Ok, let's go

Statement 1 : God is perfect

Statement 2 : God created human as it's own iamge

Statement 3 : As God is perfect, he can not have an equal.

So this means, that God being perfect can't have created the human as he is. That being because humans are not perfect.

So we have two possinilities :

-God didn't create human as it's image

-God is not perfect.

In the first case, God is not a creator, which leads to him not being what he is ment to be in the Bible. This means he is not what Gos is, so he doesn't exist.

In the second case, God doesn't exist either, because he is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, infinilty good and perfect.

So he can't exist. At least as defined in the Bible.



May the Lord pardon me for this Blasphemy...

quote:Originally posted by Scrouaf:

Ok, let's go

Statement 1 : God is perfect

Statement 2 : God created human as it's own iamge

Statement 3 : As God is perfect, he can not have an equal.

So this means, that God being perfect can't have created the human as he is. That being because humans are not perfect.

So we have two possinilities :

-God didn't create human as it's image

-God is not perfect.

In the first case, God is not a creator, which leads to him not being what he is ment to be in the Bible. This means he is not what Gos is, so he doesn't exist.

In the second case, God doesn't exist either, because he is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, infinilty good and perfect.

So he can't exist. At least as defined in the Bible.



May the Lord pardon me for this Blasphemy...

"God created human as it's own iamge"

You have misquoted this statement.

Genesis 1:26 - Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air...etc) NIV

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." NIV

You have created a straw man arguement based on an inaccurate quote.

Firstly, there is much more in the bible that speaks about this and expands on the topic of the purpose of the creation of mankind. You have missed this and oversimplified the topic.

Mankind was also created to be subserveant to God or to serve and worship God. God did not create man to be equal to God and you would have to imply that in order for your arguement to be valid. However, within the bible we see that is not the case. Everything was created according to God's perfect plan especially man's imperfection.

There are many parts of the bible that use fish and fish in the sea as a parable to humankind in this world. In genesis we see God has designed this creation as a shadow of the heavens. God is to heaven and all that dwell in it as man is to earth and all that dwells in it. It is the begining to understanding the realm of the Spirit. (There is much more to this but I can not explain it any further here)

((as a side note - This is also the first hint of a triune God head. Notice the passage said let "us" make man in our image and then goes on to seperate man and woman inside the word "man". This is hinting that God is neither male nor female but complete as both. This is also the begining to understanding what marriage between man and woman is about. Man without woman is incomplete but together they are an image of who God is but be certain they are not Gods. )

Therefore,

God is perfect - correct statement

"God created human as it's own iamge" is a misquote - should say "God created man in his own image" There is a subtle but radical difference between the words "as" and "in" between your quote and how it is in the bible.



"As God is perfect, he can not have an equal." Technically inocorrect - There is a triune God head - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if we undestand the nature of God's makeup as a triune entity then this statement is correct. He doesn't have an equal. With further study in the bible we see that man was not created to be equal to God.



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 10-14-2005).]

The better one would be this:

quote:Assumption (1): God exists.

Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.

Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.

Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.

Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

Premise (2): Evil exists.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))

Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))

Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))

Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))

(Taken from Ebon Musings.)

Both of those were stupid, and some of the conclusions and assumptions make absolutely no sense.

People who spend their time thinking about what "God" thinks about them are pathetic. I will break you for sport.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Both of those were stupid, and some of the conclusions and assumptions make absolutely no sense.

The first is somewhat lacking, but I don't see what's wrong with #2.

quote:Originally posted by Scrouaf:

Ok, let's go

Statement 1 : God is perfect

Statement 2 : God created human as it's own iamge

Statement 3 : As God is perfect, he can not have an equal.

So this means, that God being perfect can't have created the human as he is. That being because humans are not perfect.

So we have two possinilities :

-God didn't create human as it's image

-God is not perfect.

In the first case, God is not a creator, which leads to him not being what he is ment to be in the Bible. This means he is not what Gos is, so he doesn't exist.

In the second case, God doesn't exist either, because he is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, infinilty good and perfect.

So he can't exist. At least as defined in the Bible.



May the Lord pardon me for this Blasphemy...

you are gay please kill yourself

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



The first is somewhat lacking, but I don't see what's wrong with #2.

Somewhat lacking? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I think my 13 year old brother would have no problem finding flaws in that proof.

The major problem with the second proof is premise 5 and conclusion 6. A loving being does not have any obligation to protect their loved ones. Parents love their children, but they don't(most of them at least) shield them from the outside world, so why would we expect God, the ultimate of parents, to do the exact opposite?

It also doesn't take into account that evil would be of humanity's own making, so you couldn't pin the existence of evil on God.

God is evil. Snoopy is proof.

An image is a representation, likeness, reflection, idea...etc.

If someone said you are the image of your father...it doesn't mean you are your father...

Sig_Intel, thanks for your answer.

This post was not really intended to say "God doesn't exist", but more to see where were the flaws in my proof. Actually I have no real opinion about it. Each time I try to think about it, I just give up, because I always get into paradoxes.

BTW, crackhead, I am not gay, I have no will to kill myself. So go get fucked by someone else, thanks.

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist. The burden is on the religious to prove gods existence. You can argue the possibility, but I can argue lack of evidence. Until the day that someone can prove their religion, it's just a book of stories to develope morals amongst society to create a cohesion of ideals so we can become productive to benefit the wealthy.

... or what if God is both "God" and "Satan" and "Christ" combined?

Like Brahma and Shiva, and Vishnu?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



A loving being does not have any obligation to protect their loved ones. Parents love their children, but they don't(most of them at least) shield them from the outside world, so why would we expect God, the ultimate of parents, to do the exact opposite?

An ALL loving god would. You left out the quantifier "all" from your analogy.

God could "shield his creation from the outside world" (to use your analogy) while still recreating the beneffits of not having done so; however illogical or impossible it may sound.

That he does not do so means that he deliberately wants not to, and hence not ALL loving.

Unless of course, your definition of "all loving" is deliberately allowing harm to fall on someone when it is equally time-consuming, energy-consuming, and costly to allow harm to fall on them, as it is to not allow it to fall on them... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Scrouaf:

Ok, let's go

Statement 1 : God is perfect

Statement 2 : God created human as it's own iamge

Statement 3 : As God is perfect, he can not have an equal.

So this means, that God being perfect can't have created the human as he is. That being because humans are not perfect.

So we have two possinilities :

-God didn't create human as it's image

-God is not perfect.

In the first case, God is not a creator, which leads to him not being what he is ment to be in the Bible. This means he is not what Gos is, so he doesn't exist.

In the second case, God doesn't exist either, because he is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, infinilty good and perfect.

So he can't exist. At least as defined in the Bible.



May the Lord pardon me for this Blasphemy...

Let's dig deep.

Gen. 1:26 God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.

Let us, Father, son, Holy spirit.

Man has flesh (Jesus), Spirit (Holy spirit), and Mind (Godhead). God is more than the master mind, he's the one who unexplainably designed this world. We're created with a Mind, body, and spirit.

It goes deeper but I would be here writting forever. If you really want to have spiritual revelation, you'll humble yourself and pray, turn from your wicked ways, Accept Jesus in your heart, and Confess him with your mouth.

Ew, I just got something so I have to type this. You know when God said, "My SPIRIT will not strive with man always, then Jesus said, He'll send us the comforter (the spirit) We got it back because of Christ and we lost it because of man giving dominion over the Satan.

Wow that goes deep too. I love revelation!!!!

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The major problem with the second proof is premise 5 and conclusion 6. A loving being does not have any obligation to protect their loved ones. Parents love their children, but they don't(most of them at least) shield them from the outside world, so why would we expect God, the ultimate of parents, to do the exact opposite?

Are parents perfect? Did parents also create the entire world? Is there any reason that you shouldn't shield your child from the outside world? Parents have to deal with the world as it is; their children should not be shielded only because they must learn how to navigate the outside world. God would certainly not have to do this, and could create a world where shielding wasn't needed to keep someone from evil.

quote:It also doesn't take into account that evil would be of humanity's own making, so you couldn't pin the existence of evil on God.

God could have created a world where everyone was good, no? People seem to think that because Adam chose to evil course that that proves he had "free will", but I don't see why this is any different from Adam choosing the "good" path.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 10-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

People who spend their time thinking about what "God" thinks about them are pathetic. I will break you for sport.

haha, I see snoopy is still putting a great deal of effort in trying to assert how effortlessly cool he is.

quote:The major problem with the second proof is premise 5 and conclusion 6. A loving being does not have any obligation to protect their loved ones. Parents love their children, but they don't(most of them at least) shield them from the outside world, so why would we expect God, the ultimate of parents, to do the exact opposite?

Ideal parents would only let the shield down to the extent that it's good for the child; there are plenty of evil influences in the world which are not good for God's children. And don't give me any of that 'god is testing us' rubbish, that's just a version of the 'the Lord works in mysterious ways' cop-out.

quote:Man has flesh (Jesus), Spirit (Holy spirit), and Mind (Godhead). God is more than the master mind, he's the one who unexplainably designed this world. We're created with a Mind, body, and spirit.

I always thought the spirit was the equivalent of the human mind, and the father was the authoritative "I know what you should be doing and you'd damn well better be doing it" part?

quote:

It goes deeper but I would be here writting forever. If you really want to have spiritual revelation, you'll humble yourself and pray, turn from your wicked ways, Accept Jesus in your heart, and Confess him with your mouth.

Ew, I just got something so I have to type this. You know when God said, "My SPIRIT will not strive with man always, then Jesus said, He'll send us the comforter (the spirit) We got it back because of Christ and we lost it because of man giving dominion over the Satan.

Wow that goes deep too. I love revelation!!!!

You're one of these people who confuses their body chemistry with spirituality, aren't you?

Idiots! Don't you know Christians don't obey logic?

As agnostic or atheist or whatever I am, i dont think discrete mathematics can apply to illogical concepts like God. Remember..DM is for LOGIC.

This is a poor argument. I don’t see why a perfect being cannot create non-perfect beings. You need to define what you mean by “perfect” and what you mean by “in God’s image”. (response to first post)

We are all born imperfect/incomplete. That means we are born with needs.

Needs are defined as states of felt deprivation.

There are two types of needs psychological (love, affection, security, etc) and physical (water, food, sex, etc.)

Every single thing that we do, is because we strive to be more perfect/complete.

The motivation behind everything we do, is to fulfil a need.

Throughout our existence, we will always be slaves to needs, because we can never be complete.

If God is already perfect, then He will never feel any motivation to create anything.

It is irrational for Him to create us to fulfil His own need, whatever that need may be.

quote:Originally posted by Perspicacious:

This is a poor argument. I don’t see why a perfect being cannot create non-perfect beings. You need to define what you mean by “perfect” and what you mean by “in God’s image”. (response to first post)

You're right, but it's the Bible's fault for being so vague, not our fault for interpreting it wrongly. If I wanted to create an image of something, and do it perfectly, I'd want as faithful a representation as I could get. If you interpret it as more a 'vauge approximation of', that's fine, the Bible is FAR from perfect and you can get from it what you will, but to me an 'image' implies faithful representation.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

We are all born imperfect/incomplete. That means we are born with needs.

Needs are defined as states of felt deprivation.

There are two types of needs psychological (love, affection, security, etc) and physical (water, food, sex, etc.)

Every single thing that we do, is because we strive to be more perfect/complete.

The motivation behind everything we do, is to fulfil a need.

Throughout our existence, we will always be slaves to needs, because we can never be complete.

If God is already perfect, then He will never feel any motivation to create anything.

It is irrational for Him to create us to fulfil His own need, whatever that need may be.

This is a good point, actually, though I think there's always traditionally been a divide between needs and desires, where desires are things we can live without and which could actually make us LESS happy if we fulfilled them (see the strict rules on sex for Plato's Guardians, for example), and needs are things like basic food, water, etc that members of a society actually need to function in any way (given this definition I suppose things like 'security' and 'belonging' [though perhaps not 'love'] could be needs, because without them we would not be civilized and therfore not human). However, I don't think this is the same as your 'psychological' and 'physical' because it implies we can do without, say, completely healthy food, or a soft bed, and still be happy (and, taking a common definition of 'good' and 'evil', the society we live in could be 'happy' as a whole if all it's members didn't have these things).

Anyway, my point is, God didn't have the need to create us but perhaps he did have the desire, saw that it would ultimately make him happier, and, as a perfect being, made the right decision and created us.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

An ALL loving god would. You left out the quantifier "all" from your analogy.

God could "shield his creation from the outside world" (to use your analogy) while still recreating the beneffits of not having done so; however illogical or impossible it may sound.

That he does not do so means that he deliberately wants not to, and hence not ALL loving.

Unless of course, your definition of "all loving" is deliberately allowing harm to fall on someone when it is equally time-consuming, energy-consuming, and costly to allow harm to fall on them, as it is to not allow it to fall on them... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)





So you're saying that an all loving being would be obligated to do something? That is impossible because God would have free-will, thus he does not have to do anything.

Assuming that he is obligated, why would he have to protect people from harm. You can't love someone even if they harmed themselves?

Your logic makes absolutely zero sense because it assumes that you can't be an all loving being if you allow harm to befall on that which you love, which is just bad logic. I'll use the parent analogy again. A parent still loves their child after they bring harm upon themselves. God still loves ALL of us after WE bring harm upon ourselves.

This isn't even worth discussing further because your argument makes so many assumption and places an obligation on a God, which you know is impossible, so I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Are parents perfect? Did parents also create the entire world? Is there any reason that you shouldn't shield your child from the outside world? Parents have to deal with the world as it is; their children should not be shielded only because they must learn how to navigate the outside world. God would certainly not have to do this, and could create a world where shielding wasn't needed to keep someone from evil.

Could, but doesn't have to. And if he decides not to, that doesn't change the fact that he is all loving. Just because parents aren't God, that doesn't make the analogy wrong. That's what an analogy is, comparing two different, but similar things. I'd certainly call the love between a parent and child similar to the love that God would have for his "children".

quote:God could have created a world where everyone was good, no? People seem to think that because Adam chose to evil course that that proves he had "free will", but I don't see why this is any different from Adam choosing the "good" path.

God wanted us to be in his image. If that is true, then he wanted us to have free will. This means that he would not choose to create a world without free will, because then we wouldn't be in his image.

I'm not going to get into free will in this thread, because that always opens up a can of worms.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



Ew, I just got something so I have to type this. You know when God said, "My SPIRIT will not strive with man always, then Jesus said, He'll send us the comforter (the spirit) We got it back because of Christ and we lost it because of man giving dominion over the Satan.

Wow that goes deep too. I love revelation!!!!

I just have one question on that. Jesus was speaking to his disciples...how certain are you that what he said extends to others?

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

Anyway, my point is, God didn't have the need to create us but perhaps he did have the desire, saw that it would ultimately make him happier, and, as a perfect being, made the right decision and created us.



Make God happier? I mean God is already perfect. Can He be any happier?

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Make God happier? I mean God is already perfect. Can He be any happier?



No, because's perfect enough to realise what the things are which make Him happy, and to do them. One of those was to create us. I'm saying that if perhaps he hadn't created us, he wouldn't have been happy and therfore not perfect. Just an idea.

quote:Could, but doesn't have to. And if he decides not to, that doesn't change the fact that he is all loving.

It does refute the either idea that he is perfect or that he is all-loving because if he were all-loving he'd create a world where we wouldn't have to experience evil in order to be 'better' unless it were not within his power to do so.

What I'm saying is, the only reason parents, if they were prefect, would let children experience evil is if it would make them better and happier people in the long run, because the nature of evil is that it's necessarily bad. However, something with infinite power could create a world where the things it loves don't need to experience any evil in order to be better and happier in the long run.

As I said "Ideal parents would only let the shield down to the extent that it's good for the child; there are plenty of evil influences in the world which are not good for God's children."

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

No, because's perfect enough to realise what the things are which make Him happy, and to do them. One of those was to create us. I'm saying that if perhaps he hadn't created us, he wouldn't have been happy and therfore not perfect. Just an idea.



So, in other words, you say that God created us to complete Himself. But, as I said earlier, the motivation to do anything is to fulfil a need to be more complete. If God is perfect, that means He is already complete, thus, He can't possibly create us to complete Himself. If your idea is true, that means God is imperfect, which might imply that He is not omniscient or omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Originally posted by sp0rkius:

No, because's perfect enough to realise what the things are which make Him happy, and to do them. One of those was to create us. I'm saying that if perhaps he hadn't created us, he wouldn't have been happy and therfore not perfect. Just an idea.



So, in other words, you say that God created us to complete Himself. But, as I said earlier, the motivation to do anything is to fulfil a need to be more complete. If God is perfect, that means He is already complete, thus, He can't possibly create us to complete Himself. If your idea is true, that means God is imperfect, which might imply that He is not omniscient or omnipotent.



I'm asserting that God may have created us to fulfil a desire that cropped up within His mind at a certain time. And don't tell me a perfect being would have no desires, what good is life if we don't have desire to drive us?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



So you're saying that an all loving being would be obligated to do something? That is impossible because God would have free-will, thus he does not have to do anything.



If he is to remain an all-loving being, yes. Unless of course, we assume that being can do the illogical.



quote:Assuming that he is obligated, why would he have to protect people from harm. You can't love someone even if they harmed themselves?



Again, you ignore the adjective ALL. You would be obligated ti protect them from harm, if you're ALL loving, and moreover, if protecting them from harm has the same cost (in time, energy, etc.) as not protecting them.

quote:

Your logic makes absolutely zero sense because it assumes that you can't be an all loving being if you allow harm to befall on that which you love, which is just bad logic. I'll use the parent analogy again. A parent still loves their child after they bring harm upon themselves. God still loves ALL of us after WE bring harm upon ourselves.

This isn't even worth discussing further because your argument makes so many assumption and places an obligation on a God, which you know is impossible, so I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

The argument is certainly not illogical, which is why you didn't point out any logical inconsistencies.

If letting harm fall of on them costs the same time, effort, energy, money, et cetera, as protecting them, and he deliberately decides to allow harm to fall on them, then he cannot be considered all loving.

Again, unless you consider "all loving" to be defined as "deliberately allowing harm to fall on someone, when one has the capabilities to stop that harm from hapenning, capabilities which would spend the same amount of energy, time, and effort whether you protect them or not."

That is quite simply a ludicrus definition. The fact that you're even thinking of using it shows the lengths your willing to take this ridiculous argument.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I'm asserting that God may have created us to fulfil a desire that cropped up within His mind at a certain time. And don't tell me a perfect being would have no desires, what good is life if we don't have desire to drive us?

If anyone is perfect, he/she will have zero desire. Don't argue, this is basic psychology. :P Because we are imperfect, that's why we have desires. I think the meaning of life is to live life to the fullest by being as perfect as we can be.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I'm asserting that God may have created us to fulfil a desire that cropped up within His mind at a certain time. And don't tell me a perfect being would have no desires, what good is life if we don't have desire to drive us?

If anyone is perfect, he/she will have zero desire. Don't argue, this is basic psychology. :P Because we are imperfect, that's why we have desires. I think the meaning of life is to live life to the fullest by being as perfect as we can be.



"Don't argue, psychology is fact, it's a real science, honest!"?

You can't just make a statement like "because we are imperfect, that's why we have desires". You don't even state what 'perfect' might be. Perfect for what? Imperfect as in incomplete? Well what would be a 'complete' being? One with desires!

I'm arguing that a mind needs desire to be perfect. Desires drive us. Without desire we'd be less than machines.

EDIT: I think the meaning of life is to live life to the fullest by filling it with colourful and interesting experiences, and to be who you want to be. How can you be who you want to be without the desire to be a certain way? How can you have interesting experiences without a capacity for interest (a desire for learning of all kinds - a love of knowledge, a philosophic attitude! Surely that's not a bad thing?)

If God is love, well what is love without desire?

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I'm asserting that God may have created us to fulfil a desire that cropped up within His mind at a certain time. And don't tell me a perfect being would have no desires, what good is life if we don't have desire to drive us?

If anyone is perfect, he/she will have zero desire. Don't argue, this is basic psychology. :P Because we are imperfect, that's why we have desires. I think the meaning of life is to live life to the fullest by being as perfect as we can be.





So living life to the fullest is to desire nothing, or as close to nothing as possible?

quote:Could, but doesn't have to. And if he decides not to, that doesn't change the fact that he is all loving. Just because parents aren't God, that doesn't make the analogy wrong. That's what an analogy is, comparing two different, but similar things. I'd certainly call the love between a parent and child similar to the love that God would have for his "children".

He certainly doesn't have to, but if you have the capacity to prevent evil and do not it you are hardly all-good/all loving.

And analogies can be flawed. It isn't wrong just because there are differences, but because these differences are crucial to the whole concept and, in this case, don't work.

quote:God wanted us to be in his image. If that is true, then he wanted us to have free will. This means that he would not choose to create a world without free will, because then we wouldn't be in his image.

I'm not going to get into free will in this thread, because that always opens up a can of worms.

Alright, but just two things:

1.) He had to've started somewhere with Adam. Adam had a personality, which God made. This personality was the type with the desire to choose evil, apparently. It wouldn't invalidate free will if God had created an Adam with a "good" personality. He'd still have free will, he just wouldn't want to do evil - just as this Adam apparently had free will and did want to do it.

2.) God is omnipotent. He could even do things that seem illogical from this perspective, right? So he could've easily made an all-good world with free agents.

i ahte stupid people --> if you think you have PROOF that god exist/doesn't exist, someone else has already came up with it, or there is a hole in your thinking, THERE IS NO PROOF!

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

i ahte stupid people --> if you think you have PROOF that god exist/doesn't exist, someone else has already came up with it, or there is a hole in your thinking, THERE IS NO PROOF!

1.) Your grammar and spelling suck.

2.) Someone else "has already came up with it" or there is a hole in your thinking... well, if it's the former that doesn't mean that there's no proof, does it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Desire is the product of an unsatisfied state, which result from limitation. Something that no omnimax perfect entity is subject to.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If letting harm fall of on them costs the same time, effort, energy, money, et cetera, as protecting them, and he deliberately decides to allow harm to fall on them, then he cannot be considered all loving.

This is the part that is illogical. This is the most inane conclusion I've ever seen anyone make. It makes zero logical sense, because it supposes that you have to help someone to the fullest of your ability to love them, which is false.

Suppose you could decide the life of another person. Let's call him Joe Blog.

You can decide between him:

A.) Living a happy, fulfilling life, achieving his dreams, and dying at a ripe old age, passing on sage advise and great wisdom to his children while feeling that his lifeime goals have been achieved with nothing more to do or pursue and pass on completely content.

or...

B.) Contracting severe acute lymphocytic leukemia and fighting a hopeless uphill battle with the terminal illness throughout his life, missing out on major experiences due to disability, taking hundreds of pills a day, constantly wracked by pain, and enduring a tortured existence until his body finally gives way and he succumbs to a horrible and completely unjustifiable fate.

You can choose between options ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other. It takes no more time or effort to make one choice as it does another, or to make no choice at all.

Anyone that would choose B over A has made a very powerful statement about themselves. In society we call them sadists and schadenfreudes.

So why should we make any exceptions when a deity makes such choices? People can be influenced, but perfect omnimax entities can choose any possible path. To choose path B over A explicitly demonstrates a show of preference.

Which brings us to Maltheism.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Desire is the product of an unsatisfied state, which result from limitation. Something that no omnimax perfect entity is subject to.

Thanks for explaining.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



So living life to the fullest is to desire nothing, or as close to nothing as possible?

That's right.

Everything we do, is in the preparation to the day when we can say, "Mission Accomplished".

Desire is due to unsatisfaction, because you are deprived of something. Once you already have everything, you won't want anything anymore. But, the trouble is, we have greed.

Give a man a million, he wants another.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

I just have one question on that. Jesus was speaking to his disciples...how certain are you that what he said extends to others?

Well, Hun. It's called the Book of ACTS. We call it the Books of Acts of the Holy Ghost. Paul was not one of the 12, but did he not Show forth signs and wonders? Stephen, Full of faith, was not one of the 12, but did he not show forth Signs and wonders? The great comission is to go into the world and make Disciples. Acts..6:1 And in those days, when the number OF THE DISCIPLES WAS MULTIPLIED, there arod a murmuring of the Gre'-cians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the NUMBER OF DISCIPLES MULTIPLIED in Jerusalem greatly; and a great compant of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Let's Go back to Acts Chapter 1:4 And being addembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, BUT WAIT for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Act 1:8 But ye shall reveived power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Jude'-a and in Sa-ma'-ri-a, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 1:14 These all CONTINUED with ONE ACCORD in PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION, with the woman, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Remember there were 120 in that room, who showed forth signs and wonders, but only 12 disciples. Discples MULTIPLIED. They were praying in that room for 10 days. Acts 2: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a RUSHING MIGHTY WIND, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

The promise of Christ was the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:39 For the promise if unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

But the Key is prayer, and WAITING on the Lord. Some people pray for 30-45 minutes, and they're like, "I didn't see or hear, or get anything." Well, you didn't pray long enough. These 120 people prayed for 10 days until they got it, and after they Got it, they continued in prayer, every day. The problem is, Today we have, Fast everything, But we don't take the TIME out of our day to PRAY to God. It isn't hard. You just PRAY.

You can't say the disciples are limited or the sons of God. Romans tells us those who are called of God are the sons of God, and that the Body is WAITING for the Manifestation of the SONS OF GOD. All are CALLED few are CHOSEN, let's face it, this world isn't going to turn to God until the manifestation of the Sons of God, and that isn't going to happen until we learn to WAIT upon the Lord and fervently and effectually continue in prayer and supplication.



I would edit it, but you can see past typos

[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 10-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

i ahte stupid people --> if you think you have PROOF that god exist/doesn't exist, someone else has already came up with it, or there is a hole in your thinking, THERE IS NO PROOF!

That's right, everything has been thought of before. There have never been any original ideas ever, they were all just 'created' along with the rest of the universe.

quote:Desire is the product of an unsatisfied state, which result from limitation. Something that no omnimax perfect entity is subject to.

No, an unsatisfied state is the product of unfulfilled desire. If God had the desire to create the human race, and then he did, he wouldn't be unfulfilled.

How could you do anything if you didn't have the desire? I mean, you might say "maybe God does things just randomly", but then surely He has the desire to do things randomly? A perfect being doesn't do anything it doesn't want to do, doesn't do anything it doesn't have the desire to do. So either God doesn't do anything or He has desire.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

No, an unsatisfied state is the product of unfulfilled desire. If God had the desire to create the human race, and then he did, he wouldn't be unfulfilled.

How could you do anything if you didn't have the desire? I mean, you might say "maybe God does things just randomly", but then surely He has the desire to do things randomly? A perfect being doesn't do anything it doesn't want to do, doesn't do anything it doesn't have the desire to do. So either God doesn't do anything or He has desire.

It's both.

You are unsatisfied, because a need is not fulfilled. Say you are hungry. You attempt to get rid of the hunger by trying to feed. You cannot find food. You become unsatisfied. But, much more so than before. This is frustration.

quote:Originally posted by Scrouaf:

Ok, let's go

Statement 1 : God is perfect

Statement 2 : God created human as it's own iamge

Statement 3 : As God is perfect, he can not have an equal.

So this means, that God being perfect can't have created the human as he is. That being because humans are not perfect.

So we have two possinilities :

-God didn't create human as it's image

-God is not perfect.

In the first case, God is not a creator, which leads to him not being what he is ment to be in the Bible. This means he is not what Gos is, so he doesn't exist.

In the second case, God doesn't exist either, because he is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, infinilty good and perfect.

So he can't exist. At least as defined in the Bible.



May the Lord pardon me for this Blasphemy...



you forgot something in your argument.

God is perfect

a perfect being can only create or design things that or perfect because to make anything with an inherit flaw a perfect being would lose its "perfectness" aka perfection can only beget perfection

this is more sound than your argument. many people thinks this means a perfect being only knows perfection- not true a perfect being knows OF imperfection but cannot perform any imperfect deed without becoming imperfect. one little thing is all it takes to make a perfect being imperfect.

now we all assume humans are not perfect. so therefore, god cannot be perfect if he created us.

fairly sound? i think so. following the laws of logic this makes sense. but unfortunately part of being god means that you dont have to follow any laws. we cannot even begin to understand the very nature of god(as all the contradictions in religion and wars over it clearly show) so we cannot apply our rules to god.

so in the end god can be perfect. but who says he/she has to be?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is the part that is illogical. This is the most inane conclusion I've ever seen anyone make. It makes zero logical sense, because it supposes that you have to help someone to the fullest of your ability to love them, which is false.





Wrong. Completely wrong.

It supposes that a being that loves would choose to protect his creation, instead of choosing for harm to fall on them, when the two are just as costly. That's not illogical at all, in fact, that's inherent in virtually all modern judicial codes!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Somewhat lacking? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I think my 13 year old brother would have no problem finding flaws in that proof.

The major problem with the second proof is premise 5 and conclusion 6. A loving being does not have any obligation to protect their loved ones. Parents love their children, but they don't(most of them at least) shield them from the outside world, so why would we expect God, the ultimate of parents, to do the exact opposite?

It also doesn't take into account that evil would be of humanity's own making, so you couldn't pin the existence of evil on God.

your objections are invalid. argument by analogy is weak at best, and here it is a real stretch. god is not like people, and you cant' compare gods actions to the actions of people. and i think its clear that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would know that humans would create evil, as you imply. therefore, god created the evil. the problem with i find with god proofs is defining god adequatly. if a definition means your proof doesn't work anymore, you can just change it up a bit, right?

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

It's both.

You are unsatisfied, because a need is not fulfilled. Say you are hungry. You attempt to get rid of the hunger by trying to feed. You cannot find food. You become unsatisfied. But, much more so than before. This is frustration.

So you admit that hunger is a desire for food? What I'm saying is, perhaps God has the desire for food, then he attempts to get rid of hunger by trying to feed, and he can feed instantly because he's perfect. This means he has a motive to act, but he's not imperfect. However, if he never desired anything, then he wouldn't ever do anything, because, being perfect, he'd recognise that he doesn't need to.

quote:we cannot even begin to understand the very nature of god(as all the contradictions in religion and wars over it clearly show) so we cannot apply our rules to god.

You're saying the rules of logic can't apply to God? How very convenient. This is the kind of last-resort bullshit spouted by religious people when they know they're completely wrong, when they truly don't believe, but when they want to hang on desperately to what they know because they are too weak to embrace the idea of the unknown. This is the kind of thinking that spreads prejudice and ignorance - no, scratch that, it is ignorance.

Besides, how can something be perfect if it is illogical?

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

What I'm saying is, perhaps God has the desire for food, then he attempts to get rid of hunger by trying to feed, and he can feed instantly because he's perfect.

But if you're prefect, then you wouldn't be subject to such incomplete states. There would be nothing to self-satisfy because there would be no need for satisfaction. No wants, needs, desires, impulses, longings, etc.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

This means he has a motive to act, but he's not imperfect. However, if he never desired anything, then he wouldn't ever do anything, because, being perfect, he'd recognise that he doesn't need to.

This is why I think that if gods did exist, and was perfect by any objective definition, they would be as signifigant as a marble at the bottom of the ocean. They just exist and don't do anything or affect anything.

Their existence would coincide with ours, and they don't actually do anything. They would be like massless, floating, invisible, undetectable eyes that watch your every move but affect nothing.

Notice I'm speaking in the plural here because multiple gods arbitrarily happening to exist in an uncreated state is just as possible as a single god or no gods at all.

quote:You're saying the rules of logic can't apply to God? How very convenient. This is the kind of last-resort bullshit spouted by religious people when they know they're completely wrong, when they truly don't believe, but when they want to hang on desperately to what they know because they are too weak to embrace the idea of the unknown. This is the kind of thinking that spreads prejudice and ignorance - no, scratch that, it is ignorance.

Yep.

Battleground God (http://tinyurl.com/8bk74)



In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Wrong. Completely wrong.

It supposes that a being that loves would choose to protect his creation, instead of choosing for harm to fall on them, when the two are just as costly. That's not illogical at all, in fact, that's inherent in virtually all modern judicial codes!



WRONG!

There are a lot of things in modern judicial systems that don't make any sense, this is one of them.

The supposition that if you're in a position to help, then you must help is illogical. There is no basis for this reasoning, because it assumes that by not helping someone then you don't love them, which is false.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

WRONG!

There are a lot of things in modern judicial systems that don't make any sense, this is one of them.



How convinient. The majority of the world is wrong, not you.

So may I assume that you are in favor of liberating anyone who has charged based on that reasoning in the United States, and of course, for restitution to be paid to those people for the grave injustice comitted?

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

quote:

The supposition that if you're in a position to help, then you must help is illogical.

He doesn't have to help. He has to help if he is to be called ALL loving.

Again. Unless you define "loving something" as deliberately allowing harm to fall on that something when there is absolutely no reason for it to happen, and when protecting them from that harm is as costly as not protecting them.

You keep evading this, oversimplifying the argument at hand, and even changing it, because you cannot refute it; you know how ridiculous your position is. It seems you'be also resulted to changing the definition being used in the first place.

quote:

There is no basis for this reasoning, because it assumes that by not helping someone then you don't love them, which is false.

You're simplifying the situation on purpose and ignoring the complete point.

You are not ALL loving if you do not help them when there is no reason not to, and when you have the means to do so.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The supposition that if you're in a position to help, then you must help is illogical. There is no basis for this reasoning, because it assumes that by not helping someone then you don't love them, which is false.

But this could be a moot point; the Bible, at least, agrees more with Rust's definition. It states explicitly that because of His great love, God desires to save us.

Of course, if you're not arguing the Christian concept of God this is irrelevant. Just thought I'd point it out.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How convinient. The majority of the world is wrong, not you.

So may I assume that you are in favor of liberating anyone who has charged based on that reasoning in the United States, and of course, for restitution to be paid to those people for the grave injustice comitted?

I'm not going to get into the tiny legal details, but yes I would be in favor of that.

Also, are you honestly suggesting that there is nothing wrong with modern legal systems?

quote:He doesn't have to help. He has to help if he is to be called ALL loving.

There is no logical basis for this reasoning though. You're just pulling this out of thin air.

quote:Again. Unless you define "loving something" as deliberately allowing harm to fall on that something when there is absolutely no reason for it to happen, and when protecting them from that harm is as costly as not protecting them.

You can love someone completely while knowingly allow harm to fall on them. I'd like to know how you couldn't.

quote:You keep evading this, oversimplifying the argument at hand, and even changing it, because you cannot refute it; you know how ridiculous your position is. It seems you'be also resulted to changing the definition being used in the first place.

I'm thinking the exact same thing about you.

If you can help someone, then you must, otherwise you don't really love them.

I really can't believe you think that makes sense. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:You are not ALL loving if you do not help them when there is no reason not to, and when you have the means to do so.

No reason not to?

I think respecting our free will would be reason enough.

quote: posted 10-19-2005 23:03 Click Here to See the Profile for Twisted_Ferret Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote

Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The supposition that if you're in a position to help, then you must help is illogical. There is no basis for this reasoning, because it assumes that by not helping someone then you don't love them, which is false.



But this could be a moot point; the Bible, at least, agrees more with Rust's definition. It states explicitly that because of His great love, God desires to save us.

Of course, if you're not arguing the Christian concept of God this is irrelevant. Just thought I'd point it out.

He does desire to save us according to the Bible, but he does not desire to do everything himself. He's set it up so that we have to play a part in our salvation. You're suggesting that he basically disregard that, which is just ludicrous.

God wants us to save us, but he also wants us to desire to be saved, or so says the bible. If you're going by the bible, then slavation isn't a one way street.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm not going to get into the tiny legal details, but yes I would be in favor of that.

Also, are you honestly suggesting that there is nothing wrong with modern legal systems?

Did I say that? No. Stop putting words in my mouth with these leading questions.

quote:There is no logical basis for this reasoning though. You're just pulling this out of thin air.

Completely wrong. That follows from the very definition of "ALL loving".

quote:You can love someone completely while knowingly allow harm to fall on them. I'd like to know how you couldn't.

Because allowing harm to fall on someone, without any justification, does not conform with the definition of "ALL loving".

quote:I'm thinking the exact same thing about you.

If you can help someone, then you must, otherwise you don't really love them.

I really can't believe you think that makes sense.

Stop making this ridiculous strawmen because they only prove how dishonest you are, or that you have very poor reading skills.

It doesn't mean that you don't love them, it means that you're not ALL LOVING. LOVING and ALL LOVING, are not the same thing.

quote:No reason not to?

I think respecting our free will would be reason enough.

If he's omnipotent he has the power to do both, your argument fails.

quote:You can love someone completely while knowingly allow harm to fall on them. I'd like to know how you couldn't.

So you're saying that, even if we do all he seems to want us to and worship him and pray to him and whetever other bullshit you Christians have arbitrarily made up based on what makes your body release endorphins and adrenaline and that sort of thing, he's still going to allow harm to fall on us anyway? Well that's not going to gain you any converts. Also, it doesn't sound like the actions of a 'loving' entity to me - but then, what does 'loving' actually mean? It's a highly ambiguous word, typically of Christianity: yet more evidence that it's just fairy tales.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

He does desire to save us according to the Bible, but he does not desire to do everything himself. He's set it up so that we have to play a part in our salvation. You're suggesting that he basically disregard that, which is just ludicrous.

God wants us to save us, but he also wants us to desire to be saved, or so says the bible. If you're going by the bible, then slavation isn't a one way street.

1.) He doesn't want harm to fall upon us.

2.) He could save us from harm without any trouble to himself.

3.) He stands by and lets harm fall upon us.

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

In other words, he's defined in such a way that when shit goes down that would implicate noncaring or nonexistence, it is rationalized away.Take coincidences/anecdotal BS and attribute it to a supreme entity.

It begs the question though. If their God didn't exist/watch over people and the entire supernatural creation myth was bunk, what sorts of things would we expect to be different? I submit nothing would change but the actions of the people.

"there are many gods and spirits that are equal" - Psyc's Philosophy 101:5

"just having one is fucking stupid becuz' using the term"god" for just one god is fucking stupid and christians are all fucking emos" - Psyc's Philosophy 101:47

"playing with your penOr isn't a sin" - Psyc's Philosophy 1:1

"jesus was just another human being, nothing more, maybe something less, like an emo" - Psyc's Philosophy 32:9

"jews are douchebags" - Psyc's Philosophy 1:5

"if your insulted at any of the statements made above, you are free to be an emo and bitch about it" - Psyc's Philosophy EndBook:1

"just remember, i won't give a shit" - Psyc's Philosophy EndBook:2

thus my race rules, and no it's not a religion.

Honestly, i can't understand how so many fucking people can get deceived.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



1.) He doesn't want harm to fall upon us.

2.) He could save us from harm without any trouble to himself.

3.) He stands by and lets harm fall upon us.

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

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

You seem to be forgetting free will. This is why he "lets harm fall upon us". He is respecting our free will. If he were to just make everyone happy and take away their free will, then he wouldn't have created us in his image, and there would be no point for our creation.

So you're saying that if we existed on a world without needless evil we wouldn't have free will? I dispute that. After all, I'd still be able to choose whether to have orange juice or Red Stuff at dinner this evening. That's free will.

So your argument is wrong unless you say that God needs us to exercise our free will in a world that includes 'unnecessary' (unnecessary to our development, as negative influences to a child) evil in order to test us, which means that God doesn't understand His creation fully, which means that He isn't perfect.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

So you're saying that if we existed on a world without needless evil we wouldn't have free will? I dispute that. After all, I'd still be able to choose whether to have orange juice or Red Stuff at dinner this evening. That's free will.

So your argument is wrong unless you say that God needs us to exercise our free will in a world that includes 'unnecessary' (unnecessary to our development, as negative influences to a child) evil in order to test us, which means that God doesn't understand His creation fully, which means that He isn't perfect.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying if we lived on a world where evil wasn't an option, then we wouldn't have free will.

Also, God doesn't not understand his creation. He is omnipotent afterall. I think you'll have to explain though why God testing us would equate to him not understanding us.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm saying if we lived on a world where evil wasn't an option, then we wouldn't have free will.

I'm saying that if we lived on a world where going back in time wasn't an option, then we wouldn't have free will. After all, one aspect of the world can determine if we have free will or not... right? We can't go back in time! Our choices are restricted! http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 10-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



You seem to be forgetting free will. This is why he "lets harm fall upon us". He is respecting our free will. If he were to just make everyone happy and take away their free will, then he wouldn't have created us in his image, and there would be no point for our creation.

He can both respect free will and protect us, hence your point is completely wrong and moot, like it was pointed out to you before.

There is no evidence that the

world was created by something

that loves us. Got that?

For people who believe that

the universe was made for them,

by an omnipotent being that loves

them - the next logical step is

to assume that whatever is wrong

with their world is their fault,

by displeasing their perfect god.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying if we lived on a world where evil wasn't an option, then we wouldn't have free will.

Also, God doesn't not understand his creation. He is omnipotent afterall. I think you'll have to explain though why God testing us would equate to him not understanding us.

That's exactly what you're saying. You can't say "that's not what I'm saying" and then say that you were saying what I thought you were saying and then pretend that gets you anywhere at all. Ok, I added in the word 'needless', but that's what we're talking about - God didn't need to put in evil that has no possible benefit to us (ie. not the sort of evil a parent would willingly expose a child to for its own good), and so considering that he did, he must be imperfect. You say that the unnecessary evil is somehow crucial to our free will, and I'm saying that I don't see what it's got to do with which fruit juice I choose at breakfast tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

There is no evidence that the

world was created by something

that loves us. Got that?

For people who believe that

the universe was made for them,

by an omnipotent being that loves

them - the next logical step is

to assume that whatever is wrong

with their world is their fault,

by displeasing their perfect god.

Exactly. We could just as easily say that there's this omnipotent blundering idiot who keeps fucking things up, but humans have used the intelligence they luckily evolved in order to create some sort of reasonable living conditions for themselves. I'd say there's much more evidence for an infinitely stupid God than an infinitely clever one. Just look at the eye - if God designed that, why did he put the cones and rods facing backwards, with a load of nerves in front blocking most of the light, thus vastly imparing the vision and requiring a blind spot for the nerves to get past the sensing layer? That's bat-fuck insane. What an intelligent designer would have done, (eg. the Kodak Corporation) would have been to create a simple and efficient sensing device (eg. the digital camera) without these blatent shortfalls, and maybe laser beams or something. Man is clearly much more intelligent than his blundering 'creator' and therefore I postulate that we created him in our image.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



I'm saying that if we lived on a world where going back in time wasn't an option, then we wouldn't have free will. After all, one aspect of the world can determine if we have free will or not... right? We can't go back in time! Our choices are restricted! http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)



I hope you're not serious and this isn't an actual argument.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

That's exactly what you're saying. You can't say "that's not what I'm saying" and then say that you were saying what I thought you were saying and then pretend that gets you anywhere at all. Ok, I added in the word 'needless', but that's what we're talking about - God didn't need to put in evil that has no possible benefit to us (ie. not the sort of evil a parent would willingly expose a child to for its own good), and so considering that he did, he must be imperfect. You say that the unnecessary evil is somehow crucial to our free will, and I'm saying that I don't see what it's got to do with which fruit juice I choose at breakfast tomorrow.

The ability to choose evil is essential to free will. If you can't choose evil, then you don't have free will. Even if that evil is "needless" or unnecessary to our development as you put it. Just because you have the ability to choose "red stuff" or "orange juice", that doesn't mean you have free will. To have free will you must be able to make any decision, including those that involve unnecessary evil.

Please tell me how the lack of our ability to do evil restricts our free will any more than the lack of our ability to _______ . Free will does not require the ability to choose [i]anything, or we don't have it.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 10-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The ability to choose evil is essential to free will. If you can't choose evil, then you don't have free will. Even if that evil is "needless" or unnecessary to our development as you put it. Just because you have the ability to choose "red stuff" or "orange juice", that doesn't mean you have free will. To have free will you must be able to make any decision, including those that involve unnecessary evil.



Yet since he is omnipotent he can still preserve it, and thus your argument is reduced to nothing. You of course know this, which is why you keep ignoring it in the hopes that people wont notice how shitty your argument really is.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Merchant:

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist.

I like that. Sounds good.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Please tell me how the lack of our ability to do evil restricts our free will any more than the lack of our ability to _______ . Free will does not require the ability to choose [i]anything, or we don't have it.

To make a decision requires that you be able to perform the decisions. We're capable of performing evil. We're not capable of performing the impossible. I'd think that'd be obvious.

Free Will requires the ability to choose. To choose something we have to be able to perform it. I hope that you can connect the rest of the dots from there.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

To make a decision requires that you be able to perform the decisions. We're capable of performing evil. We're not capable of performing the impossible. I'd think that'd be obvious.

Free Will requires the ability to choose. To choose something we have to be able to perform it. I hope that you can connect the rest of the dots from there.

You didn't answer what he said at all.

We cannot shoot lasers out of our eyes. Does that mean that we do not have free will? No? Why not? Because the action that is being restricted has to be physically possible in order for it to be a restriction to our free will? Then god makes it impossible for us to do evil, and thus by that definition, he is not removing our free will sinc evil would in that case be physically impossible and thus our inability to do it (just like our inability to shoot lasers out of our eyes) does not mean free will is restricted.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You didn't answer what he said at all.

We cannot shoot lasers out of our eyes. Does that mean that we do not have free will? No? Why not? Because the action that is being restricted has to be physically possible in order for it to be a restriction to our free will? Then god makes it impossible for us to do evil, and thus by that definition, he is not removing our free will sinc evil would in that case be physically impossible and thus our inability to do it (just like our inability to shoot lasers out of our eyes) does not mean free will is restricted.

Rust said it better than I could have. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Not every action is evil or good. Choosing orange juice or... red juice for breakfast is morally neutral; even if we could not do "evil", we could still choose what to drink for breakfast. We could still think, and still live happy lives - happier, in fact, than if they weren't marred by evil. The lack of evil does not make one a robot.

Something I've never gotten a useful answer to: Why aren't we then "robots" in heaven? Will there be evil in heaven? I think the Bible says that there won't be. Why couldn't we have started off with heaven, then? Some claim that we did but sinned and thus messed it up; what's to prevent us from doing it again, then?

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 10-26-2005).]

To quote uncyclopedia:

"Failure of Goodness and/or Omnipotence

But the above were limited screwups, having to do merely with the wiping out of mankind. More pervasive is the failure of God's superpowers of perfect goodness and/or omnipotence.

The universe could have been created without suffering. Even a contributor to Wikipedia could figure out how to give mankind freewill but still teach flawed, weak mankind to become good and attain salvation...and contributors to Wikipedia are not nearly as smart as they think they are.

For example, a perfectly wise and all-powerful Being could create a universe where each and every soul was led, through reasonably wise and compassionate teachings, to redeem itself and earn Heaven...no matter how long it might take. After all, God is Æternal, so He has more than all the time in the universe to save folks.

Hence the failure: Either God was unable to create such a universe, in which case His superpower of omnipotence failed; or else He really enjoys stuff like giving Sudanese babies diseases which make them shit themselves to death. In which case His superpower of perfect goodness is certainly a big flop. "

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



Anyway, back to the actual argument, your definition of free will is completely ambiguous. What the hell do you mean by free will if it's not my ability to choose whether I have orange juice or the almighty Red Stuff? And how did you reach that definition?

I hope you're not one of those 'God is testing us' people. For one, the aforementioned Sudanese babies with diseases which make them shit themselves to death is not an example of a great way to test someone's character, and also, surely if God were perfect he'd not need to test us. Unless he's doing it for fun.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Not every action is evil or good. Choosing orange juice or... red juice for breakfast is morally neutral; even if we could not do "evil", we could still choose what to drink for breakfast. We could still think, and still live happy lives - happier, in fact, than if they weren't marred by evil. The lack of evil does not make one a robot.

Of course it doesn't make them a robot, and they still can chose and they still have the power of choice. However, they do not have free will. Free will means that they can make any decision in their ability. If they can't do evil, then they don't have free will. I'm not saying that they'll be robots that are pre-programmed, but I am saying that they wouldn't have free will.

quote:Something I've never gotten a useful answer to: Why aren't we then "robots" in heaven? Will there be evil in heaven? I think the Bible says that there won't be. Why couldn't we have started off with heaven, then? Some claim that we did but sinned and thus messed it up; what's to prevent us from doing it again, then?

I don't really now the answer to that, because heaven has never really interested me all that much, thus I don't know much about it. Make a thread about it.

quote:Anyway, back to the actual argument, your definition of free will is completely ambiguous. What the hell do you mean by free will if it's not my ability to choose whether I have orange juice or the almighty Red Stuff? And how did you reach that definition?

Most definitions of anything theological/philosophical will be ambiguous. What's your definition of free will? My definition is the ability to choose without any outside interference or without your choices being limited. I've used this definitino for quite a while now.

The part about ability to choose within your limits has to do with the argument that if we can't do the impossible, then we don't have free will. It has more to do with the definition of "choice" than the definition of "free will". Basically, you can't choose that which isn't in front of you or isn't possible. Free will deals with decisions in front of you. Traveling back in time is not something that is infront of us right now, so our inability to choose it does not mean we don't have free will, it just means that we either will never be able to choose that because it's physically impossible or we aren't advanced enough to where time travel becomes an option.

If God's existence was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then there would be no reason for faith. By grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH. If God was proven beyond all doubt, what choice would we have? We would serve from fear of hell rather than love.

God has angels who love and worship Him because they were created to do so. We were created with a choice.

If the government announced that it would give $1 billion to anyone who asks, would you say no?

quote:Originally posted by HampTheToker:

If God's existence was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then there would be no reason for faith.

Which is why faith is a bunch of bullshit. It's nothing more than overglorified ignorance.

What is so bad about making an informed decision?

quote:Of course it doesn't make them a robot, and they still can chose and they still have the power of choice. However, they do not have free will. Free will means that they can make any decision in their ability. If they can't do evil, then they don't have free will. I'm not saying that they'll be robots that are pre-programmed, but I am saying that they wouldn't have free will.

If they're not able to do evil I hardly see how it's in their ability. I'm not able to speak to the Prime Minister of France, that doesn't mean I'm physically or mentally incapable of doing it, it just means it's not going to happen - I'm physically or mentally incapable of arranging it just like somebody in a world without evil would be physically or mentally incapable of arranging evil. So you're saying I have no free will.

quote:Most definitions of anything theological/philosophical will be ambiguous.

Usually philosophers try to be as precise and unambiguous as possible, and given the cleverness of modern logic, that's pretty damn precise.

quote:Traveling back in time is not something that is infront of us right now, so our inability to choose it does not mean we don't have free will

So if evil were not 'in front of us' we'd still have free will.

quote: Originally posted by HampTheToker:

If God's existence was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then there would be no reason for faith.

Which is why faith is a bunch of bullshit. It's nothing more than overglorified ignorance.

What is so bad about making an informed decision?

Exactly. What people who use the 'faith' argument are essentially saying is: "I have two options. One is clearly far more likely than the other, but I'm going to believe the other because..." well, because if it is true, you're going to heaven. Why else would you believe something that you suspect to be wrong?

It's Pascal's wager to the point of self-deception.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

If they're not able to do evil I hardly see how it's in their ability. I'm not able to speak to the Prime Minister of France, that doesn't mean I'm physically or mentally incapable of doing it, it just means it's not going to happen - I'm physically or mentally incapable of arranging it just like somebody in a world without evil would be physically or mentally incapable of arranging evil. So you're saying I have no free will.

In your example the prime minister would still exist and the ability to talk to him through whatever means would still be available. A world without evil would mean that evil is non-existent. It wouldn't even be known to us because there would be nothing that would suggest it's existence. He's talking about eradicating evil from existence, not just making it not happen, or at least that's what I think he's been suggesting.

Also, if someone's decision making process is impeded which would make them incapable of making a decision that they would otherwise be capable of making, then yes their free will would be limited. This of course depends on other factors, but you get the point.

quote:Usually philosophers try to be as precise and unambiguous as possible, and given the cleverness of modern logic, that's pretty damn precise.

In their reasoning, yes. But most definitions of a theological or philosophical nature are ambiguous, or at least the ones I've seen.

What's a precise and exact definition of free will?

quote:So if evil were not 'in front of us' we'd still have free will.

If evil were to magically be made impossible, then I guess so.

I want to clear something up. Are you suggesting a world where evil never exists or a world where evil exists and where just not allowed to do it?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I want to clear something up. Are you suggesting a world where evil never exists or a world where evil exists and we're just not allowed to do it?



I wasn't suggesting anything in particular, really. Anything'll work. A world where evil and backwards time-travel switch places, perhaps; evil is merely an abstract concept that you could think on but would be unable to do. Or maybe we wouldn't even have to go that far - a world where God imparts wisdom to all of his followers so that they never desire to do evil.

It's pretty critical, so a solid answer would be nice.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If evil were to magically be made impossible, then I guess so.

That's the whole point of what they've been arguing!

That by your definition of free will (and what does infringe it and what does not), god could easily make evil impossible (thus not a possible choice) and thus by doing we would still have free will.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-29-2005).]

quote:In your example the prime minister would still exist and the ability to talk to him through whatever means would still be available. A world without evil would mean that evil is non-existent. It wouldn't even be known to us because there would be nothing that would suggest it's existence. He's talking about eradicating evil from existence, not just making it not happen, or at least that's what I think he's been suggesting.

Also, if someone's decision making process is impeded which would make them incapable of making a decision that they would otherwise be capable of making, then yes their free will would be limited. This of course depends on other factors, but you get the point.

Surely you must agree that I have no ability to hold a conversation with the Prime Minister of France. It doesn't matter whether he exists or not, I'm not able to do it, and so I can't make the decision to talk to him. It would be exactly the same if he didn't exist.

Being incapable of carrying out evil is the same as evil not existing as regards free will.

I'm not able to choose a blue-coloured orange-flavoured drink at breakfast, because none exists (I hope!)... does this mean I have no free will?

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

Surely you must agree that I have no ability to hold a conversation with the Prime Minister of France. It doesn't matter whether he exists or not, I'm not able to do it, and so I can't make the decision to talk to him. It would be exactly the same if he didn't exist.

Being incapable of carrying out evil is the same as evil not existing as regards free will.

I'm not able to choose a blue-coloured orange-flavoured drink at breakfast, because none exists (I hope!)... does this mean I have no free will?

You have the ability to talk to him. There are no restrictions in front of you that can't be overcome, therefore you're capable of talking to him.

Also, you can choose what's in front of you. I addressed this with the time travel thing. To make a decision your choices have to be in front of you, because you can't have a choice that isn't real. Does that make sense?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You have the ability to talk to him. There are no restrictions in front of you that can't be overcome, therefore you're capable of talking to him.

Also, you can choose what's in front of you. I addressed this with the time travel thing. To make a decision your choices have to be in front of you, because you can't have a choice that isn't real. Does that make sense?

'in front of you'?

There are plenty of restrictions I'd have to overcome in order to talk to the Prime Minister of France, he's a very busy man and I'm sure he doesn't take calls from random English students. Besides, even if he did, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of things I'm physically and mentally capable of doing but I will never actually be in a position to do.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'in front of you', but if you mean that it must be physically possible to do a thing, then surely if God made it physically impossible to do evil, then evil would not be in front of us. Therefore it becomes analogous to time travel or drinking blue-coloured orange-flavoured juice. Therefore your options are either that I don't have free will, or that I would even if I couldn't do any evil.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You didn't answer what he said at all.

We cannot shoot lasers out of our eyes. Does that mean that we do not have free will? No? Why not? Because the action that is being restricted has to be physically possible in order for it to be a restriction to our free will? Then god makes it impossible for us to do evil, and thus by that definition, he is not removing our free will sinc evil would in that case be physically impossible and thus our inability to do it (just like our inability to shoot lasers out of our eyes) does not mean free will is restricted.

But, if our ability to do evil is restricted, from where comes true love? If you can't hate someone, you can't have an enemy. If people can't wrong you, you can't forgive their wrongdoings.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

'in front of you'?

There are plenty of restrictions I'd have to overcome in order to talk to the Prime Minister of France, he's a very busy man and I'm sure he doesn't take calls from random English students. Besides, even if he did, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of things I'm physically and mentally capable of doing but I will never actually be in a position to do.

That's the point. The fact that you're capable of doing this task means that you're free will isn't limited. It doesn't matter whether you'll ever actually do it or not.

quote:I'm not sure what you mean by 'in front of you', but if you mean that it must be physically possible to do a thing, then surely if God made it physically impossible to do evil, then evil would not be in front of us. Therefore it becomes analogous to time travel or drinking blue-coloured orange-flavoured juice. Therefore your options are either that I don't have free will, or that I would even if I couldn't do any evil.

That's why I wanted clarification from Twisted Ferret on what he means when he says we can't perform evil.

If the world is literally without evil, then we would still have free will. If evil is still present, but we're just not allowed to do it anymore, then we don't have free will.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

But, if our ability to do evil is restricted, from where comes true love? If you can't hate someone, you can't have an enemy. If people can't wrong you, you can't forgive their wrongdoings.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it could be.

From where would true love come from if that were the case? I have no clue. He's omnipotent he will figure it out...

quote:That's the point. The fact that you're capable of doing this task means that you're free will isn't limited. It doesn't matter whether you'll ever actually do it or not.

My free will is limited. I can choose to do it, try my best to do it, but still not actually get to do it.

quote:If the world is literally without evil, then we would still have free will. If evil is still present, but we're just not allowed to do it anymore, then we don't have free will.

I guess this is where the nature of evil comes into it - does evil come from us? I mean, if the world was started without evil, would we still be capable of evil anyway because of our nature? But then, there would be evil in the world, stemming from us - so God would have had to have created us without a capacity for evil in order for there to be no evil in the world. That's ok with me. God created us without the capacity to jump two miles, breathe underwater, or perform complex maths in microseconds.

Ok, I admit that there's a difference between these things and evil because evil doesn't necessarily require any ability - but surely it's possible that acts of evil simply wouldn't occur to us? I often forget to ask people how their day has been or where they're from or how well they did in their lacrosse game or whatever - it's not that I can't do so, it's just that it doesn't occur to me while the opportunity's there. I'm mentally incapable of concieving of it at that point in time (and I'm sure there are plenty of things I'm always mentally incapable of concieving!). So we could be mentally incapable of concieving of the concept of evil, just as we are mentally incapable of conciving a four-dimensional object, and therefore there would be no evil in the world but we would still have free will.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

My free will is limited. I can choose to do it, try my best to do it, but still not actually get to do it.

No it isn't, because there is NOTHING preventing you from doing that can't be overcome by YOU. What impossible circumstances prevent you from doing this? IMPOSSIBLE, as in they can NEVER be overcome?

quote:I guess this is where the nature of evil comes into it - does evil come from us? I mean, if the world was started without evil, would we still be capable of evil anyway because of our nature? But then, there would be evil in the world, stemming from us - so God would have had to have created us without a capacity for evil in order for there to be no evil in the world. That's ok with me. God created us without the capacity to jump two miles, breathe underwater, or perform complex maths in microseconds.

Ok, I admit that there's a difference between these things and evil because evil doesn't necessarily require any ability - but surely it's possible that acts of evil simply wouldn't occur to us? I often forget to ask people how their day has been or where they're from or how well they did in their lacrosse game or whatever - it's not that I can't do so, it's just that it doesn't occur to me while the opportunity's there. I'm mentally incapable of concieving of it at that point in time (and I'm sure there are plenty of things I'm always mentally incapable of concieving!). So we could be mentally incapable of concieving of the concept of evil, just as we are mentally incapable of conciving a four-dimensional object, and therefore there would be no evil in the world but we would still have free will.

This is why I need Twisted Ferret to clarify what he meant. It depends on how he envisions this world.

quote:No it isn't, because there is NOTHING preventing you from doing that can't be overcome by YOU. What impossible circumstances prevent you from doing this? IMPOSSIBLE, as in they can NEVER be overcome?

The circumstances that prevent me from doing it are the prime minister's security people, who are able to take me out of his office, and his secretary/general underlings who will stop me getting through to him on the phone. And even if I do get through, he himself will say "who the hell is this" and slam the phone down on me. It's just not going to happen. I guess I COULD if I did a very good impression of Jacques Chirac or something though. But there are probably examples where I have no possibilities outside of random fluctuations of quantum probability of doing something that I'm still physically capable of doing. I'm losing this strand of the argument, aren't I? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:This is why I need Twisted Ferret to clarify what he meant. It depends on how he envisions this world.

No it doesn't, my argument holds regardless of how Twisted Ferret feels about it.

What I'm saying is that of the two possible 'no evil' situations we've thought of, ie. there is no such thing as evil or man is exposed to no evil, there can only be man is exposed to no evil because man by his nature can create evil (that's a flaw in God's creation IMO but we'll ignore that). So, there's only one thing that we're arguing about anyway. What I'm saying is, one possible solution to the 'humans can be evil' design fault is that God could keep it so that evil doesn't occur to us, just like it never occurs to me to ask all those polite things that people with social skills ask because I'm always too preoccupied with something. Though if God were competant enough to design a human without a capacity for evil, he'd not have had to make the very small leap of logic that I just did (which he clearly couldn't manage anyway).

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

No it doesn't, my argument holds regardless of how Twisted Ferret feels about it.

What I'm saying is that of the two possible 'no evil' situations we've thought of, ie. there is no such thing as evil or man is exposed to no evil, there can only be man is exposed to no evil because man by his nature can create evil (that's a flaw in God's creation IMO but we'll ignore that). So, there's only one thing that we're arguing about anyway. What I'm saying is, one possible solution to the 'humans can be evil' design fault is that God could keep it so that evil doesn't occur to us, just like it never occurs to me to ask all those polite things that people with social skills ask because I'm always too preoccupied with something. Though if God were competant enough to design a human without a capacity for evil, he'd not have had to make the very small leap of logic that I just did (which he clearly couldn't manage anyway).

You're argument doesn't hold because I think he's suggesting that men would be either incapable of doing evil, only wanting to do good, or men are never exposed to evil. This is why I need the particulars on this evil free world, because our level of free will changes under each.The nature of man would be different than what it presently is.

What do you mean by evil wouldn't occur to us? Would it still exist and be a part of our lives, we just wouldn't think about it? Or would it just be something that doesn't exist? Something else?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You're argument doesn't hold because I think he's suggesting that men would be either incapable of doing evil, only wanting to do good, or men are never exposed to evil. This is why I need the particulars on this evil free world, because our level of free will changes under each.The nature of man would be different than what it presently is.

What do you mean by evil wouldn't occur to us? Would it still exist and be a part of our lives, we just wouldn't think about it? Or would it just be something that doesn't exist? Something else?

We'd just never find ourselves in situations where we actually think of doing evil, even though we could have if we'd thought of it at the time. People are always missing things that they could do or say and then think of them later. A perfect being could arrange a world where this happens all the time for evil acts. So evil would be possible but just never happen.

Well if he arranges the entire world and all our actions, then we would most definitely NOT have free will.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is why I need Twisted Ferret to clarify what he meant. It depends on how he envisions this world.

I envision lots of different worlds where there is no evil. There's sp0rkius' example: like eleven-dimensional objects, we just can't conceive of evil. Or maybe it simply never occurs to us, like the idea of a computer would never occur to an ancient Roman or the idea of saying polite nothings never occurs to sp0rkius. Or God could have created us wise and good-hearted from the get-go. Or it could simply be impossible to do evil, even if you would wish to. Or, like crime today, it could be restricted by God. Murder is Not Allowed. Ideally, we would be able to prevent murder every time someone attempted it; however, we are simply not able to do that (like we might be simply unable to do evil, in a different scenario). If we did find a way to keep murder from ever being comitted, would this be a bad thing? Would we take free will away from those who would wish to murder? (And there's another thing, relevant or maybe not - I doubt I will ever wish to play football, so if I am not allowed to play football anyway does it really matter?) Do those who wish to do evil deserve the opportunity to do it? Either an innocent's life is taken by the murderer, thus infringing upon the victim's free will, or the murderer's freedom to murder is infringed upon. I think it is obvious which one is the better course.

Blah, I'm just thinking "out loud" here. Feel free to disregard most of this mental diarrhea. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Well if he arranges the entire world and all our actions, then we would most definitely NOT have free will.

He doesn't have to arrange our actions for my solution to work, he simply has to arrange the rest of the world.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

He doesn't have to arrange our actions for my solution to work, he simply has to arrange the rest of the world.

It's the same difference. There is essentially no difference between having our actions arranged for us or having the circumstances surrounding those actions arranged so that we only pick one particular action. They're basically the same.

Well, if God designed the universe, whether you believe it was at the big bang or 6000 years ago, then its design will decide which action we take - I mean, even if there is something born with free will, there has to be something born first, so that thing will only react in one way to its environment - then it is effectively pre-ordained, so the next thing born with free will is the first thing born with free will, etc. This is why free will don't make a lot of sense to me. People will always act in one way depending on their personality, so there's no uncertainty about it.

You're right, but I don't see how having our environment designed in one way is any different from having it designed in another way.

Well what do you me by designed the world?

I'm talking about setting up everything around us to force us into making a decision. That's all. That's different than creating the world and letting history take it's course.