Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

And I like it now. The simplicity of the argument may seem deceptive to those wrapped in the mystery of God. However, it is as simple as it seems. This is perhaps the greatest irony of centuries of somewhat-careful theological construction. Perhaps even more amusing is the idea that the theology might have worked out except that it is based entirely on a priori points, and those apparently cannot be revised. An interesting application of a logical structure that would eventually find its home amid the scientific method. There is, of course, nothing scientific about the nature of the a priori, and that's why the theology doesn't work.

But the simple fact is that whether we accept the work of Catholic theologians, and, later, the Protestant Reformers, it all diversifies from the same faulty a priori. Much like an error in an algebraic formula will stand out in the next generation; much like a genetic mutation will represent itself in the next generation--so, too, do the errors of theology declare themselves more and more boldly with each passing incarnation.

I think the Christian response might be severely limited: the two most acceptable methods of addressing this paradox are unacceptable to the faith: Either the Bible has misguided human perception, which is unacceptable for the Universal accessibility and simplicity of God's message; or God simply doesn't exist that way and the Bible has less credibility than Iron John.

You've spelled it out quite simply, Cris, and without assumptions of faith that cannot be evidenced. In this case, the Christians have painted us a portrait, and we apparently see it quite differently than they. Personally, I'm in definitive agreement with your arguement. Paradox accepted, impossibility of this God demonstrated.

Good show, mate ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Thanks tiassa,

I’ve tried hard to derive equally compelling arguments on other aspects of God’s alleged abilities but none come out so well. The Omni-benevolence factor and the presence of evil in the world should work but the argument is not so sharp.

Of course my proof doesn’t show that a God doesn’t exist just that the Christian definition is impossible. But then that’s what happens when one plays with super superlatives. I guess if Christianity were to attempt to re-define its God to avoid the paradoxes like the above then really there wouldn’t be much left worth following.

Cris

It's a strong argument, Cris.

One down, a few to go. I wish it was that simple... The problem of course being that understanding the argument requires accepting logic, which, it seems doesn't quite agree with everyone. It's sometimes pretty darn hard to reason with the 'faithful'. But then again, I always liked the motto simple software for simple minds ;)

If I would be a Christian, I'd probably answer the argument as follows: It only means that God in his glory exists outside the boundaries of space and time, and his mind works in a way you couldn't possibly even begin to comprehend. His being compasses all that ever was or will be, spanning time from beginning to end simultaneously. Blah blah blah.

With a lot of extra capitals and pomposity. (No, I'm not a Creationist in disguise. Just heard enough of their arguments.) ;)

By the way, I always felt that hell might not be such a bad place after all: it would be populated with people of at least a somewhat higher average IQ than heaven. It wouldn't get dull, that's for sure.

Arto

it would be populated with people of at least a somewhat higher average IQ than heaven

LOL! :D

Arto,

You are right of course; the argument depends on rational thinking (use of reason), and faith doesn’t qualify.

But I think the proof works no matter how many super superlatives are added. Whether the god is semi-natural, supernatural, outside of space and time, or whatever, it still comes down to – if he knows what we are going to do then human actions are pre-determined – i.e. free will is an illusion, and he remains a mere puppeteer.

Oh yes and I like the hell part – yup looks like all the rational thinkers will go to hell – should provoke some really good debates without interruptions from the idiots who will have gone upstairs. So I’ll see you in hell:D

Cris

Originally posted by Arto
By the way, I always felt that hell might not be such a bad place after all: it would be populated with people of at least a somewhat higher average IQ than heaven. It wouldn't get dull, that's for sure.

Arto



Not to mention, that's where all MY friends will be. How 'bout ya'll friends.:D

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.


cris,
my point of vue is that we have free will and that god is omniscient.i also think that hell and heaven exist because of our free will.knowing that god is omniscient and omnipotent and that he is the one who gave us full freedom to act , he created hell for our sins and heaven ,i'll say as a reward for our good actions.
life is about choices.

Hi Sensei,

Welcome to sciforums.


my point of vue is that we have free will and that god is omniscient.i also think that hell and heaven exist because of our free will.knowing that god is omniscient and omnipotent and that he is the one who gave us full freedom to act , he created hell for our sins and heaven ,i'll say as a reward for our good actions.
life is about choices.

Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox.

If the Christian god is omniscient then you will have the exact same analogous attributes as a computer program. Everything you do in your life and everything you are going to do has already been pre-determined (programmed by God). The computer program has absolutely no choice as to how it behaves once it has been started. In the same way if God created you according to his universal plans and if he has perfect knowledge of all future events then he has effectively programmed you to carry out those events. You have absolutely no free choice in the matter. Hence free will is a complete illusion, and Christianity is a mockery since it depends on free will to make that choice of being saved or not.

The only way free will is possible is if your future choices are unknown, i.e. have not been pre-programmed. In which case God cannot be omniscient and is hence severely limited in his capabilities, to the point where he cannot be a God according to Christian definitions.

Cris

Just stumbled upon the following link. It's an article written by Peter Kirby where the Omniscience VS Free will question is explored at some length and detail: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/freewill.html

I include here a couple of sample quotes from the page. All emphases are mine ;)

Others have tried saying that "God is outside time" and "God observes all time." This talk of "outside" and "observing" time is very anthropomorphic, and I don't know what the theist "really" means when they say that God is "outside time." Did God walk out the door of "Time" restaurant for a smoke or something? Can I go outside time for a walk? Is God sitting on his couch watching space-time on his 4d television?

...

However, I do not see how compatibilism fits with a theism in which the creator God judges men based on their actions. This would be like a programmer punishing a computer because it gave the wrong answer. If God is an omnipotent creator, he would logically have simply made humans do what he wanted them to do in the first place (instead of making them so they do what he doesn't want and then punishing them for so doing). Thus, compatibilism makes God an incompetent.

And here's a very relevant quote for this discussion just now starting over at our forum:

These kinds of responses are frustrating because they are terribly vague. In some cases, such as Bedding's, the argument seems to go right over the head of the Christian, who simply insists that there couldn't be any inconsistencies in their cherished beliefs. If anyone cares to respond to my post, it would be much easier if you (1) pointed out the *specific* premise that you deny and (2) explained *exactly* why you do so, at length if you like, in light of my own discussion of the premises.

Also intriguing is the concept of whether an omniscient God would know his own future actions; i.e. would God himself have free will? Somewhat similar to the good old "Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?"

Arto

Arto,

Thanks very much for the link. That's some heavy logic in parts but it seems to reach the same conclusions. I like this final quote in particular.

I will agree that omniscience _by itself_ does not necessarily imply a lack of "free will", since there is no explicit control being exercised.

However, if you add the attributes of Omnipotence and Creator of the universe to your definition of God, then there can be no "free will" of any kind. The "control" missing from the omniscience-alone argument is the act of creation. This control is absolute due to God's omnipotence. A God with these attributes in fact _must_ have explicitly caused each and every event that will ever occur (done at the moment of creation). The only way to allow for some sort of free will to exist is to modify God's attributes such that He is not either omnipotent, omniscient, or the creator of everything.

For example, "free will" would be theoretically possible if:

1. God didn't know what his creations would do (not omniscient).
or
2. God didn't have the ability to control every aspect of what He was creating (not omnipotent).
or
3. God didn't create the entire universe (not creator).

Without modifying one of these three attributes, there is no alternative to a deterministic universe with each event explicitly controlled by God.

If the Christian god is omniscient then you will have the exact same analogous attributes as a computer program. Everything you do in your life and everything you are going to do has already been pre-determined (programmed by God). The computer program has absolutely no choice as to how it behaves once it has been started. In the same way if God created you according to his universal plans and if he has perfect knowledge of all future events then he has effectively programmed you to carry out those events. You have absolutely no free choice in the matter. Hence free will is a complete illusion, and Christianity is a mockery since it depends on free will to make that choice of being saved or not.

The only way free will is possible is if your future choices are unknown, i.e. have not been pre-programmed. In which case God cannot be omniscient and is hence severely limited in his capabilities, to the point where he cannot be a God according to Christian definitions

hi

cris,let's clarify the concept of free will.as you know man is open to the world,his destiny isn't set in stone and how his life progresses
depend on an extent on the choices he makes; You can make a choice in your way of life or a choice in the actions you take .
we have a very real hand in making meaning for our selves ( even the refusal to make a choice is a choice).
you can't get always what you want and not all choices we make are going to work out,and we are not able to know wich are possible and wich are not.our choices are not pre-programmed so free will BUT doesn't mean that god is not omnicient,because why judjement,why hell why heaven ,if by GOD i'm programmed to be a criminal why should i pay for my CRIMES.in fact , according to me
2 things are programmed the day you will come to the world and the day your soul will be taken back (god is omniscient)now god let you do what you want in this period of time he gave people the power to decide for them selves ,man is the only artisan of his
destiny, GOD want it like that therefor more understandable the
existance of heaven and hell.
he created heaven and hell because he gave us free will and because he knew that this free will can lead us to the right or wrong way(therefor GOD is omnicient);important thing without programming our choices;you make your choices he will judje you at the end.
one more important thing i'm not imposing this opinion,it's just some thoughts that i want to share with all of you.

thank you:)

Although I don't post too often in the Religious Debate forum feeling that I really don't care to play mind games regular like, every so often something comes up and I have to stick my two cents in. This time it's the 'free will' bit.

A good while back, like maybe when I was nursing, I realized my control over my life was quite limited, including my choice to live. And then, many years later, I had an epiphany: I exited an airplane, went into free-fall and realized that until I decided to pull the rip-cord I had complete control over my life! It was solely my choice as to whether or not I lived or died ... that once I decided to pull the rip-cord, and did, others would again have a degree of control over my life.

Needless to say, I've exercised my 'free will' numberous times since, pulled the rip-cord, and am around to say (for what it's worth): The only time I have felt completely free, totally in control of my life, my future, has been the time I have spend in free-fall.

Cris, would you dispute the union of all free willing spirits constitutes omniscience?

Sensei,

Consider a criminal living in one of the seedier areas of LA. He came from a broken home, his parents were criminals, he had very little schooling, and he turns out to be a serial killer. He is quite evil and ruthless by normal standards. Does he have any free will to choose his actions?

If we say there is NOT a god or creator or controlling influence over the destiny of humans then clearly all his decisions are his own. He has complete free will to choose. Although some might say his environment and parental genes played a major role in his eventual psyche, and that his choices were going to be seriously biased – but that is another matter. And I am ignoring for the moment the philosophy of determinism.

Now consider a creator god who is omniscient, i.e. has perfect knowledge of all events throughout the whole of time.

Before this creator creates the universe he will have complete knowledge of everything that is going to happen, including all the actions and murders perpetrated by our evil LA citizen – who at this point of course doesn’t exist. In fact this god will know the actions and decisions that are going to be made by every human throughout their entire lives. He also knows with perfect certainty, which individuals will go to hell and which to heaven. In effect the whole of time has been mapped and is pre-determined. This must be true if your god is omniscient.

Apparently content with this plan he initiates the creation of the universe.

My question is how could our criminal be seen to have free will? He is completely powerless to do anything other than those actions that this god had pre-determined before the universe began. If our criminal were somehow to do some action that had not been pre-determined, i.e. an action that the god had not foreseen then this god could not be omniscient.

It is simply impossible for an omniscient creator god to coexist with people who have free will. You have no choice but to choose one or the other. Which do you choose? If you have free will then your god cannot be omniscient, if you insist on his omniscience then you have no free will.

Cris

Chagur,

But you did make the decision to pull the chord, right? Or am I talking to a ghost?

So what made you pull the chord? Determinism says that for every effect there is a cause. You pulled the chord (the effect), because of an instinctive survival instinct (the cause). The survival instinct (the effect this time) resulted from millions of years of evolutionary mutations (the cause). Etc, etc.

So here I could claim that again you really had no free will in your choice. Your action was determined by a very long series of causes and effects. What you think is free will is an illusion.

If you are not suffering from any mental ailments (e.g. clinical depression etc) then I’d bet that if you were in the same situation again you would still pull the chord. You really have no choice.

Please don’t take my bet. I already feel guilty about Truestory. Don’t ask.

Cris

Originally posted by frink
Cris, would you dispute the union of all free willing spirits constitutes omniscience?

Frink,

Sorry my friend I don't understand your question.

Cris

God is not something the simple human mind can comprehend. There is no debate between free will and omniscient being. The reason he is omniscient is because he knows everything. By debating the subject he has won. We already admit for God to exist he must be all knowing and almighty, which makes him infinitely intelligent. We are ultimately just a bunch of idiots relative to him. This is too complicated for anyone to understand, no matter how smart you think you are.
My final personal opinion may shock you all, God gave us free will. This is a gift from him to control our lives. I understand that this supposably isn't possible if we have free will, which would make the future malleable. Once again, this is too complicated for us to understand. Millions have tried ever since Christianity was founded, but no one has came up with any argument that holds up with enough validity. If they did no one would believe anymore. That is our answer.

Curly1,

God is not something the simple human mind can comprehend.
That is a cop out and a call to agnosticism (the claim that God is unknowable and incomprehensible). If you are a theist then be prepared to support your claims. You are also being ingenuous; you cannot make the claim that your god is omniscient and than state that you can’t explain how that is possible. If you KNOW he is omniscient then explain how you know that, and if you KNOW that humans have free will then explain how you know that. And if you can do all that then you must then explain the paradox I have proposed. If you are indeed an agnostic theist then you are not in a position to make any claims about any aspect of your god.

The reason he is omniscient is because he knows everything. The more you claim he knows the deeper becomes the paradox. If indeed he knows everything then he knows everything we are going to do – that is pre-determination again and prevents free will. Your answer that you don’t know how that is possible is unacceptable. The issue is not difficult. You are experiencing difficulty and are unable to explain it because it is a true paradox, an impossibility – hence your cowardly call to incomprehensibility.

This is too complicated for anyone to understand, no matter how smart you think you are. No it isn’t, it is simply impossible. You are the only ones who cannot understand it.

God gave us free will. This is a gift from him to control our lives. So a gift huh? So normally, without this gift, he created us as mindless puppets that he could control, and what, the gift was an afterthought? – Oops – this game is too boring, what can I give my Sims to make them more interesting?

Once again, this is too complicated for us to understand. Millions have tried ever since Christianity was founded, but no one has came up with any argument that holds up with enough validity. So maybe it is time to accept that there is no answer, stop smashing your head again a brick wall trying to solve something that is impossible. Accept the obvious inevitable outcome that your god as you have defined him cannot exist. It is time to face reality.

If they did no one would believe anymore. Now you are beginning to see the light. I have explained it quite adequately; the paradox is quite valid – your god cannot exist.

Cris

Cris--

So a gift huh? So normally, without this gift, he created us as mindless puppets that he could control, and what, the gift was an afterthought? Forgive the intrusion, but I believe that, as Genesis has it, free will was a mistake. An accident.

Oh, that's right, God doesn't make mistakes, right? Hmm .... so God gave us free will through a method calculated as to require our continued dependence, and thus inspire an "elective" revocation of free will. The absolute necessity of free will is required for faith, but God cannot stand the full potential of that free will, and must proscribe it. It's an ugly, ugly illustration that I've offered before: God is a shadow in a dark parking lot that growls in your ear and lets you know the knife is there--you lie still and take it, and try not to cry too loudly. And, much like she who chooses of free will to lie in the dark and take it--after all, it's a choice to do what he says, and not get stabbed to death--so, too, is compliance with God's demands no guarantee of anything. Just like that shadow can leave the knife in you anyway, God works in mysterious ways, and can punish you anyway. God wants childlike acceptance and obedience; strangely, what God doesn't understand is that the children may have received the instructions wrong. Apparently, it's the children's fault if the Father doesn't feel like communicating properly.So maybe it is time to accept that there is no answer, stop smashing your head again a brick wall trying to solve something that is impossible. It is only compassion toward human injury that makes me want to stop anyone from smashing their own head against a brick wall. Otherwise, I'm inclined to let people abuse themselves to death if they are so compelled. To be honest, I'm more worried about the smashing of heads other than one's own against brick walls.

To the other, I should probably remove my grinning, nosy self from this one for now ... just a couple of cents because it's Friday and one doctor says I'm healthy (two to go) ... so ... yeah. Unfortunately, I don't get to drink this weekend. Oh, well. Tangents, tangents ....

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

What I was simply trying to state, in this my last reply. Is that I don't believe that simple humans can understand something as complex as God, no matter what monotheist religion your talking about. If there is a God, which I believe there is I'm saying I don't think he would want us to figure it all out. Once again, if there is a God, which I believe there is, he would have control of what we know. Which isn't a violation of free will. Free will being control over circumstances, not information.
THAT IS ALL I'M GONNA SAY ABOUT THIS. FROM NOW ON I DON'T THINK I'LL DABBLE INSIDE THE RELIGIOUS THREADS.

Thecurly1,

Sorry curly1, it wasn’t personal. Thanks for introducing your viewpoint. I do understand what you are saying, but it is not a new perspective on the issue. I could argue with your new post of course but I don’t think you are ready to debate what you believe. I hope maybe I have given you something to think about. Come back when you are ready for a tough time.

So here is an ending thought – if he really didn’t want us to figure things out he should have removed our ability to reason.

Have fun whatever you do.
Cris

Tiassa,

In a teasing mood huh?

Perhaps ‘smashing’ was a little too graphical, in Britain I’d use a different phrase but I think it has a different implication in American English, like we say rubber instead of eraser, for example. Oh well no matter.

Glad your health sounds like it is improving. As for me, the last 3 weeks have been hellish – bad exposure to poison oak – a quarter of my body became covered in gross open oozing sores, definitely one of the worst experiences of my life. But the itching – ahhhh! So now I know that a nanogram (1 billionth of a gram) of the poison is enough to cause a rash, and a ¼ ounce is enough to affect every person on the planet. Definitely nasty stuff.

So enjoy the rest of your Friday.

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
Sensei,

Consider a criminal living in one of the seedier areas of LA. He came from a broken home, his parents were criminals, he had very little schooling, and he turns out to be a serial killer. He is quite evil and ruthless by normal standards. Does he have any free will to choose his actions?


Cris

Cris,

I'm waiting for the day when Christians decide that serial killers were put here by their god to control the Earth's population, therefore they can say that god IS a supreme being. They will probably say that those murdered will automatically enter heaven whether good or evil. There's pretty much no use in argueing with them they don't want to here it, most I've met that hear I'm an atheist are quick to say I don't have an open mind.[FONT=century gothic][SIZE=1]

Now you are beginning to see the light. I have explained it quite adequately; the paradox is quite valid – your god cannot exist.

cris your principal goal is to proove that god does not mine is to proove the contrary ;so in order to proove that god exist (without discussing of free will,because i already gave my opinion concernig this point"god gave us free will";so by prooving that god exiz i also proove that we have free will.)i'll argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
ok now considere thehypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth. Moreover, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligationsFinally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God's justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance(so the example of the criminal that you gave me is going down if i can say so).
If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral accountability . Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as i don't know a stalin or a saint. "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

we hold, as it seems rational to do, that objective moral values and duties do exist, then we have good grounds for believing in the existence of God. We cannot, then, truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists.
there is others point that i should have submit but i don't want to go further;hey time to go to bed.

thanx:)
sensei.

May we thank you for your very kind interest in these most pressing and salient matters.

Oh, wait, how did that happen? Sorry.

Anyway Cris, about the union of all free will constituting omniscience:

All the arguments so far imply that God and man are wholly seperate entities. I am just suggesting that our souls, along with every spec in the universe is elementary to God. You and I are every bit as much a part of God as the rapist, the theif, Jesus, my dog, past present and future. Together, our collective is omniscience, our mortal bodies keeping us seperate until they expire. And yes, I have watched Star Wars too many times.

May we thank you for all your kind actions on behalf of all the children now...dang! There is goes again.

You did introduce me to a new point of view that I haven't experenced. Thanks for not ragging on my believes. Lets get along, God or no God.

I'm surprised that you asked, Cris.;)


All that that post was about was my feeling that in life there are a whole bunch of factors that affect whether you live or die, many of which you have not the slightest control over, and that I was fortunate enough to have an experience that allowed me to feel that for a few moments at least, I was in complete control of my life.

It was not a segue from the 'free will' discussion, at least in my mind, any more than your relating your experience with poison oak was a segue from 'Proof that the Christian god cannot exist'. But yes, I did refer to exercising my 'free will' in terms of being in total in control of my life, and I can understand the point you wanted to make.

Although, the expression you used 'an instinctive survival instinct' kind of threw me. Is there any other instinct than an instinctive one?:cool:

The other thing that threw me was your equating a desire to say 'Time to leave, folks. Thanks for all the fun' to a mental ailment (e.g. a clinical depression etc). Don't you think that it could be a rational decision?

Chagur,

So you think you are alive huh? OK I’ll give you the benefit of any doubt. :D

Your experience is interestingly different from other life experiences. Usually it is necessary to take some deliberate action to die, e.g. a gun to the head, jumping in front of a train, etc. But in your experience it was necessary to take a clear and deliberate action to live. I can’t think of too many scenarios where that occurs. So I think your realization that something special was happening was quite understandable, but only because it was unusual, and the contrast was so stark.

If we look at the normal flow of life, where absence of action is perceived as being able to survive without effort, then we see that your action was quite different to normal flow. However, this is only a perception. This ‘normal flow’ of life does not end in survival, the ultimate ending so far is death, if not from an illness but from senescence (old age), and many people if not most die before they gain old age.

Here are some decisions that can be made that enable people to take that positive control of their lives: Choosing healthy food, exercising regularly, concentration while driving, choosing an interesting job, taking steps to reduce stress levels, etc. These are real positive actions that can compare with you pulling a ripcord; the difference is that the effects take longer to materialize.

Perhaps I am not like you in that I see very few things in my life over which I do not have positive control. I am constantly re-evaluating my actions for purpose and direction. Planning ahead and setting goals help me achieve what I want. Most of this requires positive and deliberate actions. In 1996 I watched my sister (then 55) suffer and die from cancer. That is one of those rare cases where we have little personal control, but as a species we can strive to solve these afflictions – it takes planning and positive actions.

This leads me into one of my primary reasons for rejecting religions, and more positively working towards their ultimate downfall, especially Christianity. I have seen so many Christians fatalistically accept their misfortunes as the will of God. Or if they are healthy then they explicitly put their trust in their God that he will keep them healthy. And even when that fails, the approach is still that that must be the will of God. An acceptance that they have no control of their fate, that no effort they can make will make a difference. This I see as the greatest evil of religious acceptance and an attitude that helps to weaken the natural human instinct for survival, so in that respect religions are unnatural and morally evil in the sense that they detract from life.

So this brings me to operating on instinct. Do you really believe that as a rational and healthy person you could decide not to pull that ripcord? The adrenalin rush, the terror you would feel that you were about to be extinguished, all would work on your hormonal and nervous systems to encourage you to pull the cord. Only someone who was deranged and unable to think rationally would choose to die. Perhaps my survival instinct is stronger than yours, but I cannot imagine a scenario where I would choose to die. This again is where I see the evil in religions – they have again fatalistically accepted death as a good thing, it is their gateway to a better life – ahhh!

In these times of scientific breakthroughs, where anti-aging solutions are being developed daily, and where a total solution is on the near horizon, or where computing power and mind-uploading offer real potential, then I will strive with all my might to survive long enough to take all the benefits that science can offer. I do not see death as inevitable and I wish many more would adopt the same attitude and help fight harder for the science that we need. Religions seem to stand in the way of that progress, they are blocking the much needed stem-cell research, and they assume that death is a way to meet their God, and they make this assumption based on no more than ancient mythologies and with absolutely no credible evidence or proof. So not only do I disagree with religious beliefs, I also have no tolerance for those that hold such views, and I see religionists as positively obstructive to my personal survival.

Until I see at least a scrap of evidence that a god exists then I am assuming that I have free will and I can run my life without having my fate pre-determined by some mystical supernatural being. I will continue to treat every misfortune and every windfall with equal regard – they are events to be experienced from which I can learn and grow.

“Instinctive survival instinct” – hmm – I kinda overworked that sentence didn’t I? At age 48 I’m beginning to experience serious memory loss – can’t remember more than one thought or one word at a time. Perhaps I should read back what I write sometimes.

Have fun. Hope I covered all your points. Ah, probably more than you expected, sorry.
Cris

Usually it is necessary to take some deliberate action to die, e.g. a gun to the head, jumping in front of a train, etc. But in your experience it was necessary to take a clear and deliberate action to live.
Although the relating of my experience was extraneous to the thread, and I wondered if I should bother, your reply, Cris, makes me glad that I did.

I'm not near as introspective as you and the thought that a number of my activities over the years have required deliberate action to survive never occurred to me. I guess I still do what I did as a kid: take it for granted that my world is the same world that most other people experience. One of these days I accept that's not the case.

Also, it puts an interesting twist on the position a number have taken: 'You must have a death wish!' A position that I have never been able to understand. I've always felt that, if anything, I had a greater appreciation, and enjoyment, of life knowing that death might only be a stupid mistake away.

Again, thanks, Cris.

Chagur,

Awright, no problem.

Cris

Live long and prosper.

Hi sensei,

Interesting post. Thank your for reducing its size, I saw your earlier version where it looked like you had included some long cut and pastes from a reference book. I was worried that I would be arguing against a professional researcher.

Cris your principal goal is to prove that god does not mine is to prove the contrary; so in order to prove that god exist (without discussing of free will, because I already gave my opinion concerning this point “god gave us free will”; so by proving that god exist I also prove that we have free will.)

I think that what you are saying is that if you can prove that your god exists then that will also prove that human free will exists. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your intention.

You have set yourself several impossible tasks. The essential essence of every theistic religion is that there is no proof for the existence of the selected deity. This is the reason why faith is stressed. Religious faith is the belief in something where there is no proof. If there was proof then you would have no need of faith and your god could be subject to scientific study and become part of human knowledge. If there was any type of proof then be assured that the pope would be proclaiming this on every radio and TV station on the planet. Be very sure that there is nothing that can be in any way mistaken for proof for the existence of a god. Your claims of proof have failed before you begin.

i'll argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding.

Ok, and I’ll do my best to show you where I think you are mistaken. But boy you have chosen a very contentious approach. Subjectivity versus objectivity is not a simple topic, and morality is similarly evasive to define.

Ok let’s start with morality. This subject concerns human behavior and especially the distinction between good and bad behavior according to generally accepted standards. What you want to show is that an independent and impartial authority must define morality so that it could be deemed objective. At the same time you are implying that humans are incapable of defining their own standards for morality. Is that correct?

We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. That does not follow. Your logic is invalid.

You are assuming good and evil can only be defined as objective if God exists. But you have not proved that and so cannot use it as part of your argument. You must first define morality and explain why humans cannot define it objectively. But I am further confused when you say that even if our actions are the same whether God exists or not, somehow without a God we would not be able to perceive whether these actions are good or evil. But if the actions are the same then it really doesn’t make any difference whether we know or not. In which case if God did exist then he is redundant and irrelevant.

Here is a definition of morality that is widely accepted. “Good is anything that enhances life and evil is anything that detracts from life”. This covers almost all aspects of human life, from murder to love. Then add to this the fundamental basis of modern western law – “everyone is free to do anything they wish accept where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others”, and you have an extensive and objective set of guidelines for effective moral human behavior. Further refinements and additional details provide us everything we need and completely without the need for a god to exist.

Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective that provides moral grounds for believing in God. Your conclusion is invalid since your premises are not established facts. Further I have shown that in your example God is irrelevant for effective moral behavior and I have demonstrated one example of how humans can objectively define a workable moral code.

ok now consider the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. Why? Again you have not shown a proof, you are simply making an assertion. Your statement has no value.

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. No that is entirely false. If nobody believes or supports the moral code then it serves no one. Human morality must be a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. A rational moral code must be based on man’s need for objective values, and his needs to determine those goals that are conducive to his well-being. A simple example: Food is of value to man, he needs it for his survival, but poison is not. If man is to survive then he must value food and disvalue poison. Man’s evaluations of a moral code must be based on, and agree with those things that are actually of value to him.

It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. My human defined code above “good is anything that enhances life… evil detracts…” fits this example perfectly – why would we need a god to help us on this?

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. Yes and they are designed specifically for the benefit of God and not for humans. In terms of Christianity God’s commandments are what you are calling this independent and objective moral code. The essence of such a code is authoritarianism based on a set of rules designed to serve God. The requirement for man is unquestioned obedience, whether he supports the rules or not. Disobedience is met with ultimate punishment. All you are supporting here is tyranny and terrorism, and these actions are considered by most humans as morally evil.

God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth. Moreover, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands, which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Well most of the bible describes mass murder, torture, terror, extreme threats, all perpetrated by the Christian god. I see no goodness or love in such a monster. And divine commands as I have already described represent the tyranny under which man would have to submit.

Finally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Yes a code defined by God for the benefit of God, who demands unquestioning obedience (the attribute of tyrants) and if that is not forthcoming then terror of punishment and then the ultimate punishment of eternal torture – no mercy – the attributes of evil and the terrorist.

Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. That is a fantasy perpetrated by Hollywood movies. Believe this at your own peril. If we can rid the world of irrational religions and their dangerous fundamentalist threats then we may be able to survive. Their destruction will eliminate the spread of ignorance and the fatalistic approach to human survival.

If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral accountability. Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions. Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.

Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. This is nonsense and a meaningless statement. A set of rational moral values can easily be defined by man to ensure his own survival; and he has no need to account for his actions to anyone but himself.

If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as i don't know a stalin or a saint. "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted." That is a very sad assumption, and it shows considerable ignorance and condescension for your fellow man. Christianity rests its whole approach on the terror of hell because without the act of terrorism there would be no need to believe in its god. Man is driven by his evolutionary primeval instincts for survival. Those instincts, his intelligence, and ability to reason allow him to define a moral code that does not permit any arbitrary action. Instead if he was not burdened with the bigoted and irrational intrusions of religions especially Christianity, he would be able to create a far more pleasant world.

we hold, as it seems rational to do, that objective moral values and duties do exist, then we have good grounds for believing in the existence of God. We cannot, then, truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists. Quite the reverse. You have not proven your point and I have shown you that God’s idea of morality is purely for his benefit not ours. Objective rational moral values can be determined by man for the benefit of man. There is as a result absolutely no need for the existence of any gods.

Sensei, it would be ethical if you could provide the book from which you quoted and the name of the author. Thanks.

Bye for now
Cris

GOD
Hi
1st of all why do u say xtianiy? and not Jewdaisem and Islam as well? they all belive in the same GOD besides the primal sin in which xtians belive.
now lets take ants for example
i am quite sure that ants think that they got free will to do what ever they want yet to us they seem to be rather closed.
and we altough non GODS(altough some GODeSSes walk among us) can predict what they will do and react maybe GOD was a smart Alien?.

infact if we managed to build a computer that will take into account every single particle in the cosmos we would have had in our bags a proof that there is no such a thing as "free will"
since it can all be computed and renderd into position.
(ofcourse that can not be since the computer will have to take into account its own particles taking into account its own particles that again are taking into account its own particles in a recursive manner)
or maybe the answer to it all is just a two digit number?

douglas adams.

Hi Radical,

Thanks for posting and welcome to sciforums.

1st of all why do u say xtianiy? and not Jewdaisem and Islam as well? they all belive in the same GOD besides the primal sin in which xtians belive.

Yes I agree that all three religions have roots in the same god. However, I have not read enough about Judaism and Islam to know how those religions define their deity. I do know that Catholicism has specifically defined the Christian god with the attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence, and have stated that humans have free will. That makes a clear target for the criticism. However, if you know that Judaism and Islam have similar definitions then yes the paradox could apply there as well.

now lets take ants for example i am quite sure that ants think that they got free will to do what ever they want yet to us they seem to be rather closed.
and we altough non GODS(altough some GODeSSes walk among us) can predict what they will do and react maybe GOD was a smart Alien?.
Ah but the difference between ants and humans is that ants are not self-aware. That is they are not able to realize that they exist and their limited intelligence does not enable them to have any ability to choose beyond pure instinct. The effect of this is that would not be able to comprehend our existence. They are trapped by the extent of their evolutionary mutations. We are fundamentally different in that we can reason and can consider concepts that allow us to consider beings and intelligences far greater than ourselves.

As for a god being a smart alien: Well OK, but it would have to have been pretty powerful if it was the creator. But whatever, any definition of a god that did not include the attribute of omniscience would avoid the free will paradox.

infact if we managed to build a computer that will take into account every single particle in the cosmos we would have had in our bags a proof that there is no such a thing as "free will" since it can all be computed and rendered into position. (of course that can not be since the computer will have to take into account its own particles taking into account its own particles that again are taking into account its own particles in a recursive manner) or maybe the answer to it all is just a two digit number?

Ah but the philosophy of Determinism does maintain that every event has a cause and that we are the result of a long chain of causes and effects. Each action we take is the result of a previous cause, such that we do not have any free will. But I never liked that approach.

I will be very disappointed if everything can be reduced to 42. That will definitely be an anti-climax.

Stick around.
Cris

Quite the reverse. You have not proven your point and I have shown you that God’s idea of morality is purely for his benefit not ours. Objective rational moral values can be determined by man for the benefit of man. There is as a result absolutely no need for the existence of any gods.


cris, in the contrary i have well proved my point ,but as a good non believer you just don't want to see the light(if i can say it like that).


Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions. Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.

SO GOD an evil tyrant?

you are denying the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that God does indeed exist. you knows God exists, you are quite familiar with that fact, but you says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

you clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. you perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit that God is their Author. you percieve the perfection,the decorousness of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit they are superior to all other laws. let me tell you something if an atheist could see the wounds in the body of christ and actually feel them with his hands,he would deny that the wounds are there.Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. deliberate effort to never admit the truth about God,that's what atheism is about.

GOD AN TYRANT EVIL ,hell no!!!,Atheism is the ultimate of satanism.if you ask satan about the existance of god he will deny it. Ask him about his own exixtance,same thing he will deny it.you holds the Bible in one hand, but you(atheists) deny its existence by denying its truth with the other hand.

there is 2 thing we must understand In order to understand the nature of atheism, the natures of righteousness and sin. to one another they are antithetical . Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, by its antithetical nature, it seeks to cancel out or nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. this antithetical principle is called "the law of sin" which is at work in your hearts (atheist) causing you to reject God. The law of sin is the one that governs satan's kingdom.

ants are "too stupid" to be self aware as we do
but still they are self aware.
they will run away or attack regarding thier options.
ok forget ants
what about dolphins? apes? they are self-aware
i saw once on national geographic an ape that used a keyboard with pictures&signs to comunicate andit had the capacity to know what is "good" and what is "bad " and was ablet assmilate the idea of a phone (that some1 remotly can talk with it)

what if an ALien so powerfull landed here and looked a us as ants?

we may not seem self-aware to him or even grasp that ALIEN a all not anymore than an ant understands humans. since we are too "stupid" but from our point of view we are self-aware.

Cris, please don't be disappointed.

I spoke to God last night and s/he assured me that everything reduces to 43 because 42 isn't a prime number.

Rest easy.

Sensei,

cris, in the contrary i have well proved my point ,but as a good non believer you just don't want to see the light(if i can say it like that). I saw no proofs only numerous unsupported assertions. As an atheist I maintain a lack of belief in a god in the absence of credible evidence or proofs. The religionists have made the claims for the supernatural and must provide some credible proofs if they expect rational people to follow their ideas. My sense of personal survival is extremely strong and I would very much like to believe that there is a wonderful afterlife, but wishing and hoping that such a thing exists does not make it true. For something so fundamental and important to exist there has to be something more concrete than dubious and untestable ancient writings that are thousands of years old and that were written at times where integrity and objective reporting did not exist and political and religious manipulation was rife.

you are denying the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that God does indeed exist. you knows God exists, you are quite familiar with that fact, but you says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence." Do you realize that that is an insult? You are effectively calling me a liar and a hypocrite, that I believe one thing and am saying another. I suspect that you have always been part of a religious faith and have never had the benefit of experiencing an alternate view. Your indoctrination appears so complete that you cannot even conceive that someone might not share your limited viewpoint. Please be quite assured that I in no way have any semblance of a belief that your gods exists. I am not some type of disillusioned Christian that will eventually return to the fold. My lack of belief is fundamental to the way I run my life and extends back some 30+ years. I base my life on rationality; religions are outside of that discipline since they are by admission irrational (belief based on faith). And you are wrong to accuse me of not considering a situation where I would believe – all I need is real, substantial, and credible proof.

you clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. The more down to earth and mundane theory of evolution goes a very long way to explain the formation of the planets and how life adapted to changing surroundings. There is substantial evidence for that. All the time there are alternative explanations to that of a creator god you will not have achieved a proof for his existence.

you perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit that God is their Author. Your arrogance that I must believe the same as you is very unfortunate. As to the 10 commandments: Which set do you follow? There were at least two sets of tablets and each had very different commandments on them. Then there is the protestant version, the catholic version, and the Hebrew version, all of which have very different wordings and don’t even agree on subject matter. But possibly of greater importance are the resultant punishments –

Ten Punishments(Let's post these in the schoolroom!)

1. Ex. 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

2. Lev. 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

3. Ex. 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

4. Ex. 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

5. Ex. 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

6. Ex. 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

7. Lev. 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have com-mitted an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

8. Lev. 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.

10. Mal. 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

So no tolerance here, or mercy, or even a mention of a trial or justice. And of course it does make it easy for judges to set a sentence – when in doubt kill the offender. Saves all that imprisonment and rehabilitation nonsense, right?

you percieve the perfection,the decorousness of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit they are superior to all other laws. I think maybe you are living on a different planet. Either that or you must be attempting a rather sick joke.

let me tell you something if an atheist could see the wounds in the body of christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. So now you believe I am blind and have no sense of touch. Atheism is not about denial it is about rational thought, evidence, and proofs. You have not provided any of these.

Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. Dream on. This is gibberish, which idiot are you quoting? Do you understand what is meant by propaganda? If you want to debate with an atheist then I suggest you discover some facts. You will not attract any respect if you continue to quote misinformation. Try this reference for a start – Click here for an introduction to atheism. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

deliberate effort to never admit the truth about God, that's what atheism is about. Do your homework before proceeding any further.

GOD AN TYRANT EVIL ,hell no!!! So explain why he feels it necessary to give commands and expect unquestioning obedience? Explain why his favorite punishment for everything seems to be death? Explain why he must enforce his demands by horrendous threats? Why does he use terror at all?

Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. This just shows your current level of ignorance and the depth of your religious indoctrination. One of the arguments atheists hold for their disbelief in gods is the lack of evidence for the supernatural. To then claim that they follow another supernatural entity instead shows a level of desperation on your part, and of course significant ignorance. Atheists hold the same level of credibility for satan as they do for gods – namely zero. Of course, from a different perspective, sa’tan is the Hebrew term for adversary.

The remainder of your post refers to righteousness and sin and how those concepts relate to atheism. Sin is defined as disobedience of God’s commands. Since atheism does not recognize gods then sin as defined here has no meaning to an atheist. You must first establish that a god exists before showing that sin has any realistic value. And mankind is perfectly capable of defining high moral standards that give people any sense of righteousness they need. There is no need for gods to inflict their despotic urges on us for us to live productive and fulfilling lives.

When you quote from reference material please state your source. If it is web based then a link to the article is better than copying the whole text into a post. If it is an offline book then please provide title and author names. It is clear you are quoting references in your posts. I would like to know with whom I am really debating. It would be nicer if I were debating with you against your words and beliefs.

Cris

Chagur,

Awright! I always suspected that there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe, and that simple change to 43 explains everything.

Thanks for passing on the correction.

Cris

let me tell you something if an atheist could see the wounds in the body of christ and actually feel them with his hands,he would deny that the wounds are there.What I like most of all about this purely diversionary tantrum is that it ignores everything hitherto objected to in the atheist perception of the Universe. Were one to put before an atheist a man named Jesus of Nazareth complete with wounded wrists and shins and side, no atheist would deny the presence of the wounds. In fact, you would have provided objective, undeniable evidence that a man calling himself Jesus was standing wounded before the atheist.

Objective demonstration: the objectivism of atheism will not deny the physical evidence placed before it. To the other, I feel it necessary to acknowledge the usual procedure surrounding such objectivism: objective demonstration shows only that the objectively posited hypothesis is true--in this case, that a man is wounded and calls himself Jesus. But I don't see why an atheist would deny what is demonstrable and testable when the evidence is before them: such a denial is religious.Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions. So ... you have a problem with that?
* What is objectionable to the idea of a species working toward its own survival?

* What is objectionable to the idea of that species accomplishing goals relevant to its continued survival?

Really, irresponsible statements like the above citation make me wonder if Christians aren't just waiting for God to show up and fix everything. That the ultimate goals of Christianity involve the forfeit of mortal life seems to indicate that Christianity is, as a philosophy and living practice, detrimental to the continued human endeavor.Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.You are absolutely correct. What is even less acceptable is a set of rules imposed by the illusion of a tyrant. That is, a mass of people awarding to an imagined tyrant the authority to abuse not only that specific mass of people, but all other people as well. The Christian tyrant is a most repugnant tyrant.you are denying the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that God does indeed exist. you knows God exists, you are quite familiar with that fact, but you says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."I know you wish that was true; it would make your pride so much easier to inflate. Atheists I know generally deny the existence of God amid a neck-deep flood of irresponsible theology designed to license the adherent to any number of improprieties ranging from human dominion to material extortion.you clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. you perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit that God is their Author.Again and again: you wish and you wish. I know it would be easier if people's intellects were limited to the boundaries of your bitter imagination, but it simply isn't so. You'll have to do better than tell people what they think in order to counterpoint their assertions.GOD AN TYRANT EVIL ,hell no!!!,Atheism is the ultimate of satanism.And here you go with that silly bit about Satan. The problem with Satan is that no theology derived from the Bible yet explains exactly what the purpose of Satan is. No theory yet presented adequately explains the limits of Satan's authority, or excuses God from willful malice through His holy servant, Satan-El. Satan is, perhaps, the true redeemer: Christ died only once; the Devil is wounded daily by the lies of a billion faithful. Considering that two-thousand years of careful philosophical work have failed to produce any satisfactory description of Satan, I wish you luck in this endeavor.if you ask satan about the existance of god he will deny it. Ask him about his own exixtance,same thing he will deny it.you holds the Bible in one hand, but you(atheists) deny its existence by denying its truth with the other hand.Well, as I once advised a friend of ours here at Sciforums, Lori, here we enter a theological conundrum.

* I know for a fact that your description of Satan's behavior is inaccurate, assumptive, and based wholly in your hatred.

* Now: here's your choice--either I have met both your savior and your enemy, and learned a good deal about the nature of the cosmic stake at hand, or else my teenaged visions are as much balderdash as any other religious vision in the world.

So do you give credibility to a vision that describes a woeful, regretting Christ and a bewildered Devil, the only common trait of either is that nobody knows what the fight is about?

Or do you sack the credibility of a religious vision, and thereby undermine the credibility of all religious visions describing a scenario more favorable to your preconceived faith?

But in a faith-based arena, I have empirical proof that the statements or yours I've cited above are utterly false. Objectively, the data and conclusions reached by a plethora of preceeding philosophers has failed to give you theological justification for anything you say about Satan. You are, quite literally, speaking out of your ass.

Thus, you undermine your own observations of sin, as well, with such apathetic claptrap as The law of sin is the one that governs satan's kingdom.

Hey--it's your God. If you don't know these things about It, that's not my problem. But if you choose to spout irresponsible theology in a call for human subordination ... well, that is my problem. Have your facts straight--whoops ... that's right: you rely on faith, not facts.

But really, that's what it comes down to. If Christians had better faith that reality will play out to describe the theology they believe, such issues as these would not be so critical. To wit:

* I believe it was Radical who asked why these arguments don't spill over onto Islam or Judaism, or other religions. The answer is twofold and simple:

* Most of Sciforums' posters are western-educated amid the Christian and post-Christian first-world. When we get up in the morning, go to school or work, and when we come home at night to sleep, the most relevant abstract issues statistically find their orientation in the western criteria. Among these are theological matters, largely derived from Christianity. The Christian/Atheist split is much more common and relevant to our posters than, say, a Wiccan/Shiite split. You'll note, too, that many of our alternative theists (myself included) derive our systems from Western ideas; Sufism is as Islamic as I get, and my exposure to far Eastern philosophies is limited.

* Which brings the second reason about: We just don't have that many Jewish or Islamic posters to debate with. Sure, we might all be able to reach a consensus--or not--regarding Islamic salvation and women, but I'd rather let a Muslim interpret that for me so I can tell him what I find objectionable about it; otherwise, it's just a bunch of Westerners sitting around and harping on Muslims for no better cause than to ignore the issues more immediately relevant to us.

So we find ourselves constantly faced with ideas with which we have traditionally found fault. That fault would matter as little to me as the inherent faults of Native American shamanism if it was not continually presented in my life as an adversarial entity.

I would love to leave my issues at the label of Liberty: expression, privacy, individual governance. However, one label has personified for my entire life the effort to destroy those Liberties--Christian.

I hope the logical snares you've encountered here might show you the paucity of the present state of faith; I'm not so much out to ask people to forfeit their faith, but rather reconcile the concept of what they think their faith is to its actual practice.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

Nosy? Nah! You must know that I welcome any comments you might find time to make.

Feel free to jump in anytime.

Cris

Chris,

Perhaps you will disregard my posting because I readily admit to being an agnostic, but I feel impelled to point out that your initial posting and argument have a fatal logical flaw: omniscience is NOT incompatible with free will, because preknowledge is not necessarily control. I am not God, but I can observe a person taking a course of action that I know will have sad consequences; I can allow this scenario to procede, so that the child I'm watching will learn that defying the law of gravity will cause the tower of blocks to fall. I have presented the child with the blocks, but I have not compelled her to build an unstable stack; she has the power to decide to re-engineer the tower before it falls. Omniscience is not determinism.

Additionally, the idea that God is omniscient, all-powerful, eternal and good predates the Catholic Church and Christ by a few hundred years. It is a construct of Greek philosophers in reaction against the mythology of the times; the Olympian Gods were simply amplified humans, more powerful and mostly more corrupt than humans. The question posed was: if God exists, what is His nature? Their answer was that He must be Perfect!!! (Pardon my use of "He" but "She" is just as sexist and "It" implies an unaware object.) Then they decided that perfection meant omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal (unchanging) and benevolent. If for a moment you can imagine God existing, you can certainly imagine the cosmic laughter at the idea of humans telling Him what He could and couldn't be.

These Greek philosophers were setting up a straw man... er, God, who could easily be knocked down by someone like you. It is clearly not the Jehovah of the Israelites, who can be seen to mature throughout the Old Testament from an imperious despot to the self-sacrificing Christ of the New Testament; that is not an unchanging God.

The "Perfect" God is self-contradictory, because humans judge goodness on the basis of benefit to humans, or humanity, perhaps is better. A God who "sees" brutality in Kosovo or Chicago and does nothing to stop it can't be "good." Of course it's possible that the Earth exists as a reform school for deviant souls, and misery that we experience is intended to help us understand and empathize with other beings....karma? Or perhaps God is not benevolent toward humans, or at least humans lik me; that doesn't make Him nonexistent, just someone I won't like very much.

All your argument would accomplish, if it were not flawed, is discrediting of one view of God. All you are saying is, "If God exists, then this and this and this, therefor God doesn't exist." I am agnostic because I feel and logically reason that a God who can be defined by humans is not a God, but a reflection of the minds of the humans who agree on the definition. That includes the definition that God does not exist. You can argue that it is possible that God does not exist, and I agree, but I don't see how you can prove nonexistence.

omniscience is NOT incompatible with free will, because preknowledge is not necessarily control. First, a note on omniscience.

* Accepting that the concept of "right and wrong" is valid,
* Accepting that moral responsibility arises from this abstract right and wrong, and
* Accepting that an omniscient being need not be omnipresent or omnicapable,

... we can assert that an omniscient being is limited in efficacy as relates right and wrong only by the means of information broadcast and reception available to said entity and its intended audience.

Of the three concepts individually, we can note a couple things, as well:

1) Is an omniscient being excused from morality?
2) To what moral responsibilities would an omniscient being be obliged?

I would assert that an omniscient being is not excused from morality. Life is life, and necessary standards prevail. Human convention prescribes a certain degree of morality which seems to be basic: the most successful societies have noted--if not honored--various forms of the maxim Thou shall not kill. Arbitrary mortal anarchy will extinct a population, any population. To exist within a mortal context and to possess omniscience does not excuse the entity from moral obligation.

Furthermore, I would assert that while principle demands no more obligation of the omniscient entity than it demands of anyone else, the practical effect is observably greater. After all, if you see the truck coming, and the child in the street, are you not guilty of some moral cruelty if you stand by and watch the accident merely because it's a slow afternoon? Does any person, regardless of omniscience, have an obligation to attempt to alleviate known potential for human tragedy? Is telling a child not to play with matches an overextension of one's moral boundaries? Is it somehow aggressive and therefore inappropriate to tell someone to move because the ceiling is about to come down on them?

When considering issues of omniscience in tandem with notions of God, we see certain conditions change dramatically. The above points become subject to two considerations:

* Certain attributions of God hold that God is not only omniscient, but also has immutable will (e.g.--Christianity). Such an assertion has the effect of nullifying free will: every "choice" a soul undertakes is planned and predetermined by God, for nothing happens without that God's will. In the abstract, this has the effect of making a host of immorality moral. A murder can be deemed moral if God wills it to be; there is even a Sufi (Islamic) tale that makes this point, though the established historical pattern of Christianity is to find more selfish, mortally-concerned justifications for murder. In the case of those gods who combine omniscience and immutable will, there is no escaping the determinism of a cruel God.

* God, the omniscient, is bound to morality lest there be two concurrent standards of God's will (entirely possible, but it's not my place to detail the paradigm; such would merely give the more desperate theists something to cling to, and I'm of the opinion that they can do their own homework if they're sincere). In this case, God either shirks moral responsibility, or claims a separate standard, for, knowing the outcome and designing morality, God is well aware that conditions have required immorality, and that the effects of that necessary immorality include the proliferation of more arbitrary immoralities. God, who judges, subjects people to conditions, knowing full well what the outcome will be, and then deems the outcome immoral. I submit that God is irresponsible at best, and cruel at worst: He knows, yet continues to ignore His own standard, and then punishes mercilessly in the name of Love. This does not seem to describe free will.These Greek philosophers were setting up a straw manI wanted to comment here that the Greeks had much less at stake; immortality was a different philosophy, then, and the Greek-derived Unmoved Mover had no personality traits: no hates, no loves, no pleasures, no rules, no writ-in-stone morals, no pride, no disrespect .... The Greek-derived Mover gave people far less reason to be knocked down.It is clearly not the Jehovah of the Israelites, who can be seen to mature throughout the Old Testament from an imperious despot to the self-sacrificing Christ of the New Testament; that is not an unchanging God. Here we reach an issue of faith that is difficult to debate. The dichotomy 'twixt starting points is a key factor. Historically, Christianity can be seen to have usurped the Jewish covenant rhetorically; the divine change of personality becomes intriguing. Furthermore, the Christian assumption of continuity of God's grace is a purely internalized one: the best demonstration we have of that inheritance of covenant and continuity of grace is a smattering of anti-Judaic propaganda written by Christian apologists in the first couple of centuries after Christ. I look at it historically, whereas many view the issue with unwavering faith.

I also find both intriguing and encouraging the notion that yes, God can make mistakes. This is the first of a list of things I require of the Christian God before it reconciles itself with its dogmatic aspect. The things Christians believe of God are often contradictory, and given license by the notion that one is not supposed to ask such questions about God. I know I've been harping on the point about the sacrifice of the intellect, but it's not like I'm making the term up. And the failure to reconcile the impossibilities of Christian theology marks a primary effect of that sacrifice.I am agnostic because I feel and logically reason that a God who can be defined by humans is not a God, but a reflection of the minds of the humans who agree on the definition. That includes the definition that God does not exist. It is difficult to define my personal theism, as Cris is well aware. Agnostic is not a term I choose to apply to myself. However, you will find absolutely no argument from me on this point.

Then again, you weren't aiming at me in the first place. So I guess there's that.

Anyway, that seems to be my small change.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa,

Thanks for your comment. Regarding morality applied to God: if we were to assume the existence of such an entity, not bound by our mortal material existence, and supposing that there is a spiritual aspect of ourselves, which is not mortal....

The suffering or even death of a human might be seen by such a God as simply a lesson, rather than a calamity. Is it immoral to punish a child to condition him/her to avoid running into the street? Our morality might be quite shortsighted. What is to the antelope, murder, is, to the lion, lunch. Our attitude toward death on the veldt depends on which species we feel greater empathy with. (It puzzles me that religious groups convinced of an afterlife are so preoccupied with preserving the life of the fetus, and so convinced that execution is the ultimate punishment. The prospect of a life in prison scares me more than an early death.)

This is the kind of unanswerable issue that the Taoists warn us is a waste of time and energy. I guess I'm using it as creative avoidance to avoid doing my laundry.

Originally posted by Cris
Sensei,


2. Lev. 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.


Cris

If God is the all-powerful, supreme being that the Christians believe him to be, then why is Satan a part of any discussion. Is the above quote not the very definition of Satan, why not just do away with him.

If God is the symbols of love, peace and happiness, then why have so many wars been fought in his name. One word Ireland. Almost every religion believes the other religions are going to hell because of the different beliefs of one religion to the next. If each believes that there's is the one true religion, wouldn't that mean that the others are praying to a false God?

So maybe after all is said and done the Atheist are the only one who will know before they die where they are headed. We also know that no matter what "Satanic acts or Saintly deeds" we do we will end up the same at death.

*Dead
*Worm food
*Hopefully missed



:rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

cris,chocked huh?my bad ,but i wanted you to experience what a faith can feel when you call his god a devil,ihave to admit that my post was insolent but not as insolent as your last post regard to your purposes ,but i'll grant no importance to that,i'm here like you, to discuss of a subject .
pease note that my post was not a personal conception but it's
"how a faith"will react to your attack when you say that god is an evil.also note that (regard to your purposes:indoctrination ....and else) my belief has nothing to do with the subject i always discuss the problem of god without implying mt religious belief.


now if we have a concept of a Perfect Being ie like a perfect being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: so it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
"Greatest" (i.e., no "greater" being can be conceived of), it must have the quality of "existence." If this "Greatest" being were simply an idea in people's minds, then it would not have its own existence and, hence, wouldn't really qualify as "Greatest" anymore.
i don't know if you'll understand,you can find it non sense.
now let us have the idea of a perfect, infinite Being. But since we ourselves are neither perfect nor infinite, then this idea could not have come from within us. so, it must have come from outside of us from a real perfect, infinite being.
I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, because I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.

thanx just thoughs.

Intresting thoughts on the believe of God, i'm believe but will stay out of any serious feuding between atheists and monotheists. Your reply was very thought provoking to say the least.

Circular logic is your fort&acute;e, apparently. Incidentally (and this has as much relevance as your last post, sensei), did you know that seiten in Japanese means scripture? <b>Seiten</b> is pronounced identical to <b>Satan</b>.

Seeing as how I'm just jumping in here, I'll leave that first bit for Cris.

Originally posted by sensei
pease note that my post was not a personal conception

Hey, sensei. I don't get that feeling at <i>all</i> from your post. You sound completely like a non-believer to me. Any moron could see that you're being entirely objective with respect to your belief system. But, hey, you're the teacher, therefore you are absolved of all the responsibility of that which you write.


but it's "how a faith"will react to your attack when you say that god is an evil.

Just how is it an attack when someone says that God is evil? Apparently you disagree with this conclusion. Tell me, sensei, what someone should think about your god? All good (greatest), with no hint of evil? Prepare to justify your reasoning. Oh, that's right, when confronted with purely reasonable ways in which it is fully demonstrated that your God cannot be anything but evil, you renounce your <b>sensei</b>-ship and resort to circular reasoning. I, and others like me, are fully prepared to bring up the horrible qualities of your god--are you prepared to address them. Or, would you rather, as Sir. Loone, address them by <i>not addressing</i> them?


also note that (regard to your purposes:indoctrination ....and else) my belief has nothing to do with the subject i always discuss the problem of god without implying mt religious belief.

Your belief has nothing to do with the subject? How ludicrously uninformed you are! Your belief system has <b>everything</b> to do with the subject. Just as mine does.

Ever hear of the watch theory? For the moment, I've forgotten the author (St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps?). At any rate, in it, the author presents the example that the watch has order. It was created by someone. It has a purpose to fulfill, therefore the purpose of the watch is to tell time for the observer. If the watch manages to do this, then the watch is fulfilling its original purpose initiated by its creator.

Now, admittedly that's an argument in favor of a supreme being made by theists. Aquinas (AFAIK) says that this is the same with humanity. Take all the organs--skin, liver, bones, et cetera--of humans and throw them into a bag. Jiggle the bag around as much as you want--you'll never produce a human being, therefore it's ridiculous to say that humans were not created.

Great reasoning. Atheists never say that humans were created completely in the form they are in now. Theists balk at such talk of primordial soup combining to form complex multi-cellular life because they claim no such events are happening now. But conditions were different in the primordial days. Besides, those conditions can be duplicated (unlike proof for your god) along pressurized volcanic / oceanic lines where new creatures thrive and adapt to survive. In the unlikeliest places, new life forms evolve and change to better use the environment.

Aquinas, motivated by a sense of personal motivation to justify the existence of God, initiated this theory on the watch and the creator of the watch. Perhaps Aquinas failed to see that the purpose of the watch was not to tell time, but to be duplicated. Only those that believe in God (therefore he exists) think of the watch theory as broadly indicative of the existence of God. Atheists see the watch theory as an example of the adaptability of man--by trying to figure out how to duplicate the watch. Since the existence of God is unproveable at this point (and along every point in history), then it stands to reason that it is better to either disbelieve claims to the contrary or to take them with a grain of salt. When God makes his triumphant appearance to mankind, then atheists will be convinced. Unfortunately for you, sensei (just taking a guess--after all, you don't let slip your religious persuasions whatsoever), you will be among the dwindling crowd that becomes increasingly disappointed (and hopefully disaffected) with a belief in God.


now if we have a concept of a Perfect Being ie like a perfect being must necessarily exist.

Believing something exists does not make it so. Unless you happen to suffer from symptoms associated with schizophrenia, because you think and believe that God and Jesus Christ visited you when you were fourteen does not make it so. That's great for you, but for the rest of us, it remains unproveable, therefore untenable at best.

To say that because we have a word for the greatest, must imply that the greatest must be God is totally laughable (hehehehehehe, indeed). You take the word 'greatest' and apply the meaning of God to it. If there was a god, then he would have to be the greatest, else why would he be a god? Therefore, since the concept of the 'greatest' exists within our language, God must exist, else why would the 'greatest' even be part of our language?

We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good without the use of lowering ourselves to believing in a God. Likewise, we are more than capable of debasing our inner desires to pillage, rape, and demean other fellow human beings. All without the rage or love of some supreme being. Humans are proveable, but a belief in God is not. Just because you believe does not make it so for everyone else. Just for you. But perhaps, sensei, you hold to the reasoning that not only you, but others believe as well. Well, if that's your line of thinking, then your god is in the minority, quanitatively. There are more Buddhists than Christians, therefore God is Buddha (or the collective) and not Elohim.

sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.

<b>sen</b>- which is another way of pronouncing a word that means to teach.
<b>sei</b>- which is part of seirei; implying holiness.

So, yeah, sensei. At no time at all do you let us know how you think on the subject of the (non-)existence of God.

thanks!

prag

In an earlier reply to the "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist" you said that if we built a computer that could track every particle from the big bang on we'd find out that there wouldn't be free will. WRONG! Every particle's position after this moment in time would be theoretical, in real life every particle can't be located, too many and moving to quick. We could say that there isn't free will because we can predict the weather, but they didn't say it was gonna rain on Independence Day, three days ago, but they were wrong. I'm not getting into weather god exists or not, but I think you can guess where this was gonna go if I continued this thread.

Believing something exists does not make it so. Unless you happen to suffer from symptoms associated with schizophrenia, because you think and believe that God and Jesus Christ visited you when you were fourteen does not make it so. That's great for you, but for the rest of us, it remains unproveable, therefore untenable at best.

exactly ,believing something exist does not make it so. the religions says god exist he is omnipotent ,he is omnicient... and else;but that's not enough to believe right?therefor i've pushed my reflexions more further and i had found enough evidence that god exist(i know not enough evidence for you) and also that what i have found catch what the religion says,therefor i believe in god.
that is why i separate my belief when i'm debating about god .
i think that the first recognition of god must come from our self.


We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good

good!!!??what a foolish assertion,and i'll be glad to dicuss this with you of course if you can assert your opinion.


sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.

my logic please,you didn't even read what you call my logic,because if you did,why talking about the definition of sensei? AND not about my thoughts concerning the existance of god,NOT ABOUT WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD!,thoughts that you can discuss with me.
thanx for reminding me the meaning of sensei,but am i teaching you something?,NO,am i telling you to accept SOMETHING,HELL NO!!! i don't think so,I'M JUST EXPOSING NOT IMPOSING THOUGHTS,thoughts that i'll be glad to discuss with evrybody.

thanx much.

MMMMMM...Well I believe that there is a higher being, but should we call him god? I mean there are contradictions in the bible and it was written by man. Maybe someone came all those centuries back with unknown powers or tech and us as primitives would call
him GOD. Case in point is when back early part of when man jump on those old sailing ships and started exploring this planet we called earth. They came across tribes of humans that was still in the stone age. And these stoneage tribes thought these beings in their weird dress and weapons where gods. And think about this too. Recently in the last few years scientist went around the world collecting DNA samples from all the people. And found something very strange, and that was that the DNA samples collected from Africa was older in the way the chromosomes are made up than the rest of the DNA collected outside of Africa. Now why is that if we came from Adam an eve why is there a difference. Now I am not a person to knock down some ones belief or religion but just a simple theory of mine, I think maybe we need to quit looking in our beliefs and maybe start looking out to the stars we may find out who or what we call GOD is

Recently @ work I was talking to someone about my atheism. They told me a story that they thought would change my belief. Needless to say it didn't, but it does go to show you, that believers will use just about anything to try to convert you. It goes as follows:

A young man went to his father and told him he no longer believed in God. He said, "I can't see him, touch him, taste him, smell him or hear him, So he can't exist. There is no proof."

The father looked at the son and replied, "I agree, but you can feel him if you try. Just that makes Him real. You live with your decision, one day I'll show you your proof."

Several months later the son was in a car crash. Both legs were broken in several places. The father went to visit him in the hospital. He told his son, "I know you are in pain, so I ask, can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it?"

The son replied, "No, why do you ask?"

The father said, "Then it must not exist. There is no proof."

The son said, "Dad, I can feel it. It is real."

The father said, "The same is true with God and this is your proof."

Now I ask, does just feeling something make it real? There are numerous stories of people feeling aliens watching them, so then they must be real also. (I believe in aliens, in case you were wondering). Many people say they feel they are in love then discover that it was only LUST. Show me good, hard, put-it-under-a-microscope-proof, I'll be the first one in the convert line, but until then don't try to convert us. Live with your "BELIEF", and we'll live with ours.

<h1> thecurly1 this is for you </h1>
moderators do tell if i'm out of order with h1

lets say the entire universe was a smal tomato.
if we managed to put into a computer the entire information about lets say the tomato we would be able to predict what will be the state of the tomato in lets say a zilion years from now.
(regarding that wealready know all the laws and such taing apart)

theefore if we had a super computer that was able to take into considiration the entire universe we wuld be ableto predict wha i was gonna write in my mesg 2moro.

ofcourse nowday such athing is not possible due to two things:
1) we do not have a system that will hold s much information
and we do not know all the laws
2) the computer will have to consider its own presence into the equation.(but again they also said man will never be able to fly)

as u can see alredy computer models can predict and estimate stuff consider what sort of computers we will have in lets say1000 years from now.
besides if we do invent time travel there won't bea computation time a all since we willsimply send a computer to te future and make it come back with an answer even if it took it zilion years.

I said that any prediction of the future is conjecture, a theory. It isn't sound and is open to change. Just because you hypothetically know where every particle is doesn't mean they will be there a minute, or a year from now.

Hi Cris,

I'm a "Christian" (i hate to lump myself in with such a dispicable group of people) that takes what I read in the bible as the truth. I could give you a whole bunch of reasons why, good ones I think, but I won't for now. I agree with what I've read here that if God knows the future as a certainty then we are pretty much like a computer program.

I don't have an axe to grind and I'm not bitter because of some terrible experience with the religious establishment, catholic or otherwise. i do believe that "christian television" is a stench in the nostriles of every person who can think for themselves. I agree that religious people have and continue to pervert the word of God for their own selfish wants.

The bible taken at face value is a source of incredible insight. When I read it I see just how... Oh, ok I won't get into how great the Bible is. Back to the beginning of this thread.

I don't believe my future is fixed because I really do have a free will. I also believe God is omniscient. How do I reconcile these two beliefs and still be able to claim my IQ is pretty much the same as the general public? Actually I have no idea what my IQ is. Well, anyway...

It all comes down to how you define God's omniscience. To understand God's omniscience I believe you have to view it with his other attributes. God is also omnipresent and omnipotent.

Here's how the dictionary on MSN defines these words...

om·nis·cient [om níssee nt ] adjective
all-knowing: knowing or seeming to know everything

om·ni·pres·ent [òmnee prézz'nt ] adjective

1. always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation

2. found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere


om·nip·o·tent [om nípptnt ] adjective
all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority


God's attributes taken together help shed light on each. Where in theses definitions can you deduce that God knows all the future as a certainty? God's omniscience is only possible because of his omnipresence. The only thing i can say about God when considering these attributes is that because God is everywhere He knows everything that is going on. Nothing is hid from Him.

How does this do away with free will?

Classical Greek philosophy is where the idea of Omniscience as: Perfect knowledge of past and future events, originated.

The Greeks where obsessed with the idea of perfection. The state of perfection by definition meant that it was unchangable, in other words... static. This philosophy enter Christian theology early on and has tainted accurate intrepretation of scripture and therefore most everyones few of God.

Because God is all powerful he is able to determine certain aspects of the future. That does not mean that everything in the future is set.

How does the following scripture support the idea that God's omniscience means He knows everything in the future as set?

Genesis 6

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

It seems to me that there is something here and many other places in the bible that doesn't line up with Calvinistic (Classical) theology. How can this be?

Let's think for ourselves. God gave me a brain and told me to use it "come let us reason together". I happen to believe the bible. For me it is the standard I test everything with. A good question to ask yourself... What standard do I stand on? Why?

If I saw someone take a mathematics class and he flunked out because he didn't read the textbook, didn't pay attention to the instructor and generally disrupted the class by being totally abnoxious. Would you agree with me that the reason that this guy flunked was because the text book was screwy. Probably not... I'm doing a terrible job of trying to get my point across.

The point is, judge the bible by its own merits not by what you see some so called believers doing or saying.

For more about reconciling God's omniscience and our free will check out:

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=257

Its an excellent resource for understanding the idea that the future is partly open, even to God.

I guess I'm assuming that you are interested in the truth and that it can be determined.

Here's a quote from you welcoming sensie:

"Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox. "

I hope that i have addressed the issue of the paradox, let me know.

i'm glad you are a seeker of truth. So am I.

Maybe we can disuss the problem of evil in the world. If God is good and loving why so much suffering?

The real question is how much does God know? Does he just know the future? That would leave free-will wide open. If, however, He knew every possible outcome of everything <i>He</i> did, then we would be in a different situation. And rastus77 has pretty much disproved that the Bible makes that claim in the above post.

So then, this is what I think is a good analogy of what God knows: Imagine that God sees a timeline in a single line in front of Him that has some form of definition, like a changing color or changing direction. Now, if God were to grab a part of the timeline and twist it (if the definition is by direction) in some way early on, He could see immediately afterwards how the rest of the timeline changed its shape, <i>but not before</i>. If He did know before, then we would not have free will.

In this way, He can know everything in the future without any problem of free will. He just cannot know for sure how we will react as beings with free-will when He interferes.

He just cannot know for sure how we will react as beings with free-will when He interferes.I consider the issue of the statement that With God all things are possible as officially put to rest as a falsehood. Thank you for clearing that up, Dan.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Correct.

It is easy to think up things that are impossible for God, because God cannot do things that are logical contradictions. It is easy however for the human mind to come up with contradictions and not think of them as contradictions.

For instance, it is impossible to make the same area of a surface lit and unlit at the same time. It is a logical contradiction--essentially meaningless. I could come up with the idea of a square-circle but that would not give something meaning, and God could not create such a thing.

Glad we could agree :-)

Pain is colorless and tasteless from the surface. However, we do know how pain is formed inside the nerve system, how pain is transmitted, and how pain can be blocked. For god, well....

It is easy to think up things that are impossible for God, because God cannot do things that are logical contradictions.

I have to agree. Sometimes, people who do not understand Christianity make assertations about 'why doesn't God do such-and-such' or 'why can't he just do thusly.' What must be understood, is that God is who is is (like He said, I AM that I AM). God cannot create logical contadictions -- for instance, a universe in which pi = 5.9385. The Bible even <i>explicitly</i> tells us of one of His limitations:

"Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which <i>it was impossible for God to lie</i>, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"

Gasp! Egads! Impossible for God to lie?!!?!? :eek:

There goes the omnipotence, right? I think when people refer to His omnipotence, they are refering more to His control over physical matter and events (for instance, His ability to give the word and halt rain for three years), and not so much as to His control over who is He is (He is who he is).

"Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

<hr>
I remember seeing this topic the first time around, and I don't think I got involved in it. Anyway, you're (Chris's) paradox is not valid. Consider the case where you watch a movie 500 times in a row. By the time you watch it again, you'll pretty much have a sort of "omniscience" about what is going on. You will every single thing that happens in the movie. Now, does that mean that the script-writer, producer, director, composer, special effects team, cameramen, and actors/actresses did not have free-will when they made the movie? Of course not! Now consider you have a time machine, and you travel back to the time before the movie was even made and you watch it. You will know exactly what happens before it even happens!!! Yet all the people involved in the movie's production still have/had free will to decide how the movie will be made!!! Paradox broken.

Since God is outside of time, you could almost consider that He is looking back on history. He doesn't have to follow casuality if He is outside of time!

~Caleb

So without omniscience, and without omnipotence, what is God? This is an interesting question, because it brings to the surface God's fear of mankind in the Garden of Eden: he drove Adam and Eve out because the Tree of Life was all that was needed to make mankind the equal of God. It's in the Bible, so I'm not sure what's so hard about this concept; but some of our Christian posters are doing their utmost to show it true, though the laughable thing is that I'm as sure as I can be that's not their intent.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

he drove Adam and Eve out because the Tree of Life was all that was needed to make mankind the equal of God.

That was Satan's <i>lie</i>! Which apparently, you still believe?!?

Besides, if Satan had been telling the truth, we would all be gods right now.

~Caleb

Originally posted by Caleb

Yet all the people involved in the movie's production still have/had free will to decide how the movie will be made!!! Paradox broken.

S