

For FREE WILL to exist, he must have a choice. If an omniscient god exists, and he knows that I will eat the apple, then I cannot have free will if I never had the choice of not eating the apple, which I wouldn't have if god knew I was going to eat it, an infinite amount of time before I was ever created!

Thus, to satisfy free will and omniscience, you MUST show me how he 'couldn't have eaten the apple, when God knew he would' which neither you, nor napoleon, nor TransparentEntity have done.

quote:

You cannot double-bluff God, as the article above states.

He knows, no matter how many times you change your mind, what you will think.

He knows, no matter how many times you change your behavior, what you will do.

He knows. He doesn't CONTROL.

You're just repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Again, show me how he could have not eaten the apple, when god knew he would. That's the only thing that proves that omniscience and free could exist at the same time. You have yet do so... because you cannot. At least not with logic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I wasn't attacking. I state the obvious.

Wasn't trying to pick a fight, Rust. Not in the mood, really.

Sorry if I offended you.

Peace.

How is that obvious, when I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING SINCE I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM, AND MOREOVER, YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE TO? The answer is, it isn't.

It was a petty and baseless attack on your part. Nothing else.

And you still haven't given proof of your opinion, which is exactly what I was eluding to.

You won't.

I don't see how that was so far off the mark.

It wasn't baseless, and it wasn't malicious.

I have wasted a lot of time arguing with you in the past, and I feel obligated at times to rescue people from making the same mistake.

Especially when I can tell you are their intellectual superior. It's pointless.

I could just mind my own business...but what fun would that be ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

In regards to free will/predestination, I have given as good an answer as I can.

You don't agree, and that's where it will have to end.

*shrugs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And you still haven't given proof of your opinion, which is exactly what I was eluding to.

You won't.

I don't see how that was so far off the mark.

It wasn't baseless, and it wasn't malicious.





What opinion? Please tell me where I mentioned my opinion, and the please tell me why I must provide evidence of an OPINION!

That's the whole point! I DID NOT provide my opinion, save for stating that I did not care either way. So please, tell me why the hell must I provide evidence of me "not caring either way"...

As you should be able to see, certainly baseless and certainly malicious.

quote:Posted By Napoleon:



God doesn't force the man to make a decision in order to fulfill his knowledge, he simply has knowledge of his future decision.

quote:Posted by Rust:

He does since you have yet to prove otherwise.

That's your opinion, and you have given no proof to support it.

You have provided conjecture, and that's it.

You can no more prove your point, than he can his.

You can argue it very well, but that doesn't prove it.

You would say the same thing of my Christian beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That's your opinion, and you have given no proof to support it.

You have provided conjecture, and that's it.

You can no more prove your point, than he can his.

You can argue it very well, but that doesn't prove it.

You would say the same thing of my Christian beliefs.



Sorry, but no.

It is HE who has to back something up, since if he doesn't, his argument, that god can be omnsicient and not limit our free will, fails, which is exactly what I am saying when I say "He does since you have yet to prove otherwise.".

Read it again. "He does since you have yet to prove otherwise.". Notice the word SINCE, which means, "since you have not backed up your original claim your argument fails, and thus we must conclude that it is incorrect".

God invented "sin" and "hell".

He could have made an earth

where no evil lived, where

man did not have urges to

piss him off.

Where peoples' strongest desire

was to just praise the lord.

But what would be the point then,

with nothing to struggle against?

...

The whole system was his making,

so all the consequences are

his responsibility.

To rust and digitalsaviour...

I am a non believer. True i have free will. This hsa nothing to do with pre destination. I am completely to blame for my actions. I do not believe in the christian version of god and i will suffer for it. Of this i am well aware. I am one of Gods creations yet have the audacity to rebel against his very foundations. For this i must burn in an eernal hellfire and be impaled by Satan himself in the pits of hell. I know this. God knows this. In fact.. GOD KNEW THIS. REPEAT GOD KNEW THIS. again if you didnt get it GOD KNEW THIS. He knew this yesterday, he knew it a year ago, he knew it when he created me. He created me with the knowlage that this would be the outcome. He created me knowing full well that i would rebel against him (my choice admittedly so there IS free will) and he would have to cast me forth into the pits of hell. Why then? did he bother with creating me? That is my question.

QUOTE Originally posted by Sarith:

To rust and digitalsaviour...

Sorry to cut in, but i have a few questions. And just so you know, these are just questions; i'm not interested in the freewill/predestination arguement right now.. i'm on vacation and mostly just want to goof off, get some projects done around the house, take it easy, etc.

ok, maybe that's not entirely true. This topic is very interesting to me, and apparently i'm not alone. Also, if it is a reason that some people do not believe, then i feel that it is worth the effort to continue with the debate... but it has been tedious, and does get 'old hat' from time to time.

I am a non believer....I do not believe in the christian version of god

Your non-belief; is it inclusive of the God of the Hebrews? In other words, do you just not believe that the Messiah has come yet?

"True i have free will."

How do you know? How can any of us know if we have freewill? I mean, it is not as though we can call a "do over". All we know is what we have done, but we dont know (at least i dont think there really is a way that we be certain that we actually were able to choose..free or otherwise).



I am completely to blame for my actions.Of this i am well aware. I am one of Gods creations yet have the audacity to rebel against his very foundations.

This was the main reason that i asked if it was Jesus that you didnt believe in, or if it was God of the Bible that your non-belief lies.

For this i must burn in an eernal hellfire and be impaled by Satan himself in the pits of hell. I know this. God knows this.

Why do you know this? How do you know this? Or are these statements just pointing out to Christians that you understand the Christian teachings?

Because if you really do know this, i am very puzzled as to why (i'm assmuming you were raised Jewish, yes?) you feel as though there is no chance for you to escape "hellfire" (using the term you used..and hopefully avoiding debate on the reality/description of hell).



In fact.. GOD KNEW THIS. REPEAT GOD KNEW THIS. again if you didnt get it GOD KNEW THIS. He knew this yesterday, he knew it a year ago, he knew it when he created me. He created me with the knowlage that this would be the outcome. He created me knowing full well that i would rebel against him (my choice admittedly so there IS free will) and he would have to cast me forth into the pits of hell. Why then? did he bother with creating me? That is my question.[/B] /QUOTE

That really is the crux of the ongoing arguement.

If you would allow a question in response to your question. (a response, not an answer)

That question would be, "how do you know that you will never change your mind?".

The answer might be that God 'would/already does' know the outcome of your life..meaning, whether you will accept Him or not.



Well, it's time to get back to vacation..

<<<goes off singing, "busy doin' nothin, workin the whole day through, trying to find lots a things not to do....">>>

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by Sarith:

To rust and digitalsaviour...

Sorry to cut in, but i have a few questions. And just so you know, these are just questions; i'm not interested in the freewill/predestination arguement right now.. i'm on vacation and mostly just want to goof off, get some projects done around the house, take it easy, etc.

ok, maybe that's not entirely true. This topic is very interesting to me, and apparently i'm not alone. Also, if it is a reason that some people do not believe, then i feel that it is worth the effort to continue with the debate... but it has been tedious, and does get 'old hat' from time to time.

I am a non believer....I do not believe in the christian version of god

Your non-belief; is it inclusive of the God of the Hebrews? In other words, do you just not believe that the Messiah has come yet?

"True i have free will."

How do you know? How can any of us know if we have freewill? I mean, it is not as though we can call a "do over". All we know is what we have done, but we dont know (at least i dont think there really is a way that we be certain that we actually were able to choose..free or otherwise).



I am completely to blame for my actions.Of this i am well aware. I am one of Gods creations yet have the audacity to rebel against his very foundations.

This was the main reason that i asked if it was Jesus that you didnt believe in, or if it was God of the Bible that your non-belief lies.

For this i must burn in an eernal hellfire and be impaled by Satan himself in the pits of hell. I know this. God knows this.

Why do you know this? How do you know this? Or are these statements just pointing out to Christians that you understand the Christian teachings?

Because if you really do know this, i am very puzzled as to why (i'm assmuming you were raised Jewish, yes?) you feel as though there is no chance for you to escape "hellfire" (using the term you used..and hopefully avoiding debate on the reality/description of hell).



In fact.. GOD KNEW THIS. REPEAT GOD KNEW THIS. again if you didnt get it GOD KNEW THIS. He knew this yesterday, he knew it a year ago, he knew it when he created me. He created me with the knowlage that this would be the outcome. He created me knowing full well that i would rebel against him (my choice admittedly so there IS free will) and he would have to cast me forth into the pits of hell. Why then? did he bother with creating me? That is my question. /QUOTE

That really is the crux of the ongoing arguement.

If you would allow a question in response to your question. (a response, not an answer)

That question would be, "how do you know that you will never change your mind?".

The answer might be that God 'would/already does' know the outcome of your life..meaning, whether you will accept Him or not.



Well, it's time to get back to vacation..

<<<goes off singing, "busy doin' nothin, workin the whole day through, trying to find lots a things not to do....">>>[/B]



heh, no im not raised jewish im raised bhuddist interestingly enough, but im pretty much agnostic. The term hellfire or the description of hell i used, dont take them literally, i didnt mean them that way.

In response to the question for question idea... i dont know that i wont change my mind in the end. good chance i will if i can get a few of these ideas out of my head but there are several people who havent changed their minds and who have ended up non believers. i just want to know why they were created? ans while im at it seeing as you seem to have the best answers ive heard yet, why also are so many people born hideously deformed?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

To rust and digitalsaviour...

I am a non believer. True i have free will. This hsa nothing to do with pre destination. I am completely to blame for my actions. I do not believe in the christian version of god and i will suffer for it. Of this i am well aware. I am one of Gods creations yet have the audacity to rebel against his very foundations. For this i must burn in an eernal hellfire and be impaled by Satan himself in the pits of hell. I know this. God knows this. In fact.. GOD KNEW THIS. REPEAT GOD KNEW THIS. again if you didnt get it GOD KNEW THIS. He knew this yesterday, he knew it a year ago, he knew it when he created me. He created me with the knowlage that this would be the outcome. He created me knowing full well that i would rebel against him (my choice admittedly so there IS free will) and he would have to cast me forth into the pits of hell. Why then? did he bother with creating me? That is my question.



Incorrect as it is logically impossible for you to have free will when he knew what you where going to do before you where even born.

Follow the arguments that have taken place.

Your question wouldn't even make sense if where possible for you to have free will and he know what you where going to do, since it would imply that you were free to choose him, and thus answer "why he created you".

whther or not free will exists.. my question remains the same. why create all us non believers with the knowlage that we would eventually have to be tortured in hell? Whether we choose not to believe out of free will or destiny has nothing to do with it. the fact is taht we do. and god knew it. why then create us?

'My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' We'll never know the mind of God as clearly as we'd like. Of course, seeking to know the mind of God is different than seeking confrontation with God.

quote:Originally posted by Pow r T och:

'My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' We'll never know the mind of God as clearly as we'd like. Of course, seeking to know the mind of God is different than seeking confrontation with God.



so if you dont we can never understand god so we should blindly accept him and his ways on the pretext that through some invisible logic we will never understand he will always be loving and true to his people? lets keep it real k? that claim is about as valid as it would be if i were to say "you cant understand the concept im getting at to just believe it without any reasoning" null theory. dont bother with it. somebody just answer the question. Why create us only to send us to hell???

Never, ever blindly follow anyone or anything. Certainly God doesn't want anyone to perish, and no one was created for damnation. That would, indeed, be cruel.

well i, and every other agnostic/aethiest/muslim/bhuddist/hindu was created for damnation too. so god IS cruel then?

This is one of the simple arguments that has led me to believe in two choices:

1. A god does not exist.

2. A god exists, but he is not what religions percieve him as.

I do not believe in the existance of hell.

If there is a god, I do not believe he would torture his creations for all eternity, regardless of what they do in life.

Hell is a myth, plain and simple.

Maybe everybody just goes to heaven when they die, that'd be nice.

Still, I think once you die, thats it, you're dead.

amen=)

Who said the Christians are right, well..besides the Christians that is.

Sarith, you were not created under the bondage of predestination.

You were created to choose...what you choose is your choice. God did not CREATE you to choose either way. That would remove free will, now wouldn't it ?

You have a choice, until your last breath leaves your body.

God knows everything, only because He is not confined within the boundaries of space and time. This knowledge does not remove our free will. It's just knowledge.

Catholic viewpoint:

We're right you're wrong.

Lol

Either way Catholics believe that the only torture in hell is separation from God. People in hell choose to be there because to be in full communion with God would be even more painful than to live in complete separation from him.

As long as one seeks the Truth, because the search for Truth will lead you to Catholocism, even if your journey is cut short, you'll probably be fine. If you use what free will that you have for good, then I think you'd be willing to accept that you've been wrong, and you'll accept God.

God created humans even though he knew some would choose to reject him, because if even one person chose FREELY to accept him, that would be infinitelt better than everyone choosing to refuse him.

In fact shouldn't we just be happy that God didn't just scrap the whole of creation when Adam chose to eat the fruit?

Oh, and the bible never said anything about an apple. Traditionally the fruit was a fig.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-28-2005).]

"The search for truth will lead to Catholicism..."

*blinks*

What about "the search for truth will lead you to God." ??

I have never heard that the forbidden fruit was a fig. Adam and Eve used fig LEAVES to cover their nakedness, but the fruit is thought to be a pomegranate in most Christian circles.

A pastor of mine did a whole study on it.

Of course, it will always remain "unsolved", but I do not think it is a mystery we need to focus on.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have never heard that the forbidden fruit was a fig. Adam and Eve used fig LEAVES to cover their nakedness, but the fruit is thought to be a pomegranate in most Christian circles.

A pastor of mine did a whole study on it.

Of course, it will always remain "unsolved", but I do not think it is a mystery we need to focus on.

Actually what phonexfire was saying is very close to what is commonly considered true in Jewish philosophies, believing that it is a citrus fruit known as an etrog. (spelling could be wrong there)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sarith, you were not created under the bondage of predestination.

You were created to choose...what you choose is your choice. God did not CREATE you to choose either way. That would remove free will, now wouldn't it ?

You have a choice, until your last breath leaves your body.

God knows everything, only because He is not confined within the boundaries of space and time. This knowledge does not remove our free will. It's just knowledge.

i agree... until the last breath leaves my body it IS my choice. but god still nkows my desicion beforehand "only because He is not confined within the boundaries of space and time"

so NO ONE has an answer to this??

No, all of the religous gods, allah, god, allah, etc etc are all friends and they go and fight cults.

jokes aside...

its moreless about just having faith in general, rather u worship god or allah, just believeing in the idea of a "higher power" is considred faith

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

but there are several people who havent changed their minds and who have ended up non believers. i just want to know why they were created? ans while im at it <<snipped>>, why also are so many people born hideously deformed?

I'm sorry, Sarith, i just noticed that i had not responded to this.

My wife is disabled (although, she is not "hideously deformed".. i am turned on by her looks).

When she was about 10 yrs old, she started getting severe arthritis. She has had her hips and knees replaced before we started going out.

Anyway, she had asked me roughly the same questions (she knew i am Christian, but is "not sure" for herself).

The answer to the second question falls under "original sin" and "sin fallen world". (I'm sure that you aware of these, since the topics get raised in this forum; if not, just ask)

As to the first question, i'm sorry, i dont know... i dont think i even could make a half-way decent guess.

im realy sorry i dont see how origianl sin fits into this... could you elaborate a bit please?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

im realy sorry i dont see how origianl sin fits into this... could you elaborate a bit please?



very short answer:

God said at the end of each creation day, "it is good". If the Perfect God declares something good, it must be "perfect".

When Adam and Eve sinned, God cursed even the ground. So in effect, the whole world is guilty of sin, and can no longer be called 'good' by God (atleast, not until HE redeems it). When sin entered the world, so did death, disease and destruction.

Rom 5:12 Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.

Rom 5:13 For sin was in the world until Law, but sin is not charged where there is no law;

Rom 5:14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming One.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not also like the deviation. For if by the deviation of the one the many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace, which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, did abound to the many.

so its your bad luck that you have been created with a deformity?? just cause eve or adam made a mess of things we all have to suffer? I didnt think the perfect god would go into blood laws...

I think God blesses you with the strength needed for what ever life throws at you...

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

so its your bad luck that you have been created with a deformity?? just cause eve or adam made a mess of things we all have to suffer? I didnt think the perfect god would go into blood laws...

Sin is the deformity that causes imperfection. God made a perfect Creation, but allowed freewill in Satan and man.

taht doesnt answer why people have to be deformed today because adam and eve pissed off god. seems pretty vengeful to me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

god is omnipotent, omniscient and what not.

You mean, you assume.

There are many people that turn Athiest after a death.

So on top of dealing with a death, God destines you to Hell?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

taht doesnt answer why people have to be deformed today because adam and eve pissed off god. seems pretty vengeful to me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)There is a theological principle in Judaism that all human beings are made from portions of Adam's original soul. I don't know if this holds true for Christians though, but it is the reasoning behind the collective or ancestral guilt principle in Judaism.

Other than DNA, we don't share anything with Adam.

From a Christian standpoint.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You have a choice, until your last breath leaves your body.

God knows everything, only because He is not confined within the boundaries of space and time. This knowledge does not remove our free will. It's just knowledge.

"Just" knowledge? Of course this knowledge negates free will. Free will implies that I have the power to change my future. If God knows my future NOW, this means it will happen exactly as God knows it. If God knows ALL the future events, that means that only ONE future is possible : the one that God has knowledge of. So if only ONE future is possible how can I change my future, and how can I have free will? You see, knowledge is never "just" knowledge. I'm sure this is easy to understand...

Perhaps you christians should redefine your concept of God, being humble and all, you should accept that qualities such as omniscience are not possible.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Perhaps you christians should redefine your concept of God, being humble and all, you should accept that qualities such as omniscience are not possible.

Ah the contradictions of omni-max powers.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

taht doesnt answer why people have to be deformed today because adam and eve pissed off god. seems pretty vengeful to me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)



have you ever read the rules of a sweapstakes?

All judgements are final.

God made a promise (in this case, it was a curse). He can not be Soveriegn if He goes back on His Word. But it is not He, who is causing deformities. It is sin. Because Adam and Eve chose to disobey, this allowed sin into the world, and because of sin, the world is not perfect anymore (but when all things or accomplished, God will cleanse the world).

But yes, God says in His Word, that vengence is His. He is also Love. He shows this by overcoming the effects of sin, by offering Himself as payment to Himself (in the suffering and death, descension to Hell, resurrection from death and ascension to Heaven of His Son, Jesus the Christ).

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

"Just" knowledge? Of course this knowledge negates free will. Free will implies that I have the power to change my future. If God knows my future NOW, this means it will happen exactly as God knows it. If God knows ALL the future events, that means that only ONE future is possible : the one that God has knowledge of. So if only ONE future is possible how can I change my future, and how can I have free will? You see, knowledge is never "just" knowledge. I'm sure this is easy to understand...

Perhaps you christians should redefine your concept of God, being humble and all, you should accept that qualities such as omniscience are not possible.



Wrong.

In other words, he is not benevolent...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

In other words, he is not benevolent...



i understand what you both are saying.

the benevolence comes from the offering of the gift of Grace.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



i understand what you both are saying.

the benevolence comes from the offering of the gift of Grace.



No. That is not benevolence. Benevolence has a much much higher burden. Benevolence is not just "doing good sometimes", it's doing good ALWAYS. If he could have chosen another way, a way which didn't mean we had to pay for Adam & Eve's original sin, and he deliberately chose not to, then he is not benevolent.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



No. That is not benevolence. Benevolence has a much much higher burden. Benevolence is not just "doing good sometimes", it's doing good ALWAYS. If he could have chosen another way, a way which didn't mean we had to pay for Adam & Eve's original sin, and he deliberately chose not to, then he is not benevolent.



no.

good night.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

no.

good night.

What? You can't just say no and end it. That's basically giving in to what Rust said.

EDIT: Bad wording.

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 06-30-2005).]

Open your eyes.

The original sin never happened, the story is just a metaphor for something that christianity took from some conquered pagan religion, along with every other 'parable' in the bible...you insult yourself by believing it literally.

Open your eyes.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Wrong.

Wow, you totally convinced me. Moron.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



have you ever read the rules of a sweapstakes?

All judgements are final.

God made a promise (in this case, it was a curse). He can not be Soveriegn if He goes back on His Word. But it is not He, who is causing deformities. It is sin. Because Adam and Eve chose to disobey, this allowed sin into the world, and because of sin, the world is not perfect anymore (but when all things or accomplished, God will cleanse the world).

But yes, God says in His Word, that vengence is His. He is also Love. He shows this by overcoming the effects of sin, by offering Himself as payment to Himself (in the suffering and death, descension to Hell, resurrection from death and ascension to Heaven of His Son, Jesus the Christ).



sin is defined as an act against the will of God or to commit a shameful and deplorable act against moral or religious code. an example would be blasphemy of any kind or rape.

neither of those is capable of CAUSING us to be deformed. 'sin' doesnt 'do' anything. its inanimate--a description of an act.

dont forget. god created each and every one of us--and those of us who are deformed are created by him too. so he created the deformities on purpose... not sin.

God is a vengeful bastard, any Catholic knows that.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:



so he created the deformities on purpose... not sin.



I dont think I can agree with this. It makes sense for me to think that God created the first man and woman and they, after generations, created our physical bodies not the spirit.

I think God creates the spirit not our body and that defects could be because of the long line of our families being in the environment that creates abnomalites?

quote:Originally posted by vice:

I dont think I can agree with this. It makes sense for me to think that God created the first man and woman and they, after generations, created our physical bodies not the spirit.

I think God creates the spirit not our body and that defects could be because of the long line of our families being in the environment that creates abnomalites?

If nothing is allowed to exist without God's permission, then yes it could be argued that he allows people to be born with defformities.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

If nothing is allowed to exist without God's permission, then yes it could be argued that he allows people to be born with defformities.



Ok can someone find this out?

I thought I would make the choice if I have kids or not.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



no.

good night.

Thank you for not providing a counter-argument to this reasonable argument against Christianity. That's exactly what I want.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

no.

good night.

What? You can't just say no and end it. That's basically giving in to what Rust said.

EDIT: Bad wording.





Whether i answer then, now or later does not mean i am giving into Rust. Sure, it could have been handled differently, but that does not mean that i do not care.

Sorry, but we must logically assume what fits the evidence: You're "giving in to me".

When and if you reply in a manner which my argument deserves, then you can say that you're not "giving into me".

Next time, if you don't want to reply right now, just say "I'll get back to you later", that way you wont look like you do now... I think that's the most reasonable thing to do, don't you think?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but we must logically assume what fits the evidence: You're "giving in to me".

When and if you reply in a manner which my argument deserves, then you can say that you're not "giving into me".

Next time, if you don't want to reply right now, just say "I'll get back to you later", that way you wont look like you do now... I think that's the most reasonable thing to do, don't you think?





This reply:

quote:Whether i answer then, now or later does not mean i am giving into Rust. Sure, it could have been handled differently, but that does not mean that i do not care.

to include the day or so break in replies, is the reply (mainly to benevolence).

It was meant as an illustration.

That doesn't "reply" anything to my post. My post had to do with how god wouldn't be benevolent. That has to do with why you didn't reply, so I don't understand how that "is the reply (mainly to benevolence)"....

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

If nothing is allowed to exist without God's permission, then yes it could be argued that he allows people to be born with defformities.



He ALLOWS IT, He doesn't FORCE IT to happen by causing it.

By extension, the sin that entered into the world did so because of God's creation, Satan.

So, yes...you could say by that logic that sin is God's fault, and therefore the ramifications of said sin are also God's fault (i.e. disfigurement).

It is difficult to explain, at least for me, why Christianity doesn't look at sin as being God's fault. Because He didn't directly force it into being (He created the entity that perpetuated sin, eventually), we place the blame on that entity, Satan, rather than God.

Matthew 19:1-12 - "Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

All things work for the glory of God...one man's deformity is another man's witness:

~ http://tinyurl.com/asudr

He ALLOWS IT, He doesn't FORCE IT to happen by causing it.

By extension, the sin that entered into the world did so because of God's creation, Satan.

So, yes...you could say by that logic that sin is God's fault, and therefore the ramifications of said sin are also God's fault (i.e. disfigurement).

It is difficult to explain, at least for me, why Christianity doesn't look at sin as being God's fault. Because He didn't directly force it into being (He created the entity that perpetuated sin, eventually), we place the blame on that entity, Satan, rather than God.

Matthew 19:1-12 - "Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

All things work for the glory of God...one man's deformity is another man's witness:

~ Joni, the paraplegic: http://tinyurl.com/asudr

~ Joni's Art (that she paints with her teeth): http://www.joniandfriendsstore.org/artprints

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-03-2005).]

1. god can see into the future (to quote someone: "because he is not bound by space and time") this makes no sense to me but if you guys say so, then so be it. But assuming that god can see into the future then he should have seen lucifer rising against him coming, which quite evidently, he didnt. So he is either a) not perfect, for he unwittingly created the devil or b) sadistic and malicious for purposly creating the devil.

2. To quote again (vice i think said this) "god creates our spirit, not our bodys". If this is so then why did he create spirits which would not believe in him and would eventully disbelieve and be tortured in hell? You say he created the spirit of hitler, mussolini, stalin, osama hin laden and saddam hussein eh? clever.

3. If ANONE, can see into the future, then there is one set timeline and that is what will happen. Regardless of whether or not we have free will, our futures are already calculated. (if they weren't, then god couldn't see the future, and he wouldnt be all-powerful and what-not). Then god can tell beforehand that we wont believe in him (us agnostics and the rest i mean) and knows, at the point of creation, that he will send us to hell. So he created us to live 80 odd years and burn eternally in hell. So either he can see into the future and is one malicious son of a bitch or he cant see into the future and is not omni potent as we are made to believe.

4. OF COURSE SIN IS GOD'S FAULT!!! HE CREATED EEVVEERRYY TTHHIINNGG remember?? light, darkness, happiness, sadness, the earth... EVERYTHING.

5. "He ALLOWS IT, He doesn't FORCE IT to happen by causing it." by digitalsaviour.

God has two choices, to allow it, or not allow it. He is allpowerful so they are both just as easy for him yes? good. then if he allows it, it is his will.

Hey you guys! I'll tell you a little secret, God is Sin.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He ALLOWS IT, He doesn't FORCE IT to happen by causing it.

By extension, the sin that entered into the world did so because of God's creation, Satan.

So, yes...you could say by that logic that sin is God's fault, and therefore the ramifications of said sin are also God's fault (i.e. disfigurement).

It is difficult to explain, at least for me, why Christianity doesn't look at sin as being God's fault. Because He didn't directly force it into being (He created the entity that perpetuated sin, eventually), we place the blame on that entity, Satan, rather than God.



If he allows it to happen, when he doesn't have to, given that he is omnipotent and omniscient, then he shares the fault. Thus meaning that he is not benevolent.

Regardless of your moral jumping-through-hoops to conveniently remove any guilt from god, when he clearly shares the guilt.

i said that first!!! anyways... nice to see someone agrees.

amen

quote:2. To quote again (vice i think said this) "god creates our spirit, not our bodys". If this is so then why did he create spirits which would not believe in him and would eventully disbelieve and be tortured in hell? You say he created the spirit of hitler, mussolini, stalin, osama hin laden and saddam hussein eh? clever.



quote:You could say "But God knows for a fact who will be bad and good. Why allow the people going to hell to be born in the first place?" But, if this is the case and if God arranged it that no "bad" people were born, then we would all go to hell. You see, Jesus is the only way to be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice on the cross was necessary in order to make it possible for us to be saved because everyone, "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people born, then there wouldn't be any "bad" people around who would have sent Jesus to the cross. If that never happened, then we wouldn't be saved from our sins because Jesus would never have been unjustly condemned and His sacrifice would never have happened.

Second, if someone says that it is wrong for God to allow someone to be born who will go to hell, then would he rather have God remove our freedom to rebel against Him so that no one can be blamed for sin? If the critic says he only want those people born who go to heaven, then how are they truly free and how would that fulfill the ultimate plan of God to sacrifice His Son for the redemption of mankind?

Third, God could have reasons for sending people to hell that we cannot understand.

Fourth, God is just and always does what is right. Therefore, sending people to hell is the right thing to do, especially when we understand that God is eternally holy and those who sin against God incur an infinite offense because the infinite God is the one who is offended.

Finally, the Bible simply tells us that people will go to hell. They go there because they are not covered by the sacrifice of Christ. Whether or not they are created or not does not effect the fact that sinners must be punished; otherwise, the holiness and righteousness of God mean nothing.

Jah rule, but only when he feels like it.

quote:Originally posted by vice:

You could say "But God knows for a fact who will be bad and good. Why allow the people going to hell to be born in the first place?" But, if this is the case and if God arranged it that no "bad" people were born, then we would all go to hell. You see, Jesus is the only way to be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice on the cross was necessary in order to make it possible for us to be saved because everyone, "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people born, then there wouldn't be any "bad" people around who would have sent Jesus to the cross. If that never happened, then we wouldn't be saved from our sins because Jesus would never have been unjustly condemned and His sacrifice would never have happened.

No. We wouldn't all go to hell, unless he arranged for that as well, since he most definetely doesn't have to send us to hell for sining.

Since he chose to, then he's not benevolent.

quote:

Second, if someone says that it is wrong for God to allow someone to be born who will go to hell, then would he rather have God remove our freedom to rebel against Him so that no one can be blamed for sin? If the critic says he only want those people born who go to heaven, then how are they truly free and how would that fulfill the ultimate plan of God to sacrifice His Son for the redemption of mankind?

He's omnipotent and thus he MUST be able to disallow evil, while still preserving free will; however illogical that may seem.

If he doesn't, he's not benevolent.

quote:

Third, God could have reasons for sending people to hell that we cannot understand.



Reasons are irrelevant. If he's omnipotent, and omniscient he must have the power to fulfill those reasons via another way that does not require us to go to hell and/or suffer.

If he doesn't, he's not benevolent.

quote:

Fourth, God is just and always does what is right. Therefore, sending people to hell is the right thing to do, especially when we understand that God is eternally holy and those who sin against God incur an infinite offense because the infinite God is the one who is offended.

Circular logic. God is just because everything that he does is just; circular logic.

quote:

Finally, the Bible simply tells us that people will go to hell. They go there because they are not covered by the sacrifice of Christ. Whether or not they are created or not does not effect the fact that sinners must be punished; otherwise, the holiness and righteousness of God mean nothing.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, they certainy must not be punished. It's a choice that god made, not a requirement.

Since he chose to, then he's not benevolent.

quote:"God is a righteous judge," (Psalm 7:9). His righteousness is part of His character just as are mercy and love. Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. God cannot do anything wrong. God must do that which is right, otherwise He would not be righteous.

Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34). So too with God. He speaks out of the abundance of His heart. God spoke the universe into existence, "Let their be light," (Gen. 1:3) and He also spoke forth the Law (Exodus 20 - the Ten Commandments, etc.). Therefore, the Law of God, is a reflection of God's character, because it comes out of what He is, holy, perfect, righteous, and good. Therefore, the Law is a standard of perfection. It is perfect and if we do not keep it perfectly, then we have offended the God who gave it; after all, it is a reflection of His character. To break God's Law is to offend (sin against) God. Since it is law, there is punishment because there is no Law that is a law without a punishment. This means that when we break the Law of God, we fall under the judgment of the Law of God. Since He is infinite, our offense against Him is takes on an infinite quality because we have offended an infinitely holy and righteous God.

Must God punish?

Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do. Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong. You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous. He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do. But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal. Why the difference? The answer is two fold. First, God is infinite and a parent is not. Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not.

Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant. The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended. In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against: an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God.

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/sendtohell.htm

That article refutes nothing of what I said, which I suspect is exactly why you said nothing yourself, and ignored everything I said.

It does not refute anything of the following:

1. Claiming that god is just by citing that whatever he does is just, is circular logic.

The premise, that god is just, is being used as proof of the premise itself. That's circular logic.

2. God does not "have to" do anything. That implies that god cannot do the opposite, which would mean he is not omnipotent.

So god can certainly decide to not punish; not only that, but he can choose an alternative to punishing, one that does not cause pain, suffering and/or damnation but is still "the right thing to do", and that is infinitely more effective. If he deliberately chooses not to use this infinitely better alternative that does not involve pain and/or suffering, then he's not benevolent.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That doesn't "reply" anything to my post. My post had to do with how god wouldn't be benevolent. That has to do with why you didn't reply, so I don't understand how that "is the reply (mainly to benevolence)"....



Rust, you are pretty smart, so i am surprised that you dont understand...

i'll keep waiting, i know you'll get it.

BTW, there is an answer in this post to, but this one is not about benevolence.

Stop patronizing me and tell me. I don't know if you get it, but you look wrong, not I; so this really means nothing to me if I don't "understand" it.

I'm not the one who's basically fleeing from a very reasonable argument against Christianity, you are!

P.S. My smartness is completely dependent on the other party's ability to write precisely and coherently.

So if you write,

"This reply [you proceed to quote it]

to include the day or so break in replies, is the reply (mainly to benevolence).

It was meant as an illustration"

then of course I'm going to say that the reply you quoted has nothing to do with benevolence, so how could it be the a reply "mainly to benevolence"?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-06-2005).]

Rust,

Before you get all huffy, I am not defending the Christian position, I am simply attempting to clarify it's misconceptions in regards to the conceptualization, of G-d. So please take this in mind when you post your, assuredly, soon to come... response. The Christian religion is extremely dualistic, being based on the notions (in great part) of Zoroastrian philosophical thought, hence a good G-d and an evil Satan. This of course leads to many a problem since it limits the activities of said G-d. However, in Judaism (which is where they get the notion but definitely NOT their philosophy), G-d is the creator of both good and evil. So, in closing, if one were to view the concept through a Jewish rubric only, no such problems would arise... at least in regards to “benevolence.”

P.S. Congratulations on becoming a Mod.



[This message has been edited by Maccabee (edited 07-06-2005).]

I understand. I'm strictly speaking of a Christian perspective and the problem that belief creates; as I assume Sarith was also, in his original post, and the subsequent posts thereafter. xtreeme, Digital_Savior, and vice call themselves Christians, and that's whom I'm arguing with.

P.S. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Apple Domination:

Hey you guys! I'll tell you a little secret, God is Sin.

FFX anyone?

I just hoped my last previous post would make it clear.

quote:No. We wouldn't all go to hell, unless he arranged for that as well, since he most definetely doesn't have to send us to hell for sining.

Since he chose to, then he's not benevolent.

First of God does not create evil people it is sin that sends us against God and to spiritually die.

It is said God is love. Why does 'punishing people' automatically make him less loving?

He most definatly does have to send us to hell as it is the LAW. He said not to sin if you do you are punished.

quote:He's omnipotent and thus he MUST be able to disallow evil, while still preserving free will; however illogical that may seem.

If he doesn't, he's not benevolent.

We do evil, thats what makes it free will. He alows us to do evil as our free will.

He still loves us if we are evil. Just like a parent. He chooses who to love.

quote:Reasons are irrelevant. If he's omnipotent, and omniscient he must have the power to fulfill those reasons via another way that does not require us to go to hell and/or suffer.

If he doesn't, he's not benevolent.

Yep, He has, He is called Jesus.

quote:Circular logic. God is just because everything that he does is just; circular logic.

God is just when he does not go against his nature. Sending people to hell is part of the 'rules'. Because He made the rules He does not break them, what He does is within his rules and nothing to do with his nature.

God can do no wrong, Whatever God does is fair. We are all fallen and because we are all sinners, the 'fair' thing to do is to let us all go to hell.

quote:Fairness deals with what is right. Since it is only God who is holy and pure and right, and not us, it is perfectly fair that all of us sinners be judged and condemned by God. But, God does not choose to do that. Instead, He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we might be saved

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong, they certainy must not be punished. It's a choice that god made, not a requirement.

Since he chose to, then he's not benevolent.

As you have seen it is a requrement of which He tells us many a time. It is his law that we do not sin. We and him cannot stop what He has made. But we can choose to go against the law.

It is up to Him who He hates and loves though.

quote:Originally posted by Televangelism Rapist:

FFX anyone?



Well I wasn't specifically identifying it as FFX, but the fact that God basically sinned when he created humans. Anyway, FFX or any other rpg related games bore the fuck out of me.

[This message has been edited by Apple Domination (edited 07-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by vice:

First of God does not create evil people it is sin that sends us against God and to spiritually die.

It is said God is love. Why does 'punishing people' automatically make him less loving?

He most definitely does have to send us to hell as it is the LAW. He said not to sin if you do you are punished.

Did I say he created evil people? No. So why even bring that up?

I said, that we don't have to go to hell, because god can make it so that we don't go to hell. That MUST be true, or god isn't omnipotent.

So if that is true, then he deliberately chooses to send us to hell, and thus he is no benevolent.

To answer your question, "why does punishing people making not not all loving"? Because since can choose an infinitely BETTER alternative, one that does not require punishment, and yields the same results, but deliberately chooses not to use that alternative, then he's not all loving.

quote:We do evil, thats what makes it free will. He alows us to do evil as our free will.

He still loves us if we are evil. Just like a parent. He chooses who to love.

Please, read what I said again, because you're coming of as illiterate.

I said:

"He's omnipotent and thus he MUST be able to disallow evil, while still preserving free will; however illogical that may seem."

Which means that since he is supposedly omnipotent, he must have the power to disallow evil, but still preserve free will at the same time. That sounds illogical doesn't it? Yes, but since he is omnipotent, he must have the power to do so! So if he chooses to leave evil and sin, then he's not benevolent.

quote:Yep, He has, He is called Jesus.

Again, read what I said. I'm saying he can do away with ANY suffering, ANY punishment, all together. He deliberately chooses not to, so he is not benevolent.

quote:God is just when he does not go against his nature. Sending people to hell is part of the 'rules'. Because He made the rules He does not break them, what He does is within his rules and nothing to do with his nature.

God can do no wrong, Whatever God does is fair. We are all fallen and because we are all sinners, the 'fair' thing to do is to let us all go to hell.

This is getting tiresome. You keep evading what I said.

What is circular logic? It's a fallacious use of logic where the premise of an argument is used as the proof of that very argument.

How is what you're doing circular logic? Your premise is that god is just. To "prove" that, you claim that everything he does is just. That's circular logic. That's tantamount to me saying that I am god, because since I'm god, I cannot lie. Would you accept that as true? No. Why? Because it is CIRCULAR LOGIC!

quote:As you have seen it is a requrement of which He tells us many a time. It is his law that we do not sin. We and him cannot stop what He has made. But we can choose to go against the law.

It is up to Him who He hates and loves though.

If he hates then he's not benevolent! Do you know what the definition of benevolence is? It's not just doing good... its doing good ALL the time!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Stop patronizing me and tell me. I don't know if you get it, but you look wrong, not I; so this really means nothing to me if I don't "understand" it.

I'm not the one who's basically fleeing from a very reasonable argument against Christianity, you are!

i am not fleeing, and i am not patronizing. i'm just being patient. I really think you will understand. Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing, doesnt matter for right now.

Oh, and just so you know, as far as i know, there is no hidden message in this post.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i am not fleeing, and i am not patronizing. i'm just being patient. I really think you will understand. Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing, doesnt matter for right now.

Oh, and just so you know, as far as i know, there is no hidden message in this post.

My patience for your shenanigans has run thin. Either explain yourself, or don't. I frankly couldn't give a shit either way, since like I said, you are the one who looks like he's fled from the debate not me.

Better yet, instead of wasting my time with this idiocy, why not provide a reply to what I initially said.

I think you should have come with something other than "no. good night." by now...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

My patience for your shenanigans has run thin. Either explain yourself, or don't. I frankly couldn't give a shit either way, since like I said, you are the one who looks like he's fled from the debate not me.

Better yet, instead of wasting my time with this idiocy, why not provide a reply to what I initially said.

I think you should have come with something other than "no. good night." by now...



You know, i just reread the posts incase i possibly worded it wrong, or the possibility that the intent was incorrect...

Nope, the answer is there.

Whether i look like i fled or not, doesnt matter. I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm only trying to help you understand. And part of the intention was included in, "no. good night."

WWHHAATT?!?!?! are you getting at? If you think rust is smart enough to understand what your getting at and quite evidently hasnt done so already... it might just about be time to explain yourself. And while your explaining it to rust, explain to me too. i havent the faintest clue what your on about.

god hates... so he is not benevolent. (by definition)

God is jelous... so he is not perfect (by definition)

The devil is sin and God created the devil (knowing full well what the outcome what be--hes omniscient remember?) so god is evil.

God punishes (hell and all that stuff) so he is not mercifull.

HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY GET MORE SIMPLE THAN THAT?!?!

quote:You know, i just reread the posts incase i possibly worded it wrong, or the possibility that the intent was incorrect...

Nope, the answer is there.

Whether i look like i fled or not, doesnt matter. I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm only trying to help you understand. And part of the intention was included in, "no. good night."

So to make it clear to everybody... you still haven't answered why god would be benevolent. You have not provided any argument against mine, which completely refutes the Christian god existing.

Like I said, I could care less about your shenanigans. My goal here is to show how ridiculous Christianity is, and your lack of a reply to the reasonable argument I provided, helps me in this regard. So, thank you very much.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

WWHHAATT?!?!?! are you getting at? If you think rust is smart enough to understand what your getting at and quite evidently hasnt done so already... it might just about be time to explain yourself. And while your explaining it to rust, explain to me too. i havent the faintest clue what your on about.

god hates... so he is not benevolent. (by definition)

God is jelous... so he is not perfect (by definition)

The devil is sin and God created the devil (knowing full well what the outcome what be--hes omniscient remember?) so god is evil.

God punishes (hell and all that stuff) so he is not mercifull.

HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY GET MORE SIMPLE THAN THAT?!?!

Benevolence

God can do no evil.

From our perspective, it would seem bad to allow something terrible to happen, let alone cause it to happen. But since God is not bad, what He does, though tough to understand sometimes, is right. For example, it was right to send the plague upon the Egyptians. They were holding the Jewish people prisoner. He warned them, they went against them. He is good because it is the right thing to do.

Hate

God hates sin and that rebellion, but he does not punish the sin he punishes the sinner. It is rebellion in the heart. It is breaking God's Law. Sin occurs inside the heart and mind of people. Therefore, God must punish the sinner. Thats because He is right and the ‘person’ who sins offend is God. God cannot ignore the sin because He must abide by the law.

Law

The Ten Commandments have punishments. A law without consequences is not really a law. The law is Him and He made it. If you break it you challenge Him. If God chose to do it differently He would be a liar. He acts according to law. The law states that the punishment is eternal hell because God is eternal.

Say a judge who is a very kind and forgiving person. When a criminal is found guilty, he must pass the judgment upon him, even if that punishment is harmful to the criminal. Does it mean that the judge is not loving or any less loving? It means that the judge has acted righteously, according to the law. Acting in the law does not affect his

Your question now could be that it is unfair to those who have never heard of the bible to go to hell. I’m not sure what God does for them.

• But the bible says Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Devil

Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices.

Some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).

2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's word about righteousness is true.

3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.

4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we'd be asking why God made THAT angel knowing he would fall.

5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.

Children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that I shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.



[This message has been edited by vice (edited 07-07-2005).]

quote:by rust

If he hates then he's not benevolent! Do you know what the definition of benevolence is? It's not just doing good... its doing good ALL the time!

You have applied this ALL-benevolance to God.

God loves

(John 3:16) - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

(Rom. 5:8) - "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

(1 John 4:7-8,16)- "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love...16God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God... "

God hates

(Psalm 5:5) - "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity."

(Psalm 11:5) - "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates."

(Proverbs 6:16-19) - "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

(Hosea 9:15) - "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

His nature is love, but He is also righteous. The very fact that He does not incinerate all of humanity for its sin against Him is due to his loving kindness. God doesn't owe anyone anything.

quote:God hates sin and that rebellion



[This message has been edited by vice (edited 07-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by vice:

Benevolence

God can do no evil.

From our perspective, it would seem bad to allow something terrible to happen, let alone cause it to happen. But since God is not bad, what He does, though tough to understand sometimes, is right. For example, it was right to send the plague upon the Egyptians. They were holding the Jewish people prisoner. He warned them, they went against them. He is good because it is the right thing to do

Wrong. He could have chosen an infinitely better alternative beside the plagues, one that did not cause pain or suffering and was much more effective. If he chose not to, then he's not benevolent. Period. Repeating yourself isn't going to change this.

quote:

Hate

God hates sin and that rebellion, but he does not punish the sin he punishes the sinner. It is rebellion in the heart. It is breaking God's Law. Sin occurs inside the heart and mind of people. Therefore, God must punish the sinner. Thats because He is right and the ‘person’ who sins offend is God. God cannot ignore the sin because He must abide by the law.



The very fact that he punishes, when he does not have to proves that he is not benevolent!

quote:

Law

The Ten Commandments have punishments. A law without consequences is not really a law. The law is Him and He made it. If you break it you challenge Him. If God chose to do it differently He would be a liar. He acts according to law. The law states that the punishment is eternal hell because God is eternal.

Say a judge who is a very kind and forgiving person. When a criminal is found guilty, he must pass the judgment upon him, even if that punishment is harmful to the criminal. Does it mean that the judge is not loving or any less loving? It means that the judge has acted righteously, according to the law. Acting in the law does not affect his



You cannot compare a judge, who has limited resources and a god who has unlimited power.

God, being omnipotent and omniscient MUST have the power to do something that does not cause pain, suffering or punishment, but is as effective or infinitely more effective. That he does not means he's not benevolent.

quote:

Devil

Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices.

Some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).



Wrong. Nothing is "necessary" with an omnipotent and omniscient being. "Necessary" implies that something must happen, which implies that god does not have the power to make it not happen.

So that was certainly not "necessary".

quote: The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's word about righteousness is true.

He could have chosen a better method that does not require sin or the creation of the devil. He didn't. He's not benevolent.

quote:

3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.



If he's omnipotent then he has the power to preserve that free-will and still prevent them from rebelling.

quote:

4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we'd be asking why God made THAT angel knowing he would fall.



And rightfully so since he does not have to create another angel to fall.

quote:

5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.



Well that's YOUR problem, not ours. It us up to YOU to explain them or your religion remains unreasonable and illogical.

quote:

Children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that I shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.



Bad analogy. We're not omnipotent. He supposedly is.

quote:Originally posted by vice:

You have applied this ALL-benevolance to God.

[...]

His nature is love, but He is also righteous. The very fact that He does not incinerate all of humanity for its sin against Him is due to his loving kindness. God doesn't owe anyone anything.



Quoting those ridiculous passages does nothing but support my case:

"Hate" is the opposite of "love". So if god "hates", at ANY point in time, then he is not ALL loving. He is not benevolent. So actually, I should be thanking you for showing just how your own bible refutes Christianity. Thank you.

Also, you have completely evaded all the arguments I have made who completely show how the Christian god cannot exist, above.

I suggest you start refuting them, because you and Christianity are looking bad; especially when you refute yourself.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-07-2005).]

QUOTEOriginally posted by Rust:

So to make it clear to everybody... you still haven't answered why god would be benevolent. You have not provided any argument against mine, which completely refutes the Christian god existing.

yes i did answer.

the arguement is there and so is the answer

Like I said, I could care less about your shenanigans.

They arent shenanigans. But i am sorry that you could care less.

quote:yes i did answer.

the arguement is there and so is the answer

Why are you doing this? Really. Why? You're making yourself look like a fool.

You have not answered anything. You said "no. good night." And that's it, that doesn't answer anything. That is a pathetic mono-syllabic reply on your part done to do the opposite of answering me: to escape the very legitimate argument against Christianity in the thread.

quote:They arent shenanigans. But i am sorry that you could care less.

What else should I call you not replying with anything coherent? What should I call numerous requests on my part for you to explain yourself, and you not doing so, when its clear to others beside me, that you aren't making sense? Do you prefer "bullshit"? Fine. My patience for your bullshit as run thin.

But once again, thank you fir allowing me to make your inability to answer me, even more evident.

God is by definition omnibenevolent.

God is not that nice of a guy.

He is the nicest guy.

[This message has been edited by One.Lost.J.Man (edited 07-08-2005).]

"Children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that I shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.



Bad analogy. We're not omnipotent. He supposedly is."



true... very bad analogy. try this on for size. You go forward in time and see that if you have kids at time X they will turn out to be axe murderers to kill you and take over the world influencing the perfect utopia which you created and corrupting the minds of those who share the perfect dream of your world. You'd be pretty frikin stupid to have those kids then wouldn't you?? Well thats exactly what god did when creating the devil now ainit??

and dont forget this: god created everything, emotions included. that would mean he created jelousy, hatred, malice and the whole 'ruddy lot. real nice of him http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

but wait! here comes the lecture on how he HAD to torment everyone for reasons we do not understand followed by another post saying the answer is clear on one of the 150-odd replies to this post. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why are you doing this? Really. Why? You're making yourself look like a fool....

...But once again, thank you fir allowing me to make your inability to answer me, even more evident.

You've pointed this out numerous times. (my foolishness; my fleeing and evading; my helping you prove Christianity wrong and God non-existant)

So, aside from the possibility that you point to i.e. that i havent answered and am fleeing, there is another possibility: that i have made a point and have done so with the purpose/motivation of trying to help you see.

Consider all the times since you have noticed my posts and replies on TOTSE (not just to you, but to the replies as a whole), would you agree that i have indicated my passion for my belief in God?

Would you describe me as trying to "pwn" (boy i hate that term) anyone?

Have i ever tried to make points via illustration or examples?

Do you think it is possible that my motivation is less about defending my foolishness and defense of God's Word, and more about trying to help people see and understand (serfing and sowing)?

Would you agree that there are (atleast) two possible reasons that i answered the way that i answered?

Possible "reasons" are mean nothing in this case, since it is also possible that you're a pawn of Satan trying to make Christianity look foolish. So how in the world do I know what it is you're trying to do? I don't, that's why I want you to explain yourself! This isn't rocket science extreem...

Moreover, answering a very reasonable and very convincing argument against Christianity with, "no. good night." most certainly does not 'help people see and understand'. It does the opposite. You help them understand by explaining not by saying "no" and leaving.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by One.Lost.J.Man:

God is by definition omnibenevolent.

God is not that nice of a guy.

He is the nicest guy.



Nice guys don't kill people, or send people to eternal damnation.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nice guys don't kill people, or send people to eternal damnation.

Then whoever kills people and sends them to eternal damnation, must not be God.

[This message has been edited by One.Lost.J.Man (edited 07-09-2005).]

If god exists outside of time then how did it find the time to create the universe? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by One.Lost.J.Man:

Then whoever kills people and sends them to eternal damnation, must not be God.



'bout bloody time someone figured that out...

and extreem, i seem to agree with rust. what do you hope to gain by saying "ive answered your question somewhere in this thread... go find it"?? seriously if thats all you can say, we're not interested in playing bloody hide and seek.

If we have free will that must mean that God is not omnipotent. And that right now there are six billion things beyond his control and their have been billions more over the course of history.

quote:Originally posted by One.Lost.J.Man:

Then whoever kills people and sends them to eternal damnation, must not be God.



Or the whole concept of "hell", "eternal damnation", and "god" is wrong.

Either way, Christianity is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

and extreem, i seem to agree with rust. what do you hope to gain by saying "ive answered your question somewhere in this thread... go find it"?? seriously if thats all you can say, we're not interested in playing bloody hide and seek.



The way i have it set up, Rust wins. But he also has the potential to win more.

He can leave it at, "xtreem is a fool". Rust wins.

or

By me looking the fool, Rust has the ability to look and never say whether he found or not.. thus keeping me in the fool status.

If he finds AND understands on his own (without arguements), he has the possibility of gaining belief. And with that, then the possibility of salvation. (without credit to me)

If he finds AND understands, but does not agree; he can still call me 'fool'.

If he ends up believing sometime before he dies, he also has the opportunity to win even more. By sharing his (new) faith. (That's technically not correct/complete, but it's as close as i feel like going into).

Now, let's pretend that i do give non-hidden arguements and that i win the debate. Chances are that he (and everyone else that reads it) will look at it academically. Not coming to faith, but feeling that his debate skills need honing.

by not debating, only i lose face. but with the possibility of the great gains for Rust, it's very worth it.

I don't even understand this hidden message, nor can fathom how it could possibly be in the posts you made, and you expect me to find salvation in them? Sorry, but a hidden meaning in a post on a online message board isn't going to convert anyone; if it does I pity them.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I don't even understand this hidden message, nor can fathom how it could possibly be in the posts you made, and you expect me to find salvation in them? Sorry, but a hidden meaning in a post on a online message board isn't going to convert anyone; if it does I pity them.



Then i stay the fool.

Fair enough?

you know i realy dont think the chances are high that rust or anyone else (myself included) are going to have the time to dig through all 160 replies to this post to find out what you're on about. what your doing is tantamount to saying "i cant be bothered answering your question, please go find the answer some place else". if this be the case you realy shouldnt bother posting here. Its like being a translator and then throwing a dictionary at your employer saying "you figure it out".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Then i stay the fool.

Fair enough?

WHAT THE HELL IS IT YOU'VE BEEN SMOKING?!?!?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Then i stay the fool.

Fair enough?

Not only you, but Christianity as well.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

WHAT THE HELL IS IT YOU'VE BEEN SMOKING?!?!?



Marlboro lights lol

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

If god exists outside of time then how did it find the time to create the universe? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

because time is a human concept u spastic...



time - we dont know what it is we just know it is. thyere fore it is a means of existance rather than a godly creation

[This message has been edited by Lou Reed (edited 07-09-2005).]

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Then i stay the fool.

Fair enough?

YES

i catch ur drift

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Not only you, but Christianity as well.

I doubt very much that Christianity hinges on my answers.. even in TOTSE. As i'm sure the thread "Have you changed your beliefs since Totse" shows (i only read the first half dozen or so). And since i've said that i do not have the authority or the power to convert/convince someone AND that all i can do is spread seeds and work the soil, it is up to God to handle the rest in His time and in His way.

You, like it or not, a representative of Christian beliefs and Christian knowledge. If you do not / cannot explain this argument agaisnt the Christian god, and thus against Christianity, then it suffers as well.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You, like it or not, a representative of Christian beliefs and Christian knowledge. If you do not / cannot explain this argument agaisnt the Christian god, and thus against Christianity, then it suffers as well.

That would be true if there were no God.

That might be true if i were the only or one of the only Christians.

Absolutely not. If there is an argument against Christianity and it stands un-refuted, not even dealt with, then Christianity as a movement suffers. Period.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Absolutely not. If there is an argument against Christianity and it stands un-refuted, not even dealt with, then Christianity as a movement suffers. Period.

God, The Sovereign God of christianity (not a deistic god) is the One in control. Therefore, the seeds only germinate and take root if He allows.

What you think (atleast for now) was un-refuted and not dealt with, was. I dont know if this seed is intended for you, but i do know that this was the time, place and way to sow... and i dont even choose the seeds.

I wish you knew me face to face. You would know that i am not a bullshitter. You might not agree or believe me, but you would know for certain that i am not lying. The answer is in those posts, and i am not allowed to explain. That seed is for whom ever sees it. There is no shenanigans and no BS, it's there and it was not constructed by me. I assume the seed is for you, because you (in my opinion) are the smartest person in this forum (and i'm not saying that to butter you up. Infact, i think it is a stumbling point that i pity), and it is obscure, but it's there.

One would think the seed would be me pushing you to defend Christianity; to not let it die the humiliating death it's dying in this argument.

But no, it's some obscure meaning, in an obscure post, which I'm not going to read ever again... if you or your god want to convert me, it's going to take a lot more than that.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

you know i realy dont think the chances are high that rust or anyone else (myself included) are going to have the time to dig through all 160 replies to this post to find out what you're on about. what your doing is tantamount to saying "i cant be bothered answering your question, please go find the answer some place else". if this be the case you realy shouldnt bother posting here. Its like being a translator and then throwing a dictionary at your employer saying "you figure it out".

Dude, I totally got it.

Every reply (and lack there of) since his disappearing was a reflection of his own viewpoint on the topic at hand...essentially a reflection of how he percieves it works. This is just in regard to omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence though.

"Whether i answer then, now or later does not mean i am giving into Rust. Sure, it could have been handled differently, but that does not mean that i do not care."

This is his take on benevolence. He's saying that God could have done things differently, but the lack of him doing so doesn't mean he isn't caring about it. God's benevolence is in his final judgment (one step process for eternal salvation...pretty cool, IMO), not the conditions of a realm he left to man.

"Rust, you are pretty smart, so i am surprised that you dont understand...

i'll keep waiting, i know you'll get it.

BTW, there is an answer in this post to, but this one is not about benevolence."

This is about omniscience and free will. Problem is, Rust didn't get it, so it kind of faltered. But were xtreem omniscient, he could have claimed Rust wouldn't have gotten it, despite it being Rust's perceptions and experiences that lead to his mind choosing to ignore one of the possible meanings. AKA, xtreem knowing what will happen does not change that he did not force it to happen.

"no. good night."

Forgot this part...I think, just think...not even slightly sure on this...but I think the intent here was that sometimes actions have a meaning that isn't apparent. Essentially a decent way of explaining that while we may not see a reason behind an action that seems ridiculous, it may actually be done with a good intent.

I'm done here. Correct me if I was wrong xtreem.

Too Much Time On Your Hands.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

you know i realy dont think the chances are high that rust or anyone else (myself included) are going to have the time to dig through all 160 replies to this post to find out what you're on about. what your doing is tantamount to saying "i cant be bothered answering your question, please go find the answer some place else". if this be the case you realy shouldnt bother posting here. Its like being a translator and then throwing a dictionary at your employer saying "you figure it out".

Do you happen to know off the top of your head how many times Xtreem and I have to repeat ourselves on this forum, particularly to Rust ?

Since he demands lengthy, detailed responses (based on the nature of his debating skills), the posts are often long and tedious.

In light of this, it would be nice if people would have some kind of respect for that devotion to posting, and READ THEM when they are posted.

If you can't extend even that small courtesy, why should we go back and repeat ourselves ?

You can't say, "I wasn't paying attention. Post it again." over and over. It's rude, and could possibly be construed as a tactic to divert attention from the actual debate at hand, which in this case it has.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

One would think the seed would be me pushing you to defend Christianity; to not let it die the humiliating death it's dying in this argument.

But no, it's some obscure meaning, in an obscure post, which I'm not going to read ever again... if you or your god want to convert me, it's going to take a lot more than that.



C'mon, Xtreem...can't you see he's begging you to save him here ?

*grin*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Too Much Time On Your Hands.

I tabbed to page 4, saw there was a dispute, checked the couple posts in question, and figured it out...all in the timeframe of about 45 seconds. What consumed time was typing it out.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



I'm done here. Correct me if I was wrong xtreem.

Amazing!! Good job! Almost the whole thing. 99%... actually 100%, but i'll explain that now... and this is from honesty, but i'm going to be brief.

the only part that you could not have gotten was my motive from the start i.e. "no, good night", was my motive at that point.

since i have, at times, signed off due to work, family, etc., i had the intention to answer the next day, with a long, tedious arguement, that would go back and forth. And i really (at that point) had felt that Rust would have waited for a response... although it was abrupt, it really was not out of character. When i realized that i was wrong, i had decided that i would not answer at all.. i said, fuck it, it aint worth it(like i said, honest).

When i answered Paradise, i started with the intent of thinking, ok fine, lets go through all the same arguements for the umpteenth time...i started responding to Paradise, and i only saw that it applied AFTER i had hit 'submit reply' button... and that with a few exceptions, that happened on all of those.. i didnt see it until after i hit the button.



Now, one final note... and this is, again, being completely honest...brutally even.

The whole while, i had doubts. Is this really what i'm supposed to put? Will anyone get this? If someone gets this, and Rust rips it apart, how can i save face? (i'm hoping that i get this posted before Rust replies, since the "backdoor" that my doubt showed me, is i could always say, "no, that was not what i meant".. if i post before Rust can respond, then my backdoor is shut. i can not claim that that the answer was not seen.)

But i think this shows how God is in control.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



"Whether i answer then, now or later does not mean i am giving into Rust. Sure, it could have been handled differently, but that does not mean that i do not care."

This is his take on benevolence. He's saying that God could have done things differently, but the lack of him doing so doesn't mean he isn't caring about it. God's benevolence is in his final judgment (one step process for eternal salvation...pretty cool, IMO), not the conditions of a realm he left to man.



Bad reasoning.

If he does not reply, it does mean he does not care, unless he has a reason for not replying, other than not caring. That reason could be that he is tired, sleepy, etc.

Yet, since god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then it would take the exact amount of energy and time to do something, and to not do something. Thus, that he does nothing rests solely on what he wishes to do; on his whim, and not on other circumstances like it would in the case of extreem.

Thus, if we suffer, then it means he deliberately chosed that we suffer. He's not benevolent.

quote:Rust, you are pretty smart, so i am surprised that you dont understand...

i'll keep waiting, i know you'll get it.

BTW, there is an answer in this post to, but this one is not about benevolence."

This is about omniscience and free will. Problem is, Rust didn't get it, so it kind of faltered. But were xtreem omniscient, he could have claimed Rust wouldn't have gotten it, despite it being Rust's perceptions and experiences that lead to his mind choosing to ignore one of the possible meanings. AKA, xtreem knowing what will happen does not change that he did not force it to happen.

If he knew I wouldn't get it, then it would have been impossible for me to get, since if I did, I would have shown that he didn't "know" that to begin with. This had already been covered.

quote:no. good night."

Forgot this part...I think, just think...not even slightly sure on this...but I think the intent here was that sometimes actions have a meaning that isn't apparent. Essentially a decent way of explaining that while we may not see a reason behind an action that seems ridiculous, it may actually be done with a good intent.

Who's good intent? God's idea of "good intent" is for me to suffer? Great, he deserves the title of "benevolent" why exactly...?

extreme's "good intent"? His idea of "good intent" is leading me into this wild goose chase, which amounted to nothing at the end?

------

You guys are turning senile.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-10-2005).]

"You guys are turning senile."

Hey, I was just trying to look at the text from xtreem's viewpoint. I'm far from senile for grasping somebody's intent, however much I disagree with it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

If he does not reply, it does mean he does not care, unless he has a reason for not replying, other than not caring. That reason could be that he is tired, sleepy, etc.

Yet, since god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then it would take the exact amount of energy and time to do something, and to not do something. Thus, that he does nothing rests solely on what he wishes to do;

As jackkaetch had said in a past post, "sometimes no answer IS an answer".

But you are right, with God being omniscient, He not only would know what we are going to do, but also knew how He will answer/handle things for eternity AND when He would answer/handle things. And He is unchanging.

But with His omnipotence, He has the power to seperate His knowledge from our fatalism, thus allowing us to have free will (actually, some free will. As you know, Rust, i think we have very limited free will. Limited to the choice of belief or unbelief).

Thus, if we suffer, then it means he deliberately chosed that we suffer. He's not benevolent.

Why does suffering automatically equal non-benevolence? We have the ability to grow/learn/become stronger through suffering.

I realize that your answer will be something along the line of: God could allow us to grow-- to teach us, without causing suffering. But the fact that He COULD have did it that way, means ONLY that He could have did it that way... it does not mean that He could not have did it the way it is.

If he knew I wouldn't get it, then it would have been impossible for me to get, since if I did, I would have shown that he didn't "know" that to begin with. This had already been covered.

You are right, it has been covered. And to the point you make, i agree. All things are God's Will. But also covered, is that God's eternal, unending knowedge can be seperate from our free will by His eternal, unending power (and knowledge). I think in another thread, you said something to the effect that God -with His Omni-nature(s) can (would be able to) do the illogical.

Those illogical things, are only illogical from our finite perspective.

quote:no. good night."

Who's good intent? God's idea of "good intent" is for me to suffer? Great, he deserves the title of "benevolent" why exactly...?

extreme's "good intent"? His idea of "good intent" is leading me into this wild goose chase, which amounted to nothing at the end?

God's intent. i dont know how to answer this any better than i've tried already.

You guys are turning senile.

My wife sometimes tells me that too. Oh well.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Why does suffering automatically equal non-benevolence? We have the ability to grow/learn/become stronger through suffering.

I realize that your answer will be something along the line of: God could allow us to grow-- to teach us, without causing suffering. But the fact that He COULD have did it that way, means ONLY that He could have did it that way... it does not mean that He could not have did it the way it is.

That's exactly what makes it non-benevolent! The fact that he could have chosen a better alternative, which does not cause us suffering, hurt or discomfort but deliberately decided not to, not because of some other reason, but because he wanted us to suffer!

quote:

You are right, it has been covered. And to the point you make, i agree. All things are God's Will. But also covered, is that God's eternal, unending knowedge can be seperate from our free will by His eternal, unending power (and knowledge). I think in another thread, you said something to the effect that God -with His Omni-nature(s) can (would be able to) do the illogical.

Those illogical things, are only illogical from our finite perspective.

Correct, he would be able to do so.

quote:

God's intent. i dont know how to answer this any better than i've tried already.



God's intent is obviously evil if he chose for us to suffer when he had absolutely no other reason to. It is his wish that we suffer. That's malevolence not benevolence.

You don't know how to answer, because there is no answer. The Christian god cannot exist.

I love you Rust. You've articulated and stated my own thoughts far better than I have been able to. Just as, apparently, Digital_Saviour can't understand why you don't "get it", I can't understand how anyone can look at your reasoned, logical arguments, then reply with a post that completely misses the point, and STILL believe in their obviously human religion.

Good Job.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

A man in 2007 will eat an apple. I know this. This will happen no matter what. Nothing can possibly change this even from happening.

Now the question is, did I make him eat that apple? Does my knowledge force him into a decision he wouldn't make normally?

Because you knwo he will eat the apple he dosen't have a choice. If people had a choice between two or more things then no one (INCLUDING g0d) would be able to see the future. You COULD predict the future, but you couldn't KNOW the future. Any one can predict something.

In my opinion free will and omniscience CAN exist as long as the person knowing the future does not influence it.

I posted this before but got no replies so here goes again:

You're driving down a road and come to an intersection which goes left, right and straight. Your initial intention was to go straight but that road is blocked because of a bus crash so you can go left or right only. Now god knows which way your going to go. and you are by all means free to choose which way. so you go left. God knew you'd do this before. you could have gone right if you wanted to, in which case god would have known that. But you turn left, under your own will, and you can still reverse back if you want to. Just because god KNOWS what your going to do he isnt forcing it on you. see there realy is only one possible outcome to anything and that outcome is the one god knows of... it is also YOUR CHOICE. so both very plainly can exist.

any counter arguments please post in the freewill/omniscience thread.

having gotten that out of the way... can we go back to the very first post and see if there are still any arguments against god being evil?

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

I love you Rust. You've articulated and stated my own thoughts far better than I have been able to. Just as, apparently, Digital_Saviour can't understand why you don't "get it", I can't understand how anyone can look at your reasoned, logical arguments, then reply with a post that completely misses the point, and STILL believe in their obviously human religion.

Good Job.

Because there is one thing Rust cannot refute: the Holy Spirit.

If I had never experienced it, I couldn't believe in Christianity, either.

There are many people on this forum that are just as skilled and articulate as Rust is, so I find it pretty silly of you to say that because you AGREE with Rust, only his arguments make sense.

My arguments make sense to me, just as Napoleon's make sense to him, and Xtreem's make sense to him as well.

No need to insult our intelligence, simply because you "don't get" our position.

quote:Posted by Rust:

That's exactly what makes it non-benevolent! The fact that he could have chosen a better alternative, which does not cause us suffering, hurt or discomfort but deliberately decided not to, not because of some other reason, but because he wanted us to suffer!

A better alternative according to who ? You are still basing your opinion on what is good and evil for MAN, not God.

God's PURPOSE is for good, and that encompasses all things. Even suffering...

To God, our suffering is finite, and serves a purpose, which is good. It is not the suffering that is good, necessarily, but the outcome (as Xtreem mentioned: growing, learning).

God set everything up the way He did for a reason, whether we understand that reason or not. It MUST have had to be done this way, because He can see all possibilities, and this is the way He chose.

When God originally designed man, he was perfect. Without flaw, or capacity to suffer. This included free will. Since free will was the way in which we chose SELF over God, free will was what introduced suffering and pain into humanity. God created free will, which was perfect and good, and man corrupted it. God knew man would corrupt it, because He knows everything.

What then should we conclude ? That God is stupid ? That God is a liar ? That God is not benevolent ? Or that He simply doesn't exist ?

I already know what you will say, because you have put God inside of a man's box.

You think you have a better plan for the way things should be run. But you are one tiny little man, and as intelligent as you are, your intelligence is no match for God's.

Your problem is humility, not logic. You use logic to mask it, but you have a humility problem.

I don't mean that to be insulting in the slightest bit. I could be lying about that, but I am being honest...I mean you no offense. That is simply what I see.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

A better alternative according to who ? You are still basing your opinion on what is good and evil for MAN, not God.

A better alternative according to ANYBODY, and EVERYBODY. He's omnipotent. He has the power to make an alternative that EVERYBODY think is infinitely better.

quote:

God's PURPOSE is for good, and that encompasses all things. Even suffering...

To God, our suffering is finite, and serves a purpose, which is good. It is not the suffering that is good, necessarily, but the outcome (as Xtreem mentioned: growing, learning).



This has already been covered. He can have the same purpose, the same outcome, without causing suffering. He can do an alternative which is infinitely better. If he chooses not to, he's not benevolent.

quote:

God set everything up the way He did for a reason, whether we understand that reason or not. It MUST have had to be done this way, because He can see all possibilities, and this is the way He chose.



Wrong. If it "must" have been this way, then he's not omnipotent, since that means he couldn't choose another alternative. So which one is it? Is he not omnipotent or not benevolent?

quote:

When God originally designed man, he was perfect. Without flaw, or capacity to suffer. This included free will. Since free will was the way in which we chose SELF over God, free will was what introduced suffering and pain into humanity. God created free will, which was perfect and good, and man corrupted it. God knew man would corrupt it, because He knows everything.

This has, again, already been covered.

quote:

What then should we conclude ? That God is stupid ? That God is a liar ? That God is not benevolent ? Or that He simply doesn't exist ?

I already know what you will say, because you have put God inside of a man's box.

Man's Box? I'm putting him in the same box the bible put him. If I'm wrong, the bible is wrong.

quote:

You think you have a better plan for the way things should be run. But you are one tiny little man, and as intelligent as you are, your intelligence is no match for God's.



This is relevant how? If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to make an infinitely better plan. If he chose not to, then he's not benevolent.

quote:

Your problem is humility, not logic. You use logic to mask it, but you have a humility problem.



1. Please explain what that has anything to do with the argument that god is not benevolent according to the bible.

2. Please explain me this humility problem.

quote:

I don't mean that to be insulting in the slightest bit. I could be lying about that, but I am being honest...I mean you no offense. That is simply what I see.



Nobody asked you for this, so please keep this to yourself, unless you want me to return the favor,

The hypocrisy in this place is so big, that if I said anything remotely like that to you, you would claim that you somehow "know" that I only meant it as an insult, not possibly for the same reasons as you. Pathetic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Because there is one thing Rust cannot refute: the Holy Spirit.



You got that wrong. YOU have to prove it exists. Until you do that idiotic and baseless assertion remains just that, idiotic and baseless.

quote:

There are many people on this forum that are just as skilled and articulate as Rust is, so I find it pretty silly of you to say that because you AGREE with Rust, only his arguments make sense.

My arguments make sense to me, just as Napoleon's make sense to him, and Xtreem's make sense to him as well.

No need to insult our intelligence, simply because you "don't get" our position.

1. Did you read what he said? What part of it is an insult?

"Just as, apparently, Digital_Saviour can't understand why you don't "get it", I can't understand how anyone can look at your reasoned, logical arguments, then reply with a post that completely misses the point, and STILL believe in their obviously human religion."

In other words, he can't understand your arguments, just as you can't understand mine. That's not an insult.

2. His whole post deals with how what I said is what he believes as well, in other words, that he agrees with me. It would be stupid for him not to say what he did if he didn't agree with me... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-18-2005).]

I always wondered how does christianity explain the apendix?

"Because there is one thing Rust cannot refute: the Holy Spirit.

If I had never experienced it, I couldn't believe in Christianity, either."

That's yet another good point. How come you get to experience the holy spirit and we don't?? You yourself said that that is the pivoting point of belief.

"A better alternative according to who ? You are still basing your opinion on what is good and evil for MAN, not God."

this is very very illogical. Your trying to say that what is good for us may not necessarily be what god thinks is good in the grander scheme of things and therefore we should accept whatever gods plan is because its beyond our comprehension. For the purposes of any debate we realy need to define 'good' and 'bad'. For now why dont we just stick with good as being a material or psychological improvement and bad being the opposite. In which case murder, torture and the like are bad and rosperity, wealth happiness and all that slop is good.

In which case, god clearly isn't 'good'.

funny... no one's flamed ^^^that^^^ yet