Is Christian faith reasonable?
By: Scott Aniol
The author is right on. There is no reason or logic without The source and author of such, The Creator, the source of our intelligent design
Unsplash/chuttersnap
The eighteenth-century Enlightenment essentially created a Worldview without God, elevating reason over faith, forcing Christians to wrestle through understanding the appropriate biblical relationship between the two.
The elevation of reason over faith in the eighteenth century took two general forms. First, pure naturalists relied upon reason as the ultimate authority by which all notions must be judged; in other words, naturalists will not consider rational any notion that allows for the supernatural or otherwise contradicts the foundational assumptions of naturalism. Similarly, empiricists insisted that a notion must have some sort of empirical evidence in order to be considered reasonable. In each of these cases, naturalists or empiricists defined reason on the basis of their foundational assumptions, which assumes reason as its own self-evident authority.
Previously, Christian theologians defined reason differently, not considering it to be the ultimate and independent authority. For Christians, God’s revelation is the supreme authority by which all notions must be judged. This does not mean Christians rejected reason prior to the Enlightenment; rather, Christians acknowledged reason as a God-given tool that allows people, by employing various laws of logic, to judge whether or not a notion corresponds to reality, that is, whether or not it is true.
The definition of faith also hinges upon whether one presupposes naturalist/empiricist principles or the truth and authority of God’s revelation. For example, naturalists might define faith as “believing in spite of evidence to the contrary.” Their definition of reason is constrained by their underlying assumption that immaterial reality is an impossibility. In contrast, faith defined biblically is confident belief in what is “not seen” (Heb 11:1), that is, belief in that for which there is no empirical proof. For example, Abraham believed and obeyed God even though “he did not know where he was going” (Heb 11:8). He believed without empirical proof, but it was perfectly reasonable for him to believe God if reason is defined as a faculty of human cognition that allows a person to judge whether something is true or dependable.
Defining reason and faith in these ways should make determining their relationship simple for Christians. Just as naturalists/empiricists root their understanding of those terms in naturalist/empiricist presuppositions, so Christians understand their relationship based on revelation concerning the reality of God and his creation. Christians understand (reason) by faith (Heb 11:3). God created the universe and everything in it (Gen 1:1–2:1), and this includes both what is material and immaterial (Col 1:16). He rules all things in his universe (Eph 4:6), and “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). All things exist and function on the basis of God’s creation and rule of all things (Rom 11:36). These truths alone implicitly ensure the absolute reasonableness of the Christian faith. If reason is that faculty by which a person determines whether a notion corresponds with reality, and if God is the creator and ruler of reality, then all that God has said is self-attestingly reasonable. There may be no apparent empirical evidence for every Christian belief, and a Christian may not understand the reasonableness of every biblical claim, but he can be assured that his faith is indeed reasonable because of the impossibility of the contrary.
In fact, unbelief—whether naturalist or empiricist—is inherently irrational. Because God created all things, and because all people are made in his image, God has already revealed himself to all people; all people know God (Rom 1:19–20). The reasons for God are “plain,” and all people “clearly perceive” this evidence of the existence of God. Reason leads to belief in these things, for the very laws of logic themselves depend for their existence upon the reality of the Christian God. Yet, all people suffer from the noetic effects of sin (Rom 1:21), and thus they suppress this plain knowledge of true reality; all people are born doubting what is self-evident and rational.
Therefore, Christians can assume the reasonableness of their faith as self-evident. For Christians, reason is not the foundation or source of faith, but rather an instrument of faith. This is an important distinction that can give Christians confidence that what they believe is true, but that also ensures that they “honor the Lord as holy” (1 Pet 3:13) in affirming the supreme authority of God’s revelation in their worldview and, consequently, in their entire lives.
Scott Aniol, PhD, is an author, speaker, and teacher of culture, worship, aesthetics, and church ministry philosophy. He is chair of the Worship Ministry Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary . He founded Religious Affections Ministries and has written several books, the most recent being By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Culture . He can be found on Twitter @ScottAniol , and you can listen to his podcast here .
These truths alone implicitly ensure the absolute reasonableness of the Christian faith. If reason is that faculty by which a person determines whether a notion corresponds with reality, and if God is the creator and ruler of reality, then all that God has said is self-attestingly reasonable. There may be no apparent empirical evidence for every Christian belief, and a Christian may not understand the reasonableness of every biblical claim, but he can be assured that his faith is indeed reasonable because of the impossibility of the contrary.
In fact, unbelief—whether naturalist or empiricist—is inherently irrational.
I know you can't think this seed is going to result in "reasonable" discussion.
Not likely, but it could. This requires individuals who will honestly and calmly engage in debate. I do not see that likely, but it most certainly is possible.
The problem with your argument is that it starts with a desired conclusion and works backwards trying to find evidence to support it. Christian faith is based up something not seen and only exists in the minds of its believers, not in the real world. I would suggest you study some alternate views in depth instead of rejecting them out of hand. Reading everything you can by Joseph Campbell and Richard Dawkins would be a good start and provide you with some vigorous mental exercise.
Great article, by the way. Thanks.
No
So, in your opinion being a Christian and believing what we believe is unreasonable? Is that really what you are saying?
Yes
Actually, no. Holding a position like that is what's irrational. So is trying to back up that position by providing a link to the very same web page that we're already on, for that matter.
On the other hand, it is perfectly rational to withhold belief in fantastical claims that lack, by their very nature (purported supernaturality), even a single iota of tangible evidence.
In addition to lacking evidence, the story itself is illogical and often downright ridiculous. For just one example: the "Fall of Man" original sin poppycock. First, an omnipotent, omniscient being cannot be surprised. Second, the idea that said omnipotent being (meaning all powerful) wouldn't simply fix a mistake that it shouldn't have made in the first place (being all knowing), and would instead go out of its way to punish its creation (along with every last one of that creation's innocent descendants) with shorter lives and health problems, is... wait for it... DUMBER THAN SHIT. It portrays the purported "loving" creator as some kind of insane, malevolent psychopath.
I can understand how nonsense like that might have gone largely unquestioned by ignorant minds 3500 years ago or so, but for crying out loud, today?
And this incredibly obvious consequence of logic seems to be generally ignored.
Amen.
That God sounds like a sadistic asshole.
A college student featured in a new filmabout free speech at colleges called “No Safe Spaces” said Monday that she was kicked out of campus organizations for refusing to affirm LGBTQ identities.
UC Berkeley graduate Isabelle Chow told “Fox & Friends” that when she served as a member of the student senate last year, she was shunned for disagreeing with a bill that sought to support LGBTQ identities as “good.”
“I disagreed with the majority of the bill that asked me to affirm an LGBTQ-plus identity as good and to support LGBTQ-plus organizations on campus,” Chow said, while also noting that she was “openly-Christian” when she ran for senate on campus.
“Over and over, they just said, 'Eff you, why did you say that? Eff you, just resign,'” Chow said.
Chow said that she was kicked out of every single club she joined on campus except for the pro-life club and her church.
The new film “No Safe Spaces,” starring comedian Adam Carolla and conservative radio personality Dennis Prager, had a strong opening with the second-highest ever box office gross for a documentary playing on just one screen, according to the movie's producers.
“No Safe Spaces” examines the politically correct world of academia, largely driven by the political left. Prager has called the film a "wake-up call" to the American people, claiming the left is trampling on free speech to satisfy its agendas.
So-called 'safe spaces,' physical locations for students who feel victimized or offended by ideas or speech they oppose, have become increasingly common on college campuses.
Chow said that the documentary challenged her to elevate minority voices in the conversations and people she engages with and ensure that there is a safe space for every opinion.
Chow went on to say, “College students and people in regular communities need to be able to accept and seek different points of view.”
It's neither real nor reasonable, because it is not based upon any credible evidence.
Which she refuses to do for those with whom she disagrees.
She's a hypocrite who wants a safe space for her hypocrisy.
I thought safe spaces were a bad thing? Oh, it depends on who's demanding the safe space, doesn't it?
In the US, non-Christians are the minority. She's in the majority. But that doesn't fit the persecution narrative, does it?
You simply present a narrative and one that isn't necessarily true. One based on assumptions concerning isolated verses. The first, that the omnipotent, omniscient being was surprised, and second, a mistake had been made by that being. Neither can be supported by the event in and of itself. Once the context of the Bible, from which the verses are drawn, one sees that your narrative as presented is unsupportable.
Taking the charges of being surprised and having made a mistake and examining them simply by the verses being referred to, we can see, rationally, that there is no reason to necessarily accept your view.
Taking the first charge first, one can conclude surprise by simply ignoring objective experience and simply focusing on literal meaning of words and syntax. For instance one could read...
... and conclude that said omnipotent, omniscient being indicated that it did not know the answer to this question, hence the question. However, this isn't the only rational conclusion that can be drawn. Human experience objectively shows that even a non-omniscient creature can ask the same question while knowing the answer. Consider.
A child has been told repeatedly not to play in a certain manner within the house. Even so, the child plays in that manner and breaks a vase. The child knows it has done something wrong and retreats to what it imagines is a safe space. The parent, knowing what happened, calls out to the child, knowing where the child is at but asks interrogatively anyway. Where are you, child?
The parent knows the child disobeyed by the evidence of the broken vase. The parent, if concerned more with the child than the broken vase, will be more concerned with the child not following the guidance an experience of the parent than the vase, will give the child the opportunity to confess it's transgression. "Did you do what I told you not to do?" The parent already knows the answer to this. What is important is the child's response. If the child says "no" then the parent can say, "do you see why I set that rule?" But if the child says something similar to what Adam and Eve said, that is, it wasn't my fault, the conversation takes a different direction. Now the parent has to teach the child it was, in fact, their fault, due to the choice the child made.
Charge number two. The Omnipotent, Omniscient Being made a mistake. By far, this seems the most irrational charge. Mostly because there is no basis given for it. I can only assume that it is made on the basis that a perfect omnipotent, omniscient being would not create a being that had the potential to oppose it. If so, I cannot help but wonder why? Again, consider.
Until Satan rebelled against God, everything was as God desired it to be. Satan was actually perfectly within God's desires. But for whatever reason, one day Satan rebelled. A new thing within Heaven had happened. Now, God could have ghosted Satan in that very moment but all that would have been proved to His creation was that God could have snuffed anyone who opposed Him.
But that isn't what God did. Instead, He created a creature that could either choose for or against Him. When one considers the question between who's right and who's wrong, it hardly seems a mistake that Adam and Eve had a choice.
Sounds a lot like religious scripture, except that one narrative is full of internal contradictions.
Being omniscient, God should have seen that coming when he conceived the idea of Satan.
So God got what God wanted.
And then threw a hissy fit.
Yes, God could have asked “Where are you?” rhetorically. He actually knew where they were but decided to ask to get Adam and Eve to realize they were where they should not be. One could use that as a weak explanation for misleading language.
Bad assumption. The assumption should be that an omnipotent, omniscient being could create beings that would not disobey. Instead, per the Bible, God knowingly and willingly created Adam & Eve with the ability to misbehave. But, and this is the key point you always ignore, God knew that Adam & Eve would misbehave: He knew when, where, why and how; that is the omniscience factor. So, unless you want to claim God is not actually omniscient, God created Adam & Eve with full knowledge of their future misbehavior and then punished them, the serpent and all progeny based on this.
A divine setup. Like me putting meat in front of my dog and then punishing her when she started eating it.
Who created Satan? Does God not have power over Satan? Does God not know what Satan will do? Same deal here, given God is omniscient, God knows all that Satan will do and since God is omnipotent, God can change Satan's behavior as He sees fit. God gets what God wants and, per the Bible, God apparently wants Satan doing exactly what Satan is doing.
But God knew that would happen all along.
But God could have. God chose to not do so. That was God's choice and God gets what God wants. And I fully recognize that God cannot do impossible things such as have Satan rebel and not rebel at the same time. But at each logical point, God decides. Further, God's decisions at one point in time are done with full knowledge of all time (all consequences). What is, per the Bible, is what God has chosen to be.
God (per the Bible) has proved to His creations that He could snuff anyone who opposed Him. He did it routinely in the Bible. Have you noticed?
Yes, God created creatures with 'free will' yet He knew what they would choose to do. Not really a free choice if it is possible to know ahead of time what choice will be made.
Was that supposed to be a response to my comment? A copy/paste of an article having nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Did posting that seem rational to you?
The original sin narrative, the whole "you're being punished for something you didn't do" thing is presented by Christians themselves. I didn't make it up for argument's sake.
More like one that is absolutely not true.
I do appreciate your thoughtful reply, but the reasoning put forward in it rests on a flawed logical foundation. We cannot posit an omnipotent, omniscient creator and then argue that it didn't know what the outcome of its creative efforts would be. It's a perfect non sequitur. One thing does not follow from the other. Omniscience means all-knowing, not partially-knowing.
Here's a simple, lowly human analogy: I have total and complete knowledge of what a triangle is -- three straight lines connected at their ends. I know that if I draw three straight lines connected at their ends on a piece of paper I will get a triangle, and I know that it won't suddenly change into something else, like a square or a circle, all by itself. In a way, I am "omniscient" about my triangle. It is not going to surprise me.
See what I mean? The Garden of Eden story says that an omniscient creator punishes its creation for something that the creator knew full well was going to happen (because the creator is omniscient). It's as ridiculous as me punishing my triangle for being the triangle I knew it was going to be when I drew it. Worst still, the punishment is extended to all of the creation's descendants, who are completely innocent of the original transgression. The former is illogical, the latter is sick and unjust. Is this really a story that makes sense?
By the way, discussing the points of an ancient story is one thing, but are you also arguing that it really happened? Do you believe that all humans alive today descend from Adam and Eve?
I'm willing to listen to what you consider contradiction. Please explain.
What makes you think He did not?
Why do you think so?
Aside from the moral contradiction of God being angry at humans for behaving as God designed them to behave? I mean, that's a pretty big one, but it's been brought up multiple times before, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
What about the logical contradiction of God regretting having created humans, leading him to kill almost all of them in a great flood? Why regret? He knew what would happen before he first breathed life into the first human, right? He knew every evil thought any human might have, from Eve being tempted by the serpent, to Cain killing Abel, to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah mistreating strangers. It was all by his design. What reason had he to regret his creations doing exactly as he knew they would do?
God got what God wanted. He's the author. The characters behave as they're written. To say they do not is to deny either omniscience or omnipotence.
How about contradictions in narrative? Were humans created first, or were plants and non-human animals created first? It depends on which chapter of Genesis one chooses to read. In Genesis 1, God creates the environment, then creates man and woman. In Genesis 2, God creates an environment void of life, then creates man, then plants, then tries to find a helpmate for man among animals, then finally creates woman from man's rib.
Because, per the definition of the biblical God, there is nothing superior to God's power and knowledge; nothing can prevent Him from making the decisions He wants and taking the actions He wants. And yes I am only talking about what is logically possible: no silly challenge such as 'can God make a superior entity?' or rocks too heavy to lift, etc.
God gets what God wants = God names the game, makes the rules, holds all the cards and sees all the hands.
I do not understand what you say here. Punished for what you didn't do? That isn't a narrative I am familiar with. could you please explain?
Agreed, assuming I understood what you've said. However, I am not arguing from the position that the Creator did not know the consequence or outcome of It's creative efforts. Quite the opposite. To my mind, and belief, an omnipotent, omniscient Creator would know before creating anything what the consequences of It's creation would be before the act of creation. To be clear, I am speaking of a creation that has free will and not of things that simply exist.
It is my view that such a Creator is in fact all knowing (not surprised by anything we do) and is logically consistent with omnipotence, the error is not in what said Creator has done but, rather, in how we may perceive it. Logically, how can something demonstrably not omnipotent (us) determine definitively that something recognized as supposedly omnipotent as being in error? To be more precise, how can something demonstrably non-omnipotent (us) determine that something else (omnipotent Creator) is in error?
A good analogy for its purpose, but it doesn't really work for what is being discussed. The reason is because it doesn't include free will. Within the context of your analogy, you have omnipotence concerning what a triangle is. However, what we are discussing is more complicated than simply knowing what a triangle is. For your analogy to be truly relevant, it needs to be recognized that you not only have the power to create a triangle but a reason to do so. That the triangle has some purpose in your plan. But it's even more complicated than that.
In your triangle omnipotence, suppose you desired to not simply create a triangle but instead, triangle that knew what it was and reveled in being a triangle as a part of your overall plan. That your desire was not simply to create a triangle but one that was aware of it's function and willingly participated in your reason for it's existence?
Yes, I see how you view it. Objectively, however, it is unsupportable, in my opinion. Parents know that the child they willingly produce will do bad things. Is that a reason not to produce children? Parents know full well that their child will do things that will require punishment. Why? Is it not because the child has free will?
Of course, one could argue that the fault is in the Creator for endowing free will in the first place. Perhaps, but imagine not having a choice in considering Trump as the second coming. Imagine not feeling the joy of helping someone. Imagine not feeling the joy of seeing a five year old daughter seeing her father for the first time after a year long deployment. Imagine not understanding why a school shooting is such a tragedy.
Yes, I know. If the Creator hadn't imbued us with free will, none of this would be a problem. Probably true, but it is also true that we'd have no more understanding than a rock. We wouldn't be aware. We wouldn't know why.
Except that isn't the narrative of the Bible. We aren't being punished for being triangles, we are punished for being triangles trying to be some other shape.
Not going to lie to you. I don't fully comprehend the concept of "original sin." I don't think the Creator holds what Adam and Eve did against us. Rather, I think of it as a virus they willingly exposed themselves to that bonded with their DNA and therefore, became a part of us. That is an analogy, however, a logical one in my opinion. One simply has to observe human nature.
To say, though, that we are completely innocent of the original transgression is false. Such a claim means that the transgression was about eating the forbidden fruit. It wasn't. The transgression was about disobeying the Creator. Even if one doesn't believe in the Creator, one cannot argue that they never disobey what that Creator has decreed.
To give a simple answer, yes. However, my thoughts behind that answer are more complex than I know how to explain.
But somehow, god can still be surprised or disappointed by what his "creations" do? Go figure.
Therefore anything that happens is the will of God. No need to talk about good, bad or in-between. If something happened it is because God either directly caused it to happen or indirectly —but knowingly— allowed it to happen by virtue of God's choices. So by giving leaders such as Chairman Mao free will God knowingly allowed him to act as he did through his life. God knew what Mao would do. Just as God knows that a little girl born tomorrow will suffer with neonatal leukemia and die before reaching school age.
Chairman Mao could indeed be part of God's plan. Same with Stalin, Hitler and all the other horrible mass murderers throughout history. All part of the grand plan. And this plan indeed might require that little girl to be born with an incurable blood cancer and die before she even knows the concept of a god. Similarly, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, climate change in general, is all part of God's grand plan. Maybe this is the only logical way God could accomplish His plan and we human beings are just too limited to understand it.
Maybe. Then again ...
One might leap to extreme explanations (i.e. everything that happens is actually good but we just are too stupid to understand why) because the direct answer that actually follows the evidence will not even be considered. The direct answer: the Bible is man-made; mere words of ancient men and does not come from the grandest possible entity. The logical contradictions of the Bible are simply the result of human beings making mistakes (and work by 'committee'). No need to invent absurd scenarios to explain it; human nature explains it.
It does not matter. It is impossible for the unborn progeny of Adam & Eve to have committed the transgression for which they are punished. The punishment was set before the progeny were born. All women, for example, ostensibly undergo painful labor as punishment for Eve's transgression.
And if you now wish to argue that human beings are punished for disobeying and that we all disobey, then we go back to the creator. God created human beings with the means (and motivation) to disobey. That was His choice. He then punishes them for being what they are. You rejected Dig's triangle analogy (as you routinely do with analogies) with the claim that it is not a good analogy (the 'reason' you reject every analogy I have offered). By doing so you ignored the point that he made (as you ignore mine): the creator with full control and knowledge unfairly punished his creations for being what he made them to be.
Interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by my refusing to acknowledge it. I do not believe that God designed us to behave the way we naturally do. Since this is so, why would I acknowledge your point of view? God did not create us for the purpose of sinning. He created us with the ability to choose between right and wrong. Major difference.
I have a dog. It weighs about five or six pounds. It doesn't have a concept of right and wrong. It only knows, to a limited degree, cause and effect. It knows that if it poops in the house I'm going to be upset. It doesn't know why. It doesn't have its own opinion on the matter. It just knows, if I am consistent, that pooping in the house will result in something negative to whatever it's understanding is.
Humans are not like that. Humans can not only understand that a particular action can result in something negative, but why. Based upon that "why", they can modify their behavior. My dog can't do that. It can only react. I shove it's nose into it's poop. It doesn't like that. It doesn't poop in the house. No concept of why. (I don't really shove her nose into her poop)
We aren't dogs. We understand why things should or should not be done. Why would God not be angry at things we know, or should know, not be done?
A good question. I don't pretend to have an answer. All I can tell you is the way I see it at this present time.
I am a human being. As such I know what it is like to be one. I do not know what it is like to be God. That said, imagine yourself trying to explain compassion to an amoeba. Do you think that an amoeba has any chance at all to understand the concept of compassion as you do? In the same way, can we truly understand what regret on God's part, an infinite being, actually means? Is regret the closest concept that reflects something we can't really understand due our limitations? Does a parent regret the necessity to punish their child? Is it inaccurate to put it in those terms?
Yes, He knew, and knows. That doesn't mean it was His design. That is, it doesn't mean it was His desire that such things happened.
While it may be difficult to understand, it isn't difficult to believe that, in spite of the Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world, God can create good from bad behavior. Cain killed Able. Do we understand why that was wrong? If so, how could we have understood it unless it happened? More, how could we understand the reality of it unless it actually happened? And, having happened, how could we understand the immorality of it unless it was punished?
Yes, I suppose God could have created us in such a manner that Cain could not kill Able. But what I can not imagine is a way God could have created us in such a manner where Cain could not kill Able and we understood why doing so would be wrong. In order for us to understand, killing Able had to be possible. For me, that is what is important. God gave me the ability to choose. To understand.
That they did it. If you think about it, it isn't that hard to understand. You give your creation free will. You know that x amount of your creation will reject you, but y amount will not. You rejoice over those who do what you created them to do, but regret those who do not. Do you not think that the parents of Jeffrey Dahmer loved their child, but regretted having born him considering what he had done?
True, if one assumes that there is no such thing as free will. You oppose God not because of choice or reason, but because that is what you were programmed to do. In that case, this discussion is meaningless as it is merely a result of what God programmed us to do. You are literally no different from a particular setting on your washing machine. Nothing you feel, think or do is actually a result of you as an individual.
Do you feel that is true? I'm going to assume that you feel as I do and that it is not true. That the choices you make are not scripted or programming (in the sense we are speaking of here in this discussion). For the sake of argument, taking that as given, how does that relate to an omnipotent, omniscient being desiring a specific outcome? Is it not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient being to decide to create something that can choose for or against it of it's own free will? If it is indeed possible, then is not it also possible that this being will not get all it desires? Logically, it would seem that it is indeed possible.
What I don't understand about your statement is how this impinges on omnipotence or omniscience. God, of His own free will, decided to create a situation where He will not get all He desires. People can oppose God's desires not because they have some power to do so in and of themselves, but because God gave that power to them in having free will. God, if He so chose, could take it away at any time. I do not see how God not getting every desire He has diminishes His omnipotence or omniscience in any way considering it is through those He created the situation where it is possible.
You put all that out there so very well. Great post and right on all the points you made 👍👏🙏
Actually, you're not. Not to my mind, anyway. You have, in the past, claimed that God could create His creations in such a way that they never did anything wrong. Created in such a way that His creations never chose against Him. Something similar to that, anyway.
While that is true enough, such a creation would not have free will, and therein lies the problem. To my mind, you are arguing something silly in the manner of rocks too heavy for Him to lift. In this case, how do you create something with free will that is guaranteed not to choose against you? How do you create something that cannot choose against you and claim that it does so due to it's free will? It doesn't seem logically possible to me. Not in this life, anyway.
You answer your own question in your next sentence.
If that is so, then God is either not omniscient (didn't know how the characters in his own novel would behave), or not omnipotent (didn't write them to behave that way, but was unable to stop them). If he's both omniscient and omnipotent, he's fully responsible for the outcome of his actions.
Because God designed us to want to do things he doesn't want us to do.
Never mind that God's morality is very mercurial. Don't kill, unless I tell you to. Don't rape, unless I tell you to. Don't marry your brother's widow, unless he has no children, and then you MUST marry your brother's widow. If you commit incest, you're worthy of death, unless you're Lot and his daughters, or Abraham and Sarah. A woman must be a virgin on her wedding night, but Lot was righteous for offering up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped. Kill the adulterer, unless he's King David.
Given the fact that he designed us, add to that the fact that God doesn't seem to know his own morality very well, and adheres to it even worse, and why should God be angry when we "sin"?
If God knew our future actions (omniscience) at the time he chose to create us, with total control over how we were created (omnipotence), then we don't have free will. If we have free will, then God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. That's not difficult to understand, but that is what you have refused, over multiple discussions, to acknowledge. You water down the definitions of the words, instead.
Of course I don't think it's true. But I don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God. Therefore, my beliefs are not incompatible with themselves.
I believe that many who don't believe in God say that He can't do something merely because He didn't do it the way they like--even though they don't believe in Him doing anything or even that He exists.
Why must one believe in a character to discuss that character? Do you refrain from offering an opinion on a movie or literary character on the same basis?
You non-believers keep trying to apply human traits and constraints to God.
Why?
Why is the concept of free will so hard to understand?
Why is the concept that God created us with free will--including the free will to accept or reject Him so hard to understand?
God could have created us differently, but didn't.
Not that hard to understand.
Free will isn't hard to understand.
What is equally easy to understand is that free will is incompatible with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent creator.
If one is being intellectually honest, that is.
Is omnipotence a human trait? Omniscience? Nope. It's not the nonbelievers who are attributing such traits to God. It's the believers.
Some people can grasp the concept quite easily.
Wouldn't an omniscient and omnipotent God be able to do anything?
Let's end here before we simply get to the stage where you tell me to prove God exists, okay?
Anything logically possible.
But he also assumes responsibility for the outcome. If he makes us as we are, knowing what we'll do to the tiniest detail, then that negates free will.
It is not logically possible to create humans while already knowing their future actions at the time of creation (predestination) and also give them free will.
Both can't simultaneously be true, logically speaking.
You are applying human logic to a Superior Being. Just because you can't grasp the fact that an omnipotent Being could do something defying human logic has nothing to do with what He is capable of.
Then you simply don't understand free will.
Again, your lack of understanding or belief doesn't matter. Just because something sounds illogical to you doesn't make it so. Don't you think the concept of a round world sounded highly illogical at one point?
I will let you have the last say on this.
Good day.
You include in your example a requirement which I have explicitly and repeatedly noted I do not impose: demand for omnipotence to include the logically impossible.
Why is that a problem? Logically, if God wants creations that obey Him He can make that happen. If He wants creations that can choose to disobey (enter free will) He can have that. It is God's choice either way and God knows all the consequences of the choice.
One does not. What you state is logically impossible and I routinely state that I do not hold that omnipotence means the ability to do the logically impossible.
The problem then is that you impose an illogical requirement, not me. I have never argued that God could grant the ability to disobey and then get 100% obedience. I have argued that God could get 100% obedience if He desired. And if God wants to grant the ability to disobey He could do that. But He cannot logically get 100% obedience when He grants the ability to disobey.
So let's play this out. God chooses to allow disobedience. Chairman Mao disobeys and kills countless millions (you would consider that disobeying God, right?). Was God unaware, when He chose to allow disobedience, that the Mao Zedung's of the world would be born and do what they did? Omniscience means that God knowingly chose to allow disobedience along with the consequences that would bring. But He chose it nonetheless.
And in the most direct example, God creates Adam & Eve and knows exactly when, where, how and why they would disobey Him. They do, of course, and He then punished them (and all of their unborn progeny). He knew what they would do and wired them with the ability to disobey anyway. The divine setup.
God could (logically) get a limited free will and select obedience. God allows His creations to make choices but does not allow them to make a choice that would disobey select rules. So, for example, if God desires that no pedophile rape a little girl He can make that impossible. (Sounds like a great idea to me.) Given God is defined as the omnipotent, omniscient creator this does not seem to be beyond those defined capabilities.
But if God wants to grant the ability to disobey a rule and also wants 100% obedience of the same rule, then that is logically impossible. God clearly would know this and would make a design choice. That design choice would be His will and He will certainly get what He wants (He gets his choice and knows all the consequences of same).
Well said. They deny that God exists while 2nd guessing from a fallen mortal sinners perspective the decisions made by the creator of all that there is...
Logic is logic. Doesn't matter who you are. Logic is not relative.
Fact? Another dilution of word definitions.
Of course I do. I recognize that it's incompatible with my actions being known at the time of my creation (or before, as required by omniscience). The words mean what they mean, Tex. Whether you like it or not.
Yes He would. Anything that is logically possible.
In other words: God gets what God wants.
Everything God did and does is logically possible as He is the creator of logic, reason, and science. No human can measure up to God in those matters.
Logically possible means 'not impossible'. The idea is to avoid expecting God to do the impossible. So, Tex, that is what Sandy is telling you: omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the impossible.
Certainly you agree that it is unreasonable for anyone to presume that God could do what is logically impossible (e.g. presuming God could create an entity more powerful than He)? Right?
Your evidence? Simply stating as much doesn't make it so.
Right.
Still trying to define God by your human standards, eh?
By definition anything that has been done is logically possible to do. You totally missed the point.
Can God make a rock that God can't move?
Secularists reject God because they can’t rationalize away the fact that God is bigger and more powerful than they are and He makes it impossible for them to be be the most powerful influence in their life.
And you still are applying human ideas of what constitute logic to a Superior Being.
Look, I don't expect you to change your mind about any of this. To each their own. I don't really care what anyone else believe as far as God goes, as I am quite content with my own understanding of God.
An entertaining way to understand some of the points made here.
I don't think so.
Can He?
That’s their bottom line, isn’t it?
Nonbelievers don't believe because there is no evidence for said belief. That requires no rationalization. Belief in the face of lack of evidence does.
No, I am not. I am simply using the definition of God per the Bible. If you disagree with the Bible then that is certainly fine by me. But try to pay attention to the point where you realize that I am just using the biblical definition of God.
See?
So, he can't do the logically impossible?
Your logic tells you that it is impossible for God to have created us with free will. Your logic tells you that there is absolutely no proof for God existing.
You are still applying human logic to something you have a hard time even imagining.
My logic tells me that a Superior Being can do all sorts of things beyond human understanding.
So you tell me--can He do the logically impossible?
Sure you are.
Sounds to me like you are cherry-picking parts of the Bible without considering the entirety of the Bible.
If you think he can do the logically impossible, why do you think he can't make a rock that he can't move?
Why can't or won't you answer any of my questions?
Try to focus:
Is God defined per the Bible to be omniscient and omnipotent?
The answer is yes. The meaning of omniscient is that God knows all. The meaning of omnipotent is that God is all powerful.
Do you have any disagreement with the above? If so, make yourself clear.
If you think I am cherry-picking then be specific. Vague claims are effectively bullshit.
The only question I saw was this:
No, if God exists, he can't do the logically impossible.
"Can He?"
"Don't you think the concept of a round world sounded highly illogical at one point?"
"Wouldn't an omniscient and omnipotent God be able to do anything?"
"Why is the concept that God created us with free will--including the free will to accept or reject Him so hard to understand?"
Not illogical. In opposition to what some were taught. That is not, in and of itself, illogical. Logic would have confirmed its shape even with the observational tools available to the ancients - for example, ships disappearing on the horizon.
Like create a rock he can't move? Already answered.
It's not, but it's incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent God.
Why is the logical contradiction of an omniscient god and having free will so hard for you to understand?
Thanks for your answers.
But why would I acknowledge something I do not believe to be accurate? Who wouldn't refuse to acknowledge it on those grounds?
While I understand what you're saying here, it doesn't make logical sense to me because these are not the only options. You seem unable to consider that. Perhaps because it puts the responsibility of your actions on yourself rather than God? God's omnipotence or omniscience is not the least affected simply because He chooses to allow us free will. It is certainly reasonable.
Why not try this. Rather than simply stating your position, show why mine is logically unsupportable. Show me why an omnipotent and omniscient God could not have those attributes and intentionally create us the way we are? My position is that God did not create us to act the way we do. That is, sin and rebel against Him. Why would this mean God is omnipotent? Would your reason not be based on the assumption that an omnipotent God could foresee how we would turn out and therefore do something different? If so, that is an assumption. It assumes you know the motivations of God. It doesn't allow that God may have a reason to allow what He foresaw.
And how does this detract from His omnipotence? Is it not also an assumption that an omnipotent God would necessarily prevent the bad He foresaw if He had the power to do so? Is it not possible that an omnipotent God might have a reason for not using His power to prevent what He foresees?
What we see in the Bible is an omniscient, omnipotent God directing humanity along a path of His choosing. Among other things, He uses a system humans created both for and against us in a manner that fulfills His goals. People like to say God approved of slavery. The truth is, God used a system we created, not God, towards His own ends. The key thing to understand here, however, is that God can, in His omnipotence and omniscience, use our choices to achieve His goals. How much greater a display of omnipotence is this over simply creating us without free will? How much greater a display of His omnipotence is turning an evil heart towards Him over a creature that couldn't, literally, contemplate or even understand if it were explained to it the idea of rebelling against Him?
I disagree. He designed us with that potentiality. Not the same thing.
Alternatively, we do not understand God's morality very well, unless it is something rather obvious.
Which, if you think about it, is reasonable. Would not an omniscient God know better about such things than we do?
Which God never does. Presumably, you are speaking of where God tells Israel what is to come upon them because of their sins.
God isn't directing any of these people to do what they do. What He does is take people who, by the nature they already have, do such things and use them to punish. That is, God doesn't direct anyone to rape. He takes someone who's nature is already one that rapes and uses it for His ends. Essentially, what He does is withdraw His protection from what would happen anyway if such people were not held back by His hand. Again, He uses the system we created, our sinful world, for His own purposes.
Not sure what your objection to this would be. It seems to me that God is providing for the childless widow. Giving her a meaningful future within the context of her culture at the time.
I'm unaware of an incestuous connection between Lot and his daughters. The commandment against incest, if I recall correctly, didn't come until after these people, however. That doesn't suggest I'm saying incest was okay for these people. Honestly, I don't actually know it was or wasn't. One question I have is that, if it is morally wrong, why did God take so long to make a command against it?
This is purely speculation on my part, but I wonder if it didn't have something to do with the deterioration of the human genome. After the fall, people were living nearly a thousand years but as time goes on, their lives get shorter and shorter. We were initially intended to last forever, but with the fall things changed. Perhaps God gave the command when He did because by that time, our genome became so corrupted that having children with close family members could no longer produce normal, healthy children?
I don't know where you get Lot was righteous for attempting to give up his daughters. He was certainly attempting to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean he went about it in the right way. No one I know thinks Lot attempting to satisfy the mob's perversion with his daughters think that was a righteous thing to do.
It wasn't adultery only, but murder as well. However, God spares him not because of who David was, but because what he did when confronted with his crime. Heartfelt repentance. God forgives him immediately, although there are still consequences, which should tell us something about God. Further, God takes what should have happened to David upon Himself when Christ died on the cross.
Not given. My opinion is that you do not understand God very well.
Because His nature demands it. Why shouldn't God be angry at sin? It creates so much suffering.
The only sense in which this is true is that we didn't get to decide to be created or how.
It is difficult to understand because it doesn't make any sense, nor do you explain why you think it does. It's simply a stand alone statement. How does an omnipotent, omniscient God choosing to give us free will diminish those attributes? The only way what you say could be true is if we gave ourselves free will rather than God giving it to us.
How so?
But you say to Texan...
This means that, even though you do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, you should be able to discuss Him within the context of the narrative presented in the Bible. While your beliefs concerning this may not be incompatible with your own beliefs, they are incompatible within the narrative. That is, there's no logical reason why God cannot possess the attributes He does and we have free will.
Thanks for the time you took for your reply.
Do humans have free will or not?
Are you an atheist or agnostic?
My religious affiliation is irrelevant to the question. But the answer to the free will question depends on if an omnipotent, omniscient god (as defined by the bible) actually exists or not. Logically, if such a god exists, then the answer is no. If such a god does not exist, then the answer is yes.
True enough, which is why I never asked what your religious affiliation is--unless, of course, you consider atheism and agnosticism religions. Do you?
I asked if YOU thought humans had free will. That only requires your opinion--not those found in the Bible or anywhere else.
So, do humans have free will or not?
I'm not sure why you would think that a god I don't believe in is responsible for my actions. Really, Drakk?
This ignores the meaning of "omnipotence", "omniscience", and "free will". As has been explained ad nauseum.
So, here we go again. God, being omnipotent, knew every thought we would have and action we would take, in its smallest detail, before he created us. And he created us, in possession of that knowledge, with total control of the process. He made us as he knew we would be. That precludes free will.
Ignoring for now how disgusting it is to think that an infant deserves punishment, then, he's made people who rape? He purposely made rapists, and then condoned rape as a punishment? Sounds like he's in charge to me.
And I'm not sure how you can say he's not directing rape, while also posting:
I will take your wives and give them. He's taking an active part in rape. He's procuring the victims.
Yes, a very mercurial morality, indeed. Almost like one that might be used to justify the barbaric actions of a morally underdeveloped people. It's almost like they're writing the book themselves. Probably because they were.
Read your Bible.
I imagine people were starting to discover the ill effects of inbreeding, and so made God make laws against it. We know that the Egyptian pharaohs engaged in inbreeding to a large degree, and suffered health consequences as a result.
I have to run some errands, so I'll address the rest of your post later.
Do you believe that humans have free will?
Are you an atheist or agnostic?
Or misotheistic?
Nobody know for sure, but neuroscience strongly suggests that —although counterintuitive and repugnant— free will might just be a (very convincing) illusion.
But, as Gordy observes, if the future is knowable (even if no entity actually has this knowledge) then free will is not possible.
This was a question to Sandy who answered with this:
You will likely claim that God can be omniscient and can grant us free will. But that is logically impossible. If God is omniscient then that would mean that the future is knowable. (Note: omniscience does not make the future knowable; it is the reverse; omniscience is not possible unless the future is knowable.)
If the future is knowable then everything that will happen is knowable. That includes every choice we make. It is impossible for free will to exist (other than as an illusion) if the choices we will make are knowable before we even make them.
A knowable future precludes free will. And it works both ways. Free will precludes a knowable future. Both cannot logically be true and God cannot make them both true unless you want to argue that God can do what is logically impossible. (In this case it would be a knowable future —which enables omniscience— and ALSO have a future that is determined by individual choice and is thus not knowable until the choice is made —enabling free will.)
Do you believe that humans have free will?
Are you an atheist or agnostic?
I suspect that we do not. Seems to me, reality is deterministic. That means that everything is based on cause and effect. If that is true (nobody knows) then as strange as it feels, it would mean that free will is simply an illusion. As I noted to you, the evidence continues to point to a deterministic reality and thus no free will. But, as I just told you, nobody knows for sure.
Seems you do not understand the question you are asking. Agnostics come in two forms: agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. In fact, every atheist on NT is an agnostic atheist best I can tell. So you can certainly consider me an agnostic in the abstract.
I am surprised you were unaware of this.
Yes, but it is obviously irrelevant. If that is what God wanted, that is what we would have. Since we don't have it, God must not have wanted it. Or at least, doing things that way would not produce what He desired. Therefore, saying what He could have done isn't really relevant.
It appears to me that God desires and values a creation that can choose to love and obey Him over a creation that cannot conceive of anything else. I can't say for God, but it seems to me that someone loving you because they choose to is infinitely more valuable than one who has no choice. In fact, it is easily conceivable that it is impossible to create something that loves you without the free will to do so. How would such a creation even know what love is?
This is why we are having a problem. You keep suggesting that God can get what He wants simply by creating something that has no choice but to obey. If obedience was all that God was after, then sure, He could do it that way. But simple obedience isn't all that God wants. This is why I claim you keep saying you don't expect God to do the logically impossible but do so anyway. Doing what you suggest will not work to achieve what God obviously desires.
In my opinion, this isn't a "could," it's an "is." That is, what you say here is actually what we have. We have limited free will. We cannot do anything we like without consequence. And even those who strive to obey God do so imperfectly.
And it must be remembered that God has a will of His own as well. For all we know, the only reason missiles didn't fly during the Cuban missile crisis is that God did not allow it.
This would not be beyond God's capabilities, in my opinion. However, I think it would be a terrible thing for Him to do. How could we know how evil pedophilia is without experiencing the consequences? How could a pedophile change if he/she doesn't experience the consequences? What would motivate them to even try?
I suspect that when I stand before God, He will show me all the sin I have ever committed. Even stuff I never realized was sinful. The only reason I will, at that time, be able to comprehend the sin is because I have experience of sin I did understand and it's consequences. If the pedophile is prevented from committing his/her crime, he could legitimately claim "how could I know it was so terrible? I never saw the results of what my desires produced."
Asking whether I am atheist/agnostic is inquiring about my religious affiliation, including the lack thereof. Regardless, it's still irrelevant.
I wasn't citing biblical opinion. Only the conditions on which free will is possible or not.
I don't think this is true. Logic is based on observable facts. A logical conclusion based on a greater amount of facts is more likely to be correct and relevant than a logical conclusion based on fewer facts. One could logically conclude, standing in the middle of Kansas, that the Earth is relatively flat. But someone standing in the same place, with more facts, can conclude that in spite of what their eyes see, the Earth is indeed round and not flat. Logic is relative to what is known and how what is known is processed.
So each person is predetermined at birth as to whether they believe in God or not?
A person is born a murderer or rapist, child molester or embezzler, a sexual deviant?
We have no control over any aspect of our own lives because it has already been decided by who knows what as to the outcome?
I knew I could count on you for a snarky reply.
I suppose it was all preordained, so no sense in continuing this line of conversation. After all, I have no choice, right?
That is a totally false statement. If atheism or agnosticism aren't religions, it is obvious I am not asking what religion you are affiliated with.
But way to skirt the question.
Your question is an inquiry about my religious affiliation, including the lack of it. It's to determine if I am unaffiliated with religion. Way to not understand that! And I'm still not sure how it is relevant in any way, especially in regards to your other question.
False statement.
Another false statement.
But I notice you still skirt the question.
That is not a logical conclusion. That is, God being able to do anything that is logically possible doesn't equate to God getting what God wants. The only proper conclusion from saying that God can do anything that is logically possible is to conclude that God can do anything logically possible.
It seems to be generally agreed upon by all involved that God can choose to give free will. There is no logical barrier anyone has brought up that negates this. What you and others have failed to do is to show how God can grant free will and always end up with what He desires. It is obvious that God desires that we love and obey Him. It is equally obvious that He doesn't get what He wants in all cases. We see that, although we recognize that God can do anything logically possible, it doesn't always get Him what He wants.
The most often used counter to this is that since God knew before hand who would reject Him but went ahead and created that person anyway means that God desired that person to reject Him. Why else would God create that person?
Not so. This is simply an attempt to do an end run around free will. It is preventing the exercise of free will, which in the end means there is no free will in such a case. For free will to be an actual thing, God has to accept that some of whom He creates will reject Him. I cannot think of a way where it is logically possible for God to use His omnipotence to force a response and still have free will. (To be clear, I am speaking of what goes on inside the heart. God can and does force certain things regardless of free will. God hardens Pharaoh's heart for instance.)
I still notice you simply don't get it. What's the point of asking if I'm atheist/agnostic then?
Agnostic atheist. I do not believe in the existence of any gods, but I admit the possibility.
That was very well-said.
So you require proof that God exists to believe that He does exist.
As you indicated earlier, you don't actually have to believe in Him to understand the general concept. As to why I believe you think such, it is your own words.
I have yet to see an explanation concerning this. Instead, what I see are things like what you post next.
You are attempting to connect that God knew everything we would do to the idea that this means God intended us to be the way we are. Possible, but not logically likely. If that were so, why would God put forth such effort to convince us to be other than what He created us to be? Logically, He wouldn't.
Logically, if God gave us free will, He must allow someone like Jeffrey Dahmer to exist, even though He knows what he will do, because He must accept the consequences of allowing free will. If He does not, then free will is eliminated.
The infant doesn't deserve punishment. Whatever gave you that idea? What makes you think He condones rape? Nor does He make rapists. He makes people in His own image that have free will. The rapist made himself into a rapist. That is what he did with his free will.
Perspective. Absalom, of his own doing, had it in his heart to do these things. What God did was use this to punish David. He removed His protection from around David, allowing Absalom to do what was already in his heart to do. He uses, in most cases, our own failings to punish us.
Ah, I see now. How is it, though, that you think God approved of that?
Ok, I'm back.
God rewarded him and his family (except for his wife) with life.
I wonder if Bathsheba repented, as she was spared, too. Obviously, her child with David didn't repent, because God killed him.
Based on what? The fact that we disagree about him?
Drakk, I've explained it repeatedly, as has TiG. I'm not sure how many different ways we can present the concept. If God, knowing beforehand how we'll act, creates us in a manner to act that way, God himself is the one who has determined how we'll act. That negates the possibility of free will. God chose for us at the time he decided to create us, with the foreknowledge of what we would do. If we have free will, then God did not have foreknowledge of what we would do, and therefore is not omniscient.
Or one could consider that the narrative is faulty.
Ergo there is no problem.
If God wants obedience then God certainly could get it. If God wants something that is logically possible then God has the means to get it. All I have done is note that God gets what God wants — I do not presuppose what He wants.
My point remains easy to understand and obvious: a uniquely all-knowing, all-powerful entity will have its way if it is logically possible (i.e. no impossible expectations).
Good. We agree. If simple obedience is all that God wants then He could get that (because He is omnipotent).
Okay, and note that this is your claim (not mine). Let's take that as your posit. Now you need to complete your posit. What else does God want in addition to simple obedience? (Ensure that what you write is not logically impossible.)
As noted, I have never stated what God wants; I am just reacting to your claims. Since you know what God wants I am asking you to specify: God wants simple obedience and ____________?
When you refer to me, personally,
then we're not talking about assigning responsibility within the narrative. Did you mean "your" and "yourself" in the generic sense, or were you referring to me, specifically? If you mean me, specifically, then of course I don't put, or want to put, the responsibility for my actions on God. That would be ridiculous, as I don't believe in God. If you're talking about a generic "you", well, if one follows the logic and the narrative, the responsibility falls on God whether I wish it or not. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he's responsible, for good or bad. The narrative is all his, from alpha to omega.
If not, then you haven't been reading.
So, God's hand was forced? He didn't mean to make us as we are? Then God is not omnipotent.
Logically, if God created Jeffrey Dahmer, knowing what Jeffrey Dahmer would do, then God is responsible for Jeffrey Dahmer's actions.
Of course I don't think that an infant deserves punishment. But God doled it out, anyway, didn't he? God's punishment is sometimes rape, so he must condone rape as punishment. These aren't my words, Drakk. They're scripture.
God, according to the narrative, had just destroyed two cities for evil. But Lot and his daughters (actually, they're the ones responsible, being rapists themselves) were allowed to live, after incest. Abraham and Sarah were blessed to be the source of Israel, after committing incest (and after sending Abraham's eldest son Ishmael and his mother Hagar into the desert, with the intention that they would die, which is pretty damned evil, in my book).
Mercurial morality. Or more likely, the morality of the humans telling the story.
I require evidence.
What kind of evidence would be enough to convince you?
God could create a world while we watched and recorded. Bonus points for making intelligent inhabitants, too. That would be pretty good evidence. Not conclusive proof, as that is not possible - after all, it could just be advanced alien intelligent life who have technology far superior to ours, but are not omniscient or omnipotent. Or it could be an elaborate and convincing hoax.
He's done it before, right? Except that time, he expected us to take him at his (actually, those who ghost-wrote for him) word, thousands (according to the Bible) or billions (according to science) of years after the fact, without ever having set eyes on him.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That is true only if God wants the impossible. Is that what has you hung up ... you think God would naively want the impossible?
All along I have stated that I am not talking about the impossible. What words must be used to get you to acknowledge that? Will this work?:
God gets what God wants within the realm of what is logically possible.
In other words: God is omnipotent and omniscient.
You obviously don't believe that, so it would make little sense for Him to reproduce something you already don't believe He did.
If reality is deterministic then we have no choices. You can put all sorts of examples of predetermination on paper and all would be consequences of a deterministic reality. And, as I told you, the idea of a deterministic reality is indeed strange and repugnant. So the fact that you feel uncomfortable makes sense.
And I have little patience for serial stupid questions so if you cannot deal with an impatient response don't ask questions for which you clearly know the answer.
I have inadequate reason to believe he actually created the world. If he showed he can do so now, I might have reason to believe he did so before. As it is, I have the words of ancient men with pens, recording the supposed words of people they never met, and who may never have existed, and those words contradict observable evidence (for example, that the Earth is billions of years old, not the 6000 stated). Their words contain internal inconsistencies, have been edited multiple times, and have been subject to political manipulation.
I'm an atheist.
Let's examine what "atheism" means.
Okay. Then you believe that God, should He exist, should punish every instance of our fallibility?
Spared? What would you think of your child being taken from you? Would you consider that being spared? As for the child, it had nothing to repent of. The child was born due to God's will, it died according to God's will. If what we Christians believe is true the child never had to experience the suffering and pain of this world. Never had to experience the pain and suffering it's own sin would bring about. Instead, the child went directly into the presence of God. Forgive me if I do not consider that a bad thing.
Partly, but more so because you do not seem to be able to look at situations from God's point of view. We exist at His pleasure. Rather than accept that you believe that you have the intelligence and experience to determine whether God's actions are right or wrong. That is, you feel you have the ability and right to judge God.
And I have repeatedly told you that this is not the case. Your argument is that because God knows how Jeffrey Dahmer would act God therefore determined that Dahmer would act that way. This is not the case. In order to prove such, you have to demonstrate how God knowing what Dahmer would do, necessarily means that God directed him to do it. All you are attempting to do here is deny the consequences of free will. God does not do that. He granted us free will. If He did not allow the Dahmers and Hitlers of the world to exist, He would be denying free will.
This is a declarative statement without any attempt to explain how this is true. Something you doggedly refuse to explain. You think that because God knows what we will do puts us into some sort of straight jacket. That because He knows, it forces us to behave in the manner He foreknew. This isn't true. I know what Napoleon did. My knowing did not force Napoleon to act as he did. What God does, to a large extent, is weave our choices into His overall plan. Could not an omnipotent, omniscient God do that? Is it illogical?
Yes, they could. Point?
The argument that Sandy and I share is that God (ostensibly) made choices knowing full well that the consequences of His choices would lead to Dahmer (and every other good, bad, indifferent) consequence.
A uniquely omnipotent, omniscient creator will always be the ultimate answer for why something has happened. Good, bad or indifferent.
Focus on the words ⇧ you just now used. God knowingly allowed all the bad (and good) characters to exist and do all that they did. It was God's knowing choice. This is part of God's plan. One might say that God weighed the consequences and made a choice. He chose 'free will' (albeit limited) knowing full well that Chairman Mao would murder millions and that at the individual level rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. would harm innocent victims. He also engineered the planet to produce tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. that will injure and kill people and animals. All part of His plan. God did this knowingly and with all the power that is possible to have so God is ultimately responsible for all the consequences.
Of course all of the above presumes the God of the Bible actually exists as a unique, omniscient, omnipotent entity.
Yes, He could. It's obvious that God doesn't want simply obedience. He want's willing obedience. In order for that to happen, free will must be given because only with that can an individual will. Nor do I presuppose what God wants. What He wants is made plain enough in the Bible.
Yes, this is easy to understand and obvious. It is, however, wrong in your application. Although you deny asking God to do the impossible, that is what you are doing. If all God wanted was simple obedience, He could indeed create beings that were obedient. But it is obvious this isn't what He's after. What He wants is willing obedience. That is, an individual who willingly is obedient. You cannot get that without also allowing that the individual could will to be disobedient.
It isn't my posit that God wants simple obedience. My posit is that God wants willing obedience. That cannot happen unless not being obedient was also a possibility. As for what else God wants other than our obedience is love, although that isn't really a separate thing from obedience. Obedience is borne on love. Further, God wishes to fulfil the role for which we were created. Receptacles and reflections of His glory. Translated, He wants us to experience the joy of Him. He wants the joy of providing for us and for us to experience the joy of being provided for.
God doesn't want simple obedience. That is more your claim than mine. Hence your insistence that God could create beings that do not have the ability to disobey Him. While true, it isn't what He wants. He wants beings who willfully choose to love and obey Him. This is evident by even a cursory reading of the Bible.
Don't put words in my mouth, Drakk. This is about God's proposed morality, not mine.
If death is such a blessing as you're trying to make it out to be, why was it used as a punishment?
The child was sick for what, a week? And then died. Forgive me if I DO consider that a bad thing. And if it's a punishment from God, his aim sucks.
Perhaps. Or perhaps I'm not blinded about God, real or otherwise, because I don't buy into the idea that I should be. Perhaps I'm looking with a less biased eye, and it's actually you who doesn't understand God.
God is the author. He creates the characters, the setting, the plot, already knowing how the book will end (omniscience). That is not denying the consequences of free will, because free will is precluded when God holds all the cards.
Please look up the definition of omniscient.
I don't need to make a further point. The narrative is faulty. Logically inconsistent with itself.
All beings or just some?
Not at all. Your claim is that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could create us in such a manner that we would always be obedient. While this is true, it is obvious that this isn't what God desires. Robots that have no choice in how they act. What you need to do in order to successfully argue your case is to show how God could grant free will and still end up with what He desires in all cases. Logically, and demonstrably, this is impossible, yet you keep putting forth the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient God could do so.
Agreed with what is stated here but disagree in how you try to apply it. God wanted to create people with free will. He got that. God wants people to love and obey Him. Doesn't always get that. It isn't logically possible to make it so that He always gets what He desires if people have the ability to choose against Him. God does not desire that anyone should be separated from Him (go to Hell) yet it will happen regardless. It will happen because God also wills that sin must be punished. His sense of justice demands it.
Christians willingly call every atrocity "God's will".
According to the Old Testament the Jews are God's "chosen people".
Why did God permit the genocide of His chosen people known as the Holocaust?
I guess Christians just shrug it off and say it was "God's will".
If the Holocaust was God's will, then God is a heartless sadistic asshole.
Okay, suppose God did that before your very eyes. Something so amazing you are at a loss for words. Would you then believe God killing all the firstborn Egyptians to be morally right and justifiable? Would you say, God was justified because He created what you described? Would that make you suddenly believe the judgement God brought against Israel, the one where babies were dashed against rocks and women raped was just?
Does not what you describe as convincing evidence have more to do with whether or not God exists rather than what God stands for? And if God were to convince you He exists, would that automatically make you believe what He wants and what His actions over the years have been are right and just?
Nope.
Yup. That was the subject of that particular discussion.
If God exists, that doesn't speak at all to whether God is good, evil, or neutral.
Such evidence would support the existence of a creator god, not necessarily the God of the Bible.
It might be Atum (odd how similar that sounds to Adam. Shared oral tradition, perhaps?). Or some unnamed god. Maybe the Deists had it right.
No.
If God could proves to me that He exists, it would prove to me that God is a sadistic asshole.
It has to be logically possible, remember? So once God grants free will He has (by His choice) made some outcomes impossible. Do you understand this? If so then you know that it is impossible to have free will and ALSO have all beings choose to love and obey God. Acknowledge that you realize this.
So here you are acknowledging that what you say God wants is not logically possible. Apparently no matter how many times I wrote it you ignored the 'only logically possible' qualification. Not sure what to do here Drakk since you clearly are ignoring critical parts of my argument.
But, here again, this is God's choice. God cannot do what is logically impossible (separation and non-separation) and chooses separation for some due to his sin rule. God's choice. God chooses and thus knowingly enables the consequences.
Apparently you have translated (in your own mind) my posit into something like: Drakk Translation Posit: "God gets what God wants even if it is logically impossible."
Oddly, even when I explicitly put the troublesome qualification in the posit itself: TiG Actual Posit: "God gets what God wants within the realm of what is logically possible."
You still argue as if the Drakk Translation Posit (above) is what I made. I doubt I could have been clearer and see no reasonable way for you to claim you missed this. There seems to be no way to get you to realize what I have posited.
I didn't. It was a question, not a statement, hence the question mark.
It was not my intent to make death seem a blessing. I do not consider it so. In fact, death is one of, if not the most, foulest things that exists.
I consider it a bad thing as well. Children are meant to be a blessing. That is why God taking the child was a punishment. David, and perhaps Bathsheba, sinned against God. God punished them for their illegitimate union by taking the blessing of a child.
Perhaps.
But I contend that God does not hold all of the cards. He holds all but one. If He held them all, we would not be having this conversation.
Thank you. I have. Now, please explain how God knowing what we will do is the cause of what we do.
The Abrahamic God. There have been cooler gods. Plus, there might actually be a creator entity who give us our lives and environment and let us have total freedom (no interference, no demands, ...). That would be the ideal censorless deity, eh?
Thank you for your honesty.
So, what motivation would God have for proving His existence in a manner of your choosing if it doesn't result in what He desires from you? Not only would any attempt on HIs part dishonor Himself, it would be pointless. Whether God exists or not, what you understand of Him you reject.
That is not the case. This is a common (and I think willful) confusion shared by most every theist I have come across.
Omniscience does not cause anything. It is not causal. In fact, omniscience is an enabled effect. What enables (allows to happen) omniscience? The answer is: a knowable future.
If the future is not knowable then omniscience is impossible. It is not possible to know what will happen in the future (part of omniscience) if the future is not knowable.
Even if no entity is omniscient, the future might be knowable. It might be deterministic. That is, it may be one big cause-effect chain. And if it is one big cause-effect chain then free will is simply an illusion. (Do you see why?) A knowable future precludes free will. And true free will means the future is not knowable.
Now, the claim that God is omniscient does not produce any effect. All that claim does is logically claim that the future is knowable. See? If at least one entity is omniscient that means the future is knowable. If the future is knowable, free-will is simply an illusion.
Ergo:
If God is omniscient, free-will is an illusion. And conversely, if free-will is true (not an illusion) then God cannot be omniscient because the future cannot be knowable.
I stand corrected.
Well, that's what you did, or tried to do.
The child's death? Or God's aim?
Then he's either not omniscient or not omnipotent.
Because he's the designer. He has control over the hardware, the software. He's the one writing the programming.
Since this seed is about Christians ( Is Christian Faith Reasonable? ) I've been talking about the Abrahamic God.
I have no problem with "Pastafarianism" or their God (the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
Ramen.
If the story of who wrote Genesis has any truth to it, then it wouldn't just be shared oral history but the direct religious indoctrination of Moses being raised as a prince of Egypt. He would have been taught all the ancient Egyptian origin myths and religious traditions. So the author of the Adam and Eve story would definitely have known all about Atum long before he wrote his own origin myths with the Israelite's replacing the Egyptians as the chosen people and direct descendants of the first humans created by Gods.
Maybe there is no motivation for God to prove his existence.
Or maybe there is just no God to be motivated.
As there hasn't been any evidence of his existence thus far, the rational course is still skepticism about the existence of God.
Most likely. And they would likely have known of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was likely reworked as the Great Flood.
But even if Genesis was untrue, and Moses didn't exist, stories would have been shared between tribes, amalgamated, and passed down orally, and recorded at some point.
I not only acknowledge it, I say that this is literally what I have been telling you all along. Therefore, I don't understand the need to acknowledge it. It is as if you think I haven't realized this when it has literally been my argument.
This is correct, within the context of what we've been speaking of. Remember, it is your claim that God gets what God wants, not mine. Logically, if God grants free will to His creation, it is demonstrably possible that God will not get what He wants from all of them. In fact, it goes from possible to being reality.
Do not know what you are referring to here.
God doesn't have a choice in this. His nature compels Him to take the actions that He does. What He does have a choice in is how He carries out what His nature demands. For instance, His nature demands that our sins be punished. However, He realizes we are helpless in the face of our sin nature. So, rather than punish us, He took the punishment upon Himself for those who would accept it.
Beyond that, what you have said here makes no sense to me. That is, I do not understand what you are talking about.
If so it is because of what you say. You claim you agree that God cannot do the logically impossible but then go on to say God could....
What God could or couldn't do is the subject of endless speculation. What isn't is that God cannot make an individual with free will and then not allow that individual to exercise it and still claim the individual has free will. That is logically impossible. Unless you can prove otherwise?
Now from my perspective, if God exists it is certainly not the God of the Bible. That God is impossible.
I think plenty of people share this view that God is something quite different than that described by the Bible. Personally I would hope that if there is a God this God would be a creator who, for whatever reason, gave us our lives and this planet and left us alone to find our way.
If this God showed up we would know nothing about this creator entity; everything would be learned for the first time directly from the source. And I suspect that this God would be clear and ensure that all human beings would have the identical understanding of the communication.
One can only hope that this God would be net good news for us. Then again, we could simply be a science experiment ...
If that were the case then here is how the debate would have gone:
But that is not what happened even though I routinely emphasized that I am only talking about what is logically possible. (Ever read that?)
The debate somewhat followed the above except line 6 never happened. But I effectively repeated line 5 quite a few times.
LOL, apparently not.
Why? Why would God granting us free will diminish His attributes? We hold the card we do because He gave it to us, not because we have the power to give it to ourselves. He can also take it away. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you think our having free will means God cannot be omniscient or omnipotent. We only can oppose God because He allows us to, not because we have the strength to oppose Him. Satan, the most powerful creation of all doesn't have the power to oppose God. He only does it because God allows it. Take Satan's persecution of Job. He had to get permission from God to persecute him.
Show me where.
Nope. Here's my version and it is based not on how the debate would have gone but, rather, how it has actually gone.
Where do I claim that God can grant true (as in not mitigated) free will AND ensure beings never disobey Him?
Give me a link.
God gets what God wants.
And you have just demonstrated exactly what I stated @2.1.109 when I hypothesized what you have been doing:
Fascinating.
Because free will renders the future unknowable. If God can't know the future, he is by definition not omniscient. If the future is knowable, our actions have already been determined, and we don't have free will. TiG explained this better than I have in his @2.1.113
So God got what God wanted. He wanted Job to be persecuted by Satan. He allowed it.
A red herring. I didn't state that you made such a claim. I stated that you claim that God, in His omnipotence and omniscience could create beings that never disobeyed Him. And you have. I also agreed with this. But I also pointed out that such a state of affairs doesn't produce the results God apparently wants. Specifically, beings that choose Him of their own free will.
And I pointed out that it is logically impossible for God to have (implied all) beings that choose Him of their own free will. Remember that I have not redefined omnipotence to mean: ability to do what is logically impossible.
Do you read what I write Drakk?:
Oh put a sock in it, at long last. How many times are you people going to argue the exact same points? A thousand?
Just because God knows everything it does not preclude the experience of free will for human beings. In fact, human beings HAVE TO experience free will. It is the way this existence unfolds. It is not possible for any human being to not experience free will, every minute of their lives.
Try to imagine a circumstance where you could not make up your mind about what you thought about your situation.
You are about to be eaten by a tiger. Well what do you know, it is your choice to decide how you are going to react to being eaten by a tiger, and you can't refuse that decision.
We ALWAYS experience free will.
Now, does that disprove the existence of God? Of course not.
The experiences of God and the experiences of we human beings are not on the same plane. God can know the future, AND we can still have free will.
It's just the way it is.
You are boring the hell out of me. You did not point out that it is logically impossible for God to create beings with free will and expect that all would choose Him. I did. Now you wish to claim that this is your position. It is not. Your position has been that God gets what God wants. But since such a position is obviously wrong you attempt to make it seem as if my argument has been yours all along. Do you think I can not see this?
This is not something you can spin. It it is just too obvious. Best to move on.
By the way, here is our opening exchange:
Millions probably.
God does not even have to be in the equation. If the future is knowable then free will is impossible.
The notion of not having free will is repugnant and counter-intuitive. But, whether you like it or not, neuroscience continues to raise serious questions on free will. Our consciousness might indeed be nothing more than a mechanism that generates the illusion of free will.
Actually the primordial amygdala is doing most of the thinking here. It is fashioning a flee impulse before the frontal cortex has even started processing.
It does seem that way. Science has shown that reality does not always correlate with our intuition (and this trend is increasing).
God does not have to be part of this consideration.
That is your claim. Now the challenge is to support that with logic and facts.
Nobody is trying to disprove the existence of God. That is logically impossible.
Nobody is making you read this, John.
And the same points would not need to be made over and over, if all participants would bother to read them, instead of willfully ignoring them.
For emphasis.
From a logical standpoint, and assuming God created the universe, humans, and everything else, then it is impossible to have free will if god is omniscient. God knows what future lies for us. Therefore, any "choice" we make only leads to that future or outcome. There is no way to change it. Our "choices" via free will is already set in stone. Our perception of free will is just an illusion then.
Yep. Even though there is no way to prove God exists, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
Generally speaking, you can't prove a negative.
For example, I can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. Bigfoot may live in remote areas and may be an expert at hiding. There are people who have claimed they've seen bigfoot butt all of the evidence I've seen is dubious. No hunters have killed a Bigfoot. There's even a TV show called "Finding Bigfoot". It should be probably be called "NOT Finding Bigfoot" because they haven't found one.
Is there evidence that God exists? There are people like Pat Robertson who claim God talks to them. If Pat Robertson is telling the truth about God talking to him, I find it humorous that God lies to him.
And the guy next to him is an outed prosperity gospel preacher, Benny Hinn :
A liar sitting down talking with a scumbag thief and both were elevated due to people believing what they are told and not engaging in critical thinking.
You're right. [deleted]
That is what I did with my free will. I chose to believe in and follow God. Everyone has the choice to do that or not according to the best light shown to them in their life time. Others will freely chose other paths. Our goal is to get our message out there so that for as many as possible Christianity will be that best light shown people.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[
Oh, the irony - from someone who posts the same anti-Trump articles every day.
Nobody's forcing you to read or comment on these idiotic, ignorant seeds that Heartland constantly posts.
These days, we know that if people claim gods are talking to them, they're either lying false prophets, delusional, or outright mentally ill. We've seen it time and again when people murder their children because "God told them to." Just like in the bible. I wonder how many of the saints were mentally ill.
I see no link to support your claim and one cannot deny the actual linked quotes I just provided so you resort to projection.
In a nutshell, this is the game you played:
You ignore the correction and proceed to argue with your ridiculous change to my posit and I, all the while, repeatedly tell you that I am only talking about that which is within the realm of logical possibility. I do not hold that omnipotence means 'ability to do the impossible'.
At the end when you finally acknowledge that I am only talking within the realm of logical possibility (after my repeated explicit notes of same) you dishonestly claim that I changed my posit.
This, by the way, is a method I see you often employ. You implicitly change my posits to something ridiculous and then argue the resulting ridiculous strawman. If you cannot engage in debate without dishonest tactics like strawman arguments that should tell you something about the logical integrity of your own posits. That is, maybe your positions are not nearly as sound as you think.
And since you agree that God gets what God wants within the realm of logical possibility then we can move to the next step.
God, as defined in the Bible, is the root cause of all good and all bad. This is because God is defined as omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing). God calls all the shots. God's choices have consequences and since God is defined to be omniscient, those consequences are known to God. In other words, God knowingly makes the choices that result in all that is good and all that is bad.
Thus by granting Chairman Mao Zedong free will (albeit limited) God knowingly allowed him to murder millions. If God is good then that would mean that He is willing to accept this level of bad in order to get some greater good. But that bad still is a result of His choice; God names the game, sets the rules and sees all the cards before they are played.
This leads back to the Bible where we see God start off the process with a divine setup. He knowingly created Adam, Eve, the serpent, etc. and placed them in a situation that He knew would result in disobedience. He then punished them and all of their progeny for a crime that He knew would occur. God could have created Adam & Eve so that they would not disobey Him but He chose to give them the ability to disobey. That was His knowing choice. It is as much a setup as me putting meat in front of my dog and then punishing her for eating it.
The biblical characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence create a God that is a logical contradiction. An omnibenevolent God who starts off with a divine setup. A perfect God who knowingly created human beings who would become 'corrupt' (yet the omniscient God 'discovers' this as if He did not really know) and then kills life on the entire planet and start over with Noah, et. al. He knowingly created these creatures only to destroy them all?? An all-knowing God who 'fears' his creations are growing too wise and bold and scatters them with incompatible languages (Tower of Babel). This omnipotent, omniscient God knew exactly what His creations would do yet is surprised and disappointed?
A perfect, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creator who punishes His creations for acting according to the nature He gave them is a logical contradiction. An all-knowing creator being surprised by that which He created is a logical contradiction. It is an ill-defined character in an ancient book. God, as defined, is a logical contradiction and ipso facto does not exist.
There may indeed be a creator, but it is definitely not the logical contradiction defined by the Bible.
We have members who claim to have direct communication with God. I suspect they are using generous language and are simply tagging certain emotional feelings they experience with some form of communication with the grandest possible entity. But that is just a guess since they (all but one) are always vague about what is actually taking place.
Pat Robertson, et. al., more likely are lying. This "God told me" crap is how they get their faithful followers to support them; they believe that these televangelists have a special tie to God. Remember that Kenneth Copeland ostensibly has control over the weather 'in the name of Jesus'.
If there is no free will, why do we punish people who commit crimes?
Aren't they (in the eyes of those who feel there is no such thing as free will) predestined to do whatever it is they do?
Why bother to hold people accountable for their actions if they have no control over what they do?
Seems highly illogical to me.
Just like complaining about folks in politics--they have no control over their actions because some say there is no free will.
Because we operate as though we have free will. That is the best option currently available to us and we are not all convinced that we lack free will; so it would be quite premature to effect a complete change in our legal system at this point.
I think a fact often lost or disputed is also partly responsible for some believers imagining they've "seen the light". To put it bluntly, it's drugs. Not drugs they may inhale or inject, but chemical responses our bodies have to certain stimulus. I saw it first hand when my Pentecostal father and others were claiming to be "filled" with the holy spirit to the extent they started babbling incoherently and claiming they were speaking in tongues. I believe they were high on certain chemicals the brain manufactures when under specific stresses and repetitive actions. Just like a child hyperventilating when they've perhaps intentionally pushed their stress limits beyond what the human brain can handle so the body manufactures chemicals in response to those triggers. Adrenaline, oxytocin, dopamine and more, evolutionary biproducts that have helped humans survive on this hostile planet.
When those of us push for something more and get a glint of light we often imagine that was somehow a divine connection, but in reality, I believe it was just a chemical reaction to our brain responding to our demand. Those who describe having these supposedly "divine" experiences are often going through some very real chaos in their lives. Praying to your own brain, and your brain responding with some unprovable affirmation shouldn't be considered a rare phenomenon. It's why so many will say they've had some sort of "divine" experience or spiritual encounter, but be completely unable to verify or prove it by any external means. I believe it's an emotional and chemical response to stimulus, and while it's "super natural", it's very unlikely to be "supernatural".
It's funny, but when someone claims something invisible or mystical talks to them, then we think they have some kind of psychological condition. But if someone says god is talking to them, then it's generally accepted or no questions asked. Go figure.
Very true - and there is also a medical/scientific explanation for people who were close to death and claim to have "seen the light". But the religious will not accept that, and they claim this is evidence of an afterlife.
Maybe it's self hypnosis.
Or self delusion.
How can you claim to be able to tell me what my "game" is when you spout this crap? We emphatically do not agree that God always gets what He wants, whether it's logically possible or not. My position, which is easily demonstrable, is that God doesn't always get what He wants. How is this not clear to you? What way can I put it so that you get this? Because, really, I don't know how to say it any more plainly. WE. DO. NOT. AGREE. ON. THIS.
Total crap. Let me boil the debate down for you.
Your claim is that an omnipotent, omnscient God gets what God wants. The implication is that if He does not, it means He's either not omnipotent or not omniscient or both. My claim is that God is both omniscient and omnipotent and there's nothing about having those traits that prevents Him from, of His own free will, allowing His creation to reject Him. That He allows it hardly equates to Him wanting us to.
Rather than actually address this debate, you go on and on, ad nauseum, about what God could have done. On and on about how God knew that Adam and Eve would fall. That Chairman Mao would kill millions through design and incompetence. What, exactly, does any of that have to do with whether or not God always gets what He wants?
The answer to that question is that you've actually ignored the point of the debate and try to sell the idea that because God knows beforehand and allows it to happen it is therefore HIs will that it should. Total crap and an example of you doing what you say you aren't doing. Trying to make God do the impossible. Once again, how does God allow free will but make it so we can't use it? Saying God could or should have prevented the Stalins, Maos and Dahmers is taking away the free will He intended us to have. And where does He draw the line? Jesus said that you have heard you will not murder but I tell you if you even hate your brother you are guilty of murder. God's standards for righteousness are impossible on our own, so where exactly does God stop us? What's the line?
As usual, our debates end with you accusing me of what you are actually guilty of. I don't know why I bother.
Yet ...
You literally quoted the words I used: "God gets what God wants within the realm of what is logically possible" and then agreed with them. You then went on to explain (equivocate) further by noting that God wants to grant (full) free will AND have all people love and obey Him. But you are claiming that God wants something that is NOT logically possible. Indeed, you go on to affirm that this is not logically possible:
In short, you agree that we are talking only about what is logically possible yet you offer examples that you affirm are logically impossible. That is at the very best a direct contradiction.
NOTE: I have (yet again) included quotes directly from this thread to prove I am correct. You, in contrast, merely make claims. I provide evidence, you provide mere words.
Yet nothing. Instead of trying to make what I say fit what you want it to, freaking actually read it.
Can you see it now????????? It is logically possible for God to give us free will. He did so.
Yes, God wants all to come to Him, but because He has given us free will He knows it will not happen. Some will be lost. That it is logically impossible, or at least apparently unlikely, that all will come to Him doesn't mean God can't want it.
Um, no. Once again, we are not in agreement. How can you say we are in agreement when you claim God gets what God wants and I clamin that this is not always the case? In what manner do you consider this agreement?
Yes, Drakk, it is logically possible for God to grant free will (well, let's assume that for the sake of argument). Separately, it is logically possible for God to ensure all people love and obey Him. I have never disagreed with this; indeed I have freely acknowledged this. Have you not noticed?
What is NOT logically possible is for God to grant free will (to choose to not love and/or obey) AND ensure all people love and obey Him. We call that logically impossible.
Show me that you understand what I just wrote.
Did you not read your own words quoted in TiG @ 2.1.157 ? Not sure I can make this clearer than to show you your own words where you explicitly acknowledge that I am talking about what is possible (not including what is impossible):
( I truncated because I have already detailed this @ 2.1.157 )
Seriously? As if I haven't been arguing that all along?
I could probably keep going but...
No, you truncated it because you don't want to deal with the fact that I said I disagreed with how you apply it.
You started off with simply "God gets what God wants," both here and in the other discussion. Now, since I've shown you that God doesn't always get what He wants, you think you can save your argument by tacking "within the realm of what is possible" at the end. This is why you keep going on and on about tacking it on there, like it's some magic card that gets you out of the problem with your argument.
God granting free will means God will not get all that He wants. It's that simple. I don't know why you continue to argue about it.
I really admire your seemingly endless patience.
You showed in your prior post (yet again) that you are arguing that God cannot get what is impossible. I agree. The impossible is, by definition, impossible.
Omnipotence does not mean that the logically impossible is somehow possible. I suspect this is obvious to most people. After all, when I stated that God gets what God wants, who with at least normal intelligence would presume that means that God can get what is logically impossible (e.g. God creating a rock so big that He cannot move it)? Your added presumption was and is ridiculous. But what is worse, is that when I saw your presumption I immediately corrected it and told you that I am not expecting God to be able to do the impossible. That should have ended it. No, you just kept going with your presumption and ignored my repeated corrections of same.
Bottom line, God gets what God wants (excluding what is logically impossible). If you agree (and I proved that you do in my recent posts) then you wasted a whole bunch of energy stubbornly arguing an absurd strawman.
REMEMBER: I have provided direct quotes from you and me that prove I am correct. You simply provide rhetoric. It is impossible for you to deliver a quote from me where I state that God should be able to do the impossible but there exist plenty of quotes from me that state God can do whatever is logically possible.
* all the above is based on the biblical definition of God
I do as well. Great job both of you. 😎👍👏
Well let's test your intellectual honesty.
In the other discussion, before you even entered it:
Read what I offered in blue a week ago. We call that proof. But that was a reply to Texan. You entered this debate later, so here is another response to Texan after you entered the debate:
Again, I offered the qualification as an aside. But this is not a reply to you. Here is a reply to you before I detected your game:
Note how I am talking about that which happens. No hint that I am suggesting God could do the impossible. Of course, since I had already twice offered to Texan that I am only talking about what is logically possible.
Here is my next response to you after detecting what I suspected was a misunderstanding:
Note what I wrote in blue . This is just me ensuring that you understood what I was saying (assuming you never read my earlier responses to Texan). After another reply I made my comment even more specific. This is where I first correct your misunderstanding with direct language:
Indeed I had qualified my statements (proof given). The above language leaves no doubt. You ignored this a week ago and continue even to the present with a strawman argument. Nothing like comment history to expose intellectual dishonesty. I continued to correct you but in the prior argument you ignored me throughout.
Now in this seed, here is my opening comment on this debate:
Here I am just continuing to qualify with you since at this point I am aware of the game you are playing (since you started it in the prior debate).
Here is my next reply to you:
That should suffice to prove you wrong yet again. I did not argue that God could do the impossible; I explicitly precluded that even starting a week ago in the prior debate before you entered and directly to you when you did enter. And here in this seed I started my first two replies to you with the explicit statement that the impossible is off the table.
Your allegation (" You started off with simply "God gets what God wants, " both here and in the other discussion "), Drakk, is bullshit on both counts since in my actual argument I clearly stated that I preclude the impossible.
Maybe you just forgot?
Me too! 👏👍
WTF? Was God a hermaphrodite?
"Man created God in his own image." - al Jizzerror
"the man has now become like one of us "
god was not a singular being as some might suggest
look it up.
I find it interesting how the front of the book says we must NOT be allowed to live forever on our own - but the back of the book says to believe in him and we get to live forever.
conclusion: god was a narcissistic genetic engineer... LOL
and the reference to "man is to our species as a whole not a "sex
as it is above so shall it be below = as it is below so it is above.
I bet their politics is crazy
as I believe in god but not "magic" that makes me a christian heretic
Did God suffer from multiple personality disorder?
So, if they were all the same person, did the Holy Ghost have a vagina?
LOL no. but that's funny.
all genetic engineers engaged in a project that big have people who work for them.
as it is below = it is above
the big question is why create us in the first place? a science experiment?
side note:
eve did not eat an apple... she ate from the tree of knowledge.
the tree of knowledge? science
the tree of life? genetic engineering / DNA
Is that some form of polytheism?
stick any label ya want on it... matters not to me.
just curious here.
is an alien genetic engineer harder to swallow than a singular magical being?
personally im a bit insulted that predators in the animal kingdom have better night vision than we do... but that is probably just me... LOL
cheers
"Swallow" is a strange choice of words.
Was the "big bang" actually primordial black holes banging together until they ejaculated matter in all directions?
only to small minds who only focus on definitions and not ideas.
ciao
I can't "swallow" the Bible (it's too big and difficult to chew).
Hmmm.... Will it blend?
I’m a heretic by that definition.
Me too.
I think he got that definition from Catholick dogma.
As far as the origin of life is concerned, an alien genetic engineer hypothesis would be much, much easier to swallow (or at least to consider) than any magical being hypothesis.
It's not just you. They have a better sense of smell too.
We have evolution to thank for our diminished senses. We still have the genes for a better sense of smell, for example, but we haven't relied on them for survival for such a long time that they have been free to mutate out of operation without reducing our reproductive success. So here we are, very poor smellers (comparatively speaking), who, more often than not, end up needing glasses to boot.
or... the genetic engineering was not so "intelligent.
I reckon we are like the killer bee. (we created them = we are their "god and they are broken just like us. overly aggressive )
(killer humans) made by genetic engineers but the job could have been better. this was the best they could do.
" LORD God said, " The man has now become like one of us"
this is another interesting point. How many Gods were or are there? The commandment about having no other gods before me also suggests there were or are multiple gods,
This is another thing that does not make sense to me
Right before that we have another major contradiction in the Bible: omniscient God is surprised. An all knowing entity actually 'learned' something that He did not know. He discovered that Adam & Eve had eaten forbidden fruit and then had to act in response.
'All knowing' is a poison pill attribute in the definition of a plausible God. Especially when said God decides one day to destroy all of His creations — beings that He made (as an omnipotent creator) and who He knew would fail Him (omniscience).
Articles like this are proselytizing. Newstalkers is not a Sunday school. No one comes on here and advocates for Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, animism, pantheism, Easter Island religion, Roman gods, Thor, or any religion. Why do you have to do it every day?
If you are a good person God won't keep you out of heaven because you failed to spread the word sufficiently. Why not give it a rest.
Bingo. I don't need to be judged by those who claim to practice Christianity. Another example of religious hypocrisy.
That sure sounds to me like someone promoting a specific religion.
Christians are not supposed to judge others.
It seems to me that Christians are extremely judg mental.
PROSELYTIZE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
proselytize definition: 1. to try to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to…. Learn more.
This seed in no way judged the behavior of any individual nor does it beg anyone to join a denomination. It simply examines the reasoned faith backed by logic as opposed to the irrationality of the naturalist and the empiricist.
That's a problem they have brought on themselves. They've come up with all these rules that were initially written for the purpose of mass crowd control. Specifically to control those who they deemed less worthy and easily manipulated.
That grand experiment has actually been extremely successful. Those in power are still using religion as a vehicle to control and manipulate those they deem less worthy. And those less worthy are still lapping it up. (BTW - I used the word lapping twice already today. That must be my word of the day......hahahahaha)
On the other hand, I've always said that religion serves a purpose for the elderly. It offers them a form of piece of mind and somewhere for them to gather and socialize. Most old people who attend church regularly are the most flexible and understanding and do not judge others. It's the younger attendees that are the problem. They use church more as a social climbing club in which they are vying to be part of the popular crowd. Thus all the judgement and intolerance. It's like perpetually being in high school with the mean kids.
X - I remember when I first joined NT back in 2016. I specifically remember you trying to drag me to church with you and I was kicking and screaming. Actually......that may have been one of my creative short stories......... Never mind, that was one of my short stories and not an actually memory.
So you are saying that there can be no logic or reason without Christian faith. Believing in the supernatural is neither logical nor reasonable.
Sorry HA, that is simply not how real life works. You should search for answers outside of Genesis.
I would never drag someone to church with me. They would come willingly because either they asked me to take them or because I asked them to. God does not want coerced or compelled worship from people who don’t want to be there.
X - after 3 years you still haven't caught on to my sense of humor. I was only kidding around with you.
Maybe you would have liked it better seeded from TiG’s critical thinkers group? But then he would control the seed.
I have defended Christianity , which is a reasonable religious belief. You promote it and proselytize it and tell people if they are not Christian they are not going to heaven. That is the difference between us.
Have I ever moderated you unfairly in my group?
Your caricature of me is as usual not accurate. I don’t judge whether people will go to Heaven or Hell. That is strictly up to God only as He looks upon the heart of every person, not their outward appearance we fallen mortals see.
So people don't need to be born again to be saved? Okay then.
I didn’t say anything about that. I’m just saying the seed belongs and that my preference was to go through this group instead.
What ever Jesus said to Nicodemus on the matter is my belief. It’s just not my place to judge whether a person is saved in their heart or not. One can not deny that God even exists and call believers names and expect the best results. To expect otherwise is quite illogical.
I do not believe that God exists.
Do think that John and I are going to be thrown into a "lake of fire" for all eternity?
No
In the "Recent Comments" box on the "Front Page" your previous comment is hilarious!
I agree!
And this group is far more appropriate for this seed because the seed is the opposite of critical thinking. I responded to you speaking of me and my group out of thin air.
Excellent.
I can, and will, deny your claims that god exists until you actually prove it does. To simply accept such claims, especially the more extraordinary ones, sans evidence is quite illogical and irrational. I prefer a dose of logic, thank you.
Christ's philosophy of loving one anothers, treating everyone fairly and not judging each other too harshly is actually quite reasonable.
Believing a mythical immortal spirit had sex with a human girl who gave birth to a god is not...
There was no sexual act for the Holy Spirit to place the baby Jesus within Mary. A sexual act would have precluded the Virgin birth and one can’t be a Christian in good standing denying the origins of The Messiah.
Your worthless platitudes do not Impress me...
That’s fine. I just say ok and move on to the next person.
Seems like you're wasting your time. No one here seems interested in your usual brand of dogmatic BS!
He says he "moves on to the next person" as if he believes his method of dumping dogma on random readers has actually "saved" someone. And "move on" to where? It's pretty much 24/7 religious conservative fantasy seeding on NT from what I can see.
And at what point is it enough? All of NT has probably seen such dogmatic nonsense by now. So who's left? Perhaps certain individuals should move on from NT?
Interesting way to start an article: bemoaning reason being superior to faith. The author thinks that faith (believing something without supporting evidence because other human beings claimed it to be true) or ("belief in that for which there is no empirical proof") should preempt reason ("the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.").
One wonders if a volunteer (one who is not otherwise coerced) suicide bomber would actually carry out the attack if s/he was using reason more than faith. I suspect there are not too many volunteer suicide bombers who are thinking critically but quite a few who would do anything in the service of Allah (by faith).
But that faith is belief in what other human beings say is true. Seems to be far too much trust given to human beings claiming to have knowledge of the grandest possible entity.
It seems some people really think faith or belief equals fact. What is more unreasonable or irrational than that?
I have noticed that many apologists will stop at nothing: illogic, falsehoods, etc. to try to support their beliefs. It does not surprise me that one has declared that faith (belief in what other human beings merely claim is true sans evidence) is superior to reason ("the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.") based on quality evidence.
Indeed. Such mentality lends credence to the idea that religious belief is a form of a psychological condition.
From this seed:
So you're saying that "faith" is belief in something for which there is no empirical proof.
That is NOT "reasonable".
“Blessed are they who having not seen, believe” Jesus speaking to doubting Thomas.
Nobody can see their invisible Friend.
Every eye then living will see Him sooner than many think. Sadly most will respond to that event in horror rather than sheer ultimate joy.
Can you actually see your invisible Friend?
Can your invisible Friend see you?
Sounds like the definition of delusion.
"to serve Man"
The contrary is that the Christian God (the God as defined by Christianity ... essentially that defined by the Bible) does not exist. It is not impossible that the Christian God is human fiction. Indeed, it is near certainty that the God as defined by Christianity (and the Bible) cannot possibly exist. That God, as defined, is a contradiction. A contradiction in definition means the definition is false.
A god (as in sentient entity of the known universe) might exist. While possible, we know nothing at all about this hypothetical creator. Our reality is extremely complex and still quite mysterious to us. Believing that our origins are the result of a sentient uber-powerful entity is not based on evidence, but it is not unreasonable either. Belief that the biblical definition of God is true, in contrast, is unreasonable.
Then don’t bother to respond to my seeds on the matter given your sheer and utter contempt for The Bible, Christianity, and God. To dismiss the rational faith of the religion as unreasonable is to cut off all communication between us. Your implacable hostility toward what we believe will not stop my free will expression of said rational belief. It is unproductive to argue further with you so instead of doing so, I will no longer communicate with you though I won’t actually use the ignore feature on you.
Your choice. But my comment was a calm statement of my position and an initial justification of same. I can of course go substantially deeper in explaining my position. You choose to not even listen and that is fine. But when you choose to post articles or seeds on this public forum I will likely comment if I disagree.
I have yet to see you formulate an argument so if you do not want to comment I think that is excellent. So going forward, I will offer my rebuttals and arguments and you will be silent. I think that will work nicely.
no, I may respond to others who respond to you but there is no point in me wasting my time on a dogmatic Christian belief denier. The author of my article about The NY Times issue recently has the right idea and I’m going to follow suit.
Yes, I know, you will tell them that everything they wrote is exactly right, etc. and you will offer a thumbs up emoticon. We have all seen the pom poms and heard the cheers.
Now feel free to start not responding to me. Your recent post is personal and devoid of anything of value relating to the topic of your seed.
I have no "hostility" toward anyone's Christian beliefs I simply do NOT share those beliefs.
"Rational faith" is an oxy moron.
Here a dictionary definition of "rational":
There’s a difference between not sharing the belief of another person and telling that person that everything they believe and hold dear is not rational or is irrational.
Your beliefs are not immune to criticism. If you want to live in an area where religion cannot be discussed in less than glowing terms, the United States is not the place for you.
And frankly, you taking offense at having your beliefs criticized is laughable when you call others morons based on their beliefs.
Unless the main reason I cannot share your belief is because said belief is not rational.
Butt, I believe everyone has the right to believe anything they want.
Religious belief by definition is irrational.
That's ok TiG. The more rational among us know your posts are always valuable and relevant to the topic. Not to mention both logical and rational.
Thanks Gordy.
considering that the seed article is nothing more than a positive affirmation that Christian Faith is reasonable, the hate and judgementslism has all come from those who deny the rational sanity of Bible believing Christians.
Really?
Hate?
What else would motivate one to tell others that everything they believe in is not rational and that ply in the last 100 years or so a small percentage of humanity finally became rational by discarding God from the universe and replacing Him with a faith in the idea of random chance?
What motivates a religion to condemn unbelievers to be tossed in a lake of fire for all eternity?
Nobody can justifiably tell someone that there is no creator of the universe. The speculation is possible and has not been disproved. However, one can certainly argue contradictions in what human beings have told other human beings about said creator for millennia via organized religions.
Exposing the contradictions (and thus falsehoods) in religions is ironically in support of the creator of the universe (if there is one) given that these religions define this creator as they see fit. And in the case of the Abrahamic religions, the creator is described in a rather uncomplimentary fashion.
Best to believe (if one must) that a sentient creator might exist and stop there. Nobody on this planet has ever evidenced direct knowledge of such a supreme entity (all the 'knowledge' comes from human beings making claims) so it is unreasonable to pretend to actually know anything about the supreme sentient creator of everything (assuming it exists).
There is no lake of fire 🔥 for all eternity.
Depends on which "Christian" you ask. Some actually believe there is.
Since I don't believe in the Bible, I don't believe in the "Lake of Fire" either.
As you know there are lots of different versions of the Bible. I don't know which Bible you believe in. So I searched lots of Bibles for "Lake of Fire".
I never said there is no lake of fire. I said that there was no everlasting lake of fire. The effects on the souls of the lost are eternal as is their separation from God and from life. They are consumed, forever dead, not being burned alive for all eternity. When it’s over the earth is recreated new and Eden restored upon the ashes that are the by product of the lake of fire.
What a relief. I don't think I can tread fire for more than a millennium or two.
It's nice to know that new Eden will be restored on my ash hole.
BTW, as you may have noticed, I don't believe in God and I enjoy ridiculing the unreasonable beliefs of all religions.
Think of the mind F#$! that must be, to believe you'll burn or go to hell for eternity if you don't believe in or piss off god? Especially if you're an impressionable child. That's essentially child abuse. And thinking you'll go to hell, that cloud of fear constantly hanging over one's head? Miserable indeed.
Then quit posting these unreasonable articles. Your judgementalism towards non believers makes you a poor messenger and a failure in spreading the faith.
Many of us grew up with this spiritual nonsense and after many years of soul searching and exploration came to the conclusion that what you preach is simply not true.
There is nothing rational about religious belief, especially considering the more outrageous claims made based on religion or faith, despite any logical or empirical contradictions.
Religion did not make sense to me as a little boy and makes less sense to me after over 60 years
Christians can believe what they want for themselves and their lives, but when they judge others, want to make laws according to the bible, want to discriminate based on their interpretation of the bible and try to take away a woman's reproductive choices then no their faith is not reasonable.
Lately I have had a visit from a church lady and a friend every Wednesday. So far they have answered every question I have had about religion beautifully and consistently. It is not to say that I will ever attend church, but I now understand the whole religion thing a little better.
The bottom line is that yes, Christian belief and faith are rational as are the people who hold to those rational beliefs.
The bottom line is that the old testament was written by ancient goat herders.
Take a look at the way the Bible describes the Solar System.
Guess what. The Earth is not the center of the Solar System.
It's irrational to use the Bible as a physics text book.
And it's irrational to use the Bible as a biology text book.
It's irrational to believe in creationism.
The Bible never said the earth is the center of the universe or solar system. It is Gods love letter to humanity as we are the only of his creation in the universe to fall to Satan’s rebellion. So naturally it is earth and human centered because it shines a light on the path to our eternal salvation and restoration. There is absolutely nothing irrational about accepting the Genesis account of our origins. An intelligent designer as opposed to random chance is both logical and rational.
Creationism/Genesis/ID is completely irrational, and illogical, as there is no supporting empirical evidence in the least, and you have consistently failed or refused to provide any when challenged. So your dogmatic BS is just like any other "creation" story from any other religion. You merely claiming it's rational does not make it so.
The Bible says the Earth is a fixed point that cannot be moved:
Okay the Earth can't move butt the Bible says the Sun moves:
If the Biblical Sun moves and the Earth can't move that describes a geocentric Solar System.
Therefore the Bible should NOT be used as a textbook of Astronomy.
The bible shouldn't be used as a textbook of anything, except maybe mythology and fables. That's about all it is anyway.
It does contain some interesting military history. Some of the military tactics are still useful.
It has been revised, translated and rewritten so many times who knows what is real
Archeologists can't even confirm that the Exodus took place as described in the Bible.
Are you saying God created the universe and nothing existed before this "Intelligent Designer" (God) created it?
I subscribe to "the Big Bang Theory".
Genesis (KJV):
Wow! It looks like, according to Genesis, God gave us marijuana.
That's cool.
Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is also useful, and doesn't contain as much filler.
I only read some of the quotations.
Butt, they were interesting.
It is an interesting read.
Is that the book referenced in the movie Battleship?
Yes
I thought it sounded familiar.
It's a classic work, first published in the 5th Century BC.
That's merely your opinion and wishful thinking. Unless you can prove your faith/belief based claims, then they completely irrational, especially when they fly in the face of established facts and/or evidence.