The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 02:06:36 PM
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
-
Is this a true story? Were you the kid? It's ok, you can tell us and we'll get in touch with social services for you
-
Is this a true story? Were you the kid? It's ok, you can tell us and we'll get in touch with social services for you
It's true. He also drank bleach, and boiling hot WD-40. Unfortunately, I still have some catching up to do.
-
Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? :(
-
Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? :(
I just can't be bothered to right now. It's an old argument with old answers.
-
Why are you treating religion like a science? It's almost as mad as treating FES like a science. There are an infinite number of counter arguments, just ask any zealot. Here is one answer you may hear: There was no evil until Adam and Eve sinned, after which time God made them imperfect, cast Satan The Devil (who is evil) down Earth (to rule over it) hence the situation we have today.
-
Why are you treating religion like a science? It's almost as mad as treating FES like a science. There are an infinite number of counter arguments, just ask any zealot. Here is one answer you may hear: There was no evil until Adam and Eve sinned, after which time God made them imperfect, cast Satan The Devil (who is evil) down Earth (to rule over it) hence the situation we have today.
I use science, logic and reason because it is superior.
This is not my argument but I found it to be thought provoking.
Those counterarguments are not logical, they are faith based.
-
Those counterarguments are not logical, they are faith based.
Guess what; so is religion.
-
What the hell do you think Religion is?
-
Since the idea of evil is subjective, you cannot continue your thought experiment.
-
Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?
Harm physically, emotionally, or otherwise?
The absence of good? (what is 'good'?)
Obstruction of morals and ethics?
All definitions I can think of are still conflicting with omnibenevolence.
-
You're missing one vital piece of information. Satan rules Earth. Evil can run riot until such time as God rains down fiery destruction on all the evil and the Earth returns to perfection. I really don't understand this whole debate it makes zero sense.
-
I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. :-\
And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
Maybe god knows that an event may seem evil to you, but serve the greater good. So I will say your definition of evil is flawed. What if the baby sitter being omnipotent knew that this child was going to grow up to be hitler?
Your reasoning is flawed. suicide.
-
Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?
-
Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?
Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.
-
Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?
I don't have a definition of evil because it doesn't exist. It was created, for what reason, I'm not sure. Perhaps to create a divide, to showcase one group's superiority; something along those lines.
-
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Why?
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
Omniscience excludes omnipotence. Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
Omniscience excludes omnipotence. Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.
Or rather that God knows all possible futures and can make any possible future come to pass.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
Omniscience excludes omnipotence. Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.
Or rather that God knows all possible futures and can make any possible future come to pass.
Any possible, but not all of them at once in one Universe.
-
All that would be required is to change all the physical laws of the universe.
-
No.
-
What else would be required then?
-
Innumerably infinite number of parallel Universes with only one G-d.
-
And how is this a problem?
-
When I come to think of it, even then omnipotence is impossible. Namely, in not one of these Universes would it be possible for the statement:
If p is a logical statement, then "p and not-p is true" is true.
to be a true statement.
-
"I own a cat."
It is true when I say it and not true when my neighbor says it.
-
"I own a cat."
It is true when I say it and not true when my neighbor says it.
That is because it is not a logical statement in the strict sense of the word, but, instead, a predicative function. The 'I' is the predicative variable, which we can denote as X, so now your statement becomes:
"X owns a cat."
which has a definite truth value for any noun X.
But, I don't think this matters to the discussion.
To summarize. Is an omnipotent and omniscient being able to make itself not omniscient?
-
This does not seems to be a proof/disproof of god, or the concept of the entity of god as much as an attempted disproof of the definition of god as defined by major world religions. (as I see it)
If Premise 1 is false then the entire proof is null. I see no reason why god, or such an entity as god, if it were to exist need be omnipotent or omniscient, let alone omnibenevolent. How would this proof apply to the Deist concept of god, for example?
-
You are quite right. The conclusion should be that the definition of a G-d given by the dominant world religions is contradictive and, therefore, false. This means all dominant world religions are false.
Science does not deal with questions about G-d, since they are out of its domain of interest (non-scientfic claims).
Then, I ask you, what is the need of a concept of a G-d?
-
You are quite right. The conclusion should be that the definition of a G-d given by the dominant world religions is contradictive and, therefore, false. This means all dominant world religions are false.
Science does not deal with questions about G-d, since they are out of its domain of interest (non-scientfic claims).
Then, I ask you, what is the need of a concept of a G-d?
That is a good point. I will think upon this.
-
Could God make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it?
Problems immediately arise if you define omnipotence as infinite power. If omnipotence is being more powerful then anything else God would not need to be more powerful then God. But it would be possible for something to limit itself, as I could limit myself by keeping my eyes closed.
-
If you come to think of it, every religion deals with 3 unanswered questions:
1) Is there anything after our physical death;
2) What is the place of mankind in the Universe;
3) What is considered ethical.
But, in my opinion, these questions are quite separate and touch on different areas of human intellectual effort. The characteristic of every religion is its tendency to mix the answers of these three questions in quite various ratios and causal connections to gain its dogmatic power.
As far as the first one is considered, it is the only domain where religion has and will have unchallenged supremacy. Why? Because it is not subject to experimental verification, and, therefore, out of the reach of scientific investigation. The only thing science can tell us for certain (mostly from empirical evidence) is that every living being dies sooner or later, and, after death, its body decays irreversibly.
It is exactly the way in which a specific religion connects this issue with the other two that characterizes it. If the religion postulates an answer on question one, and, from there draws its conclusions about the other two questions, it can be called ‘dogmatic’. It is built in the manner of a strict axiomatic system. If, on the other hand, the religion is drawing its conclusions about ‘afterlife’ from current accepted answers of questions two and three, we can consider it more of a philosophy, than religion and call it ‘speculative’.
Question two is what I call ‘the demise of every religion’. Why? Because, in fact, it can and was repeatedly answered in a systematic way by scientific research. This caused some religions to become obsolete and give way to more ‘modern’ ones. In any case, it gives every religion a passing value, because it is causing it to compare its beliefs with an ever improving scientific world view. This might lead to some especially absurd results in the case of ‘dogmatic’ religions, since they build their worldview from first principles and the result, of course, might be in sharp contrast with reality.
Question three, on the other hand, is what I would call ‘the reason to be religious, even if it is not true’. This is the social component of every religion and it gives the guidelines what is considered to be acceptable behavior in a society. This is also the reason why different religions are associated with different geographical, economical and political communities.
I apologize if this was quite a departure from the theme of the topic, but I felt I had to give my say on the matter in the best way I could. I didn’t mean to offend anyone because of their personal beliefs.
-
Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? :(
I agree with your assessment.
-
Bump for response.
-
Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?
I don't have a definition of evil because it doesn't exist. It was created, for what reason, I'm not sure. Perhaps to create a divide, to showcase one group's superiority; something along those lines.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate. :(
Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?
Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.
When evil is removed, only good remains. Good would be synonymous with existence thus not needing to be learned... Unless I misunderstood and you are referring to the notion that evil helps us learn how to cope with worse evil, which has its own problems.
Omniscience excludes omnipotence. Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.
Fascinating conjecture. This coincides with the conclusion God does not exist, so I will leave this to the atheists... for now. :D
This does not seems to be a proof/disproof of god, or the concept of the entity of god as much as an attempted disproof of the definition of god as defined by major world religions. (as I see it)
If Premise 1 is false then the entire proof is null. I see no reason why god, or such an entity as god, if it were to exist need be omnipotent or omniscient, let alone omnibenevolent. How would this proof apply to the Deist concept of god, for example?
This is true. This attempt of disproof is only directed at this notion of God specified in thee first premise. God, as an "omni-4" being cannot exist. Other variations are not influenced by this argument. Consider I believed God to exist without these qualities and in the sense of God is/was the Big Bang or not a conscious entity. Perhaps logic itself is God.
-
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate. :(
Evil is only a classification based on a subjective perspective. It exists only in the minds of those who perpetuate the concept. It is as much a social construct as rights and morals.
-
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate. :(
Evil is only a classification based on a subjective perspective. It exists only in the minds of those who perpetuate the concept. It is as much a social construct as rights and morals.
So morals are simply values invented by the mind and have no universal ethical truth beyond our perception? I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc. This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent). Since you do not have a definition for either of these, this conjecture doesn't apply to your beliefs just as it wouldn't apply to a deist or a polytheist. Since it has no influence in the end, it is pointless in your case so neither of us can be successful. That is unless you choose to adopt the common perception of good and evil whether or not the concept is beyond words. ;)
-
So morals are simply values invented by the mind and have no universal ethical truth beyond our perception?
Right.
I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc.
Having similarities in the self-interest of humans does not go against the idea. It's genetic, a survival trait. Ethics and morality surface from the self-interest of mankind.
This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent).
Precisely why the thought experiment fails. Due to the subjectivity of the key aspect in question, you cannot get anything meaningful from it. Changing definitions will also affect the outcome. It simply doesn't work, unless you don't mind different answers.
-
Arguing over what is Evil and can it be defined and all that shizzle really is pointless. Even if we could lay down some concrete definition of good and evil, the original premise is flawed simply because you cannot apply such a scientific approach to Religion. That is where the problem really lies. Religion by it's very nature is ambiguous. Science by it's nature is not (Or rather "should not be").
-
Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?
Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.
When evil is removed, only good remains. Good would be synonymous with existence thus not needing to be learned... Unless I misunderstood and you are referring to the notion that evil helps us learn how to cope with worse evil, which has its own problems.
I do not believe that evil is a thing. It is simply our perception of a situation. Removing all evil does not make sense under this definition. I believe that dealing with evil teaches us to appreciate good, and celebrate it. If all rainy days were eliminated we would never appreciate a sunny day.
Also I believe much is gained through suffering, meet people that grew up through the holocaust or the great depression and this seems apparent.
-
I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc.
Having similarities in the self-interest of humans does not go against the idea. It's genetic, a survival trait. Ethics and morality surface from the self-interest of mankind.
Hence: cannot be used to argue against your point, because...
This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent).
Precisely why the thought experiment fails. Due to the subjectivity of the key aspect in question, you cannot get anything meaningful from it. Changing definitions will also affect the outcome. It simply doesn't work, unless you don't mind different answers.
Fails when applied to people it is not aimed at. I compared you to deists and polytheists because this argument doesn't apply their definition of God. Not to exclude you or anything, but the argument is limited and not including your beliefs. People with a common definition of evil/good and are monotheistic/"omni-4" etc. match the criteria to engage in such an experiment to begin with. :)
-
Well, that's hardly scientific, but I get it.
-
Well, that's hardly scientific, but I get it.
I think of it as scientific to a group. :-\
"Omnibenevolent" God has to mean something, so using that meaning to build upon adds the structure to the argument. Someone who doesn't believe in an Omnibenevolent God because of their disbelief in 'benevolence' didn't originally use 'benevolent' as a criteria for God and thus is separate from the conclusion.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
How are you defining God? What do youknow about Him?
Since when did baby sitters become omniscient? Your second premise is flawed. God created the world perfectly. With this perfection he gave man a free will to choose to do right or wrong. Unfortunately, man chose wrong, and sin and evil entered the world. Man now has a sin nature, the natural, inborn desire to do wrong. Thus, God is indeed in the world, but He did not create evil, he merely gave man the choice between right and wrong, and man chose wrong. That is why the world is in the condition it is in today.
-
I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. :-\
And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.
How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God? No, everything is not perfectly good, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a God. Think about a school. A principal is supposedly over control of the school. Since there is a principal does that mean that all the students will behave perfectly? You can't say that just because students misbehave in schools that there must not be a principal. Why would you think that God does not have control over Satan. He allows Satan to roam on the the earth, and one day Satan will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit of hell. God created people to glorify Him. He allows Satan to roam on earth to give people a choice.
-
If you believe God created everything, then you must believe that God created the "wrong" also. Wrong = evil. If he hadn't created it, then it wouldn't have been an option for man to choose.
Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too.
-
Nope. God gave man free will, man used it to turn against God, so man made evil (at least as it applies to man).
Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too.
Why?
-
Nope. God gave man free will, man used it to turn against God, so man made evil (at least as it applies to man).
Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too.
Why?
And, you know this from?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
This topic was over before it started.
-
God created Satan long before he created his perfectly innocent little guinea pigs. Then he left them alone with him long enough for him to trick them. How is that not fucked up? How is allowing evil to roam the earth when, hypothetically, God could put an end to it, not fucked up?
Would you let Satan tempt your child? Or would you look out for him/her? If Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how could they have made an informed choice? What good is freewill if you don't know right from wrong?
-
Since when did baby sitters become omniscient?
They aren't. The point is they know better than the naive child.
Your second premise is flawed. God created the world perfectly. With this perfection he gave man a free will to choose to do right or wrong. Unfortunately, man chose wrong, and sin and evil entered the world. Man now has a sin nature, the natural, inborn desire to do wrong. Thus, God is indeed in the world, but He did not create evil, he merely gave man the choice between right and wrong, and man chose wrong. That is why the world is in the condition it is in today.
Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will? If evil is man's doing, how do you classify natural disaster? Fires, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. etc. It seems, the other issues I intended to bring up were already mentioned by Space Cowgirl. ;)
-
I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. :-\
And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.
How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God?
I may not be clear enough in the argument. The thought was that God cannot be omnipresent, in the sense of being everywhere/everything, and also omnibenevolent or perfectly good, because this implies that everything that is part of God is good. Evil exists and is inherently part of God, but this conflicts with the 'good' notion. Therefore, a god of that description cannot exist.
-
If people keep using wikipedia for sources I'm gonna shit myself. I don't care how minute the detail is wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information. It can be so easily manipulated, especially pages that have banners of critique. If I reference some philosophical topic I have to have some kind of legitimate source or I wouldn't know it to be reasonably true.
Just a general point, not directed at anyone specifically.
-
God created Satan long before he created his perfectly innocent little guinea pigs. Then he left them alone with him long enough for him to trick them. How is that not fucked up? How is allowing evil to roam the earth when, hypothetically, God could put an end to it, not fucked up?
If I recall correctly, sin/evil will be destroyed when the apocalypse comes, not any time sooner. And if God had not allowed people to be exposed to evil they would have remained ignorant.
Would you let Satan tempt your child? Or would you look out for him/her? If Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how could they have made an informed choice? What good is freewill if you don't know right from wrong?
They had one rule to abide by: Don't eat that fruit. They knew what was expected of them and they knew the consequences.
but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'
Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will? If evil is man's doing, how do you classify natural disaster? Fires, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. etc. It seems, the other issues I intended to bring up were already mentioned by Space Cowgirl. ;)
Natural disasters are just events, evil requires actions and intent.
I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. :-\
And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.
How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God?
I may not be clear enough in the argument. The thought was that God cannot be omnipresent, in the sense of being everywhere/everything, and also omnibenevolent or perfectly good, because this implies that everything that is part of God is good. Evil exists and is inherently part of God, but this conflicts with the 'good' notion. Therefore, a god of that description cannot exist.
If Christians were pantheists you might be on to something
If people keep using wikipedia for sources I'm gonna shit myself. I don't care how minute the detail is wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information. It can be so easily manipulated, especially pages that have banners of critique. If I reference some philosophical topic I have to have some kind of legitimate source or I wouldn't know it to be reasonably true.
Just a general point, not directed at anyone specifically.
Find your own source if feel like it. Wiki is sufficient for the vacuous discussion currently underway in this thread
-
Wikipedia is nothing but lies and slanders, as I recall Pope Zera stating once. Anyone who considers wikipedia to be true in any respect should be cast into a cess pit, in my opinion at least.
On to the topic at hand, although it is possible for a god(s) to exist in coalition with both a "flat" or "round" or "no" earth theory, no one kind of science has determined the exact existence (or location for that matter) of such a being(s). All I may do is offer my personal speculation. I believe that, in accordance with the laws of time/space/gravity/universal bowl movement/court juristiction, that if a god(s) were to exist in an omnipresent/omnibenevolent/omniscient/omnipotent/omnispectrum existance, the way it could be done in thesis, is relevant to the accumulation of many many strands of chronotrons all interconnecting with every state of matter individually causing an interdimensional distortion field that could allow such a being(s) to exist in such a manner. Though this is all just mere speculation.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent. There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God. You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.
-
Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will?
Of course. That's not to say that a supernatural being would do stuff for shits and giggles.
-
An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent. There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God. You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.
Why can't we use logic to determine his capabilities or attributes? And in turn the possibility of existence of a God strictly with those attributes. A God dedicated to the best and all that is good wouldn't strike people with lightning just for shits and giggles. Erupting a volcano with whole towns of innocent people and children/babies livestock etc. burnt alive because of 'nature'. Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?
Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will?
Of course. That's not to say that a supernatural being would do stuff for shits and giggles.
Oops. I meant isn't God "capable". :-X
I think I combined the answer to this in the first response to jdoe. (Omnibenevolence versus shits and giggles)
-
Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?
Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.
-
An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent. There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God. You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.
Why can't we use logic to determine his capabilities or attributes? And in turn the possibility of existence of a God strictly with those attributes. A God dedicated to the best and all that is good wouldn't strike people with lightning just for shits and giggles.
Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.
-
Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?
Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.
You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil. What you have personally done is defined evil as subjective nullifying the argument on you/your beliefs, assuming the other premises also applied to you.
However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition. Even if the definition was conjured by subjective thought on behalf of the religion's followers and creators. Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc. This is why I received many posts adding free will to cover that basis. Applying murder to something without free will, like nature, shows that the same definition of evil exists beyond humans and their choices.
-
Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.
God's logic. In our universe, logic is universal... as is math. If you are arguing god is beyond this, then I cannot say this is necessarily false (as God is the alleged creator of such a logical system). But please consider this:
God still has attributes comprehendable to man like being 'all-good'. Man's logic and religion has come to depict God in man's terms. If man's logic is used to prove man's religious views of God as false, it means God doesn't exist as man thought. Now this DOES have no bearing on the real God, but just like the premises narrowing down the argument to certain depictions of God, this proves that God doesn't exist in the form the argument describes.
-
Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.
God's logic. In our universe, logic is universal... as is math. If you are arguing god is beyond this, then I cannot say this is necessarily false (as God is the alleged creator of such a logical system). But please consider this:
God still has attributes comprehendable to man like being 'all-good'. Man's logic and religion has come to depict God in man's terms. If man's logic is used to prove man's religious views of God as false, it means God doesn't exist as man thought. Now this DOES have no bearing on the real God, but just like the premises narrowing down the argument to certain depictions of God, this proves that God doesn't exist in the form the argument describes.
So we take his description from the bible, and using this information give him titles, omnipotent, omniscient, and such. Then we take the definition of these words to disprove him? Interesting logic.
-
If the Bible is God's word then all depictions of God are on his own terms. Actually I really don't even know what this thread is about anymore. Ho hum.
-
I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.
-
If the bible were truly the word of God, then it would magically translate into every language.
-
And use a cooler font, all big and capital.
-
YES.. cause God is mighty.
Apparently God is keeping me from using smilies today.
-
You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil.
You can define it. It's just useless because it is not an objective observation. I've already explained why.
However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition.
You can't use subjective beliefs as a premise to try and disprove the actual reality. If so, you could exchange the word god for anything you wished and tried to prove it.
Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc.
Keywords: "Nearly all."
-
Sorry for the misinterpretation, I must be horrible at conveying myself clearly.
You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil.
You can define it. It's just useless because it is not an objective observation. I've already explained why.
I intend to stress the "you" rather than the "cannot", because you view it as subjective hence undefinable. Others can define evil and that is why they can assign the term places in religion.
However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition.
You can't use subjective beliefs as a premise to try and disprove the actual reality.
ThusNow this DOES have no bearing on the real God
But I could make this clearer by saying, "no bearing with disproving the real God unless he fits the definition assigned by the bible" or something similar. We can prove what God is not, according to our language.
If so, you could exchange the word god for anything you wished and tried to prove it.
Care to provide an example? I can't see how to do this considering God is already defined as an "Omni-being" and taking the definitions and finding mutually exclusive characteristics is based upon that.
Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc.
Keywords: "Nearly all."
I have already agreed with you that this word, and actually pretty much any word, depends on the concept the person assigns it. To those who have the 'correct' definition applied this definition to God and also fit the argument. I apologize for my lack of communicative ability as my fingers cannot type as fast as my thoughts (thank God) and I get ahead of myself sometimes. ;)
-
I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.
Yeah. Every translation site there is comes up with different variations of this crap.
وإنما هو إله رحيم
وقال انه في المسرات الغفران
الله هو خير
الله هو كل شيء الجامع
الله هو كل ما هو جيد
الله ليس الشر
-
I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.
Yeah. Every translation site there is comes up with different variations of this crap.
وإنما هو إله رحيم
وقال انه في المسرات الغفران
الله هو خير
الله هو كل شيء الجامع
الله هو كل ما هو جيد
الله ليس الشر
If i wasn't just done having sex I would get this joke better.
(yes that is me bragging)
-
There is no science in letting people choose arbitrary and subjective definitions to attempt and prove something about god. Even if that's not what you're getting at, this argument is going nowhere.
-
Describing God as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient is fundamentally wrong because those definitions can't coexist. I'm saying god isn't everyone of these qualities unless the logic behind the argument I found and posted is flawed.
-
free will
divine plan
if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil
there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother
-
Why is this still going on when it was squashed within the first few posts? And Singularity you still stand by the original post? There have been loads of equally valid points made that prove it flawed...
-
Why is this still going on when it was squashed within the first few posts? And Singularity you still stand by the original post? There have been loads of equally valid points made that prove it flawed...
Now we are going to squeeze our hand tight singularity, then open them one by one, and blow across your palm. As we do this we say "I'm letting it go, it's not worth it."
And relax.
-
Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.
You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil. What you have personally done is defined evil as subjective nullifying the argument on you/your beliefs, assuming the other premises also applied to you.
However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition. Even if the definition was conjured by subjective thought on behalf of the religion's followers and creators. Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc. This is why I received many posts adding free will to cover that basis. Applying murder to something without free will, like nature, shows that the same definition of evil exists beyond humans and their choices.
Main Entry: 1evil
Pronunciation: \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
Date: before 12th century
1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 a (archaic) : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c: disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a: causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b: marked by misfortune : unlucky
— evil adverb archaic
— evil·ly \-(l)ē\ adverb
— evil·ness \-nəs\ noun
1: Does not apply to events.
2: Not related to the discussion.
3: Synonymous with pernicious, which can either mean (a) harmful, or b(wicked), an archaic definition.
The first meaning of the third definition is all you are going on, where evil simply means harmful. This is quite different from the first definition, which is the one Abrahamic religions go on (they are also the only ones that posit a "omni-4" God).
Other (apparent) flaws in your argument:
#1
You seem to deviate from the classical argument of the problem of evil. You may (I am not saying you are) suggest that because:
1. God-type X has to be every where (omnipresent).
2. God-type X has to be entirely good (entirely not-evil).
3. There are evil things.
God-type X cannot logically exist.
The flaw here is your confusing everywhere with everything. This is not omnipresence, but omnibeing, God being everything. All Abrahamic religions hold that God created all material things, so these material things are not God/the same substance as God.
#2
The false analogy of the babysitter
The baby tries to drink drain cleaner, not knowing any better. Human beings posses conscience, and have a sense of right and wrong.
#3
The classical argument is worthless too
Is God Willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and wiling?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
The third line reaches a premature conclusion and the fifth has already been answered.
-
ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS ARE STUPID
-
Showing your intelligence one brain cell at a time.
Thank you hara.
-
Evil is subjective. One man's evil is another mans good
-
One woman's face is another woman's seat.
-
Hitler sincerely believed he was doing good for the world. If he'd won, and any of us were alive, we'd believe it too.
-
We'd be people saved from the jews, who by now would have had super powers, or wanted to take over the world at a minimum.
-
Who says they haven't. Sylar is clearly Jewish; look at his nose.
-
But he just wants brains. Like a zombie.
-
My superpower is devolving threads. I'm thinking it's running at about 85% tonight.
-
I used to do that. I could DERAIL a thread. It was fun.
-
this thread is successfully devolved and derailed. Where shall we go next?
-
Derail, devolve, dement.
That is our mission.
Enlist today!
(http://www.tableheads.com/Pineapple_Head_7.jpg)
-
this thread is successfully devolved and derailed. Where shall we go next?
Ummmm, find a noobs thread tell him he is worthless and then announce what the topic is now about. I did that on another forum's Bullshit category, the noob threatened to have me banned.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
1. If there is a God, then he is God.
2. God would let evil happen in the world, because lets face it, the world would be pretty dull without it.
3. Since God, being eternal, would need amusement, statement 2 would be true.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. Therefore, there could or could not be a God.
-
Showing your intelligence one brain cell at a time.
Thank you hara.
I can't tell if I should feel insulted or proud.
-
Proud.
-
I will try rewording this since the term subjective seems to heavily influence people's understanding of the argument's validity:
The conclusion is subjective as well. Ones man's good is another man's evil, but one man's good is not the same man's evil. God is not omnibenevolent in the same context or subjectivity as being evil according to your understanding of it. Varying degrees shows nothing of overlapping perfect opposites, if you will.
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
1. If there is a God, then he is God.
2. God would let evil happen in the world, because lets face it, the world would be pretty dull without it.
3. Since God, being eternal, would need amusement, statement 2 would be true.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. Therefore, there could or could not be a God.
I don't understand what premise one accomplishes. It has minor significance as I see it and establishes only that God is alone in 'his' status and that he is male, which can be contested as it is unproven nor relevant. Perhaps the quality of eternal seen in premise three should be mentioned.
Premise two states God would do allow evil without support for the claim, unless you consider it to be in conjunction with premise three, that he would need amusement which in turn is also unsupported.
Is this God omniscient? If so he has already conceived all possible things amusing to him, as is the case if he is beyond time. Also, how is evil necessary for amusement? Being good/pure is something many people reach for in pursuit happiness.
Your conclusion is not really a conclusion because nothing is established. We have made no progress in understanding the matter than before. The same options exist and nothing has been eliminated. Proving something is possible is not a counter example to a separate proof showing it is not possible. However, I believe you could expand or revise this proof fruitfully. If it can achieve a sound understanding of God, I do no know. Work with it a bit. :)
-
free will
divine plan
if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil
there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother
Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?
The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)
God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.
In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?
If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.
-
This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.
-
This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.
It's rationalistic approach to the philosophy of religion, yes.
There are two main kinds of philosophy in my book: Empiricism and rationalism.
Do you consider philosophy as a whole to be 'for the sake of it' or ultimately pointless?
-
How much do clothes cost in the matrix?
-
An arm, a leg, and your right ovary.
-
free will
divine plan
if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil
there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother
Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?
The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)
God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.
In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?
If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.
You can't have free will without the possibilty of choosing evil so evil must exist. It's not free will if it's limited to just good. Whether free will actually exists or not is the only problem with this argument.
Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.
I dunno about the 'perfect' one, I haven't looked into it.
And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.
-
This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.
It's rationalistic approach to the philosophy of religion, yes.
There are two main kinds of philosophy in my book: Empiricism and rationalism.
Do you consider philosophy as a whole to be 'for the sake of it' or ultimately pointless?
Aren't "for the sake of it" and "utterly pointless" the same thing? I consider philosophy useful in the development of humans. I consider Religion to have nothing to do with philosophy. The reason why this argument is boring (apart from the fact it was over within a few responses on the first page) is that you simply can't apply rationalistic approaches to religion because any number of irrational responses. You keep trying to lay down concrete conditions and then basing a conclusion on that but it just doesn't work. Religion doesn't work like that. It matters not if God is omni-4. He can still allow evil to happen, the bible explains why he does in great detail as a matter of fact. There are no rules or confines in a debate about God and creating them to support one point of view is sheer folly.
-
Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.
That's actually a clever analogy I've never heard before.
And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.
Hear, hear!
-
Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.
That's actually a clever analogy I've never heard before.
And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.
Hear, hear!
yeah I thought so, can't remember where I heard it though
:D
-
Premise1: If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2: If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3: There is evil in the world.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.
Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? ;)
Why can God not exist if evil exists? That doesn't make sense.
-
free will
divine plan
if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil
there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother
Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?
The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)
God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.
In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?
If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.
If there is only one option, then there is no free will. Evil has to exist for there to be free will. That's not the source of my arguement. When God created us, he didn't want a bunch of robots walking around , he wanted people who wanted to serve Him.
His "divine plan" as you put it, is not an avoidance as much as it is an understanding. He has a plan for our lives, because he can see the whole picture. He knows what's best for us because he sees the outcome of all our choices because of His omniscience. His plan is for us to have what's best for our lives.
-
I will address the points in numerical form to save time:
1. Evil has to exist for free will to exist.
I must ask "why can't there be choices between good and good?" Surely God could create such a world. No?
2. God's divine plan is beyond comprehension.
This assumes there is a God and that there is a good reason for evil. (I suppose it relates heavily with the first issue.)
3. Defining a "Perfect" God was something you did Gayer.
if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking
4. This argument is still a place you don't have to post. Whether it is philosophy or this thread you dislike, it is your decision to participate or not.
5. We are currently debating the refutes. You cannot claim they are valid if I can still pick them apart. It reminds me of the "[RE/FE] wins!!!" People put in the first post of a thread after they present their side. I also might make note that I do not support this argument, but enjoy debate and am exercising my abilities to maintain the conclusion. :D
I saw somewhere that God doesn't want robot followers. Everything in such a sentence is an assumption:
1. We have free will
2. God exists
3. What God wants
-
You haven't picked them apart very well, in fact you don't even seem to understand them.
-
Elaborate.
-
For instance you don't understand the free will argument. It's not free will if you don't have the choice for evil, just choosing between good and good is not a choice.
-
If God created a world without evil, the only options would be good. Which good we choose would exercise free will. Please explain why choices are not free will, if evil doesn't exist.
Consider a scenario where people could not be harmed emotionally, physically, financially, etc. what choice could you make to commit an evil act?
-
I can't explain things well, sure someone else could do this much better than me but I'm trying. But basically its not choosing to do good if there isn't an option to choose to do evil also.
In your scenario, if you have no option to commit an evil act then you are not being given the full choice so you do not have real free will.
Anyway I have to go now but I hope someone else can explain it better.
-
Thank you for taking additional time for discussing this with me.
The choice doesn't exist if there is an impossibility in it. If people couldn't be harmed, you can't harm them. If this is an elimination of free will because an option is impossible, than we don't have free will because we don't have an option of vanishing, teleporting, flying without technological aid, etc. We still have other choices to make and define our own personalities with.
-
The problem with the debate on the creation of evil and the choice of freewill is that too many people consider evil as a thing. God did not create evil. He merely created good. Just as darkness is just the absence of light, evil is merely the absence of good. Man doesn't choose to do evil. Man chooses to not do good.
-
I'm still waiting for Neo to appear.
-
Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?
Harm physically, emotionally, or otherwise?
The absence of good?
Obstruction of morals and ethics?
All definitions I can think of are still conflicting with omnibenevolence.
In the babysitter example, did the babysitter create the bleach? This definition is still in conflict with the omni-properties.
-
The problem with the debate on the creation of evil and the choice of freewill is that too many people consider evil as a thing. God did not create evil. He merely created good. Just as darkness is just the absence of light, evil is merely the absence of good. Man doesn't choose to do evil. Man chooses to not do good.
Ahem, man did NOT create anything (according to one book in particular, and the thinkings of other men).
-
Evil does not exist.
-
In that case benevolence doesn't exist, so God cannot be omnibenevolent. :(
-
Thank you for taking additional time for discussing this with me.
The choice doesn't exist if there is an impossibility in it. If people couldn't be harmed, you can't harm them. If this is an elimination of free will because an option is impossible, than we don't have free will because we don't have an option of vanishing, teleporting, flying without technological aid, etc. We still have other choices to make and define our own personalities with.
But choosing between good and good isn't choosing, it's like the Ford Model T when you could choose any colour so long as it was black.
But I need to think this through properly but can't now, I'll get back to you when I get back from my trip.
-
If I choose a snickers over a baby ruth I still have made a choice.
-
But choosing between good and good isn't choosing, it's like the Ford Model T when you could choose any colour so long as it was black.
Like Space Cowgirl demonstrated, there are other options...
Perhaps any color other than black, because black doesn't exist. A parallel example might be some color that really doesn't exist here and now so we can't pick it.
-
I feel that at the core of all this, the Schroedinger's Cat theory hold truest.
You cannot know anything about anything without observing it, and before you observe it, any conclusion or result is possible, which kinda defuncts all this philosophy about choice.
Please, stop trying to continue the Matrix's idea's about choice and understanding the choices we make. It was well explained in the movie and doesn't need further thought.
-
The thread has less to do with choice than you might think, and nothing to do with the Matrix. You are the second person I have had to remind, that you are not obligated to read or post in this topic.
-
Limited free will is not free will. Classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
-
You cannot know anything about anything without observing it, and before you observe it, anything conclusion or result is possible, which kinda defuncts all this philosophy about choice.
Exactly.
-
In that case benevolence doesn't exist, so God cannot be omnibenevolent. :(
But God does not exist either.
-
In that case benevolence doesn't exist, so God cannot be omnibenevolent.
But God does not exist either.
I should have said, "if there is a god" somewhere in that.
You cannot know anything about anything without observing it, and before you observe it, anything conclusion or result is possible, which kinda defuncts all this philosophy about choice.
I have not observed happiness. I have observed people who smile, change their behavior to "giddy" and treat others depending on happiness without ever actually observing a 'feeling'. Concrete nouns follow your logic, but it is far from a universal truth. How of you observe choice? By your logic, if it can't be observed, how do you even know it exists?
I like where you're going with this though, but it still seems incomplete.
Limited free will is not free will. Classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not saying something isn't an option because God directly places boundaries on your actions; I'm saying that another form of existence in which evil is impossible on a level of natural truth (like physics) would create limits without inhibiting free will. Did you not read my variation of choosing a car color or the limitation of nonexistence? We are incapable of disobeying the laws of nature, but these limits are already in place while free will is thought to exist by many people. These limits still allow choice as it is thought of currently. Otherwise, free will would mean.... omnipotence.
-
e]
I'm not saying something isn't an option because God directly places boundaries on your actions; I'm saying that another form of existence in which evil is impossible on a level of natural truth (like physics) would create limits without inhibiting free will. Did you not read my variation of choosing a car color or the limitation of nonexistence? We are incapable of disobeying the laws of nature, but these limits are already in place while free will is thought to exist by many people. These limits still allow choice as it is thought of currently. Otherwise, free will would mean.... omnipotence.
The bolded part is what I have a problem with. On the surface it might seem okay to hypothesise about an existence where evil is impossible but I firmly believe that such an existence is an impossibility so any conclusions made from that hypothesis are meaningless. It's the same as when people ask "what if the Sun vanished, would we instantaneously leave our orbital path?"
Nice idea but impossible as it would simply break phsyical laws. I believe an existence without evil would break the laws of free will.
First you would have to define evil; impossible, then you would have to somehow have everyone doing good (which would also need to be defined; impossible). The breakdown occurs when you come to a simple cross-road in someone's life where they commit an act of good (or in this universe it would be simply any act because all acts would be good). How exactly would you stop said person from doing the opposite? let's use a simple example: A man walks down a street and sees a lady drop her purse unawares. Let's say in our definition of good, picking up the purse and giving it to the lady is a good act. If the man has been made in such a way that he does not even think about keeping the purse then he has no free-will. He is programed to act a certain way.
Take a real world example. In a computer game the enemy A.I. may be programmed in such a way that they can calculate lots of different ways of attacking you but they simply do not have the capacity to "not kill you". They have no free will. A world without evil is not a world with free-will. You can't define it for starters and you can't prevent people from doing the opposite of good without taking away their free will. A choice of good acts is not free will and ironically the statement itself is the proof; to have defined good you must have defined evil at the same time. Every choice has an opposite. Like Yoda said "...Do or do not". Remember always that you have predefined good and evil for this no-evil universe to exist. That's the important part. Also applying physics to philosophy doesn't work like when one trys to apply it to religion or FET for that matter.
-
Oh dear, a complicated religious debate. Who will save us?
-
Limited free will is not free will. Classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not saying something isn't an option because God directly places boundaries on your actions; I'm saying that another form of existence in which evil is impossible on a level of natural truth (like physics) would create limits without inhibiting free will. Did you not read my variation of choosing a car color or the limitation of nonexistence? We are incapable of disobeying the laws of nature, but these limits are already in place while free will is thought to exist by many people. These limits still allow choice as it is thought of currently. Otherwise, free will would mean.... omnipotence.
Monotheistic religions define evil as disobeying God. Free will is the ability to choose and control your own actions. Removing the choice of obedience would make all humans slaves to God, and only allow superficial decisions to be made.
-
Thing is, in Genesis, why didn't God just not have a tree of knowledge? Was it some test of their obedience?
-
Yes.
-
And God lied to them. So he knew Satan would test Eve?
-
What I don't get about the story, is why did god get all pissy and wrathful with his children? I think he overreacted just a tad.
-
It's hard for a single parent.
-
It's hard for a single parent.
Story of my life.
-
Also, how did every single one of the six billion people on this planet, each one different, come from two people? It would mean serious in-breeding. And where did that town come from?
-
And God lied to them.
I don't recall that happening.
So he knew Satan would test Eve?
Yes.
What I don't get about the story, is why did god get all pissy and wrathful with his children? I think he overreacted just a tad.
Actions have consequences. Paradise is only possible when everybody plays their part, so disobedience meant no more paradise.
-
Also, how did every single one of the six billion people on this planet, each one different, come from two people? It would mean serious in-breeding. And where did that town come from?
Well if you think about it, inbreeding happened whatever you believe about the origins of man.
-
When you have a very large population the effects of inbreeding are negated.
-
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
-
His mommy wouldn't let him.
-
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read on this board.
-
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read on this board.
Leave my princess alone, she has a point, assgoblin.
-
e]
I'm not saying something isn't an option because God directly places boundaries on your actions; I'm saying that another form of existence in which evil is impossible on a level of natural truth (like physics) would create limits without inhibiting free will. Did you not read my variation of choosing a car color or the limitation of nonexistence? We are incapable of disobeying the laws of nature, but these limits are already in place while free will is thought to exist by many people. These limits still allow choice as it is thought of currently. Otherwise, free will would mean.... omnipotence.
The bolded part is what I have a problem with. On the surface it might seem okay to hypothesise about an existence where evil is impossible but I firmly believe that such an existence is an impossibility so any conclusions made from that hypothesis are meaningless. It's the same as when people ask "what if the Sun vanished, would we instantaneously leave our orbital path?"
Nice idea but impossible as it would simply break phsyical laws. I believe an existence without evil would break the laws of free will.
Perhaps the inability for us to imagine it is throwing you. The bolded text was most useful to me in determining your train of thought. Breaking physical laws is strictly in our definition of physics. If God is the creator of physics, than he should be able to create them in a sense that evil doesn't exist, not that we don't think of it.
The color "Kraomos" doesn't exist, so we can't imagine it. Because we can't, does this mean we don't have free will?
First you would have to define evil; impossible, then you would have to somehow have everyone doing good (which would also need to be defined; impossible).
No definition is universal. In the sense that the bible or religion sets attributes to God (like omnibenevolence) those same concepts of good/evil are used and considered. Describing them perfectly with words is the obstacle.
The breakdown occurs when you come to a simple cross-road in someone's life where they commit an act of good (or in this universe it would be simply any act because all acts would be good). How exactly would you stop said person from doing the opposite?
Why does this possible universe have to have opposites? What is the opposite of 'grape flavored'?
let's use a simple example: A man walks down a street and sees a lady drop her purse unawares. Let's say in our definition of good, picking up the purse and giving it to the lady is a good act. If the man has been made in such a way that he does not even think about keeping the purse then he has no free-will. He is programed to act a certain way.
The purse implies financial loss or gain and thus potential harm. An all-powerful all-knowing God who created the universe, physics, etc. should have created a world without potential for harm. Since I am not omniscient, I can't describe a perfect world.
However, the first idea of not being harmed makes me think of the tin-man from X-men. ;)
It has to be possible if he can create natural law and is omnipotent. Omniscience may play a role too for comparing all that could be.
Take a real world example. In a computer game the enemy A.I. may be programmed in such a way that they can calculate lots of different ways of attacking you but they simply do not have the capacity to "not kill you". They have no free will. A world without evil is not a world with free-will. You can't define it for starters and you can't prevent people from doing the opposite of good without taking away their free will.
This example is reversed in glorifying evil rather than extinguishing it, but it is still very useful. In this case, consider this question: What if it was fundamentally impossible for the enemy to inflict damage? ...A world where nobody would understand what 'pain' means, becuase nobody could cause it. Once again, common experience of this world inhibits imagination of such a different world.
Applying physics to philosophy doesn't work like when one tries to apply it to religion or FET for that matter.
Do you mean "physics", or "rationalism and logic"? The two main branches of philosophy are that of rationalism and empiricism and a very large portion of famous philosophers were rationalists.
-
Althalus, I'm confused and you seem to know your religion.
You say free will is disobeying God. You say humans were given free will by eating the apple. Eating the apple was disobeying God.
Did I understand that right? If so, they needed free will in order to get free will.
-
Free will is the ability to control and choose your actions. Humans have the choice to obey or disobey God, and have always had it. People invariably succumb to their desires and sin.
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read on this board.
Leave my princess alone, she has a point, assgoblin.
It might be valid if there ever was a single human who did not sin (Jesus doesn't count).
-
How does Jesus not count? Boy you love to bend the rules, don't you?
Her point was... If God was so displeased with the choice and excertion of free will done by Adam and Eve, why didn't he just say "Fuck this" and start over? Seems to me he'd rather suffer his own creation rather than meet his first set of standards. Plus, the other thing that boggles me, is why would a being supposedly so powerful and perfect create something such as the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge and put them in the same garden if he didn't want them to try and eat from them in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to, oh I don't know, NOT make something like that to begin with?
As I said before, God created man in his own image. Therefore, all the imperfections, sin, stupidity, and other what-have-you's all stem from the simple equation that God Himself cannot be perfect.
-
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read on this board.
You should go back and read some of your own posts then. You seem to have matured a little since I melted you down a while back, but you're still a bit defensive when it comes to all this God stuff.
Thanks Daedalus.. that is exactly what I meant. God was ever so wrathful with his creation, as if their failure wasn't part of his plan all along. This tells me God isn't perfect, or the stories are bullshit.
-
How does Jesus not count? Boy you love to bend the rules, don't you?
Jesus was an incarnation of God, he lived a perfect life, God is perfect.
Her point was... If God was so displeased with the choice and excertion of free will done by Adam and Eve, why didn't he just say "Fuck this" and start over? Seems to me he'd rather suffer his own creation rather than meet his first set of standards. Plus, the other thing that boggles me, is why would a being supposedly so powerful and perfect create something such as the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge and put them in the same garden if he didn't want them to try and eat from them in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to, oh I don't know, NOT make something like that to begin with?
It's impossible for an all knowing being to fuck up. People always fuck up, because they follow their desires when they should obey their reason. It would not be possible to make people that never make mistakes and have free will, It is entirely up to the people to be good, or they would have no free will, and people doing good things without choice are mindless slaves.
As I said before, God created man in his own image. Therefore, all the imperfections, sin, stupidity, and other what-have-you's all stem from the simple equation that God Himself cannot be perfect.
God creating man in his own image was God giving man a soul, conscience, and free will. Man had the choice to obey God, but obeyed his desires to be as great as God instead. Sin comes from man.
I wonder why God didn't just kill Adam and Eve and start over again. Eventually he'd have found a pair that wouldn't eat from the tree.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read on this board.
You should go back and read some of your own posts then. You seem to have matured a little since I melted you down a while back, but you're still a bit defensive when it comes to all this God stuff.
Thanks Daedalus.. that is exactly what I meant. God was ever so wrathful with his creation, as if their failure wasn't part of his plan all along. This tells me God isn't perfect, or the stories are bullshit.
You seem to have just the same lack of understanding of theology as before. In every case of human existence save one they have sinned. The one exception was Christ, who lived as man was originally meant to. If in every case of human existence, save the one case where God incarnated himself, humans failed, why do you think that God would have come up with some sinless people if he just repeated the trial again and again, billions so far haven't made it. It is impossible.
-
How do you know he didn't repeat the trial again and again? You don't. If God was all knowing why did he get mad at them for failing? Didn't he know they were going to fail? Wasn't their failure part of the plan?
Hon, I understand a lot more than you do. I understand that you (like most religious zealots) think you know all the answers when you don't.
-
How do you know he didn't repeat the trial again and again? You don't.
How do you know he did? You don't.
If God was all knowing why did he get mad at them for failing? Didn't he know they were going to fail? Wasn't their failure part of the plan?
I can know something is inevitable but still be emotionally effected by it.
Hon, I understand a lot more than you do.
Yet you have never demonstrated this.
I understand that you (like most religious zealots) think you know all the answers when you don't.
Character assassination is the solace of the defeated.
-
Yeah yeah.. you assassinate my character then I assassinate yours, it's a vicious circle. Let's see who flips out this time ;)
I never said I knew what God did or didn't do.. that's your department.
So God is emotionally unstable too? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? He knew what was going to happen, then he let it happen, then he punished them for it. He set them up, because it's all part of the plan, right? So why'd he get mad, if that was what was supposed to happen? Are you equating yourself with God now? How is your emotional response to an inevitability relevant to how god reacted?
-
e]
I'm not saying something isn't an option because God directly places boundaries on your actions; I'm saying that another form of existence in which evil is impossible on a level of natural truth (like physics) would create limits without inhibiting free will. Did you not read my variation of choosing a car color or the limitation of nonexistence? We are incapable of disobeying the laws of nature, but these limits are already in place while free will is thought to exist by many people. These limits still allow choice as it is thought of currently. Otherwise, free will would mean.... omnipotence.
The bolded part is what I have a problem with. On the surface it might seem okay to hypothesise about an existence where evil is impossible but I firmly believe that such an existence is an impossibility so any conclusions made from that hypothesis are meaningless. It's the same as when people ask "what if the Sun vanished, would we instantaneously leave our orbital path?"
Nice idea but impossible as it would simply break phsyical laws. I believe an existence without evil would break the laws of free will.
Perhaps the inability for us to imagine it is throwing you. The bolded text was most useful to me in determining your train of thought. Breaking physical laws is strictly in our definition of physics. If God is the creator of physics, than he should be able to create them in a sense that evil doesn't exist, not that we don't think of it.
The color "Kraomos" doesn't exist, so we can't imagine it. Because we can't, does this mean we don't have free will?
I'm having difficulty imagining it because it is actually impossible - if you want free will to exist. To have a world where a person can take one set of actions but not the opposite is not unimaginable but the inhabitants of this world would not be exhibiting free will. The simple act of preventing any opposite decision is removing free will.
I'm not sure about that example with an imaginary colour. First of all, every colour is imaginary because they're made in the brain. But that's really besides the point, any example you could give wouldn't really be relevant to this discussion because as I said I can imagine the world that you describe but again, free will would simply have to be absent.
First you would have to define evil; impossible, then you would have to somehow have everyone doing good (which would also need to be defined; impossible).
No definition is universal. In the sense that the bible or religion sets attributes to God (like omnibenevolence) those same concepts of good/evil are used and considered. Describing them perfectly with words is the obstacle.
Describing them is impossible because there is no universal definition for good or evil. Like someone else said, the bible defines evil as disobeying God. In a world created by God with no Evil present we have a situation where everyone obeys God and will never know how to disobey him. Free will is non-existent. Just because the people would be ignorant of being disobediant doesn't mean the choice of being disobediant is irrelevant.
The breakdown occurs when you come to a simple cross-road in someone's life where they commit an act of good (or in this universe it would be simply any act because all acts would be good). How exactly would you stop said person from doing the opposite?
Why does this possible universe have to have opposites? What is the opposite of 'grape flavored'?
I didn't say everything had an opposite. "Grape flavoured" is not a life choice or even an action. When making decisions in life there are almost always multiple sets of opposite choices that apply to that decision. For a God to remove just one of these options deliberately is removing free will. And let's not forget that God has always existed, he has no begining or end. We know God is aware of evil because he created all things (we can assume for this discussion that evil exists at least in God's realm. If it doesn't then the whole debate is null and void because all one would have to do is imagine a universe ruled by a God who never created evil - but that's not the point of this discussion) What this means is that this world he creates would require him to lay down the rules. For him to actively create a world where evil is an impossibitly knowing full well that he could just as easily create one with evil, means he is deliberately taking away the free will of the beings inhabiting that world. This is really very basic religion theory - it's even explained in the Bible as far as I know.
[/quote]
let's use a simple example: A man walks down a street and sees a lady drop her purse unawares. Let's say in our definition of good, picking up the purse and giving it to the lady is a good act. If the man has been made in such a way that he does not even think about keeping the purse then he has no free-will. He is programed to act a certain way.
The purse implies financial loss or gain and thus potential harm. An all-powerful all-knowing God who created the universe, physics, etc. should have created a world without potential for harm. Since I am not omniscient, I can't describe a perfect world.
However, the first idea of not being harmed makes me think of the tin-man from X-men. ;)
It has to be possible if he can create natural law and is omnipotent. Omniscience may play a role too for comparing all that could be.
To create a world with no potential for harm is possible. But to then fill this world with sentient beings created in one's own image and still remove all potential for harm is removing their free will. I chose the purse example because it was simple and had two very clear and distinctive choices for the man to make. There are infinite numbers of other situations that a being could be in that would all have sets of opposite choices. Are you suggesting that God create a world where for every possible situtation a being finds themself in there are only half the choices? I know we are limited by our own simple minds but I'm not convinced that you could create a world where, for example, upon coming across, say, a door way, a being would not be able to choose between going through it or, I don't know, walking a different path. You may argue that if there was no potential for the being's actions to harm another being then it wouldn't matter what choice the being made. If that was the case then it means God has a direct infulence on every being making sure they can never harm each-other - A.K.A.: No free will.
Take a real world example. In a computer game the enemy A.I. may be programmed in such a way that they can calculate lots of different ways of attacking you but they simply do not have the capacity to "not kill you". They have no free will. A world without evil is not a world with free-will. You can't define it for starters and you can't prevent people from doing the opposite of good without taking away their free will.
This example is reversed in glorifying evil rather than extinguishing it, but it is still very useful. In this case, consider this question: What if it was fundamentally impossible for the enemy to inflict damage? ...A world where nobody would understand what 'pain' means, becuase nobody could cause it. Once again, common experience of this world inhibits imagination of such a different world.
I think I've covered this already but further to what I've already said: If it is fundamentally impossible for the enemy to inflict damage then that's simply a different set of programming. Same applies as before. Free will is not there.
Applying physics to philosophy doesn't work like when one tries to apply it to religion or FET for that matter.
Do you mean "physics", or "rationalism and logic"? The two main branches of philosophy are that of rationalism and empiricism and a very large portion of famous philosophers were rationalists.
[/quote]
I meant physics.
-
So God cannot create beings that can't be harmed? Now he doesn't sound omnipotent.
I didn't apply physics to philosophy except in the case that according to many religions that fit these premises, he created the laws of physics.
-Sorry I haven't been back in a while. Gabe got a one day ban for bumping a thread in debate/discussion, and we share the computer.
-
Describing them is impossible because there is no universal definition for good or evil.
Which is why long ago, this thought-experiment perished in a heap of Midnight's dung.
-
No definition is universal. In the sense that the bible or religion sets attributes to God (like omnibenevolence) those same concepts of good/evil are used and considered. Describing them perfectly with words is the obstacle.
-
So God cannot create beings that can't be harmed? Now he doesn't sound omnipotent.
I didn't apply physics to philosophy except in the case that according to many religions that fit these premises, he created the laws of physics.
-Sorry I haven't been back in a while. Gabe got a one day ban for bumping a thread in debate/discussion, and we share the computer.
Where did I say he couldn't create humans that couldn't be harmed?
-
I don't think you did, but I accidentally connected some earlier ideas in my head.
But to then fill this world with sentient beings created in one's own image and still remove all potential for harm is removing their free will.
Consider that if humans (better yet, all life) couldn't be harmed emotionally, financially, physically, or otherwise, the option for harming others is nonexistent.
-
Yes I know I can imagine that but if God were to create such a world or even create such a universe then he is meddling with nature by not allowing such things. Meddling with the nature he created yes but meddling none the less. Unless you have Heavens and a God where such things have never existed and never will but we're talking about our God and his Heavens I would assume.
-
Yeah yeah.. you assassinate my character then I assassinate yours, it's a vicious circle. Let's see who flips out this time ;)
I recall commenting on your lack of understanding of the parable of the fall of the man/mankind, not on your character. You attempted to characterize me a religious zealot to invalidate my claims.
I never said I knew what God did or didn't do.. that's your department.
I am making the argument that the actions of God as they appear in Genesis are justified. You have also said that you know a lot more then me, so you could be saying that you do know that.
So God is emotionally unstable too? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? He knew what was going to happen, then he let it happen, then he punished them for it. He set them up, because it's all part of the plan, right? So why'd he get mad, if that was what was supposed to happen?
Does God feel emotion, yes. Is God emotionally unstable, no. Read Genesis 3: 1-3, God warned them to not disobey him, and that if they disobeyed him, they would die. Because God is not a liar, he kept true to his word, and punished them, making them mortal. God did not set anyone up because every single person has sinned, it is their own fault.
Are you equating yourself with God now? How is your emotional response to an inevitability relevant to how god reacted?
Why was the reaction emotional? I should have addressed this when you first said it, but it doesn't actually say that God became angry, only that he punished them for sinning.
So God cannot create beings that can't be harmed? Now he doesn't sound omnipotent.
He could but why would He? We learn from our mistakes. If we could never make mistakes we could never learn from them.
-
Yes I know I can imagine that but if God were to create such a world or even create such a universe then he is meddling with nature by not allowing such things. Meddling with the nature he created yes but meddling none the less. Unless you have Heavens and a God where such things have never existed and never will but we're talking about our God and his Heavens I would assume.
"Meddling with nature by not allowing things"? He doesn't allow us to break any laws of physics what-so-ever. The remaining options here still leave room for free will.
What do you even mean by meddling? If he created nature without evil from the start would you consider that meddling? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you think 'meddling' is any different nature than the one you know right now.
He could but why would He? We learn from our mistakes. If we could never make mistakes we could never learn from them.
You say he would not because it wouldn't let us learn?
Learning is a terrestrial quality. To what end does learning help in the afterlife? Why not give gift of wisdom and pure spirit in this world? This seems too speculative to base a logical argument.
Is God emotionally unstable, no.
umm... how do you know?
-
Yes meddling with nature. He would choose to leave evil out of the equation for no other reason than to stop people carrying it out.
It's very simple if we are both making the same assumptions: First, evil exists. Second, God can create a universe with evil or one without it.
So it follows logically that if he creates a universe without evil then all inhabitants do not have free will because although evil exists they will never have the choice to carry it out.
You said it yourself "the remaining options". So God removes certain options thus he removes free will. It's just logic and common sense you don't even have to delve in to the philosophy or the theology of the matter.
Also ask any theist they will tell you that this is covered in the Bible. It's an old debate and there is only one logical conclusion: If God wanted humans to have free will and choose to serve him then he had to provide them with all choices otherwise we are slaves whether we are ignorant of evil or not.
-
He could but why would He? We learn from our mistakes. If we could never make mistakes we could never learn from them.
You say he would not because it wouldn't let us learn?
Learning is a terrestrial quality. To what end does learning help in the afterlife? Why not give gift of wisdom and pure spirit in this world? This seems too speculative to base a logical argument.
Your whole argument is speculation from top to bottom.
"A world were can make choices but they never harm anyone!" ie, no important choices.
Is God emotionally unstable, no.
umm... how do you know?
Because there is no evidence to support that claim. God does things which would require great intellect.
-
Yeah yeah.. you assassinate my character then I assassinate yours, it's a vicious circle. Let's see who flips out this time ;)
I recall commenting on your lack of understanding of the parable of the fall of the man/mankind, not on your character. You attempted to characterize me a religious zealot to invalidate my claims.
You are a religious zealot in these debates..
I completely understand the parable, my claim is that it doesn't make sense. You're still overly sensitive when it comes to this god stuff, or you wouldn't be slinging veiled insults.
I never said I knew what God did or didn't do.. that's your department.
I am making the argument that the actions of God as they appear in Genesis are justified. You have also said that you know a lot more then me, so you could be saying that you do know that.
What? Is Genesis a parable or is a true story? Make up your mind.
So God is emotionally unstable too? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? He knew what was going to happen, then he let it happen, then he punished them for it. He set them up, because it's all part of the plan, right? So why'd he get mad, if that was what was supposed to happen?
Does God feel emotion, yes. Is God emotionally unstable, no. Read Genesis 3: 1-3, God warned them to not disobey him, and that if they disobeyed him, they would die. Because God is not a liar, he kept true to his word, and punished them, making them mortal. God did not set anyone up because every single person has sinned, it is their own fault.
He set them up because he knew they would sin. He knew they would eat from the tree, and he let Satan (or whoever that snake was) tempt them, when they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Then he cursed them to die.
Are you equating yourself with God now? How is your emotional response to an inevitability relevant to how god reacted?
Why was the reaction emotional? I should have addressed this when you first said it, but it doesn't actually say that God became angry, only that he punished them for sinning.
The bible refers to god's anger many times.. but that is not the point, you compared how you might react to how god might react. God is supposed to be the great all knowing one here, not you. Humans are made to react emotionally. We're made in his image though.. so if he overreacts to shit, why shouldn't we?
-
Yeah yeah.. you assassinate my character then I assassinate yours, it's a vicious circle. Let's see who flips out this time ;)
I recall commenting on your lack of understanding of the parable of the fall of the man/mankind, not on your character. You attempted to characterize me a religious zealot to invalidate my claims.
You are a religious zealot in these debates..
I completely understand the parable, my claim is that it doesn't make sense. You're still overly sensitive when it comes to this god stuff, or you wouldn't be slinging veiled insults.
Anyone who makes an argument for a religion is a religious fanatic? Thats news to me. You say I'm insulting you immediately after you call me a zealot. This is called hypocrisy.
I never said I knew what God did or didn't do.. that's your department.
I am making the argument that the actions of God as they appear in Genesis are justified. You have also said that you know a lot more then me, so you could be saying that you do know that.
What? Is Genesis a parable or is a true story? Make up your mind.
A parable is a true story. Whether or not the actions described in the story took place, its meaning is just as true.
So God is emotionally unstable too? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? He knew what was going to happen, then he let it happen, then he punished them for it. He set them up, because it's all part of the plan, right? So why'd he get mad, if that was what was supposed to happen?
Does God feel emotion, yes. Is God emotionally unstable, no. Read Genesis 3: 1-3, God warned them to not disobey him, and that if they disobeyed him, they would die. Because God is not a liar, he kept true to his word, and punished them, making them mortal. God did not set anyone up because every single person has sinned, it is their own fault.
He set them up because he knew they would sin. He knew they would eat from the tree, and he let Satan (or whoever that snake was) tempt them, when they didn't know the difference between right and wrong.Then he cursed them to die.
I know the sun will burn out in several billion years. "I set up the sun!" The two statements do not follow.
Are you equating yourself with God now? How is your emotional response to an inevitability relevant to how god reacted?
Why was the reaction emotional? I should have addressed this when you first said it, but it doesn't actually say that God became angry, only that he punished them for sinning.
The bible refers to god's anger many times.. but that is not the point, you compared how you might react to how god might react. God is supposed to be the great all knowing one here, not you. Humans are made to react emotionally. We're made in his image though.. so if he overreacts to shit, why shouldn't we?
The bible refers to Gods wrath, which is divine chastisement.
Consider a few passages where God is said to hate something:
- How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?' 31 "You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deut 12)
- The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.(Ps 11.5)
- There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.(Prov 6.16ff)
- Says the Lord. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats. 12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts? 13 "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. 14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them. 15 "So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. 16 "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, 17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless; Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow (Is 1)
- "For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. (Is 61.8)
- I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. 22 "Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. 23 "Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. 24 "But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5.21)
- These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. 17 'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate,' declares the Lord." (Zech 8.16)
- Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce," says the Lord, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the Lord of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." (Mal 2.15)
- Then say to the household of the king of Judah, 'Hear the word of the Lord,O house of David, thus says the Lord: 12 "Administer justice every morning; And deliver the person who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor That My wrath may not go forth like fire And burn with none to extinguish it, Because of the evil of their deeds. (Jer 21.11)
- Then the word of the Lord came to Zechariah saying, 9 "Thus has the Lord of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice, and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; 10 and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.' 11 "But they refused to pay attention, and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. 12 "And they made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. 13 "And it came about that just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen," says the Lord of hosts; 14 "but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known. Thus the land is desolated behind them, so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate." (Zech 7.8ff)
So when you say that God hates, you are right, God hates treachery, violence, cruelty, hypocrisy, he hates injustice. When God acts, it is not out of emotional irrationality or out of jealousy, it is because God is fulfilling his promise to uphold justice. To do anything less would be to make God a liar.
God is supposed to be the great all knowing one here, not you. Humans are made to react emotionally. We're made in his image though.. so if he overreacts to shit, why shouldn't we?
You've answered your own question. Only God can judge, because only God is all knowing. We can only follow His word.
8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near.
9 Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
10 Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.
(Way) More on this:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/whyjust.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/madgod.html
-
There's way too much psychological analyzation of a creature described in a book written thousands of years after the supposed creation of the world. Let's all remember how ridiculous it is to extrapolate specific meanings and intentions from the bible as well as ignoring the ones about hair length and stoning adulterous, etc. Nobody is trying to figure out what Apollo would say about all this, we all know thats a fairy tale.
-
I thought you would be the last to pull this crap Benocrates.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
An end to the death sentence.
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Here accomplished means fulfill. Jesus fulfilled the law by living a perfect life and following all of the mosaic law. Now Christians don't have to sweat the stuff about food and hairstyles because Christians are not bound by the mosaic law.
Nobody is trying to figure out what Apollo would say about all this, we all know thats a fairy tale.
We were arguing about the character of Abraham's God. I was showing through the words of the Abrahamic God and His followers that He is not petty or emotionally irrational. Be amazed at electron valences in your own thread.
-
Fair enough, I'll go back to the real world of evidence and reason. I just am amazed at the yahweh followers and their anthrapamorphisation of him/her/it (whatever suits the argument at the time). Isn't the fact that nobody believes in the Homeric panthian or the myriad of other dead gods some kind of proof that they are all bullshit. Theres nothing special about your god, no matter how much you debate his intentions. Hopefully you'll decide he's benevolent, more new testament instead of that nasty old testament ass hole.
-
Lol, non sequiturs. The Homeric Gods are clearly fictional because they only existed to explain phenomena the Greeks could not explain, and were rendered obsolete by the advent of science.
Theres nothing special about your god, no matter how much you debate his intentions. Hopefully you'll decide he's benevolent, more new testament instead of that nasty old testament ass hole.
Again, lol. The first sentence is obviously untrue because a difference in intention means a difference in character. Every God of any culture has it own differences, although they often serve similar functions. To deny that means that you have either fallen prey to the New Atheist dogma or to the wonderful Canadian fantasy of absolute cultural equality. I'll start slow for the uneducated such as yourself.
Types of Religious Systems
Animism/Spiritualism - Everything is populated by mysterious spirits.
Polytheism - Divine Beings involve themselves in everyday events and phenomena.
Philosophical - Examples include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, some have revealed truth and divine beings, some do not.
Monotheism - One God, omni-4.
Here we've already shown that the Christian God is only like two others, the Jewish God of the Torah and the Islamic God of Allah, Christians claim theirs is identical with the Jewish God, Muslims claim the other two are the results of scriptural corruption. All three posit a divine lawgiver that issues edicts that are authoritative for both nature and man. In Judaism, the laws apply to Gods chosen people, in Christianity and Judaism they apply to everyone.
Test Everything. Hold on to the good.
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"
But Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam because it is not concerned primarily with law, but with creed, how man and God relate. The highest discipline in Christianity is that of theologian, while in Islam and Judaism the highest discipline is jurisprudence. The Christian theologian is charged with using reason to understand the ways of God. No other religion does this because no other religion is called to. But why does Christianity do this.
Simply put, Christianity is founded in reason.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
The Greek word used here foe 'Word' is Logos, which means not only 'word' but also thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard and logic. Among religions Christianities distinguishing figure is its emphasis on reason, because Christians have always defined themselves as followers of The Word, God, Reason, Logic, Truth, made flesh in Jesus Christ.
From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason...It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them...the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith....It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice... Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product,' on occasion even harmful of its development—or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.
There are numerous other differences between the character of the Christian God and others, pagan gods are simply human beings writ large, spending their days drinking and eating and fighting and screwing, the nature of the Christian God is radically different then that of man. In fact, we cant even imagine what he looks like.
But he said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man."
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
God is so holy that He cannot even be tempted.
Thy way, O God, is holy; What god is great like our God?
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Unlike every other religion in the world Christianity recognizes that man can never be good enough to reach God's level, so God lowered himself to the level of man. God became man, and assumed the burden of man's sins. In every other religion man must earn his place in heaven or nirvana through his good works, in Christianity salvation is the gift of God. The only person who we know to be in heaven is the thief on the cross right of side of Jesus during the crucifixion.
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. Don't you fear God, he said, since you are under the same sentence?
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.
42 Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
43 Jesus answered him, I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.
-
Lol, non sequiturs. The Homeric Gods are clearly fictional because they only existed to explain phenomena the Greeks could not explain, and were rendered obsolete by the advent of science.
I really don't see much difference here between the Homeric gods and any conception of Yahweh. I say that the Homeric gods are silly because they attempted to explain scientific truths that are now clearly false, I also say the same about the Abrahamics. The biblical account of creation (age of the earth, ancestral lineage, etc) and natural phenomenon (world wide flood, parting of the red sea, etc) are clearly scientifically verifiable facts that have been verified as false. The earth is more than 6000 years old (don't give me the argument about the ambiguity of the concept of 7 days, its absurd and pure conjecture), life and man did not miraculously pop into existence, and evidence for world wide floods are weak at best and are post hoc arguments, not scientific examination.
Again, lol. The first sentence is obviously untrue because a difference in intention means a difference in character. Every God of any culture has it own differences, although they often serve similar functions. To deny that means that you have either fallen prey to the New Atheist dogma or to the wonderful Canadian fantasy of absolute cultural equality. I'll start slow for the uneducated such as yourself.
Types of Religious Systems
Animism/Spiritualism - Everything is populated by mysterious spirits.
Polytheism - Divine Beings involve themselves in everyday events and phenomena.
Philosophical - Examples include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, some have revealed truth and divine beings, some do not.
Monotheism - One God, omni-4.
Here we've already shown that the Christian God is only like two others, the Jewish God of the Torah and the Islamic God of Allah, Christians claim theirs is identical with the Jewish God, Muslims claim the other two are the results of scriptural corruption. All three posit a divine lawgiver that issues edicts that are authoritative for both nature and man. In Judaism, the laws apply to Gods chosen people, in Christianity and Judaism they apply to everyone
I was not implying that I felt that all religions held the same beliefs or followed a similar doctrine; I was implying there is no more truth to your god than there is in any other. The fact that two major sects with multiplue sub-sects can develop that radically differ relying on the same book seems to me to indicate the lack of truth probability in any one of them. To say that a Christian conception of god is this and a Jewish is that is all selective readings from unverifiable truth claiming books. No matter what character you with to believe your god exhibits it brings you no closer to any degree of truth other than an exercise in moral philosophy.
Your moral philosophy you apply to your conception of Yahweh may be excellent and close to the realities of life but you can't justify that philosophy with a supernatural god. All religious faiths have been creatures of man, sometimes beautiful and sometimes horrible. No matter how much they claim to be divinely inspired they are human and fallible,
But Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam because it is not concerned primarily with law, but with creed, how man and God relate. The highest discipline in Christianity is that of theologian, while in Islam and Judaism the highest discipline is jurisprudence. The Christian theologian is charged with using reason to understand the ways of God. No other religion does this because no other religion is called to. But why does Christianity do this.
Simply put, Christianity is founded in reason.
I was fine with everything up to the last line. To say that Christianity approaches their theological decisions based on reason is very different than saying they are founded on reason, We can't forget what the basis of the Christian religion is, the validity of the bible and the miracles. And unproven although scientifically verifiable claims. If the claims of the bible were true and god can manipulate physical laws on earth there must have been evidence, everything has a consiquence. The only other option is if this god hid all the evidence and made it harder to believe to test your will or some other nonsense. Christianity may use reason but they are founded on faith without evidence. You use evidence as a criteria for everything else in your life, but somehow not when it comes to bible interpretation. And the fact that anyone can pick and chose acceptable bible verses is clearly absurd, where do you get the criteria from? What is divine word and what is not? Its almost too easy to attack the bible.
The Greek word used here foe 'Word' is Logos, which means not only 'word' but also thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard and logic. Among religions Christianities distinguishing figure is its emphasis on reason, because Christians have always defined themselves as followers of The Word, God, Reason, Logic, Truth, made flesh in Jesus Christ.
When you refer to the logos you enter an area that I have a particular interest in and have actually educated myself in. Believe it or not, I am educated in some things. The concept of the logos is that the world has some kind of structure, an overarching law. This includes the physical laws such as gravitation, newtons laws, etc. Reason is a function of the logos and not necessarily a characteristic of the logos. Reason involves the principle of non contradiction and causality. When the Greeks talked about the logos they were talking about the way the world was, how things worked and what could be expected in the future.
The difference between the Greeks and the Moderns is that they believed the logos was basicly at the mercy of powerful gods that fought over the world. In Plato's Euthrphro the point that piety is what is dear to the gods means that the gods control the logos. They fight and the most powerfull ones can control the world. During these battles devious gods cause shit to go crazy on earth or help out man in different ways. In the modern abrahamic worldview it is Yahweh that controls the logos, changing it when he wants the world to change but mostly staying out of things.
To say that the Christian faith follows the word aka logos aka reason is the smelliest red herring I've ever heard. Its a semantic argument that lacks an understanding of the concept of logos and reason. Reason is stable because the logos is stable; The world does not change. Our conception of physical laws change but physical laws themselves don't change, and if they did there would be some proof of that. It is non belief that is fueled by reason, it is not an equally justifiable or unjustifiable belief. There is no evidence for any of the religious beliefs, none beyond conjecture and self justified texts.
God does not assert his power in overt ways, demanding obedience yet we tell people he probably would say that. I can't prove to you god doesn't exist, but with understanding that the world seems to work just fine on its own with no deviation ever seen. Evidence that man evolved from apes has been excavated over hundreds of years and those that are open to the truth can see it. Before science these myths and superstitions were all we had, we have more now and don't need blind faith for truth.
All your biblical verses
Just to reiterate, I wasn't saying the conception of god by Christians isn't different than Jews, I was saying they have equal validity. God is an intellectually lazy excuse. When Newton couldn't figure out how the solar system stayed balance he said it must be god. We now have an excellent explanation for how this happens and god just got moved further back in the time scale. We can explain pretty much how everything probably happened up to the start of the universe, and here I'll point out that a personal god is much different from a deist kind of prime mover conception. These theories, even the big bang, are not believed because they sound good or they were written by people talking to god. They are written in books that contain evidence, studies, mathmatical work and rational inquiry. Anyone can respond to the publication and if there is enough discord it is taken off the table of legitimacy.
It sucks but we woke up on a floating orb in a mysterious universe, and we unlike almost all life can reflect upon it. We will never know it all, but we will sure try. The world is a certain way and we see it all the time. Sometimes things are happening that are imperceivable to us either being too big or too small, but they still happen. Just because we can't understand something doesn't mean it must have been created by something beyond our intelligence. The fact that science moves on means that any ending to the equation being filled by god is only a temporary place holder until science comes along. That is the same for all religions, Yahweh, Apollo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-
Lol, non sequiturs. The Homeric Gods are clearly fictional because they only existed to explain phenomena the Greeks could not explain, and were rendered obsolete by the advent of science.
I really don't see much difference here between the Homeric gods and any conception of Yahweh. I say that the Homeric gods are silly because they attempted to explain scientific truths that are now clearly false, I also say the same about the Abrahamics. The biblical account of creation (age of the earth, ancestral lineage, etc) and natural phenomenon (world wide flood, parting of the red sea, etc) are clearly scientifically verifiable facts that have been verified as false. The earth is more than 6000 years old (don't give me the argument about the ambiguity of the concept of 7 days, its absurd and pure conjecture), life and man did not miraculously pop into existence, and evidence for world wide floods are weak at best and are post hoc arguments, not scientific examination.
It must be good then, that Genesis is a parable, and has always been understood as such.
Again, lol. The first sentence is obviously untrue because a difference in intention means a difference in character. Every God of any culture has it own differences, although they often serve similar functions. To deny that means that you have either fallen prey to the New Atheist dogma or to the wonderful Canadian fantasy of absolute cultural equality. I'll start slow for the uneducated such as yourself.
Types of Religious Systems
Animism/Spiritualism - Everything is populated by mysterious spirits.
Polytheism - Divine Beings involve themselves in everyday events and phenomena.
Philosophical - Examples include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, some have revealed truth and divine beings, some do not.
Monotheism - One God, omni-4.
Here we've already shown that the Christian God is only like two others, the Jewish God of the Torah and the Islamic God of Allah, Christians claim theirs is identical with the Jewish God, Muslims claim the other two are the results of scriptural corruption. All three posit a divine lawgiver that issues edicts that are authoritative for both nature and man. In Judaism, the laws apply to Gods chosen people, in Christianity and Judaism they apply to everyone
I was not implying that I felt that all religions held the same beliefs or followed a similar doctrine; I was implying there is no more truth to your god than there is in any other. The fact that two major sects with multiplue sub-sects can develop that radically differ relying on the same book seems to me to indicate the lack of truth probability in any one of them. To say that a Christian conception of god is this and a Jewish is that is all selective readings from unverifiable truth claiming books. No matter what character you with to believe your god exhibits it brings you no closer to any degree of truth other than an exercise in moral philosophy.
Your moral philosophy you apply to your conception of Yahweh may be excellent and close to the realities of life but you can't justify that philosophy with a supernatural god. All religious faiths have been creatures of man, sometimes beautiful and sometimes horrible. No matter how much they claim to be divinely inspired they are human and fallible,
The differences in the classical notions of the Judaic and Christian God come from the additional information and insight provided by Jesus Christ. There is more truth to the Abrahamic God then Apollo because we can observe that the sun is not a flaming chariot and Apollo is thus absolutely false. And by saying that all Gods are equally false you are saying that they are all false, I doubt that you have taken the time to consider them all. You are also assuming we can know everything, Kant would be quite disappointed in a young philosopher such as yourself.
But Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam because it is not concerned primarily with law, but with creed, how man and God relate. The highest discipline in Christianity is that of theologian, while in Islam and Judaism the highest discipline is jurisprudence. The Christian theologian is charged with using reason to understand the ways of God. No other religion does this because no other religion is called to. But why does Christianity do this.
Simply put, Christianity is founded in reason.
I was fine with everything up to the last line. To say that Christianity approaches their theological decisions based on reason is very different than saying they are founded on reason, We can't forget what the basis of the Christian religion is, the validity of the bible and the miracles. And unproven although scientifically verifiable claims. If the claims of the bible were true and god can manipulate physical laws on earth there must have been evidence, everything has a consiquence. The only other option is if this god hid all the evidence and made it harder to believe to test your will or some other nonsense. Christianity may use reason but they are founded on faith without evidence. You use evidence as a criteria for everything else in your life, but somehow not when it comes to bible interpretation. And the fact that anyone can pick and chose acceptable bible verses is clearly absurd, where do you get the criteria from? What is divine word and what is not? Its almost too easy to attack the bible.
Christianity is centered around God, which is a trinity of three persons of one essence, the second of whom is viewed as identical with The Truth, which all truth serves. To follow Jesus is to follow the truth. The miracles produced evidence, thousands saw them. It is easy to have a shallow and misguided understanding of the bible, perhaps you should examine it in depth.
The Greek word used here foe 'Word' is Logos, which means not only 'word' but also thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard and logic. Among religions Christianities distinguishing figure is its emphasis on reason, because Christians have always defined themselves as followers of The Word, God, Reason, Logic, Truth, made flesh in Jesus Christ.
When you refer to the logos you enter an area that I have a particular interest in and have actually educated myself in. Believe it or not, I am educated in some things. The concept of the logos is that the world has some kind of structure, an overarching law. This includes the physical laws such as gravitation, newtons laws, etc. Reason is a function of the logos and not necessarily a characteristic of the logos. Reason involves the principle of non contradiction and causality. When the Greeks talked about the logos they were talking about the way the world was, how things worked and what could be expected in the future.
The difference between the Greeks and the Moderns is that they believed the logos was basicly at the mercy of powerful gods that fought over the world. In Plato's Euthrphro the point that piety is what is dear to the gods means that the gods control the logos. They fight and the most powerfull ones can control the world. During these battles devious gods cause shit to go crazy on earth or help out man in different ways. In the modern abrahamic worldview it is Yahweh that controls the logos, changing it when he wants the world to change but mostly staying out of things.
To say that the Christian faith follows the word aka logos aka reason is the smelliest red herring I've ever heard. Its a semantic argument that lacks an understanding of the concept of logos and reason. Reason is stable because the logos is stable; The world does not change. Our conception of physical laws change but physical laws themselves don't change, and if they did there would be some proof of that. It is non belief that is fueled by reason, it is not an equally justifiable or unjustifiable belief. There is no evidence for any of the religious beliefs, none beyond conjecture and self justified texts.
God does not assert his power in overt ways, demanding obedience yet we tell people he probably would say that. I can't prove to you god doesn't exist, but with understanding that the world seems to work just fine on its own with no deviation ever seen. Evidence that man evolved from apes has been excavated over hundreds of years and those that are open to the truth can see it. Before science these myths and superstitions were all we had, we have more now and don't need blind faith for truth.
Why would the Christian use of the word be identical? God is eternally unchanging, so the logos is stable, so reason is stable. I have never argued against evolution or for angels pushing around planets. On that subject tell me exactly where the universe came from if it works fine without God. And why would God create a universe that requires constant intervention? If you were to design a computer to run a multitude of important algorithims, would you make it so that you had to reassemble parts of it every other minute?
All your biblical verses
Just to reiterate, I wasn't saying the conception of god by Christians isn't different than Jews, I was saying they have equal validity. God is an intellectually lazy excuse. When Newton couldn't figure out how the solar system stayed balance he said it must be god. We now have an excellent explanation for how this happens and god just got moved further back in the time scale. We can explain pretty much how everything probably happened up to the start of the universe, and here I'll point out that a personal god is much different from a deist kind of prime mover conception. These theories, even the big bang, are not believed because they sound good or they were written by people talking to god. They are written in books that contain evidence, studies, mathmatical work and rational inquiry. Anyone can respond to the publication and if there is enough discord it is taken off the table of legitimacy.
It sucks but we woke up on a floating orb in a mysterious universe, and we unlike almost all life can reflect upon it. We will never know it all, but we will sure try. The world is a certain way and we see it all the time. Sometimes things are happening that are imperceivable to us either being too big or too small, but they still happen. Just because we can't understand something doesn't mean it must have been created by something beyond our intelligence. The fact that science moves on means that any ending to the equation being filled by god is only a temporary place holder until science comes along. That is the same for all religions, Yahweh, Apollo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oh, now this is just ridiculous. Newton said that the universe was so beautiful in its motions that only God could have made it. You have said that you are in awe of nature, this awe of nature originated in the Christian idea that we could use science to interrogate nature to see Gods natural laws. Newton himself, one of the greatest scientists, was a Christian occultist. Francis Bacon, inventor of the scientific method, wrote long essays about Christianity. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was an Augustinian priest. The big bang was first hypothesized by a Catholic priest, many scientists refused to believe it for as long as they could because they knew a universe with a beginning must have been created. All these men had a deep devotion to God and to science, because they could accept both with no difficulty.
Regarding proof, if you had absolute proof of God, you would have no choice but to accept Him, and God would in effect be enforcing himself on you. God has given you reason to consider His works and His word, and it is no ones fault but your own if you make the wrong choice.
More on this later.
-
omg i fukken hate scrolling shut up
-
It must be good then, that Genesis is a parable, and has always been understood as such.
First off, far too many people believe in Genesis as literal fact or at least believe the world was created about 6-12 thousand years or whatever biblical investigation is involved. The fact of a creator and manipulative god is a scientific one and should be verifiable beyond personal conjecture. Have you ever seen the Monty Python movie Life of Brian? That is the kind of suggestibility that must have been present in a world where the natural workings were so unknown they must have been designed.
If you say that Genesis, the account for the beginning of the world is no more than a parable then how could you claim anything claimed in the bible actually happened? Where did Cains wife come from? The book is just riddled with holes and holds as much verifiability than any other scriptural texts. There is a man in India right now (I'll find his name if challenged) that claims to perform Jesus like miracles (virgin birth, walk on water, water into wine,etc). One year on his birthday he held a birthday party attended by over a million people. These are people who believe this is the newest messiah, unfortunately not a single miracle has been verified and is no more than Life of Brian-like hysteria.
Hearsay evidence is all the bible has and all FE theory has too. Its easy to compare the two on here, I'm sure by the intelligent way you've debated you are not a FE proponent. I read some part of a FE book that claimed to have evidence because he watched a ship and it didn't go over the horizon. Clearly either a mistake or manipulation but some people still believe it, proof in evidence must go beyond that. Not to mention the scriptures were written at earliest 6 decades after the evens of Jesus Christ. So all we have is Hearsay (unreliable and highly unscientific) and old beliefs put into writing.
The differences in the classical notions of the Judaic and Christian God ... You are also assuming we can know everything, Kant would be quite disappointed in a young philosopher such as yourself.
I agree with everything you said about the addition of Jesus Christ as a figure in christianity has altered it from J and I. This is great and I support it along with Richard Dawkins when he exclaimed "Atheists for Jesus." Most of what JC taught was amazing moral philosophy and I follow alot of that in my life. You can too but you don't need to accept its biblical authority. It is reason which demands evidence beyond hearsay when it comes to a god hypothesis.
I see JC just like Socrates in the vein that he didn't write anything but had many followers. There is a constant debate between the real Socrates and the possibly romanticized version in the Platonic and other sparse writings. I honor and respect the portrayal of Socrates for everything he did, but I don't have to accept everything he said as gospel and I don't feel any less enthusiastic because he is not divine. He doesn't have to be given some superior authority to have excellent ideas.
If reason is any gift of a god then it puts in me a strong lack of belief because there is no facts to latch on to. When Bertrand Russel was asked what he would say to god if he went to heaven and was wrong all along and he said: "I'm sorry your worship, but you simply didn't give us enough evidence." It sucks that there are no easy answers, I wish there was. Oh, and about all the barbs like me being uneducated and Kant being disappointed at me are just really immature. Like, come on, I'm not resulting to backhanded insults even though some things you say enrage me as I'm sure I enrage you. Let's keep a bit of civility without the petty jabs.
Christianity is centered around God, which is a trinity of three persons of one essence, the second of whom is viewed as identical with The Truth...perhaps you should examine it in depth.
I understand your conception of the Truth and that you follow it. I do the same, however I discover the Truths out of philosophy and observation. My whole point in the entire debate is that there are no easy answers and you can't just accept that the Truth is defined in an anchient book, no exceptions. I have already discussed that all gods differ in their construct, just like pyramids may be similar in Egypt and South America but they were clearly built differently with different techniques.
It all comes down to the fact that you have no more credibility with your bible than I do with my copy of Plato's Apology. They are both excellent sources of philosophy and discussions of worldviews but both are products of man. If the bible is the transmitted word of god why is there no mention of any technology that would amaze people who thought a wheelbarrow was as modern as it gets. I know the counter to this is the whole reason thing, but my reason tells me the bible is no authority. What reason do you have for accepting it over the Koran, both claim to hold the Truth and gods words. Thats where reason tells me to open my mind.
Why would the Christian use of the word be identical? God is eternally unchanging...would you make it so that you had to reassemble parts of it every other minute?
If you say the logos is unchanging you have to discard all the supposed miracles or whenever god interfeared with the world (mass drowning, famines, disease, JC, etc). There is a very different conception of god being some entity that starts this all off (evolution and even the big bang can be accepted here life you seem to do) and the other conception is a personal god who interfears in the world. I can be much more receptive to the first than the last.
You acknowledge that the world appears to work as it does, not being constantly operated by a god. To ask me how the world works without god is clearly searching for an easy answer, I don't have it and neither do you! I'm sorry that you have a hard time dealing with the fact that we will never actually know anything but constantly have a better understanding of the world. With the whole Newton example, he figured it all out up until the solar system, then it was too complex for him to understand. That is when he relied on god to fill in the gaps, that is not science that is lazyness. I'm not saying that we can know everything but I'm saying we can try, not just give up and rely on a bigger mind to watch out. It would feel so nice but there just no evidence thats true.
If you're asking my why god would make a creation that has to be constantly corrected. Well, if we are putting ourselves in a supernaturals shoes then I would ask why is there horrible suffering? Why is a child born with a crippling disease or develop horribly painful sicknesses later in life. A child who has never masturbated (apparently sinful), never told a lie, never harmed another, etc. Why do earthquakes wipe out thousands of people, good hard working people who did no harm to the rocks that crushed them. Obviously we could go on, but you get my point.
Oh, now this is just ridiculous. Newton said that the universe was so beautiful in its motions that only God could have made it. You have said that you are in awe of nature, this awe of nature originated in the Christian idea that we could use science to interrogate nature to see Gods natural laws. ...and it is no ones fault but your own if you make the wrong choice.
Just read up for my further discussions of Newton but in reference to his Christianity, before Darwin (and even a bit afterward) it would be unreasonable to think of a world without a designer. The more we figured out the origins of species and theoretical mathematics we realised that there are fewer and fewer gaps that we need god to fill. Just because the originators of science were religious means nothing when it comes to their science. They were just too early in the scientific venture to realize the gaps were not divinly sized but small enough to figure out. The more we learn the more we see that a deist conception of god is the only rational one.
If you want to talk about men of science and their religious belief you can read the multiple surveys of the highest level scientists in the US at least are 80% non religious. Einstein was a deist, most moral philosophers had either a deist or an atheist point of view. To me it comes down to not the defense of a position but the exercise of my reason. You can't accept things just because others do, you have to be able to test them yourselves or do something to prove them wrong. I haven't done the experiments outlined in any science book but if I wanted I could. Thats the difference, there is verifiability in science but absolutely none in religion. Christianity my use reason to develop worldviews based on biblical scripture but it flies in the face of reason to accept the Truth in that book as absolute. Nothing is absolute, I'm sorry its not easy but its the real Truth.
-
I only read your first section here Benocrates cos I'm lazy and I'm watching a film but I want to point out the Cain's wife most likely came from the other people living on the earth then. It mentions in the story of Cain and Abel about other people being present on the earth when Cain was sent out to wander around with some weird mark on him. I asked some theologians about this and they all said that it was because God created other humans apart from Adam and Eve so if you were to take the creation story literally you would have to take this into account.
-
I only read your first section here Benocrates cos I'm lazy and I'm watching a film but I want to point out the Cain's wife most likely came from the other people living on the earth then. It mentions in the story of Cain and Abel about other people being present on the earth when Cain was sent out to wander around with some weird mark on him. I asked some theologians about this and they all said that it was because God created other humans apart from Adam and Eve so if you were to take the creation story literally you would have to take this into account.
The problem I see glaring in that is what evidence is there for this. Its all so convenient, just like the FE UA. Sure, its possible if you accept its truth but there is no evidence that it exists. Why would the bible leave it so incomplete by not explaining this? If there is some kind of evidence I'm not aware of then I'd like to read it.
-
omg i fukken hate scrolling shut up
lol, then don't bother reading it. Or just assume god did it all and be happy with that, lol.
-
I only read your first section here Benocrates cos I'm lazy and I'm watching a film but I want to point out the Cain's wife most likely came from the other people living on the earth then. It mentions in the story of Cain and Abel about other people being present on the earth when Cain was sent out to wander around with some weird mark on him. I asked some theologians about this and they all said that it was because God created other humans apart from Adam and Eve so if you were to take the creation story literally you would have to take this into account.
The problem I see glaring in that is what evidence is there for this. Its all so convenient, just like the FE UA. Sure, its possible if you accept its truth but there is no evidence that it exists. Why would the bible leave it so incomplete by not explaining this? If there is some kind of evidence I'm not aware of then I'd like to read it.
I'll get back to you when the film is over cos its too much effort to look up stuff now
-
Most of what JC taught was amazing moral philosophy and I follow alot of that in my life. You can too but you don't need to accept its biblical authority. It is reason which demands evidence beyond hearsay when it comes to a god hypothesis.
This is why I find the followers of cults to be quite absentminded. Following the guidelines set out in the bible have no meaningful or empirical attachment to any supernatural entity, especially considering said guidelines were created by man, and benefit not only man, but the very creators of said cult.
-
Most of what JC taught was amazing moral philosophy and I follow alot of that in my life. You can too but you don't need to accept its biblical authority. It is reason which demands evidence beyond hearsay when it comes to a god hypothesis.
This is why I find the followers of cults to be quite absentminded. Following the guidelines set out in the bible have no meaningful or empirical attachment to any supernatural entity, especially considering said guidelines were created by man, and benefit not only man, but the very creators of said cult.
Agreed. It may be very reasonable to say that abortion and stem cell research are wrong and against the truths of the world if you accept that life is in and of itself a Good beyond anything else. That is an acceptable view if you can defend it with reasoned argument based on observation and experience, personal and shared as well as empirical evidence (I've discussed possible empirical evidence for morality in another thread). To say that God said life is in and of itself good because its written by other people in an ancient text is not an argument, its the theological equivalent of saying "look over there" and running away.
-
I only read your first section here Benocrates cos I'm lazy and I'm watching a film but I want to point out the Cain's wife most likely came from the other people living on the earth then. It mentions in the story of Cain and Abel about other people being present on the earth when Cain was sent out to wander around with some weird mark on him. I asked some theologians about this and they all said that it was because God created other humans apart from Adam and Eve so if you were to take the creation story literally you would have to take this into account.
The problem I see glaring in that is what evidence is there for this. Its all so convenient, just like the FE UA. Sure, its possible if you accept its truth but there is no evidence that it exists. Why would the bible leave it so incomplete by not explaining this? If there is some kind of evidence I'm not aware of then I'd like to read it.
Right now I've taken a wee bit of time to think about it. All I know about the bible's position on it is that there was at least one other land apart from the land that Adam and Eve were in and that there were people there. So yeah its not explained more and I don't understant why either, maybe God thought it wasn't important
-
perhaps something to test our faith, see if we're worthy, lol. Why does god make this all so hard for us? If there really is an intelligence in the universe that is loving and caring about his creation why not just give us a utopia. The arguments of the devil controlling the world as well is so blatantly pagan its ridiculous.
-
Cos a utopia would be boring. I remember an old lady I know being asked that if we all acted as "true brothers and sisters to each other" (or really took care of each other) what would like be like and she answered boring. And I agreed. And if I was God I would agree too so I think if God was to choose between utopia and no utopia God would choose no utopia. If he has a sense of humour that is, which religious texts seem to imply
-
Cos a utopia would be boring. I remember an old lady I know being asked that if we all acted as "true brothers and sisters to each other" (or really took care of each other) what would like be like and she answered boring. And I agreed. And if I was God I would agree too so I think if God was to choose between utopia and no utopia God would choose no utopia. If he has a sense of humour that is, which religious texts seem to imply
But didn't we exist in a utopia before satan tempted us with the fruit of knowledge. God was angered by this, does this not imply it would be better to live in ignorance but plentiful bounty. He made man toil the earth and took away eden because we sinned, right?
-
Thats where the free will stuff comes in though
-
Thats where the free will stuff comes in though
Right, but I'm saying god implied that ignorance is more peaceful and is better than free will. He punished us for original sin and then Jesus died for it....or something like that.
-
And that's where the blind faith comes in.
-
Thats where the free will stuff comes in though
Right, but I'm saying god implied that ignorance is more peaceful and is better than free will. He punished us for original sin and then Jesus died for it....or something like that.
I think he was implying one choice was better than the other but I know if I had the choice I would have eaten the fruit so I guess God didn't give us much of a chance if he did
-
What I'd like to know is what was Satan doing in the Garden of Eden?
-
He fell out of heaven duh
-
That's why the world's been in turmoil for that past 6000 years - We're caught in the middle of Satan's lawsuit against God for not correctly sign-posting that hole in Heaven that appeared during maintenance..
-
Here is a great video of Rickey Gervais' view on all of this:
-
I wanna watch damnit but I my headphones are lost
-
Well watch it when you can, he pretty much poses all these questions in the most hilarious way possible.
-
will do
-
Ricky Gervais is my latest hero, lol. He has a degree in philosophy and is just in general a "funny fucker." Everyone should check out his standups Animals, Politics and Fame. All clips available on Youtube. Also you should be able to torrent them or find them streamed somewhere else like Stage6 or something.
-
Appoligies, my computer broke and I'm at the library. I only skimmed the posts to find responses to me. If I missed something please direct me. ;)
Yes meddling with nature. He would choose to leave evil out of the equation for no other reason than to stop people carrying it out.
If I build a sand castle but leave out a tree just so that 'imaginary sand people' cannot make a tireswing, have I taken away their freewill? Is it meddling to create a perfectly legitamite sandcastle without ever having a tree, or is it meddling to remove the tree after having conceived it? Is it meddling if it is my sandcastle? (I am only indulging this definition because it sounds as if you use the connotation of meddling with misguided, wrongful, or unneeded to justify the nonaction of removing evil.)
It's very simple if we are both making the same assumptions: First, evil exists. Second, God can create a universe with evil or one without it.
Evil and God were defined as such for the argument to apply, so yes to both. :)
So it follows logically that if he creates a universe without evil then all inhabitants do not have free will because although evil exists they will never have the choice to carry it out.
This is flawed. No choice to carry one exact 'something' out is not a counter example of free will.
EXAMPLE:
You do not have the choice of spontaneously duplicating yourself all over the universe. HOWEVER, you still (potentially) have free will.
......Pay attention to the underlined parts in your quote above. "Evil vesus no evil". Your proof uses two mutually exclusive conditions.
You said it yourself "the remaining options". So God removes certain options thus he removes free will.
Same flawed statement. Not having options is not necessariliy a limit of free will. See above.
Also ask any theist they will tell you that this is covered in the Bible. It's an old debate and there is only one logical conclusion: If God wanted humans to have free will and choose to serve him then he had to provide them with all choices otherwise we are slaves whether we are ignorant of evil or not.
I'd rather not bring the bible into this proof, becaue there is no foundation for its claims, my argument doesn't oppose just this religion, it can't be taken literally, and does not contribute to this in any way that I can see.
Not "ignorant" to evil. God could create evil as a logical impossibility in itself. Right now, it is impossible (in this reality) to do many things because they are logically impossible. EXAMPLE:
A bachelor cannot be married because of a logical consequence of being not married. Sure, some married people may act like bachelors but they really aren't.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Your mom.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Your mom.
Your loli.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Your mom.
Your loli.
:]
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Dumbest argument ever.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Free will does exists. men have choices. men are not forced to be good or evil. They determine the outcome by the choices they make.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
Free will does exists. men have choices. men are not forced to be good or evil. They determine the outcome by the choices they make.
No, I agree with Danny Dorito. Human NATURE dictates our choices, not free will. We are enslaved to our human natures. Thus, not free will.
-
So people never overcome human nature? If they can overcome it, that means that argument doesn't follow.
I read an interesting but kinda obvious essay a few days ago on Chaotic systems and free will. I'll have to dig up some relevant quotes from it.
-
You tools may not have any free will but I do.
-
What is human nature? If human nature is to do evil, then many people have overcome it, because many people have chosen to do good.
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
You tools may not have any free will but I do.
One could argue:
"You were fated to react that way. It is a frightening notion to have no control over your mind and body and your conclusion of free will is a merely a defense mechanism for your own benefit."
-
Free will doesn't exist. The end.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Freely.
-
Freely.
How do you know?
-
My opinion on free will is that because I can't define it I can't really say if it exists or not. I certainly have trouble imagining a choice made that was in no way influenced by anything else.
-
Freely.
How do you know?
Because I am awesome.
-
No, I agree with Danny Dorito. Human NATURE dictates our choices, not free will. We are enslaved to our human natures. Thus, not free will.
Throwback with the "dorito" comment. Childhood ftw.
-
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Determinism; I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.
-
Heres a good investigation on this topic:
-
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Determinism; I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Actually, the BoP lies upon the person making the claim. In this case, that would just happen to be erm...you. You've reminded others of this countless times.
-
Actually, the BoP lies upon the person making the claim. In this case, that would just happen to be erm...you. You've reminded others of this countless times.
I'm confused; do you have evidence that your mind and body defy the laws of science to establish free will? What aspect of your life has not been the result of multiple variables?
Otherwise, I see no reason to try and ask for evidence of something that is to me, quite apparent.
-
Whether something is apparent to you is irrelevant. Aliens are apparent to some. God to others.
My evidence? Quantum theory, genius! You rely upon universal causality, which has been disregarded with quantum theory, so yes, you must provide evidence. I'm not saying that it necessarily does not, but you are the one taking a stance. Therefore, you must provide evidence. Simply because God is apparent to some doesn't mean I'm not going to ask for evidence from them if they start preaching.
-
I forgot to find that essay again. Opps.
Anyways, determinism has issues. As noted, quantum theory. However, is random dice being thrown any closer to "free will" than determinism? Sure, these tiny difference makes HUGE differences down the road, but still we aren't the ones making the choices. Its hardly "free" will. More like random will.
Similarily, it should be noted quantum mechanics can also be seen as deterministic.
Of course since it could easily be argued that since we are so far along in a chaotic system there is no way to tell the difference between the two, this is a bit of a silly question with no answer.
-
Precisely why I didn't refute determinism out of hand, but I think that will is probably free, if the mechanism behind it is undetectable. Sorta an idea of will is free as long as no-one knows what you're going to do. I guess this viewpoint only works if you're atheist though, a theist, especially a monotheist, would think that God always knows what you're about to do. Or the old matrix theory could work, the idea that you've already chosen what you're going to do later, you just don't know why.
-
The apparentness of it to myself has nothing to do with evidence. Furthermore, the BoP may be on me, but I have no desire to prove my conclusion. Unless I'm presented with evidence that goes contrary to observations, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
"All events have causes, and their causes are all prior events. There is no cycle of events such that an event (possibly indirectly) causes itself."
Whether you want to talk about the single wave function, or Bohmian mechanics, there are ways of establishing QM as deterministic.
-
The apparentness of it to myself has nothing to do with evidence. Furthermore, the BoP may be on me, but I have no desire to prove my conclusion. Unless I'm presented with evidence that goes contrary to observations, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
This is a Narcberry reply and is thus inane.
-
It's actually something that every human invokes. For proof, look at any of your own posts.
-
Eet moar chikun
-
Actually, the BoP lies upon the person making the claim. In this case, that would just happen to be erm...you. You've reminded others of this countless times.
I'm confused; do you have evidence that your mind and body defy the laws of science to establish free will? What aspect of your life has not been the result of multiple variables?
Otherwise, I see no reason to try and ask for evidence of something that is to me, quite apparent.
So why does something being the result of variables (plus unknown, possibly non existent laws governing quantum mechanics) make it not free will. You decide it, how does how you decide it make it not free will? If you flipped a coin and made your choice based on that would it still not be your free will? Your definition of free will is warped to something that must be entirely random, meaning your definition of free will, is even less so.
-
So why does something being the result of variables (plus unknown, possibly non existent laws governing quantum mechanics) make it not free will.
Because you are the effect of a cause. Life is merely a chaotic and infinitely complex set of dominoes.
Under your argument, you're trying to establish that you can decide and choose something independent of the variables associated with all of science and the chemical reactions in your brain. I'd like to know how that is possible.
-
As Quantum Mechanics has shown, there is an inherent indeterminism in natural processes. This is not just due to our inability to take into account all of the variables for some complex system, but because we are unable, in principle, to know all of them at the same time.
-
As Quantum Mechanics has shown, there is an inherent indeterminism in natural processes. This is not just due to our inability to take into account all of the variables for some complex system, but because we are unable, in principle, to know all of them at the same time.
Not that I think what you just said is true, but it is also fundamentally flawed: just because we are not able to know all of them at the same time doesn't mean the system isn't deterministic.
-
So why does something being the result of variables (plus unknown, possibly non existent laws governing quantum mechanics) make it not free will.
Because you are the effect of a cause. Life is merely a chaotic and infinitely complex set of dominoes.
Under your argument, you're trying to establish that you can decide and choose something independent of the variables associated with all of science and the chemical reactions in your brain. I'd like to know how that is possible.
Your brain is you. You are the variable. Your argument is flawed.
-
So you're saying consciousness and being are not the result of chemical reactions or the laws of science?
-
So you're saying consciousness and being are not the result of chemical reactions or the laws of science?
I said no such thing. I said they are the SAME thing.
-
As Quantum Mechanics has shown, there is an inherent indeterminism in natural processes. This is not just due to our inability to take into account all of the variables for some complex system, but because we are unable, in principle, to know all of them at the same time.
Not that I think what you just said is true, but it is also fundamentally flawed: just because we are not able to know all of them at the same time doesn't mean the system isn't deterministic.
Determinism for you is quite a different thing than for me.
-
Not that I think what you just said is true, but it is also fundamentally flawed: just because we are not able to know all of them at the same time doesn't mean the system isn't deterministic.
Determinism for you is quite a different thing than for me.
What is your definition of determinism then? Because it seems to be different from every other definition of it I have ever read or heard.
-
I said no such thing. I said they are the SAME thing.
So being and consciousness aren't the result of chemical reactions, they are the chemical reactions?
-
I said no such thing. I said they are the SAME thing.
So being and consciousness aren't the result of chemical reactions, they are the chemical reactions?
That is the direction in which all scientific inquiry points.
-
Not having much to add to the discussion other than the excellent Youtube series I posted I can say that the question of free will is probably the first one that truly blew my mind. I was lying in bed one night and bolted up, basically yelling "all life is determined!" lol. In the meantime I have scaled back my pronouncement as the arguments for determinism are rather short sighted. The true question is the nature of consciousness, is life monist or dualist? So far I have been leaning towards monism however I definitely haven't ruled out the alternative.
-
Heres a good investigation on this topic:
-
Actually, the BoP lies upon the person making the claim. In this case, that would just happen to be erm...you. You've reminded others of this countless times.
I'm confused; do you have evidence that your mind and body defy the laws of science to establish free will? What aspect of your life has not been the result of multiple variables?
Otherwise, I see no reason to try and ask for evidence of something that is to me, quite apparent.
I love how you try to make a point by saying violating, when in fact free will is the result of following "laws of science" (lawls at whatever that is supposed to mean, didn't know thought processes had laws)
-
Rather late reply.
I love how you try to make a point by saying violating, when in fact free will is the result of following "laws of science" (lawls at whatever that is supposed to mean, didn't know thought processes had laws)
I was referring to the laws of science that everything obeys. I'm unaware of anything that doesn't follow them. Even chaotic systems are deterministic, so to say that there exists something in the mind that can be outside these laws, as free will must be, must have some basis.
-
Rather late reply.
I love how you try to make a point by saying violating, when in fact free will is the result of following "laws of science" (lawls at whatever that is supposed to mean, didn't know thought processes had laws)
I was referring to the laws of science that everything obeys. I'm unaware of anything that doesn't follow them. Even chaotic systems are deterministic, so to say that there exists something in the mind that can be outside these laws, as free will must be, must have some basis.
pi? I am ignorant, but I'm betting there's no pattern there. In what way would it be deterministic if you can't determine any form of pattern. I mean, you can determine that it's random, i suppose, but that's cheating.
-
In what way would it be deterministic if you can't determine any form of pattern.
What? Since when does it have to have a pattern to be deterministic?
"chaotic systems are systems that look random but aren't. They are actually deterministic systems (predictable if you have enough information) governed by physical laws, that are very difficult to predict accurately (a commonly used example is weather forecasting)."
"Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. A related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Recently, another field, called relativistic chaos,[5] has emerged to describe systems that follow the laws of general relativity.
As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorenz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Bounded chaos is a useful term for describing models of disorder."
-
In what way would it be deterministic if you can't determine any form of pattern.
What? Since when does it have to have a pattern to be deterministic?
"chaotic systems are systems that look random but aren't. They are actually deterministic systems (predictable if you have enough information) governed by physical laws, that are very difficult to predict accurately (a commonly used example is weather forecasting)."
"Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. A related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Recently, another field, called relativistic chaos,[5] has emerged to describe systems that follow the laws of general relativity.
As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorenz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Bounded chaos is a useful term for describing models of disorder."
lulz at you dude, calm down a bit man. I did say I was ignorant and I wasn't joking, this kind of thing is my weak point, but I ask questions, and make statements at the risk of being wrong so I can learn. I was just trying to incite information, which you gave and I appreciate that. I'll have to read more into that when I not at work, any suggested reading material?
-
I'm very calm.
-
What? Since when does it have to have a pattern to be deterministic?
I'm very calm.
alright, then what's a good source for the chaos theory? I admit I'm not familiar, and you obviously seem to know a bit, so I'm coming to you for a reference. Is there a particular author that explains it well? I mean, Wikipedia is good for amateurs to post whatever fits their views, but I'm sure you have a real source.
-
Google returns on it are plentiful and go a good way towards explanations. Wikipedia's external links found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) are also worth noting.
As for actual literature, I've only read one; being "Does God Play Dice? - The Mathematics of Chaos"
It was better than most of the online references, and most online reviews praise it, which is why I decided to read it in the first place. Apparently there is a revised and updated version available now as well.
-
Google returns on it are plentiful and go a good way towards explanations. Wikipedia's external links found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) are also worth noting.
As for actual literature, I've only read one; being "Does God Play Dice? - The Mathematics of Chaos"
It was better than most of the online references, and most online reviews praise it, which is why I decided to read it in the first place. Apparently there is a revised and updated version available now as well.
Thanks for the references. I like to add to my library, so I appreciate the title.
-
Rather late reply.
I love how you try to make a point by saying violating, when in fact free will is the result of following "laws of science" (lawls at whatever that is supposed to mean, didn't know thought processes had laws)
I was referring to the laws of science that everything obeys. I'm unaware of anything that doesn't follow them. Even chaotic systems are deterministic, so to say that there exists something in the mind that can be outside these laws, as free will must be, must have some basis.
Randomness would not be free will. If you were forced to do a random action that is not free will. Free will is the RESULT of following the rules that govern your body.
(and i still received no answer on so called "laws of science")