Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[imaplanck.]

Theres nothing pseudo about quantum mechanic. Only certain levels of understanding on it.

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cldg_Hcp9-c its a nice simple introduction into the real quantum world.

Have a day off will ya! I said the "supernatural interpretation" was pseudo.

I have a general physics diploma.

[Godless]

Now that was a very interesting video 4rd...
thanks for posting it! weird stuff!

[zira]

FOR:

If God(s) exist(s), then he or she or they created human conscience in a way that people can figure God or Gods in different ways, means each culture has it's own religion or image of God.
So all these religions, and the differences between them, are compatible with the existance of God(s).
You cannot talk about a "Christian God" as a fact. God(s) has then created ALL humans and all cultural contexts (even atheism!)

You cannot have distinct Gods creating distinct groups of peoples, distinct religions. If you have more than one architects for building your house, they must cooperate, they cannot work "each on it's own".

Distinct images of Gods and religions ARE NO PROOF AGAINST religion and God.

AGAINST:

If Gods do not exist, then something else created world religions and the images of God. The human imagination has so!

Gods images and religions are NOT A PROOF for existance of God. Because the philosophic and affective capabilities of human brains can create religions as well as any other myths.

Finally:
the question if God(s) exist(s) will remain open forever. We will never find a proof for or against existance of God, on this earth.
Maybe if God and life after death exist, then those who are gone away, know whether God exists...

[SnakeLord]

You cannot talk about a "Christian God" as a fact. God(s) has then created ALL humans and all cultural contexts (even atheism

That raises moral issues with a god creating atheists only to then damn atheists to eternal burning because they're atheists. While your statement might not in itself deny the possibility, it would certainly make some gods, (including the christian one), look like real assholes.

[Kendall]

(“ Originally Posted by Godless
I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking! . ” )

Kendall- I wanted to know if they meant that a theist should not be on a science forum or if they think science disproves god?

Is that your picture imaplanck.;)

[imaplanck.]

Is that your picture imaplanck.;)

Yeah! Me love you long timr baby, you have 10dollar?

[Kendall]

If thats your picture:D

[imaplanck.]

If thats your picture:D

No its in fact computer generated.

[Kendall]

I was just joking, you seem to spend alot of time in the religion forums for an atheist, are you thinking about becoming a believer?

[imaplanck.]

No Im thinking about starting out my own religion actually. Thus becoming rich, powerful and revered for asserting any old crap that my imagination can conjure up to an audience of fools.:)

[IceAgeCivilizations]

What will be the gist of your new religion?

[Kendall]

You would be better off not starting by calling your audience fools!

[imaplanck.]

What will be the gist of your new religion?

Well I thought about making the rule: On the seventh hour of the seventh day Thou must lieth with thou devine prophet if thou beith a hot chick.


What do you think? is that a good starting point? :bugeye:

[IceAgeCivilizations]

That's great, but I think Jim Jones already tried that.

[imaplanck.]

That's great, but I think Jim Jones already tried that.

Who dat?

[Kendall]

Nothing funnier than two people arguing sarcastically for both sides of the same thing!

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Jim Jones had a religious organization down in Surinam that didn't end up too well.

[Kendall]

The human mind is a strange thing, ever notice someone do the opposite of you to show you that they do not think you are right, I tell them to do the right thing:eek:

[Medicine*Woman]

Jim Jones had a religious organization down in Surinam that didn't end up too well.

*************
M*W: Gee, and all this time I thought it was Guyana.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Ok, Guyana it was.

[draqon]

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

n0where in BIble...d0es it say that G0d is Omniscient

[thedevilmademe81]

BEWARE OF GOD


"god is an insult to us thinkers..."

Christianity is for the weak minded. Who would believe in a god wich you cannot see on blind faith. Why not believe in what's in front of your eyes.....evolution? It is everywhere in this world. Just the fact that we used to not be that advanced as a society, and now have this complex technological world shows me that we evolve everyday. The fact that we used to be very "primitive", and now are smart intelligent human beings proves my point.Evolution is much more than 'apes turned into humans', as the Christians would classify it.It is about having a problem and overcoming it, evolving. Not paying to some false god for help, helping yourself. Why would god create a world wich is run by so much evil. Innocent people are hurt, and killed everyday. Christians claim it's because we humans make our own decisions. If we kill some- body we pay the price, wich is hell. Life is one big test in other words. Well how come those who are murdered don't have the choice to live and create their own destiny. How Come only the wicked are able to chose if you die or live. What kind of god would create a evil world like that? Definitely a evil one, wich Christians claim Jesus isn't. What kind of god would send you to hell just because you don't believe in him? It doesn't matter if you were good in life, you still go to hell. But, a murderer can kill and kill and at the last minute beg for redemp- tion and go to heaven. How can Christians be so ignorant and selfish to think that everyone should believe in there religion? There are so many other religions out there to believe in, why believe in Christianity? Christians think you should because it is the biggest religion in the world, so it must be the true one. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world because for centuries Christians have been shoving it down other cultures throats forcing them to believe. Christians forced the African slaves, Indians in America, even the Vikings in Norway long ago (just to name a few). Christians actually brainwashed these people into forgetting their heritage, there way of life. They did this not through the love of the lord, but rather weapons, slavery, and force. If there was a god, would he want it this way? Christians even bend there own rules if it fits there agenda's. To me Christianity is no more than a false sense of hope in people. People long ago could not explain the stars in the sky, fire, the great oceans and simple things like that. Things that ruled there everyday life. They could not understand how a race as great as man has no control over his environment. So they blamed it on a god that they created out of fear. Things are the way they are because god did it. It helps Christians to sleep better at night if they think 'god' is in control of their destiny. But they need to wake up and realize that they have control of their own life and destiny and god can't help them if someone has a gun to their head. In short "god" is a false sense of hope. But I choose to walk through life using sight, not faith. God is an insult to us thinkers...Christians are doing the same thing that the Indiand did long ago. The Indians would tell their kids great amazing stories and fables of why the world is the way it is. They made these stories up to ease their children's curiosity. But that's all they are is stories. The Indians know that, but why not the Christians. Christians pride themselves in being so smart, so almighty, special.........so stupid. I mean come on! Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, resurrection. The bible is no more than a book of fairy tales, to us who are smart enough to decode it. Christians claim it is the only book in history with no mistakes. I read and pick out many. Like Noah and getting 2 of every animal on the planet on a boat (yeah, fucking right!), or people living till there 300 years old, and even women being man's downfall (and the list goes on). If there was a god would he not be a she. Woman gives life in nature. In just about every aspect of nature, the woman gets the food to nourish her children, why the males only purpose in provision of sperm. Women are our creators. So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god? Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one. So if you were to make up a god why not make him the perfect man. Well that version of god, and us being in his image, has died out long ago, with the ignorance of Christianity. People today are starting to believe in themselves and not some false prophet on a cross. They believe that they can make there own life. The more I think about Christianity, the more I laugh at the arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance behind it.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Ignorance? Pleeeeeeease.

[Medicine*Woman]

BEWARE OF GOD

"god is an insult to us thinkers..."

Christianity is for the weak minded. Who would believe in a god wich you cannot see on blind faith. Why not believe in what's in front of your eyes.....evolution? It is everywhere in this world. Just the fact that we used to not be that advanced as a society, and now have this complex technological world shows me that we evolve everyday. The fact that we used to be very "primitive", and now are smart intelligent human beings proves my point.Evolution is much more than 'apes turned into humans', as the Christians would classify it.It is about having a problem and overcoming it, evolving. Not paying to some false god for help, helping yourself. Why would god create a world wich is run by so much evil. Innocent people are hurt, and killed everyday. Christians claim it's because we humans make our own decisions. If we kill somebody we pay the price, wich is hell. Life is one big test in other words. Well how come those who are murdered don't have the choice to live and create their own destiny. How Come only the wicked are able to chose if you die or live. What kind of god would create a evil world like that? Definitely a evil one, wich Christians claim Jesus isn't. What kind of god would send you to hell just because you don't believe in him? It doesn't matter if you were good in life, you still go to hell. But, a murderer can kill and kill and at the last minute beg for redemption and go to heaven. How can Christians be so ignorant and selfish to think that everyone should believe in there religion? There are so many other religions out there to believe in, why believe in Christianity? Christians think you should because it is the biggest religion in the world, so it must be the true one. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world because for centuries Christians have been shoving it down other cultures throats forcing them to believe. Christians forced the African slaves, Indians in America, even the Vikings in Norway long ago (just to name a few). Christians actually brainwashed these people into forgetting their heritage, there way of life. They did this not through the love of the lord, but rather weapons, slavery, and force. If there was a god, would he want it this way? Christians even bend there own rules if it fits there agenda's. To me Christianity is no more than a false sense of hope in people. People long ago could not explain the stars in the sky, fire, the great oceans and simple things like that. Things that ruled there everyday life. They could not understand how a race as great as man has no control over his environment. So they blamed it on a god that they created out of fear. Things are the way they are because god did it. It helps Christians to sleep better at night if they think 'god' is in control of their destiny. But they need to wake up and realize that they have control of their own life and destiny and god can't help them if someone has a gun to their head. In short "god" is a false sense of hope. But I choose to walk through life using sight, not faith. God is an insult to us thinkers... Christians are doing the same thing that the Indiand did long ago. The Indians would tell their kids great amazing stories and fables of why the world is the way it is. They made these stories up to ease their children's curiosity. But that's all they are is stories. The Indians know that, but why not the Christians. Christians pride themselves in being so smart, so almighty, special........so stupid. I mean come on! Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, resurrection. The bible is no more than a book of fairy tales, to us who are smart enough to decode it. Christians claim it is the only book in history with no mistakes. I read and pick out many. Like Noah and getting 2 of every animal on the planet on a boat (yeah, fucking right!), or people living till there 300 years old, and even women being man's downfall (and the list goes on). If there was a god would he not be a she. Woman gives life in nature. In just about every aspect of nature, the woman gets the food to nourish her children, why the males only purpose in provision of sperm. Women are our creators. So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god? Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one. So if you were to make up a god why not make him the perfect man. Well that version of god, and us being in his image, has died out long ago, with the ignorance of Christianity. People today are starting to believe in themselves and not some false prophet on a cross. They believe that they can make there own life. The more I think about Christianity, the more I laugh at the arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance behind it.

*************
M*W: Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sorry to say that I smell a sock puppet.

[Kendall]

"Originally posted by Medicine Woman.
So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god?" Kendall- God would not be sexist or racist!

"Originally posted by Medicine Woman.
Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one."

Kendall- Close, if the world is male dominated then only a male can fix what is wrong, he is his sisters keeper to! Do not do the injustice put upon you. You think that Women dont have the same rights as men. Men do not have equal rights, I know of women with way more rights then me.

[thedevilmademe81]

*************
M*W: Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sorry to say that I smell a sock puppet.

Well I am glad that you agree but I am new to this so I have to ask you....what is a sock puppet?

[Nikelodeon]

So many Devils on Sciforums. But which one should I worship?

[Medicine*Woman]

Well I am glad that you agree but I am new to this so I have to ask you....what is a sock puppet?

*************
M*W: Okay, maybe I'm wrong. A sock puppet is a member who signs up under another username and posts as two different people. (Mods: Correct me if I'm wrong).

[draqon]

So many Devils on Sciforums. But which one should I worship?

Nickelodeon.

[Nikelodeon]

Nickelodeon.
Perhaps, but draqon is particulary evil.

[draqon]

Perhaps, but draqon is particulary evil.

not at all... I am cuddly little thing.

[Nikelodeon]

not at all... I am cuddly little thing.
Thats exactly what the Devil wants, he is actually very attractive and cuddly. If he wasnt it would be easy to ignore him.

[draqon]

Thats exactly what the Devil wants, he is actually very attractive and cuddly. If he wasnt it would be easy to ignore him.

but you see I am in reality very cold person. I do not react to jokes...to smiles...to hatred...to evil...to good...I am just like nothing happened ever. So I do not have this shell of an attractive logo of a Peter Pan bus.

[Nikelodeon]

but you see I am in reality very cold person. I do not react to jokes...to smiles...to hatred...to evil...to good...I am just like nothing happened ever. So I do not have this shell of an attractive logo of a Peter Pan bus.
I think that pretty much proves that the Christian God cannot exist.

[draqon]

I think that pretty much proves that the Christian God cannot exist.

yes...we finally came to this solid proof for the eternal bliss of humankind.

[Kendall]

Well i guess what I want is to live, just like anyone. And not to need to lie because of someone elses crime!

[ratsila]

Maybe the concept of free will itself is paradoxical like the the claim that God is omniscient.

"You must choose free will. You have no choice."

[qwerty mob]

Ignorance? Pleeeeeeease.

Would you like a Slurpee wit dat?


Thank You, Come Again.

[kl5k]

"Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined."
(disagree because knowing does not imply coercion. God can know the outcome without controlling the actions.)

"... knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action."
(but God does not have to take total action, He can choose to act or not.)

[swivel]

"Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined."
(disagree because knowing does not imply coercion. God can know the outcome without controlling the actions.)

"... knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action."
(but God does not have to take total action, He can choose to act or not.)

But did he know the outcomes before and as he was creating the universe and everything within it? If so...

And isn't taking no action, if you have the power to act, the same as taking an action? If a person steps in front of my car, several hundred feet down the road, and I do not budge, I keep my hands and feet exactly where they are, am I really not taking an action? What if I remove my hands and feet from the control surfaces and coast into the person at high speed? Am I less or more culpable then?

You are sticking up for a thing which doesn't exist, but if it did, is surely an evil abomination.

[kl5k]

But did he know the outcomes before and as he was creating the universe and everything within it? If so... "


Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.

[swivel]

Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.

The Biblical God isn't all that powerful, really. He gets in a wrestling match with Jacob and doesn't fare all that well.

And the Biblical God seems to be a blunderer, not a perfect creator. He makes man. Man seems lonely, so he brings his other creatures, none of them suit Man (God was unaware of what Man would like, even though he created him), so he makes Woman. God was fooled when Man and Woman ate the apple. He punishes them.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so he drowns all of them and tries to start over.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so God sends his Son down to be tortured and killed, which will somehow make Man act better.

And every now and then, God sends plagues, kills firstborns, and generally does rude things to Man because they are acting funny.

This is the weirdo I am talking about. I see nothing omniscient nor omnipotent in this dude. Hell, he isn't even omnipresent the way the Bible reads.

Besides, I've already disproved this God and all others like Him in another thread on SciForums. So we should move past wondering if He exists (he doesn't) and focus on why so many people buy into the delusion instead.

-swivel

[kl5k]

The Biblical God isn't all that powerful, really. He gets in a wrestling match with Jacob and doesn't fare all that well.

And the Biblical God seems to be a blunderer, not a perfect creator. He makes man. Man seems lonely, so he brings his other creatures, none of them suit Man (God was unaware of what Man would like, even though he created him), so he makes Woman. God was fooled when Man and Woman ate the apple. He punishes them.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so he drowns all of them and tries to start over.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so God sends his Son down to be tortured and killed, which will somehow make Man act better.

And every now and then, God sends plagues, kills firstborns, and generally does rude things to Man because they are acting funny.

This is the weirdo I am talking about. I see nothing omniscient nor omnipotent in this dude. Hell, he isn't even omnipresent the way the Bible reads.

Besides, I've already disproved this God and all others like Him in another thread on SciForums. So we should move past wondering if He exists (he doesn't) and focus on why so many people buy into the delusion instead.

-swivel


Unfortunately you have only disproved God exists in your own mind. I for one am throughly convinced God exists and cares what happens to us.

[zenbabelfish]

Excellent thread Chris...you have explained the obvious in a succinct manner.

[swivel]

Unfortunately you have only disproved God exists in your own mind. I for one am throughly convinced God exists and cares what happens to us.

Wouldn't it be neat if argumentation worked in such a manner! I can lay out a detailed and logical disproof, and then you can say, "No you didn't", without having to debate any of my actual points!

Much simpler, I'll admit, than the actual hard-work of having rational discourse.

My disproof stands until a flaw is found.

[lixluke]

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
WTF?
I haven't read this thread other than the OP, but the the falsehood of a paradox must be assumed. This is not proof that God does not exist.

I don't get these proves.
You know full well that Christians and other believers hold that God transcends human capacity of thought which is limited by logic and such. In other words, Christians beleive that God transcends logic, paradoxes, etc.

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

[UncleChrist]

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

And your sitting there saying logic and reason are not relevant :eek:

lets just make it up as you see fit

which is exactly why their are hundreds of religions/gods that transcend your logic

So ...what do you use to base your conclusions on

Oh thats right :rolleyes: absolutely nothing

most likely the tooth fairy transcends your logic aswell
heres a hint .... ( your parents left the money under your pillow ):p

[swivel]

WTF?
I haven't read this thread other than the OP, but the the falsehood of a paradox must be assumed. This is not proof that God does not exist.

I don't get these proves.
You know full well that Christians and other believers hold that God transcends human capacity of thought which is limited by logic and such. In other words, Christians beleive that God transcends logic, paradoxes, etc.

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

God is beyond paradox? He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? He can create a polygon with four sides of equal length, that all meet at right angles, with all points on the circumference an equal distance to a point in the center of the object? He can maker parallel lines intersect on a perfectly flat plane?

God is not immune to paradox, as a bit of thought on these questions will demonstrate. Which means that God is subject to the realm of logic to some degree. Which means that God can be disproved if some of his features create a paradox. Which, it just so happens, they do.

God cannot be a thinking being that has existed forever who created the universe. This is a paradox, and as I've just demonstrated, God is not immune to a paradox. He can't make the rock heavy enough that he can't lift it... or he can't lift it.

-swivel

[qwerty mob]

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.



Excellent post, Cris; a "classic" in message board terms. (2001?!) =)

Having appreciated a number of your posts these past few years and having considered this one for quite some time, I suggest rather humbly that this original argument reveals a couple of fundamental flaws; that of "supposing God" and "Omniscience"- but with the added weight of a valid, but narrow, meaning to "exist" (semantically) and the baggage of negative-definition (or negative-proof, if you will), logically.

To readers who haven't considered this before, modern "Atheistic Apologetics" which are direct and unambiguous, internally self-consistent and logical, and objective and positive (of structure and language) which are the most persuasive, regardless of audience, rely mainly upon Incoherency Apologetics (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/) (-Internal, -External, and Scientific), Semantic Apologetics, and Materialist Apologetics.

...

Semantic Apologetics are some of the weakest arguments in my opinion, because they are not necessarily objective, and can be reduced to "mere argument by assertion" (-that terms like "God" are meaningless (which they are, only to non-theists); and of course that, by none other than "mere counter-assertion"). Where they succeed, however, is in logically examining the details which believers regularly place on whatever "divinity" they have in mind. I suggest that Memetic Apologetics are directly (if distantly) related to Semantics because, culturally, Language is the most significant meme over and across- time, places, and generations of people.

Classic Materialist Apologetics are also rather weak in utility overall, and the very term is something of a misnomer. Generally, the arguments are pro-contingency (which are at least tied to something objective (which is good for transportability), but which are some mixture (or solution-) of semantics and incoherency. Where this branch of "Strong" Atheological Apologetics might proceed well is the area of Evidential Apologetics, since the arguments rely on something objective.

Of the Incoherency Apologetics, the Scientific subset is the most enlightening because it is almost entirely positive and objective. The Internal and External subsets suffer in some cases from "entertaining divinity" only to show that certain details are incompatible with others. As one with a strictly "scientific world view," I am most compelled by arguments which are tied to something objective, even if abstract.



Greetings

...

"All gods are imaginary, mythological beings."

[lixluke]

God is beyond paradox? He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? He can create a polygon with four sides of equal length, that all meet at right angles, with all points on the circumference an equal distance to a point in the center of the object? He can maker parallel lines intersect on a perfectly flat plane?

God is not immune to paradox, as a bit of thought on these questions will demonstrate. Which means that God is subject to the realm of logic to some degree. Which means that God can be disproved if some of his features create a paradox. Which, it just so happens, they do.

God cannot be a thinking being that has existed forever who created the universe. This is a paradox, and as I've just demonstrated, God is not immune to a paradox. He can't make the rock heavy enough that he can't lift it... or he can't lift it.

-swivel
Wrong.
This is not a necessity.
The Christian God that defies paradox cannot be proven or disproven using the methods Cris uses in her OP.

Defying paradox is not just the question of God.
Questions regarding the universe and quantum physics also lead to paradoxes that are incomprehensible.

[zenbabelfish]

The tenets on which the god are predicated are paradoxical and time has proven that pupported to be truth as myth.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

[swivel]

The tenets on which the god are predicated are paradoxical and time has proven that pupported to be truth as myth.

Thank you.

It's not as fun when we agree, though.

-swivel

[qwerty mob]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

You're an atheist too, then... you just believe in ONE more god than I do.

[zenbabelfish]

lol - we used to have comedy series in the UK in which two grumpy old professors engaged in debate: "I say, you are a fool..." and "I, Sir, say you are a buffoon" etc. - no time to discuss anything relevant and it is true to some extent.
This is why I find debate on SciForums such good fun - if ones theory cannot stand up to a friendly mauling by ones peers then it is probably (but not always) junk. I'm learning a lot.

Re: thread - Ditto on above.
I look forward to our next too-doo...All the best, zen

[swivel]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. I guess you realize that faith is a horrible thing, and you are trying to lump atheists in with yourself? How can religion be special if the lack of religion is the exact same thing to you?

Faith is the belief in "Something" without evidence. It is *not* the lack in faith of something for which there is no evidence. If it is both, then the word is meaningless and has no application. So lets make up new words for the two situations:

Deedlebunk will the the belief in things for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Gloryfish will be the state of disbelief in all things for which there is no evidence.

Since Deedlebunk and Gloryfish are mutually exclusive, we can not say that Deedlebunk = Gloryfish. And yet, that is precisely what you are trying to do with the words Atheism and Faith.

This is a low-down, intellectually dishonest, despicable act of semantic butchery and you lose all credibility by attempting it. Trust me, all of us have seen this cowardly, ignorant tactic hundreds of times before, and all it does is demarcate you as someone unable to have a rational discussion.

I'm sure that this is not what you want, so please reconsider. Let's use words according to their generally accepted definitions and not bandy them about in an attempt to confuse just so that points may be won.

-swivel (Gloryfish)


Edit: Zenbabe, I was typing a reply when our lovely thread was unfairly locked. I complained to SkinWalker a bit and saved the post in Notepad. I was going to PM it to you, but it says I need 20 posts before I am able to. So... it will be included in my last will and testament that this post be delivered to you upon the event of my death. Treasure it.

Second Edit: I know your name is a conjunction of Zen Babel and Fish (assuming a love of Adams), but I leave the lfish off to keep my wife on her toes. Hope you find it no great insult.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

[swivel]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

Are you really going to persist in this insanity? I hope you are doing so just to be evil, because the alternative is worse for our purposes here... :confused:

Do you have "faith" that dragons don't exist on Earth? Do you have "faith" that the world is not flat? Seriously, Faith should be a cherished word to theists, and here you are dragging the foundation of all religion through the mud. If there is a god, she is very upset with you right now.

[zenbabelfish]

Yep - I agree Swivel...I reported it as I felt we had been unfairly accused of racism and I think we both know this is not true...its a valid science topic and our discussion reflected a well established wider-debate within the science community...but Skinwalker was right in that its not 'history' although sometimes the two are inseparable.
Good debate for a rainy day in the Human Sciences forum...

Re: thread - good explanation of mechanism by which we can recognise the difference between faith and atheism...sound logic.

[qwerty mob]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

You seem to have a gift for demonstrating the latter.

[Godless]

An idiot is always an idiot, no matter what jargon, semantics, or logic they try to use, it's obvious that an idiot lacks comprehesion in logic, reason, and objective reality. (I've not claimed here who's the idiot, take it as you will, the one who may feel, or think I'm talking about them, then this party who may it ever be, is obvious the idiot!) :)

[zenbabelfish]

That settled that then....

[swivel]

As an atheist that loves a good disagreement, it aggravates me that religious debates always end up right here... with a few strong theists resorting to semantic gambits, and a group of atheists shaking their heads in sadness and frustration.

Where are the intelligent theists that can debate these points with sense? Or is intelligent + theist impossible? I'm not trying to be mean here, I really want a good, long discussion with theists who won't resort to the Atheism = Religion tactic, or the Science = Faith nonsense. I want someone who embraces illogical faith as a superior epistemological method to debate that choice. Someone who knows more about Christianity than we, as atheists, do.

*Sigh...*

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Swiv, since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple.

[wesmorris]

humans are people of faith, very simple... and very complicated.

[SnakeLord]

since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple

You need to do your homework pal. 'Atheist' does not mean "someone who 'knows' there is no god".

Come back and apologise once you've done some studying.

[SkinWalker]

Swiv, since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple.

This, unfortunately, is an assumption that many theists make with regard to atheists. For some atheists, there may well be a "faith" that god doesn't exist, but for most (at least the ones I know) that isn't their position.

The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe. There almost certainly isn't, particularly one based upon the various myths and philosophical fallacies of various human cultures and religions, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that there isn't one sitting in some remote corner of the universe (or an infinite number of gods for that matter) that simply hasn't interacted with us.

So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.

[kl5k]

So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.



Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.

[zenbabelfish]

What about proof? That would be good evidence.

[swivel]

Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.

What if everyone's prayers started being answered? Or things kept happening that defied the laws of physics, like: People that could fly through the air. People that could immediately speak in every language known to man, with a perfect accent. People that could cure blindness, AIDS, cancer, etc... with nothing but a touch.

How about if God's face appeared to every human being at the same time, and delivered a message. And as we went to our family and friends, with this amazing story, EVERYONE corroborated the story with their own. And God's message included information that no human could possibly know, but that could be verified. Like the recipe for a chemical that cures all diseases through magical means, or the solution to the top 10 mathematical problems of today.

Any of these events would sway my doubt. What will not is a very old book that was written by men, translated by men, cobbled together by men, and details the lives of mere men.

[kl5k]

What about proof? That would be good evidence.

I don't understand your comment. Proof is not evidence, but evidence(s) should support the proof. 1st def. in Webster's says: "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."

[zenbabelfish]

Sorry I was being ironic...

[SkinWalker]

Evidence. You know: that stuff that's testable and verifiable.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Testable and verifiable," yeh, like Darwinian evolution?! Ahahahaha, woops, wrong thread.

[swivel]

"Testable and verifiable," yeh, like Darwinian evolution?! Ahahahaha, woops, wrong thread.

Don't you mean "Darwinian Natural Selection"? Darwin didn't dream up Evolution. Evolution is an OBSERVABLE FACT. It just means that species have changed over time. Natural Selection is the current best Theory to account for these changes.

It's no wonder you think this stuff requires Faith, you don't even understand the basics.

Atheists at least have the courtesy to know more about religion than theists, so that we can converse about their passions. Why can't theists expend the same effort in learning about the things that they reject?

Or perhaps they do, but they can not remain theists afterwards. Hmm...

[DRR]

He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

-swivel

Yes.

[lightgigantic]

The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe.

then how would you know that?
Even this platform of agnosticism requires faith

[SkinWalker]

then how would you know that?
Even this platform of agnosticism requires faith

You're not even going to walk us through that? Talk about making confidence statements, LG.

Tell us: how does saying "I don't know" translate to having faith, which is blind trust without evidence?

[SkinWalker]

He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?Yes.

Then, obviously, he's not omnipotent.

[DRR]

Then, obviously, he's not omnipotent.

I disagree.

[SkinWalker]

I'm wondering, then, why you would say he's not omnipotent in the post I quoted.

[TW Scott]

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.

You are under the mistaken belief that Omniscience means that God made the decision for you. It is simply not true.

Let's say we have Joe, your sperm donor father, somehow he knows everything about you from your favorite color to you deep darkest secret. Now, joe, through this knowledge knows exactly how you will respond to every question you are ever asked, down to your choice of wording. Now let's say you never meet Joe and Joe never contacts you. Can you honestly say that Joe's knowledge of how you will respond takes away your free will in responding? No.

How is that above different from god except the sperm donor father part?

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.

Okay, so you are thinking perhaps that God should only create believers? Did it occur to you that as he is creating them he gives them free choice and then does not know they will do until just after giving them that wonderful gift. After all until choice is given to a person there can be no decision.

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

Your conclusion relies to heavily of Omniscience and Free Will being incompatiable and then throw in the fact that you too heavily link Omnipotence and Omniscience and your proof is little more that psuedo philosophical crap. There is no proof in what you suppose, only questions about your education

[lightgigantic]

You're not even going to walk us through that? Talk about making confidence statements, LG.

Tell us: how does saying "I don't know" translate to having faith, which is blind trust without evidence?
there is an obvious difference between the statements "I don't know" and "It cannot be known"

Is this what you really meant to say?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker


The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe.

[SkinWalker]

Obviously, those that say, "I don't know" are a subset of those that say, "there's no way to know."

Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith? When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?

[lightgigantic]

Obviously, those that say, "I don't know" are a subset of those that say, "there's no way to know."
actually saying "I don't know" is an admission of one's limitations and saying "there is no way to know" is an absolute statement about what is knowable/unknowable

Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith?
if a person says "there is no way to know god" it begs the question what process of knowledge did they use to determine that (which if you follow it down rationally enough, it becomes a negative absolute and thus fallacious)

When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?
there are many names of god that determine how he is beyond the perception of empiricism (eg - adhoksaja) for reasons that you indicate (even the universe is greater than our senses, what to speak of god).
On top of this there are many references to how one can know god

BG 7.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt.

which brings in to call the second most sought after analogy on sciforums - namely that the only way a common person can come to directly perceive the president is if they cultivate needs interests and concerns that are on par with the president's (If one just attempts to barge in to see him they will not get past the first of his 500 secretaries)

Thus seeing the president is not a strict empirical process since one is required to meet certain criteria of behavior or socialization

[SkinWalker]

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality. Perhaps a science forum isn't the place for you if all you have to discuss is your imagination.

[lightgigantic]

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality. Perhaps a science forum isn't the place for you if all you have to discuss is your imagination.
no doubt you prefer the imaginative discussions of atheism and are not really geared up for seriously looking at the philosophical underpinnings of such a world view - which begs the q what the hell you are doing as a mod here?
:confused:

[SkinWalker]

Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding, I find myself wondering what "imaginative discussions of atheism" you are referring to. The theists are the ones making the positive claims; atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are making inquiry.

[lightgigantic]

Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding,
don't fret - its the natural consequence of trolling and flaming

I find myself wondering what "imaginative discussions of atheism" you are referring to.
that the claims of theism are imagination
the moment you declare "god is an imagination" you are making a positive statement about the nature of god

The theists are the ones making the positive claims; atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are making inquiry.
on the contrary, you are making assertions here

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality.

[Prince_James]

I'm going to have to agree with Lightgigantic on this one:

Once you go past saying "there is no proof of God" to "God does not exist" you are claiming something positive. Accordingly, you have to present a reason why God is held not to exist, likely from principles of reason, as it seems rather erroneous to claim God is a matter of empirical analysis.

[SkinWalker]

You can go with him wherever you wish. I'm not making a positive claim about anything. I will say there probably is no god, based on the shear lack of evidence and the lack of a need for one. I will also say that I've no way of knowing for sure, since I cannot examine the entire universe. I'm an agnostic-atheist. LG seems to think that my position is that there *is* no way to know for sure if there is a god, and I may have been unclear, but my revised and clear stance is that *I* have no way to know for sure since *I* cannot examine the entire universe.

I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Agnostic.

[Sarkus]

Agnostic.And atheist.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

All at the same time, I see, similar to an atheistic Christian.

[Sarkus]

All at the same time, I see, similar to an atheistic Christian.What is your issue with being an agnostic atheist?
I'm guessing it's merely 'cos you have no real grasp of what the two words mean?
Agnosticism is NOT the middle ground between the two.
It is a separate position one takes, with regard to knowledge - in this case about God and God's existence.

(A)theism is merely about belief (or lack of) in the existence of God.

Separate matters.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

I see?

[Prince_James]

Skinwalker:

You can go with him wherever you wish. I'm not making a positive claim about anything. I will say there probably is no god, based on the shear lack of evidence and the lack of a need for one. I will also say that I've no way of knowing for sure, since I cannot examine the entire universe. I'm an agnostic-atheist. LG seems to think that my position is that there *is* no way to know for sure if there is a god, and I may have been unclear, but my revised and clear stance is that *I* have no way to know for sure since *I* cannot examine the entire universe.

Your clarification once again places you back into a belief where God is up in the air, thereby removing you from any duty to prove either position. Thanks for it.

[lightgigantic]

I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.

Actually I claim it can only be shared with persons who have applied the necessary processes - just like the claims of physicists can only be shared with physicists - any one else unqualified in the field of physics will determine the truth of their claims according to how they perceive physicists as credible (the high school drop out falling in at the end of the scale)

Thus most of the arguments one hears against theism are to do with the perception of how credible the practitioners are rather than an analysis of philosophy or concepts - and given the recent trends of materialistic society that has nurtured a growing number or spiritually bankrupt practitioners, such statements can be true - however it is not sufficient to say that because some (or even many) persons are wrong that all persons are wrong - just like if the medical practice was suddenly inundated with frauds, it wouldn't make the practice of medicine false - it wold simply make the task of locating a bonafide medical practitioner more difficult, since one is likely to be cheated at every corner - and the best way to protect oneself is to be proficient to some degree in knowledge, so that one can distinguish the characteristics between a real and pretend practitioner ("gee I really like the way he sings and his clothes look pretty snazzy - he's got to be the real McCoy")

[Prince_James]

A critique of George Harrison, Lightgigantic?

[lightgigantic]

A critique of George Harrison, Lightgigantic?
I don't think he can be claimed as a spiritual leader but as a follower (it would be difficult to establish him as making any substantial philosophical or authoritative claims regarding the nature of the absolute ..... although he expressed his appreciation of a variety of concepts through his musical finesse)

[DRR]

I'm wondering, then, why you would say he's not omnipotent in the post I quoted.

I believe that God's being able to create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it does not contradict his being omnipotent. You think it is obvious that it does.

Not to be confrontational, as that is not my style and as it rarely has the power to change minds, but would you mind beginning with the assumption “God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it” and taking me through to the point that it contradicts his being omnipotent?

[nds1]

Omnipotent means all powerful, right?

If a being has infinite power, then he should be able to lift any mass regardless of how much it weighs and regardless of weather he imagined it or not. There is nothing an omnipowerful or omnipotent God can imagine which can't be lifted by him.

[SnakeLord]

How about If I can prove to you that Abaddon exists and Lucifer, and if they exist God exists as well, see the abaddon thread

You'll find you can't. Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol), of a hell but if you were to be serious you'd find you'll have serious trouble trying to prove anything of the sort.

[lightgigantic]

You'll find you can't. Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol), of a hell but if you were to be serious you'd find you'll have serious trouble trying to prove anything of the sort.
I agree

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

[Godless]

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

Basically between the lines this reads: If you are not deluded as I am, you won't believe my assertions wihtout evidence! ;)

[SnakeLord]

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

Well let's try anyway. What exactly do you consider evidence in a faced shaped rock? Or, forget that for now.. we're not talking evidence we're talking "proof" apparently. So kindly explain it to me.

[lightgigantic]

Basically between the lines this reads: If you are not deluded as I am, you won't believe my assertions wihtout evidence! ;)
the high school drop out makes identical assertions to maintain their position in regard to electrons - yet persons who have applied the required process, having garnered a substantial knowledge base remain unphased

Well let's try anyway. What exactly do you consider evidence in a faced shaped rock? Or, forget that for now.. we're not talking evidence we're talking "proof" apparently. So kindly explain it to me.
I think you are mixing me up with someone else - I don't recall mentioning anything about a face shaped rock and have no clue what you are talking about

[Godless]

the high school drop out makes identical assertions to maintain their position in regard to electrons

This diatribe drivel bull shit has been reiterated & rehashed enough, many have already deemed flawed yet you keep using it! Next

[SnakeLord]

I think you are mixing me up with someone else - I don't recall mentioning anything about a face shaped rock and have no clue what you are talking about

Guess you shouldn't have butted in then, and indeed paid attention to what it was you were responding to.

You responded to me and directly quoted:

"Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol)..."

I wasn't talking to you, you were talking to me.. You stated that it's apparently very difficult to establish evidence and, since I was talking about this chunk of rock and the claim that it's the door to hell based on the fact that it resembles a face, I proceeded to ask you to try and provide some evidence anyway. The fact that you butted in on a conversation that you "have no clue about", is your problem.

Pay attention or don't butt in on people's conversations. Understood?

[lightgigantic]

This diatribe drivel bull shit has been reiterated & rehashed enough, many have already deemed flawed yet you keep using it! Next
then maybe you could reiterate why it is flawed rather than trying to ad hom people into accepting your confidence statements - is it too much to ask for reasons for your opinions or should we simply accept your opinions on faith due to the strength of your charisma?

[lightgigantic]

Guess you shouldn't have butted in then, and indeed paid attention to what it was you were responding to.

You responded to me and directly quoted:

"Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol)..."

I wasn't talking to you, you were talking to me.. You stated that it's apparently very difficult to establish evidence and, since I was talking about this chunk of rock and the claim that it's the door to hell based on the fact that it resembles a face, I proceeded to ask you to try and provide some evidence anyway. The fact that you butted in on a conversation that you "have no clue about", is your problem.

Pay attention or don't butt in on people's conversations. Understood?

the general principle still holds - you are not established in the field of theism, therefore your complete complexity in the field is predictable

[SnakeLord]

the general principle still holds - you are not established in the field of theism

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos, told me that there aren't any such thing as gods - he indeed made up all the old texts just for giggles. Unfortunately you're not established in the field of leprchaunism, you're like the high school dropout, and as such have nothing to say on the matter.

There are no gods, Lenny said so.

However, established in the field of theism or not is of absolutely no relevance to providing evidence to support the claim that a face shaped rock is the doorway to hell.

[Sarkus]

LG, if you need to be so "established in the field of theism", why then do the majority of people who claim to be religious, e.g. 95% of the Christians in UK - do nothing different to UK atheists other than have "belief" in God - and maybe attend church once in a while.

Are you telling me that these people are also not "established in the field of theism"?

Please tell us what it is to be "established in the field of theism"?
Are you merely talking about those select people who have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe anything they are told by their "religious superiors"?
No?
Then what?

[Godless]

then maybe you could reiterate why it is flawed

I think Snake took care of it right here!

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos, told me that there aren't any such thing as gods - he indeed made up all the old texts just for giggles. Unfortunately you're not established in the field of leprchaunism, you're like the high school dropout, and as such have nothing to say on the matter.

Now I'll explain it to you so perhaps you can grasp it!

It's because the "failed high school" charade of yours can be used to refuse any analogy made by the speaker against their criticisms of a belief.

Thus when Snake claims to believe in Leprechaunism, and you claim no such thing exists, he can use your same argument.

Since you are not educated in understanding the epistemology of leprechaunism you have no right to refute his analogy of leprechaunism, unless you educate yourself in such a concept. Once you become "enlightened" in the concepts of leprechaunism you will then understand that what he speaks is truth, you will accept Lenny as the one true god, of the universe, and that all other gods were made up by him.

Can you see how that flawed concept of yours can be made to refuse any discourse at having an intelligent conversation? Can you? or is it that reality to you is an illusion, and your brain is incapable of perceiving objective reality? Thus if Leprechaunism, had a 2000 year old following, ancient texts, many millions of adherents swearing this entity to be one true god, amongst the rest of thousands of religions in the world, claiming to be the "true religion of salvation" It be just another mystical belief that people would have, with out any credible empirical evidence, any belief system can be created, and some will be willing to believe such things. I.E newest religion invented by man scientology! :p

[lightgigantic]

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos
then I guess you require something more philosophical substantial than your eager brethren with scissors and glue sticks on st patricks day



However, established in the field of theism or not is of absolutely no relevance to providing evidence to support the claim that a face shaped rock is the doorway to hell.
from your above statement, it should be obvious that a proper foundation of theory would be a humble beginning ....

[lightgigantic]

LG, if you need to be so "established in the field of theism", why then do the majority of people who claim to be religious, e.g. 95% of the Christians in UK - do nothing different to UK atheists other than have "belief" in God - and maybe attend church once in a while.


Are you telling me that these people are also not "established in the field of theism"?
there are many qualities of a theist - the bare minimum is that they take shelter of god - needless to say, a theist established in the field would be a bit more advanced, and distinctions between their activities and the activities of an atheist would be more pronounced


Please tell us what it is to be "established in the field of theism"?
Are you merely talking about those select people who have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe anything they are told by their "religious superiors"?
No?
Then what?
In short (because these 6 points can be elaborated at some length (http://vedabase.net/nod/14/en)), pure devotional service to god has six qualities

(1) Pure devotional service brings immediate relief from all kinds of material distress.
(2) Pure devotional service is the beginning of all auspiciousness.
(3) Pure devotional service automatically puts one in transcendental pleasure.
(4) Pure devotional service is rarely achieved.
(5) Those in pure devotional service deride even the conception of liberation.
(6) Pure devotional service is the only means to attract God.

[Benauld]

there are many qualities of a theist - the bare minimum is that they take shelter of god - needless to say, a theist established in the field would be a bit more advanced, and distinctions between their activities and the activities of an atheist would be more pronounced

:roflmao:

Are you saying all the best scientists are theists!?

[cole grey]

(4) Pure devotional service is rarely achieved.
(5) Those in pure devotional service deride even the conception of liberation.
(6) Pure devotional service is the only means to attract God.
Please reconcile the above for me.

Or are you just another person who believes that 95% of humanity is going to hell?
Seems like you wouldn't be, but I don't know.

[cole grey]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

And don't say "tradition". Tradition only goes about 50/50 when talking about individuals deciding on their beliefs - many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".

[audible]

quite simply cole you dont get brainwashed into belief in any of the others, only god, you dont have a church of santa, or leprechaunism on every corner in every town.many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".yes the few manage to shake off the religious ties that bind and become clear thinkers, and a few non-believers may become brainwashed into a religious, belief, these are usually weak minded individuals, but no atheist, converts to religion, these are people with clear critical minds, it would take a blow to the head for them to convert.

[(Q)]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.

Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.

[cole grey]

quite simply cole you dont get brainwashed into belief in any of the others, only god, you dont have a church of santa, or leprechaunism on every corner in every town.
My question is, why there are churches on every corner if this idea is just as ridiculous as santa, leprechauns, et al.?


but no atheist, converts to religion, these are people with clear critical minds, it would take a blow to the head for them to convert.
This idea you have that all athiests have clear critical minds is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that.

[(Q)]

My question is, why there are churches on every corner if this idea is just as ridiculous as santa, leprechauns, et al.?

Because, your parents never stopped telling you your god was make-believe. And their parents.. and so on...

This idea you have that all athiests have clear critical minds is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that.

I would agree with that completely. I've seen YouTube videos from alleged atheists who are complete idiots. They are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.

[cole grey]

You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.

Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.
The morals and ideas of parents are cast off generation after generation in every country on the planet. Perhaps your parents tell you to save your money, and as you grow up they confirm the truth and necessity of this ideal - yet you decide it is more important to enjoy what you have than save it for when you are too old to enjoy it. Beliefs parents hold and confirm, and the next generation denies, are ubiquitous.

As I was implying earlier, "tradition" is not strong enough to be the ONLY reason a certain idea believed in without reason could be propagated, even if we allowed for it to be say 50% of the reason.

[Sarkus]

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?Because people on the whole have lacked the courage to dismiss it. In the past this was often through fear of actual physical harm ("believe or burn" etc).

Also - the idea of a creator is, on the surface, logically sound: Z was caused by Y which was caused by X etc... all the way to the "initial cause". It is only when and, more importantly IF, you look at the underlying assumptions that this actually becomes logically inconclusive. But because most people don't look - the idea is acceptable - that something caused the Universe - and that something is slapped with the label "God".

Gradually, as non-theist views become more wide-spread, the role of the church in society might become less prevalent in society, less involved with the running of governments and the setting of policies, and more sidelined into a "If it doesn't harm anyone, let them continue" type of concept/practice.

[(Q)]

The morals and ideas of parents are cast off generation after generation in every country on the planet. Perhaps your parents tell you to save your money, and as you grow up they confirm the truth and necessity of this ideal - yet you decide it is more important to enjoy what you have than save it for when you are too old to enjoy it. Beliefs parents hold and confirm, and the next generation denies, are ubiquitous.

Financial planning and indoctrination are two different things.

Do you count the contents of your wallet before every meal? Do you sit listening to an accountant every Sunday morning?

Religion is thicker than blood. Just ask Cain. ;)

[John J. Bannan]

You assume God lives in the present. If God is infinite, he lives in all times. He can see your choices but not a priori, which only makes sense for us living in the present. We can have free will and God can know what we will do and there is no inconsistency. Your argument only works for a God stuck in our dimensions - not higher dimensions.

[lightgigantic]

:roflmao:

Are you saying all the best scientists are theists!?
not at all
I am saying there are different grades of theists and by the use of the term "established on the path of theism" I am meaning a theist who is displaying more characteristics than merely the notion of taking shelter of god

[lightgigantic]

Please reconcile the above for me.

Or are you just another person who believes that 95% of humanity is going to hell?
Seems like you wouldn't be, but I don't know.

I would say that more than 95% of humanity is taking birth again in the material world (whether that is as an animal or lower or as a human or higher, is a subject of speculation).
Attaining the supreme abode (as opposed to temporary material heavens and hells) is definitely exclusive.

BG 7.3: Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

the reason is not because of quotas or god making difficult

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

as it applies to a theist who is not completely successful in this life time, they begin their unfinished business in the next


BG 6.37: Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what is the destination of the unsuccessful transcendentalist, who in the beginning takes to the process of self-realization with faith but who later desists due to worldly-mindedness and thus does not attain perfection in mysticism?

BG 6.38: O mighty-armed Kṛṣṇa, does not such a man, who is bewildered from the path of transcendence, fall away from both spiritual and material success and perish like a riven cloud, with no position in any sphere?

BG 6.39: This is my doubt, O Kṛṣṇa, and I ask You to dispel it completely. But for You, no one is to be found who can destroy this doubt.

BG 6.40: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Son of Pṛthā, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.

BG 6.43: On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.

BG 6.44: By virtue of the divine consciousness of his previous life, he automatically becomes attracted to the yogic principles — even without seeking them. Such an inquisitive transcendentalist stands always above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures.



the 6 qualities of pure devotional service is split up into 3 categories of practitioners.
The first two are characteristics of persons who are performing religious duties out of an obedience to rules and regulations.

The middle two are characteristics of persons who have actually developed a spontaneous taste for religious duties, and hence obedience is adhered to not so much out of fear but love and attraction to the supreme
The last two are the characteristics of persons who are on the topmost platform and who's love for the supreme is so intense and concentrated that there is literally no room for any sentiment for things not related to the object of devotion (god) - in other words they couldn't fall in to illusion even if they tried

the three categories represent the general likelihood (up to 100%) of one's being successful

[lightgigantic]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

And don't say "tradition". Tradition only goes about 50/50 when talking about individuals deciding on their beliefs - many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".

basically its a fallacious argument that tries to glean success on the principle "some people got it wrong so everyone got it wrong"

[SnakeLord]

basically its a fallacious argument that tries to glean success on the principle "some people got it wrong so everyone got it wrong"

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

[lightgigantic]

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

for a more elaborate explanation of the principle of "some people get it wrong therefore everyone gets it wrong" please see the above post
:cool:

[SnakeLord]

Another utterly worthless LG post.. :bugeye:

[lightgigantic]

Another utterly worthless LG post.. :bugeye:
:bawl:

[cole grey]

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.
Thank you, that is a pretty good idea. I was hoping someone could give me an answer that hasn't already been shown to be insufficient by common experience, i.e. "it's because of tradition".
But doesn't the idea of God sometimes threaten more than it comforts? I propose that it does, even to, or especially to, christians. The way some people describe God, it may actually be an idea that would have been better discarded long ago.
I suppose it is possible that one person may believe from tradition, another from what is offered, but I would like to see if it is actually possible to explain the reason humanity has held on to the idea of God in a way that isn't immediately refutable with regards to large chunks of the population (rebels against tradition, people who are offered comndemnation, etc.).



also,
Also - the idea of a creator is, on the surface, logically sound: Z was caused by Y which was caused by X etc... all the way to the "initial cause". It is only when and, more importantly IF, you look at the underlying assumptions that this actually becomes logically inconclusive. But because most people don't look - the idea is acceptable - that something caused the Universe - and that something is slapped with the label "God".
People who believe in God because they think the universe had to have a creator are not being sensible, i agree - but the idea of a creator can be logically sound. There is a big difference between the perspectives of the possibility of a creator and the necessity of a creator.
Gradually, as non-theist views become more wide-spread, the role of the church in society might become less prevalent in society, less involved with the running of governments and the setting of policies, and more sidelined into a "If it doesn't harm anyone, let them continue" type of concept/practice.
I think the USA had it right to insist on the separation of church and state - unfortunately, in practice, our finest ideals are often left out (the disrepair of the system of checks and balances between the branches of government is another example of that).

P.S. lightgigantic - it seemed to me that you wouldn't be the type that assumes a 95% failure rate, but thanks for explaining.

[Klitwo]

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

Being a Neanderthal (and proud of it), I've often asked myself the same questions.

[Hellblade8]

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

That's not true, leprechauns have pots of gold and many sailors thought that mermaids also existed. Not to mention giant sea monsters. All of these have had impacts upon reality, but humans tend to see things as something more mythical than they often are.

So by your logic, people should believe in leprechauns because they have something to offer. And what of demons? People believe that they exist and yet they are often considered as imaginary.

Mythical creatures where created from two things: misunderstanding of what actually happened (sea monsters, dragons, ect.) and why.

Why are we here? Why are we different? Why do we feel this way? Why am I angry? Why am I different? Why are we here? Why does the world orbit around a sun? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Science is not about explaining why. Science is about explaining how. How do I feel this way? How are we different? How am I angry? How am I different? How does the Earth orbit around a star? How?

Can science answer why questions? Yes...to some extent. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Answer: Because of gravity and its effects.

And yet, this doesn't offer up the true, ultimate question as to WHY?

God is the answer to why. The belief in God or any supernatural being is not wrong, and actually seems fairly natural. Do atheists disagree? Yes, they do and they have their reasons based on the way the view life. However, this does not make them correct, as proving the existence of God has failed for many, many years. People only assumed that God was real with what people percieved as evicdence in the dark ages, but in truth they where just seeing something and placing God as the cause, even though this was in fact discouraged by the bible. However, most people where not aware of this as most people did not read the bible, and this is true today. People believe in liars like Sylvia Brown who claim to talk to spirits and then disgraces the name of God by basicly using His good name to win people over. However in truth, she is a lying heretic of which God and the bible have always denounced.

[Hellblade8]

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


Sorry, but I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding.:(

Because God has perfect knowledge or some such does not disprove God or Freedom of Will. Allow me to explain. Lets say when God is weaving the timeline that He offers someone the two hard choices. Naturally, God knows that the person shall choose the wrong one, does that mean that God did not give the human the ability to choose? No it does not. Allow me to explain it in a more understandable manner. Go to a child and give him the option of eating a cake or a carrot. Assuming the child is typical for his age, he will choose the cake over the carrot. You still gave the child a choice, but you knew what the outcome was. This is the same manner of which God works in. He does not offer us only cake or carrot, but both, even if He knows what we will do.:)

[SnakeLord]

But doesn't the idea of God sometimes threaten more than it comforts? I propose that it does, even to, or especially to, christians. The way some people describe God, it may actually be an idea that would have been better discarded long ago.

I would certainly stand by your question, yes. But is not the threat in itself enough reason to believe and further the belief?

In the same way that being offered a reward could ensure belief and service, so does the threat - "do this or suffer". Ultimately I would even say that the threat can be more powerful than the offer itself.

I suppose it's a reason why superstitions persist the way they do, (from the threats such as broken mirrors equalling bad luck to 'knocking on wood' equalling the hope for good luck).

That's not true, leprechauns have pots of gold and many sailors thought that mermaids also existed. Not to mention giant sea monsters. All of these have had impacts upon reality, but humans tend to see things as something more mythical than they often are.

Well, leprechauns are said to own pots of gold, but it isn't really offered - not so much as "knocking on wood" whereby leprechauns would give you luck. It's interesting to note that the latter is still quite commonly said today.

Magpies 'threaten' bad luck unless they're saluted, (dependant upon amount of magpies), and so people in this country at least still dilligently salute magpies. It's obviously ludicrous but people still do it because they don't want to risk being victim of the threat.

You have rabbits feet, horseshoes etc etc that are still commonplace in modern day society, (because they offer luck), and equally the avoidance of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, (because of threats).

Yes, we could look at vampires and say that being bitten on the neck is a threat and therefore should be believed in - but it isn't a direct threat. It's not a case of "I will bite you on the neck unless you hang garlic out every night". Because there is no direct threat, (or offer), I would assert that humans have little overall interest in it and after time it becomes yet another scary campfire story and little else.

As for mermaids, they never were going to last long given that they are so confined, (something for the sailors only), and yes - largely stemmed from encounters with unknown sea creatures.. But again they are not so much 'direct threat'. Some sailors would hear their song and crash into the rocks etc but it wasn't personal like "do this or die".

What I am asserting, (as an opinion I should state), is that gods and other such things making direct offers/threats will outlive that which doesn't offer/threaten anything. It is quite typical behaviour even in normal life - that's why "buy one get one free" works so well.

So by your logic, people should believe in leprechauns because they have something to offer.

Indirectly people still do, (at least saying "touch wood/knock on wood" frequently). The supposed pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow.. that complicates the issue. :)

And what of demons? People believe that they exist and yet they are often considered as imaginary.

Some do, some don't yes.. you'll never get 100% agreement on anything.

And yet, this doesn't offer up the true, ultimate question as to WHY?

And here is the thing.. Some see the question as moot, some see the question as essential. I suppose that's where we differ.

However, if it is of any use in the future.. I heard this story, (probably utterly untrue), about a young guy doing a philosophy exam. A question cropped up that asked: "why?". His fellow students went to lengths to explain the things that you yourself have written on your post. This gentleman wrote: "why not?" and left.

Personally I find the response-question as valid as the original question.

God is the answer to why.

All due respect, but that isn't an answer. 'god' is merely a substitute for those that are too afraid to hear the words 'no good reason'. Of the world's most worthless copouts, "god did it" has to rank first place - and it ultimately doesn't answer anything. All those "why's" still exist along with countless other questions: which god, why did it create us, why do we sin, why blah blah blah. god did it, god did it, god did it.. what has been answered other than nothing at all?

The belief in God or any supernatural being is not wrong, and actually seems fairly natural.

It seems 'quite natural' for man to believe in many non-existant things - mostly stemming from early days when man knew very little about the planet. This even includes mermaids that are found throughout literature and even dating back to 5,000 bc. From Babylon to Greece, from Cameroon to England. This in itself is not an argument for existence.

What you do tend to notice with gods is that they are culture specific. You don't, for instance, find any hedgehog gods in India. They're elephants and other such animals. You don't find badger gods in Egypt, they're vultures and jackals. You also tend not to find fox gods in South America - they are generally snakes. The question I ask is whether perhaps there are many gods, or one god that likes to play dress-up or perhaps whether people would notice what was around them and elevate it to worship status because of it's power, it's infamy, (poisonous snakes etc), or simply not being too well known. We could also then look at specific stories and see if those places where the land was more prone to disaster have gods that were more prone to handing out punishments, (yhwh certainly liked plagues). A British god would be a good example because we have no dangerous animals or disasterous weather. All I can personally think of right now are druids, (meaning 'oak tree') - yes, there's shitloads of oak trees in England. The problem of course is that there's very little known about druids so I can't really use it as a good example.

While contemplating this I decided to have a cigarette. During my smoke I thought of other gods that I am not personally aware of that I could perhaps use as an example. For some reason, (probably because I mentioned Cameroon), I started to think of African gods and what we would expect to see from them. After some consideration I came to the idea that we would expect to see mentions of drought most certainly and perhaps rain if they were good and obeyed. So anyway, I did some google searching and found this for starters which certainly reflects Africa quite well:

Abiku: is a term used to describe a type of evil spirit in Yoruba mythology. They are reportedly constantly hungry and thirsty, and prefer to prey upon children. The name is also applied to spirits in the form of children who must repeatedly die and be reborn.

I hadn't factored this into my equations but I don't think we can sit and argue the parts I have bolded as being reflective of Africa. In fact when I read it my mind instantly conjured up those images we always see on TV of some scrawny, starving African child.

I am currently going through the a-z of African gods and it is certainly going well so far. You have Abuk, mother of the god of rain and fertility who is symbolised by a snake. This had me worried to begin with.. but Abuk was a god to the Dinka - a tribe that live in swampland.

Again the question is: Is there a god/s that play dress-up or is it perhaps more likely that early cultures worshipped that which was around them? (also worth mentioning that one of, if not the most, worshipped thing in early cultures was the sun and or moon - something seen by everyone).

Ciao for now.

[Hellblade8]

I would certainly stand by your question, yes. But is not the threat in itself enough reason to believe and further the belief?

In the same way that being offered a reward could ensure belief and service, so does the threat - "do this or suffer". Ultimately I would even say that the threat can be more powerful than the offer itself.

True, it does tend to convert alot of people, very much so in such an area of importance to humans, however its actually very interesting. I actually don't believe someone's stay in hell is eternal if they don't worship God. If you recall, the Jewish belief is that someone is punished for their sins, but only what fits the deed. No more, no less. Now, there is in fact some conflict here as to what the Catholic Church claims. You see, some of Jesus's quotes doesn't make it sound like a black and white system that the CC makes it out to be. On top of this, I noticed that what Jesus does to "help" human souls would actually make it worse for more than it does help, as the CC claims that all non-believers go to hell forever.

But what Jesus was sent down to do was to *reunite* use with the Father, as Jewish worshipers before would just go to a state of limbo, not heaven or hell. After you are punished in hell for your crimes, you would ascend to limbo (if I recall). However, human souls are seperate of God. Now, when Jesus's death did was break that wall and allow souls to be cleaned and enter heaven.

So basicly before it was:

Hell for said amount of time then go to Limbo
or
Go to Limbo

Now it should be by logic:

Heaven for those who worship Christians
Hell and then go to limbo

In fact, hell as often stated by Jesus was for the wicked, and he clearly stated that not all will go to hell, some will just be seperated from the father and still others will actually die (cease to be I think-he wasn't too clear).

I suspect that given the early CC's main target where Jews, they would have changed it to accomidate that group, sure what they did is lie about the after life, but in their view they thought it would unite more Jews with the Father. At least, that's my take on it.:)

I suppose it's a reason why superstitions persist the way they do, (from the threats such as broken mirrors equalling bad luck to 'knocking on wood' equalling the hope for good luck).

True.

Well, leprechauns are said to own pots of gold, but it isn't really offered - not so much as "knocking on wood" whereby leprechauns would give you luck. It's interesting to note that the latter is still quite commonly said today.

Magpies 'threaten' bad luck unless they're saluted, (dependant upon amount of magpies), and so people in this country at least still dilligently salute magpies. It's obviously ludicrous but people still do it because they don't want to risk being victim of the threat.

You have rabbits feet, horseshoes etc etc that are still commonplace in modern day society, (because they offer luck), and equally the avoidance of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, (because of threats).

Yes, we could look at vampires and say that being bitten on the neck is a threat and therefore should be believed in - but it isn't a direct threat. It's not a case of "I will bite you on the neck unless you hang garlic out every night". Because there is no direct threat, (or offer), I would assert that humans have little overall interest in it and after time it becomes yet another scary campfire story and little else.

True, and yet all of these things where believed, more often to subsitute an explination with what they had at hand.

As for mermaids, they never were going to last long given that they are so confined, (something for the sailors only), and yes - largely stemmed from encounters with unknown sea creatures.. But again they are not so much 'direct threat'. Some sailors would hear their song and crash into the rocks etc but it wasn't personal like "do this or die".

Granted.



And here is the thing.. Some see the question as moot, some see the question as essential. I suppose that's where we differ.

However, if it is of any use in the future.. I heard this story, (probably utterly untrue), about a young guy doing a philosophy exam. A question cropped up that asked: "why?". His fellow students went to lengths to explain the things that you yourself have written on your post. This gentleman wrote: "why not?" and left.
Personally I find the response-question as valid as the original question.

Interesting.



All due respect, but that isn't an answer. 'god' is merely a substitute for those that are too afraid to hear the words 'no good reason'. Of the world's most worthless copouts, "god did it" has to rank first place - and it ultimately doesn't answer anything. All those "why's" still exist along with countless other questions: which god, why did it create us, why do we sin, why blah blah blah. god did it, god did it, god did it.. what has been answered other than nothing at all?

Well, some of those I can answer.

Why do we sin? Because we can. Simple answer. We have a free will and this allows us to chose as to what we want to do. Its not that we do bad things that makes it a sin, but because we understand good and evil. Intent, that is sin is based on.

It seems 'quite natural' for man to believe in many non-existant things - mostly stemming from early days when man knew very little about the planet. This even includes mermaids that are found throughout literature and even dating back to 5,000 bc. From Babylon to Greece, from Cameroon to England. This in itself is not an argument for existence.

True.

What you do tend to notice with gods is that they are culture specific. You don't, for instance, find any hedgehog gods in India. They're elephants and other such animals. You don't find badger gods in Egypt, they're vultures and jackals. You also tend not to find fox gods in South America - they are generally snakes. The question I ask is whether perhaps there are many gods, or one god that likes to play dress-up or perhaps whether people would notice what was around them and elevate it to worship status because of it's power, it's infamy, (poisonous snakes etc), or simply not being too well known. We could also then look at specific stories and see if those places where the land was more prone to disaster have gods that were more prone to handing out punishments, (yhwh certainly liked plagues). A British god would be a good example because we have no dangerous animals or disasterous weather. All I can personally think of right now are druids, (meaning 'oak tree') - yes, there's shitloads of oak trees in England. The problem of course is that there's very little known about druids so I can't really use it as a good example.

While contemplating this I decided to have a cigarette. During my smoke I thought of other gods that I am not personally aware of that I could perhaps use as an example. For some reason, (probably because I mentioned Cameroon), I started to think of African gods and what we would expect to see from them. After some consideration I came to the idea that we would expect to see mentions of drought most certainly and perhaps rain if they were good and obeyed. So anyway, I did some google searching and found this for starters which certainly reflects Africa quite well:

True, and its actually true that there is more than one 'god', as stated in the bible there are many gods, but only Yahweh is the one true God.

Abiku: is a term used to describe a type of evil spirit in Yoruba mythology. They are reportedly constantly hungry and thirsty, and prefer to prey upon children. The name is also applied to spirits in the form of children who must repeatedly die and be reborn.

Actually its ironic that evil spirits seem to be closer to reality than most people think. Someone once asked me why Jesus didn't say how false some ideas where, like a flat world or some such. I pointed out that if he had explained a disease as not being caused by a demon, but rather a very small creature that enters the body, people would still have called it a demon.

A demon is in fact, a virus.:p

I hadn't factored this into my equations but I don't think we can sit and argue the parts I have bolded as being reflective of Africa. In fact when I read it my mind instantly conjured up those images we always see on TV of some scrawny, starving African child.

I am currently going through the a-z of African gods and it is certainly going well so far. You have Abuk, mother of the god of rain and fertility who is symbolised by a snake. This had me worried to begin with.. but Abuk was a god to the Dinka - a tribe that live in swampland.

Again the question is: Is there a god/s that play dress-up or is it perhaps more likely that early cultures worshipped that which was around them? (also worth mentioning that one of, if not the most, worshipped thing in early cultures was the sun and or moon - something seen by everyone).

Likely a little of both. Early bible passages suggest that there was alot of say, supernatural activity going on around the early world, likely a war between 'gods' for the right over humanity. Some people worshiped animals, some worshiped Yahweh, but used the animals of symbols of his might, thus turning to idols eventually, and of course some where just pagans.

Its odd that as the bible goes onto later events, there is less and less divine attacks on the other gods, though I'm sure there would be more if the Christians hadn't decided to kill more pagans...even after Jesus told them not to kill.

Actually, one must ask if God is at all possible, and I do think its a very high chance of it being true. We know our universe isn't all there is to existence, so its likely we're in a bubble of our own reality with Lord knows what on the outside, its perfectly possible that some more powerful entity set off the big bang and molded everything over many years. Actually makes sense, since heaven is said to never be reachable by humans, God claims to have existed outside of time, thus likely out of our universe. Or I could be grasping at straws from a babbling priest of eons past who's words just tend to be easy to understand in many ways.:p

Possible? Yes.

Proven?

No.

I suppose if someone wanted to be perfectly frank, we worship who we see as our creator.

[Enmos]

Sorry, but I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding.:(

Because God has perfect knowledge or some such does not disprove God or Freedom of Will. Allow me to explain. Lets say when God is weaving the timeline that He offers someone the two hard choices. Naturally, God knows that the person shall choose the wrong one, does that mean that God did not give the human the ability to choose? No it does not. Allow me to explain it in a more understandable manner. Go to a child and give him the option of eating a cake or a carrot. Assuming the child is typical for his age, he will choose the cake over the carrot. You still gave the child a choice, but you knew what the outcome was. This is the same manner of which God works in. He does not offer us only cake or carrot, but both, even if He knows what we will do.:)

This is evil !
So what you are saying is that God pretend to give us a choice. It isnt actually a choice at all.
You left out the punishing of the kid that chose the cake.
What if your parents had done this to you. They would offer you the choice between a cake or a carrot knowing full-well you will choose the cake. Then, when you have chosen the cake, they would punish you badly (there no real equivalent to eternal damnation here i can make). And they would do this over and over with other choices ofcourse.
Isnt this really mean, if not pure evil ?

[Oli]

Originally Posted by Hellblade8
Sorry, but I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding.

Because God has perfect knowledge or some such does not disprove God or Freedom of Will. Allow me to explain. Lets say when God is weaving the timeline that He offers someone the two hard choices. Naturally, God knows that the person shall choose the wrong one, does that mean that God did not give the human the ability to choose? No it does not. Allow me to explain it in a more understandable manner. Go to a child and give him the option of eating a cake or a carrot. Assuming the child is typical for his age, he will choose the cake over the carrot. You still gave the child a choice, but you knew what the outcome was. This is the same manner of which God works in. He does not offer us only cake or carrot, but both, even if He knows what we will do.

The misunderstanding is yours:
In the case above there's always a chance that the child might accept the carrot: therefore the knowledge of the parent is not exact or perfect.
If god has "perfect knowledge" then he knows exactly what our choices would be and we wouldn't have the choice - it would be pre-ordained by his knowledge.

[Enmos]

The misunderstanding is yours:
In the case above there's always a chance that the child might accept the carrot: therefore the knowledge of the parent is not exact or perfect.
If god has "perfect knowledge" then he knows exactly what our choices would be and we wouldn't have the choice - it would be pre-ordained by his knowledge.

Hellblade, this is a better point then mine lol forget mine..

[nova900]

True, and its actually true that there is more than one 'god', as stated in the bible there are many gods, but only Yahweh is the one true God.




I agree with you that there is only one true God, but Yahweh,like all the other Gods and Goddesses is simply one group of peoples portrayal of God.
Study the early history of Yahweh and you will find he was simply one of many Gods worshipped by the ancient Canaanites, before the hebrew priesthood selected him to be their "one true God". It was done in an attempt to keep the people from returning to their paganistic ways.In other words ..control over the masses.

All the thousands of cases of Near Death Experiences and their overall pattern do not confirm much of the bibles portrayal of God ( often angry,warlike,jealous, cruel) If anything ,NDE's support much of gnostic belief and it also ties in with the core belief at the heart of most religions. So ,all religions are equally valid in this respect.

Yahweh is more of a reflection of the people who promoted him...very patriarchial, very inclusive, domineering....just like the bronze age hebrews were. I won't say all his qualities are bad, he did represent the loving father image often as well.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research06.html

[Hellblade8]

This is evil !
So what you are saying is that God pretend to give us a choice. It isnt actually a choice at all.
You left out the punishing of the kid that chose the cake.
What if your parents had done this to you. They would offer you the choice between a cake or a carrot knowing full-well you will choose the cake. Then, when you have chosen the cake, they would punish you badly (there no real equivalent to eternal damnation here i can make). And they would do this over and over with other choices ofcourse.
Isnt this really mean, if not pure evil ?

No.

Knowing what someone will do and still letting them choose is not evil, its part of having free will. And furthermore, you are taking the example in a way its not meant to, you assume that you get punished for taking one over the other. This is not always the case. And furthermore, when it is the case, the chooser often knows what they should choose.

You complain about not having freedom, but when your told its been granted, you complain about having it?:confused:

[Enmos]

No.

Knowing what someone will do and still letting them choose is not evil, its part of having free will. And furthermore, you are taking the example in a way its not meant to, you assume that you get punished for taking one over the other. This is not always the case. And furthermore, when it is the case, the chooser often knows what they should choose.

You complain about not having freedom, but when your told its been granted, you complain about having it?:confused:

You came up with the example not i... and it is evil when its God thats doing it.
Now answer Oli's post.

[Hellblade8]

The misunderstanding is yours:
In the case above there's always a chance that the child might accept the carrot: therefore the knowledge of the parent is not exact or perfect.
If god has "perfect knowledge" then he knows exactly what our choices would be and we wouldn't have the choice - it would be pre-ordained by his knowledge.

You fail to understand the point I was making. The point is, if we assume that the child will choose the cake and the parents know this, we have made an example of how God is to mortals. This is logical.

And no, it is a choice. He did not make the choice, you made the choice. Knowing what someone will do ahead of time is not taking away free will. They are not connected. You make every choice, God does not do so. However, God knowing the hearts of mortals, knows exactly what choices we will make.

The problem here is that you seem to be under the impression if God knows what you're going to do, you assume that your path is pre-determined, this is incorrect and illogical as having knowledge of what someone does not change the fact that they made the desicion by their own mind, their own free will. God did not force you to do anything, you chose it yourself.

So as you can see, you are very much mistaken.

[Enmos]

But he knew you were going to take the cake, wether it was your choice or not. He knew beforehand.
So how is that not misuse of power on Gods part ?

[Hellblade8]

You came up with the example not i... and it is evil when its God thats doing it.
Now answer Oli's post.

Oh I already did, and rest assured you are incorrect.

Really I don't understand you here. You claim that having knowledge of someone doing something is truth as to it not being a choice. This is false. Take Doctor Who for example, because the Doctor knows what said famous person does, does this mean that said person did not make the choice to perform said act? Of course not, it just happens the Doctor holds knowledge of what said person does, it does not infact affect his actions in the least.

[Enmos]

Your post just reinforces the popular sentence:
"God is like a mean kid, burning ants with a magnifying glass."

[Hellblade8]

But he knew you were going to take the cake, wether it was your choice or not. He knew beforehand.
So how is that not misuse of power on Gods part ?

And what would you prefer? That God not give you a choice?

[Hellblade8]

Your post just reinforces the popular sentence:
"God is like a mean kid, burning ants with a magnifying glass."

How so?

[Enmos]

You claim that having knowledge of someone doing something is truth as to it not being a choice. This is false. Take Doctor Who for example, because the Doctor knows what said famous person does, does this mean that said person did not make the choice to perform said act? Of course not, it just happens the Doctor holds knowledge of what said person does, it does not infact affect his actions in the least.

huh ? :rolleyes:

I can hear God snickering now, "Haha, im going to offer him the choice between a cake and a carrot.. while i already know hes going to take the cake. Boy, will he be sorry if he takes the cake! MUHAHAHA".

[Enmos]

And what would you prefer? That God not give you a choice?

I want him not to offer me any cakes and carrots. And sofar he hasnt.. ;)

[Hellblade8]

huh ? :rolleyes:

I can hear God snickering now, "Haha, im going to offer him the choice between a cake and a carrot.. while i already know hes going to take the cake. Boy, will he be sorry if he takes the cake! MUHAHAHA".

*sigh*

Again, its not some cruel joke, God has never acted in such a way, so why would you attempt to paint Him as such? You think He gets some sort of sick kick out of doing harm to people? Why don't you look into the bible and find me a passage where God is cruel and evil for no other purpose than for no other reason than just to be a dick. Then we'll talk.

And again, knowledge of choice does not mean you do not get a choice. The whole purpose is the choice. Will this person choose to be kind or wicked? Truthful or a liar? Father or rapist? Really, are you blaming God for when a man rapes a woman? Do you think it's God's fault that this man chose to rape when he knew it was wrong?:bugeye:

[Hellblade8]

I want him not to offer me any cakes and carrots. And sofar he hasnt.. ;)

Then your existence would mean you could never choose...in effect you would be dead. So you choose death over a life that forces you to choose. Why?:confused:

[Oli]

You fail to understand the point I was making. The point is, if we assume that the child will choose the cake and the parents know this, we have made an example of how God is to mortals. This is logical.
Incorrect - you fail to understand what "perfect knowledge" means.

And no, it is a choice. He did not make the choice, you made the choice. Knowing what someone will do ahead of time is not taking away free will. They are not connected. You make every choice, God does not do so. However, God knowing the hearts of mortals, knows exactly what choices we will make.
I didn't claim that god made the choice.
If god knows infallibly what we are going to choose then we do not make a choice - the script has been written.
We have no ACTUAL choice, just the illusion of one.

The problem here is that you seem to be under the impression if God knows what you're going to do, you assume that your path is pre-determined, this is incorrect and illogical as having knowledge of what someone does not change the fact that they made the desicion by their own mind, their own free will. God did not force you to do anything, you chose it yourself.
If god knows what we are going to do then we cannot choose otherwise - or he'd be wrong and therefore fallible.
Perfect foreknowledge removes ALL choice.

So as you can see, you are very much mistaken.
Dress it up how you like.
You are mistaken, I am not.

Oh I already did, and rest assured you are incorrect.
Wrong!

Really I don't understand you here. You claim that having knowledge of someone doing something is truth as to it not being a choice. This is false. Take Doctor Who for example, because the Doctor knows what said famous person does, does this mean that said person did not make the choice to perform said act? Of course not, it just happens the Doctor holds knowledge of what said person does, it does not infact affect his actions in the least.
Dr. Who?
Another fictional character.
And he knows because what he sees is history to him - he did not have foreknowledge because it's already written as far as he knows.
So could the person have chosen differently?
No.
Because that is what happened - according to the already written books that the Dr read.
Absolute knowledge of the future removes all free will.

[Enmos]

*sigh*

Again, its not some cruel joke, God has never acted in such a way, so why would you attempt to paint Him as such? You think He gets some sort of sick kick out of doing harm to people? Why don't you look into the bible and find me a passage where God is cruel and evil for no other purpose than for no other reason than just to be a dick. Then we'll talk.

And again, knowledge of choice does not mean you do not get a choice. The whole purpose is the choice. Will this person choose to be kind or wicked? Truthful or a liar? Father or rapist? Really, are you blaming God for when a man rapes a woman? Do you think it's God's fault that this man chose to rape when he knew it was wrong?:bugeye:

If God is all-knowing he knows if someone is going to sin when he is presented with the choice (by God as you put it). There are plenty of examples in the bible:

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.

As you put it God presents man with the choice, so "he puts the man in a dark alley and lets a woman pass through". God then presents him with two choices either rape the woman or leave her alone. When he knows fullwell that the man is going to rape the woman. He shouldnt have presented the choice to the man.

[Oli]

As you put it God presents man with the choice, so "he puts the man in a dark alley and lets a woman pass through". God then presents him with two choices either rape the woman or leave her alone. When he knows fullwell that the man is going to rape the woman. He shouldnt have presented the choice to the man.
If god knows (infallibly) then there is no freewill, no choice.

[Enmos]

If god knows (infallibly) then there is no freewill, no choice.

I know, im going with his viewpoint too much. Trying to let him see the ridiculousness of it, but it isnt working.. :(

[(Q)]

Again, its not some cruel joke, God has never acted in such a way, so why would you attempt to paint Him as such? You think He gets some sort of sick kick out of doing harm to people? Why don't you look into the bible and find me a passage where God is cruel and evil for no other purpose than for no other reason than just to be a dick. Then we'll talk.

The story of Job is a perfect example.

[Hellblade8]

Incorrect - you fail to understand what "perfect knowledge" means.

No, not really.


I didn't claim that god made the choice.
If god knows infallibly what we are going to choose then we do not make a choice - the script has been written.
We have no ACTUAL choice, just the illusion of one.

No its not. You are failing to understand here. Just because someone knows 100% accuracy of what you're going to do it does not take away from the choice of the one choosing it.


If god knows what we are going to do then we cannot choose otherwise - or he'd be wrong and therefore fallible.
Perfect foreknowledge removes ALL choice.

Its not about you doing something that God doesn't want you to. Its about you doing something and God already knows what will happen.

Dr. Who?
Another fictional character.
And he knows because what he sees is history to him - he did not have foreknowledge because it's already written as far as he knows.
So could the person have chosen differently?
No.
Because that is what happened - according to the already written books that the Dr read.
Absolute knowledge of the future removes all free will.

You are incorrect. The person did have a choice, always had a choice, and will always have a choice. However, the Doctor knows what said person chose and his future is based off the choices of that man. Time isn't a line where every person does this and life is determined, time plays out via the actions made by the individuals. That is how time works. Its not a script to a play, its a journal. Just because one person knows what will happen does not mean that free will is not there.

[Benauld]

And no, it is a choice. He did not make the choice, you made the choice. Knowing what someone will do ahead of time is not taking away free will. They are not connected. You make every choice, God does not do so. However, God knowing the hearts of mortals, knows exactly what choices we will make.

Try thinking of it this way: You can choose A OR B. You choose A, and everything is fine and dandy because God knew you were going to make that choice. Right? Now, re-run it - you "choose" option B instead, except that God still knew that, that was the choice you were going to make. So, God already knows whether you are good or bad by the choices that you will make in the future. Therefore, free will is redundant, because you could never choose anything other, than that which is already known to God.

[Hellblade8]

The story of Job is a perfect example.

How so?

The story of Job was about testing a man's faith. And by the way, it was Satan who actually performed the deeds, not Yahweh Himself. And to top it all off, Yahweh just didn't let Satan screw Job over and then leave him be, He rewarded Job with great gifts.

Of course, lets all forget that part.

[Enmos]

How so?

The story of Job was about testing a man's faith. And by the way, it was Satan who actually performed the deeds, not Yahweh Himself. And to top it all off, Yahweh just didn't let Satan screw Job over and then leave him be, He rewarded Job with great gifts.

Of course, lets all forget that part.

The reward is not the point here, God was still being an evil kid. And although God didnt do it he did order Satan to do it, HE LET SATAN DO IT.
Maybe he didnt want to dirty his hands himself ? bah!

[Oli]

No, not really.
Obviously you are failing to understand since you keep arguing.

No its not. You are failing to understand here. Just because someone knows 100% accuracy of what you're going to do it does not take away from the choice of the one choosing it.
If he knows with 100% accuracy then we cannot choose other than what his knowledge would be - or he wouldn't be 100% accurate.
Where then, lies the choice?
Absolute knowledge of the future negates free will absolutely.

Its not about you doing something that God doesn't want you to. Its about you doing something and God already knows what will happen.
If he knows then we cannot have a choice - because if we chose differently he'd be wrong.
Wherein lies your problem with comprehension?

You are incorrect. The person did have a choice, always had a choice, and will always have a choice. However, the Doctor knows what said person chose and his future is based off the choices of that man. Time isn't a line where every person does this and life is determined, time plays out via the actions made by the individuals. That is how time works. Its not a script to a play, its a journal. Just because one person knows what will happen does not mean that free will is not there.
If anyone KNOWS then there can be no free will - otherwise the knowledge is not absolute.
If choices are known before hand then it is a a script - a set of rails on which life and everything else runs with no possibility of deviation.

[Enmos]

Try thinking of it this way: You can choose A OR B. You choose A, and everything is fine and dandy because God knew you were going to make that choice. Right? Now, re-run it - you "choose" option B instead, except that God still knew that, that was the choice you were going to make. So, God already knows whether you are good or bad by the choices that you will make in the future. Therefore, free will is redundant, because you could never choose anything other, than that which is already known to God.

Thats what is wanted to say, perfectly worded Benauld!

[S.A.M.]

Try thinking of it this way: You can choose A OR B. You choose A, and everything is fine and dandy because God knew you were going to make that choice. Right? Now, re-run it - you "choose" option B instead, except that God still knew that, that was the choice you were going to make. So, God already knows whether you are good or bad by the choices that you will make in the future. Therefore, free will is redundant, because you could never choose anything other, than that which is already known to God.

Did you know what you were going to choose?

[Benauld]

Did you know what you were going to choose?
No, but apparently God did!

[S.A.M.]

No, but apparently God did!

So why does it matter ? If you did not know, it would make no difference to your decision would it?

[Hellblade8]

If God is all-knowing he knows if someone is going to sin when he is presented with the choice (by God as you put it). There are plenty of examples in the bible:

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

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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.

Outdated.

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.

Outdated.

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

Outdated.

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.

Outdated.

On top of this, these where not the commands to all the people of earth, but rather to a specific group of people we know as the Jews. The reason for these harsher rules is actually a result of a contract between God and the Jews where should He rescue them from the Egyptians, they shall follow His laws and His rules. They went to Him and asked God to dig them out. And considering that the Jews didn't die off via death by stones, I somewhat doubt they had much problems.

As you put it God presents man with the choice, so "he puts the man in a dark alley and lets a woman pass through". God then presents him with two choices either rape the woman or leave her alone. When he knows fullwell that the man is going to rape the woman. He shouldnt have presented the choice to the man.

So what is this? Suddenly you blame someone else for the actions of this man?!:mad:

This man knows it is wrong to rape the woman does he not? Christian or not, this man knows what is right and what is wrong, and yet HE CHOSE TO RAPE THE WOMAN. It was not written that he would and thus he had no choice, this is not how life or God works.

Allow me to repeat this: Just because God knows what someone will do, it does not mean its written in some large book that forces the man to choose this, it is that God knows what the man will do based on God knows how the man will think. Its like He is in essence, reading the thoughts of every person on the planet. Life is not predestined.

[Benauld]

So why does it matter ? If you did not know, it would make no difference to your decision would it?
No, but I wouldn't be able to freely choose one or the other...because it would already be PREdetermined by the very knowledge of God.

[S.A.M.]

No, but I wouldn't be able to freely choose one or the other...because it would already be PREdetermined by the very knowledge of God.

But you don't know that, so it does not matter.

[Hellblade8]

The reward is not the point here, God was still being an evil kid. And although God didnt do it he did order Satan to do it, HE LET SATAN DO IT.
Maybe he didnt want to dirty his hands himself ? bah!

Many things wrong with that.

1) I find it odd that you complain so much about God messing with the lives of mortals, or how He's such a dick, and yet when He walks off to let us do our own thing, you complain when another force comes along and messes with us and says that God should be in trouble because He didn't protect us from Satan...is this not a double standard? In fact, how can you even accuse God of anything when Job had never actually paid God for the service of protection from Satan?

2) If God had wanted to do it Himself, He would have, He apparently didn't have a problem with commiting genocide before.

[Oli]

Allow me to repeat this: Just because God knows what someone will do, it does not mean its written in some large book that forces the man to choose this, it is that God knows what the man will do based on God knows how the man will think.
If it is KNOWN then it might as well be written - the choice was not there in the first place.
It's not a question of force - the knowledge itself means that freewill no longer exists, only the illusion of it.

Its like He is in essence, reading the thoughts of every person on the planet. Life is not predestined.
So we've gone from god knowing to god reading our minds AS WE MAKE THE DECISION?
Make your mind up - he either KNOWS or he doesn't.

[Hellblade8]

Try thinking of it this way: You can choose A OR B. You choose A, and everything is fine and dandy because God knew you were going to make that choice. Right? Now, re-run it - you "choose" option B instead, except that God still knew that, that was the choice you were going to make. So, God already knows whether you are good or bad by the choices that you will make in the future. Therefore, free will is redundant, because you could never choose anything other, than that which is already known to God.

No it isn't.

Look, it isn't that God makes you choose anything. You chose it, Him having knowledge of it does not mean that you cannot choose to change the sequence, it means that you won't.

[Oli]

Look, it isn't that God makes you choose anything.
The foreknowledge itself negates the options.

You chose it, Him having knowledge of it does not mean that you cannot choose to change the sequence, it means that you won't.
What difference does it make between can't and don't (because if he knows we won't then we can't).

[Benauld]

No it isn't.

Look, it isn't that God makes you choose anything. You chose it, Him having knowledge of it does not mean that you cannot choose to change the sequence, it means that you won't.

But if a wanted to change the sequence, I couldn't because God already knows of the "change" and it becomes, via his knowledge...predetermined.

[Hellblade8]

If it is KNOWN then it might as well be written - the choice was not there in the first place.
It's not a question of force - the knowledge itself means that freewill no longer exists, only the illusion of it.

Again, wrong.

Take for example your post, lets sat I knew that you would respond. Now, if I claimed that I know you will respond to me again, lets say you won't in an attempt to prove me wrong. But if I keep this knowledge to myself, then you would of course still make the same choice and choose to respond. Of course, if I told you about it, I would also know how you will react.

The choice is still there. You are still making a choice.


So we've gone from god knowing to god reading our minds AS WE MAKE THE DECISION?
Make your mind up - he either KNOWS or he doesn't.

*Sigh*

He does know. I am attempting to explain it in a more understandable way and I apparently failed. What I am saying is that life is not pre-determined, God just knows what is going to happen based on how we act, and our surrondings. And yes, He can read our minds (well, it says heart or soul in the bible, but its the same basic thing really). If you recall God does not look to the outside of a person, but only looks at what the person is like on the inside, how he acts, thinks, and feels. This is why God cannot stand wicked people, it is to him as a a horribly deformed person is to us.

[Hellblade8]

But if a wanted to change the sequence, I couldn't because God already knows of the "change" and it becomes, via his knowledge...predetermined.

Correct, but you still made a choice to attemptively defy God right?

[Benauld]

Correct, but you still made a choice to attemptively defy God right?
Yes but he already knew that I would defy him. So how, by any definition of the word would my choice be FREE?

[Oli]

Again, wrong.
That's right - you're wrong, again.

Take for example your post, lets sat I knew that you would respond. Now, if I claimed that I know you will respond to me again, lets say you won't in an attempt to prove me wrong. But if I keep this knowledge to myself, then you would of course still make the same choice and choose to respond. Of course, if I told you about it, I would also know how you will react.
The choice is still there. You are still making a choice.
Nope, if you knew 100% how I was going to respond then I COULD NOT have responded any other way than that your foreknowledge predicted.
Any "choice" that I had was entirely illusional.

He does know. I am attempting to explain it in a more understandable way and I apparently failed.
And your understanding of this comes from...?

What I am saying is that life is not pre-determined, God just knows what is going to happen based on how we act, and our surrondings. And yes, He can read our minds (well, it says heart or soul in the bible, but its the same basic thing really). If you recall God does not look to the outside of a person, but only looks at what the person is like on the inside, how he acts, thinks, and feels.
So he doesn't know, basically what you're saying he just knows AS we make choices?
The way I turn round upon reading your post and say "How predictable - I knew you going to write that"?

This is why God cannot stand wicked people, it is to him as a a horribly deformed person is to us.
And since he was responsible for the whole thing in the first place... where does the "blame" lie?

[Hellblade8]

That's right - you're wrong, again.

I see this debate is going to last some time...


Nope, if you knew 100% how I was going to respond then I COULD NOT have responded any other way than that your foreknowledge predicted.
Any "choice" that I had was entirely illusional.

No it wasn't, you still made the choice. You still chose to do so, I did not alter the future in any way, but instead I just knew what you would do.

And your understanding of this comes from...?

You have to ask?

So he doesn't know, basically what you're saying he just knows AS we make choices?
The way I turn round upon reading your post and say "How predictable - I knew you going to write that"?

Sort of, except his would be more accurate on just His very nature. And that doesn't even take into account if God can see the future or not. In fact, if you read the bible, God often is said to know things because "He knew their heart". He could see into someone and see what their mind holds, how they feel and what they will do in any given situation.

And since he was responsible for the whole thing in the first place... where does the "blame" lie?

An interesting question. I suppose ultimatly you could rest all blame at God's feet if you truly wanted since He gave us free will and the ability to sin, but then again He also gave us the choice of what to do as well as letting us know what is wrong or right. Its like a person giving you a test in school, sure they gave you the test but you failed it.

But let me ask you, do you think God is thus a horrible person for creating life as it is?

[Hellblade8]

Yes but he already knew that I would defy him. So how, by any definition of the word would my choice be FREE?

Because you chose to do it. He did not force you one way or the other, you did it yourself.

[Benauld]

Because you chose to do it. He did not force you one way or the other, you did it yourself.

BUT (once again) he isn't providing me with a REAL choice if he already knows how I will act - it's just an illusion.

It's like in your cake analogy, the parent putting strychnine in the cake because they know the child will take it. God would deny me eternal life for defying him, even though he knew there was no choice...

[Oli]

I see this debate is going to last some time...
Only until you see the logic.

No it wasn't, you still made the choice. You still chose to do so, I did not alter the future in any way, but instead I just knew what you would do.
And if you knew 100% then the choice was not there since I could not have done otherwise.

You have to ask?
Certainly I have to ask.
Is it a true understanding or just a belief you have of how things are?

Sort of, except his would be more accurate on just His very nature. And that doesn't even take into account if God can see the future or not. In fact, if you read the bible, God often is said to know things because "He knew their heart". He could see into someone and see what their mind holds, how they feel and what they will do in any given situation.
And if he's infallible where is the difference between foreknowledge and the above?
Otherwise it's just a guess and he could be wrong.

An interesting question. I suppose ultimatly you could rest all blame at God's feet if you truly wanted since He gave us free will and the ability to sin, but then again He also gave us the choice of what to do as well as letting us know what is wrong or right. Its like a person giving you a test in school, sure they gave you the test but you failed it.
And if he knew/ knows the final result then we didn't have the choice and we were set up from the start.

But let me ask you, do you think God is thus a horrible person for creating life as it is?
I don't believe there is a god.
But if there is, and he's anything like the god I was taught about as a youngster then he's worse than horrible, he's a sadistic egomaniac.

Because you chose to do it. He did not force you one way or the other, you did it yourself.
No, the foreknowledge "made" the choice - I'll repeat this:
with absolute foreknowledge there can be no freewill.

[Hellblade8]

Only until you see the logic.

I can say the same of you.


And if you knew 100% then the choice was not there since I could not have done otherwise.

But you made the choice. How is knowing something forcing you to take an action?

Certainly I have to ask.
Is it a true understanding or just a belief you have of how things are?

Forgive me if I sound like I am side stepping the issue, but what do you mean?

Do you mean in terms of faith do I believe this? Or have I spoken and gained this knowledge via God Himself? If I where to answer this question, I would think my reply would be that my position is on the stance of what the bible says using logic and reason to determine what is true and what is not.

I did make it clear that I don't consider every word in the bible to be true did I not? Or did I forget that? For some reason people tend to think its a big deal.

And if he's infallible where is the difference between foreknowledge and the above?
Otherwise it's just a guess and he could be wrong.

Perhaps. But the issue is fairly complex. Since God is claimed to see all things at once, or some such, He would know how you would react as a child based on your basic human nature given via your instinct often dictated by your DNA. As nature meets nurture, your personality is built upon the actions of your life. He knows all of this, every single thought, and every single feeling inside of you. So, its not really that God knows via seeing into the future (though if He can do that is still a big unknown...Bible isn't very clear at times...), but based on that He knows you just that well. Look at it like this, when God sees you, He doesn't see your physical body, He sees your mind. He sees what you think, have thought, and how you act, and from all of these, and given He's more intelligent than perhaps any computer we could ever build, He could determine what you will do.

And if he knew/ knows the final result then we didn't have the choice and we were set up from the start.

An interesting notion.

I don't believe there is a god.

Fair enough.

But if there is, and he's anything like the god I was taught about as a youngster then he's worse than horrible, he's a sadistic egomaniac.

Explain.

No, the foreknowledge "made" the choice - I'll repeat this:
with absolute foreknowledge there can be no freewill.

Why do you say that?

[Hellblade8]

BUT (once again) he isn't providing me with a REAL choice if he already knows how I will act - it's just an illusion.

It's like in your cake analogy, the parent putting strychnine in the cake because they know the child will take it. God would deny me eternal life for defying him, even though he knew there was no choice...

Well, to be fair, you get eternal life either way really, though the quality of it depends on how you act. If your an asshole, God burns your ass, if your a good guy, you go on to better things.

[Benauld]

Well, to be fair, you get eternal life either way really, though the quality of it depends on how you act. If your an asshole, God burns your ass, if your a good guy, you go on to better things.
So I don't have a choice not to have eternal life?

[Hellblade8]

So I don't have a choice not to have eternal life?

Hmmm, good question, possibly, I just know you don't have a choice in being judged.

[Oli]

I can say the same of you.
You could, but you'd be incorrect. :D

But you made the choice. How is knowing something forcing you to take an action?
It's not a question of force: if the knowledge is correct then I could not have chosen another option, because then the knowledge would not be correct.

Forgive me if I sound like I am side stepping the issue, but what do you mean?
No, I don't think you're sidestepping.
What I mean is, since you are not (presumably) god, then your understanding of him and his knowledge/ actions is based on belief and faith only, not an actual knowledge the way I know, say, my mother.

Perhaps. But the issue is fairly complex. Since God is claimed to see all things at once, or some such, He would know how you would react as a child based on your basic human nature given via your instinct often dictated by your DNA. As nature meets nurture, your personality is built upon the actions of your life. He knows all of this, every single thought, and every single feeling inside of you.
So he can be wrong?
If not then we're back to foreknowledge...

So, its not really that God knows via seeing into the future (though if He can do that is still a big unknown...Bible isn't very clear at times...), but based on that He knows you just that well. Look at it like this, when God sees you, He doesn't see your physical body, He sees your mind. He sees what you think, have thought, and how you act, and from all of these, and given He's more intelligent than perhaps any computer we could ever build,
All of the above is, of course, supposition.

He could determine what you will do.
So we ARE back to foreknowledge.

An interesting notion.
Fair enough.
Explain.
Because if god knows/ knew how people would behave then we were created in the knowledge that some of us would fail - and left to do so.
God would have known that Lucifer would revolt, wars would happen etc etc.
And we were left to with no choice.

Why do you say that?
If the knowledge is infallibly correct (say choose A or B) then whatever we think we are choosing is pre-determined by that knowledge: if the person with that knowledge KNOWS we are going to choose A then we cannot, under any circumstance whatsoever, choose B, because that would mean that the person with the knowledge is not infallible.
You can't have both.
Infallibly correct foreknowledge or free will.
One OR the other.
The fact that the foreknowledge exists means that freedom of choice is null and void - no force, no coercion, just the facts of reality.

[(Q)]

How so?

The story of Job was about testing a man's faith.

Why would a god need to test man's faith? What is it for that god needs confirmation?

And by the way, it was Satan who actually performed the deeds, not Yahweh Himself.

How does that get Yahweh off the hook? Why would he allow such a thing to occur? Is he that petty he must stoop to Satan's whims? That he would even consider doing such a thing?

Yahweh was just as guilty as Satan, and just as cruel.

And to top it all off, Yahweh just didn't let Satan screw Job over and then leave him be, He rewarded Job with great gifts.

So, the moral of the story is that it's completely ok to destroy someone's life or watch gleefully as someone else does it, as long as they're rewarded later, with "great gifts?"

Of course, lets all forget that part.

Yes, conveniently.

[Hellblade8]

You could, but you'd be incorrect. :D

Hmm, no.

(sorry for the delay, I got called away from the comp for something)


It's not a question of force: if the knowledge is correct then I could not have chosen another option, because then the knowledge would not be correct.

But how is knowing something denying you from choosin?

No, I don't think you're sidestepping.
What I mean is, since you are not (presumably) god, then your understanding of him and his knowledge/ actions is based on belief and faith only, not an actual knowledge the way I know, say, my mother.

Ah. My knowledge comes from the bible and faith. Mind you, both views of Him are flawed in some way.

So he can be wrong?
If not then we're back to foreknowledge...

Its debateable, He Himself has known to change His mind so I suppose its possible He can make mistakes, if this is so then His infalibility may have been refering to His moral code. Of course, this would be speculation on my part.

All of the above is, of course, supposition.

True.

So we ARE back to foreknowledge.

I think I worded that wrong, what I mean to say is He will conclude as to what you will do.

Because if god knows/ knew how people would behave then we were created in the knowledge that some of us would fail - and left to do so.
God would have known that Lucifer would revolt, wars would happen etc etc.
And we were left to with no choice.

Oh, I'm sure God had some idea of all of these before they happened, but again, because He saw into the hearts of everyone and He looks at a bigger picture than we do. He would know that a war is coming because He can see into the hearts of men and can see where they are being lead to. Lucifer He would see becoming full of pride and arrogance.

If the knowledge is infallibly correct (say choose A or B) then whatever we think we are choosing is pre-determined by that knowledge: if the person with that knowledge KNOWS we are going to choose A then we cannot, under any circumstance whatsoever, choose B, because that would mean that the person with the knowledge is not infallible.
You can't have both.
Infallibly correct foreknowledge or free will.
One OR the other.
The fact that the foreknowledge exists means that freedom of choice is null and void - no force, no coercion, just the facts of reality.

When you say infallibly correct, do you mean if He where to say one thing it must happen no matter what?

[Hellblade8]

Why would a god need to test man's faith? What is it for that god needs confirmation?

He didn't, God said that Job would not betray him and he won the argument.



How does that get Yahweh off the hook? Why would he allow such a thing to occur? Is he that petty he must stoop to Satan's whims? That he would even consider doing such a thing?

What was so horrible about the experience? Surely the death of his children and wife was pretty bad, but God also gave him such blessings.

Yahweh was just as guilty as Satan, and just as cruel.

For testing one of His creations? And again, its not like Yahweh does this on a regular basis, it was a one time deal only.

So, the moral of the story is that it's completely ok to destroy someone's life or watch gleefully as someone else does it, as long as they're rewarded later, with "great gifts?"

You realized that the majority of Job's loss was material? He was never harmed in any of those incidents, and when it was done, God gave it all back and more. Job didn't get so much as a bee sting.

[SnakeLord]

This whole choice vs predetermination argument is problematic at best and rarely gets anywhere.

I would however like to ask you one question hellblade. Will this choice exist in heaven? I mean, can you choose to rape a woman etc?

[Hellblade8]

This whole choice vs predetermination argument is problematic at best and rarely gets anywhere.

I would however like to ask you one question hellblade. Will this choice exist in heaven? I mean, can you choose to rape a woman etc?

An interesting idea, apparently Lucifer made a choice to become evil. However, its also true that we have very little idea on what our body will be like in the next realm. If however, choosing to do so is possible physically, I would say yes its possible.

However, mercy be to those who does because Yahweh would be pissed on a level that made all others mere childish fits. For not only have you knowingly performed evil against another of pureness, destroyed your own pureness, but you have defiled heaven.

However, it should be noted as you will no longer be of the flesh that said person will not be tempted by such fleshy desires and thus doing so isn't out of some twisted form of lust, but an actualy choice to inflict that kind of harm upon another with a clear mind.

My guess is that even Lucifer's punishment will be light compared to those that commit the punishment that follows this man.

[(Q)]

He didn't, God said that Job would not betray him and he won the argument.

Who did god win an argument with - Satan? Isn't Satan one of gods creation?

So, something that god knew, therefore was predestined to occur, won an argument with someone else who also knew, because it was predestined to occur?

What was so horrible about the experience? Surely the death of his children and wife was pretty bad, but God also gave him such blessings.

Surely, it was pretty bad. And god makes it much worse by giving him a wife and children and then allowing them to be slaughtered in front of him?

You DON'T find that a horrible experience? Would you care much if it happened to you?

For testing one of His creations? And again, its not like Yahweh does this on a regular basis, it was a one time deal only.

What does it matter if it was one time or many? Can I go and slaughter a family, to win an argument, because it will only be a one time deal?

You realized that the majority of Job's loss was material? He was never harmed in any of those incidents, and when it was done, God gave it all back and more. Job didn't get so much as a bee sting.

So, humans are merely material, to easily be lost? He wasn't harmed at all, no mental anguish or stress related issues? Uh-huh.

Ah, so he merely wanted to have Job experience the thrill and excitement of having to watch his family slaughtered?

"Only joking, Job. Don't take it so hard."

[Enmos]

Im getting tired of this.
And now youre beginning to make a fool out of yourself too:

What was so horrible about the experience? Surely the death of his children and wife was pretty bad, but God also gave him such blessings.
You realized that the majority of Job's loss was material? He was never harmed in any of those incidents, and when it was done, God gave it all back and more. Job didn't get so much as a bee sting.

You arent serious i hope ?


However, mercy be to those who does because Yahweh would be pissed on a level that made all others mere childish fits. For not only have you knowingly performed evil against another of pureness, destroyed your own pureness, but you have defiled heaven.

Im starting to belief its better not to get into heaven, God seems to have a bad temper if you ask me..
What ever happened to forgiveness, and couldnt he make us all so that we cant sin anymore ? If not on earth then certainly in heaven ?

[Hellblade8]

Who did god win an argument with - Satan? Isn't Satan one of gods creation?

So, something that god knew, therefore was predestined to occur, won an argument with someone else who also knew, because it was predestined to occur?

Sure.



Surely, it was pretty bad. And god makes it much worse by giving him a wife and children and then allowing them to be slaughtered in front of him?

You DON'T find that a horrible experience? Would you care much if it happened to you?

They where not killed in front of him.

What does it matter if it was one time or many? Can I go and slaughter a family, to win an argument, because it will only be a one time deal?

If you can bring the dead back to life, then perhaps there might be a debate there. Not to mention that you didn't give them life, and really its not like God had destroyed their presence, their souls where just sent to Limbo until the coming of Christ.

So, humans are merely material, to easily be lost? He wasn't harmed at all, no mental anguish or stress related issues? Uh-huh.

I said most of the stuff he lost was material, I did not include that of his family.

Ah, so he merely wanted to have Job experience the thrill and excitement of having to watch his family slaughtered?

No.

"Only joking, Job. Don't take it so hard."

Which is not what He said. And again, God rewarded Job when He didn't even have to. Unless of course you know of any payment that Job gave to God in return for His protection yes?

[Enmos]

Your belief is starting to sound scary Hellblade8, and whats with that name anyway ?

[Hellblade8]

Your belief is starting to sound scary Hellblade8, and whats with that name anyway ?

What name?

[SnakeLord]

However, it should be noted as you will no longer be of the flesh that said person will not be tempted by such fleshy desires

My follow up question therefore is what exactly is the purpose of this fleshy desire tempting existence?

We can ascertain several things:

1) Mankind exist and many do fleshy things that god does not like.

2) god already knows and knew prior to mans existence that these people would do these fleshy things that he doesn't like.

3) Eventually he will take the good folk to heaven and the bad folk that did bad fleshy things will burn in a lake of fire.

4) Why bother with earth and mankind in the first place? Why not just make this heavenly realm with beings that aren't fixated on bad fleshy desires?

5) You have said that 'people' in heaven will still have a choice, but wont be tempted by fleshy desires and can make choices with a clear mind. In saying, once again I ask what the point is in this human/earth existence?

There's absolutely nothing to 'test' because you already have the results and thus it would seem more pertinent to avoid any being burning for eternity and just create a heavenly realm with folk not tempted by fleshy things.

The only plausible explanation is that god wants people to burn. He must actually enjoy seeing it happen.

[Enmos]

What name?

Your name, "Hellblade8".

[Hellblade8]

My follow up question therefore is what exactly is the purpose of this fleshy desire tempting existence?

Eh? Perhaps I was a little too keen on the flesh thing, what I mean to say is that temptation to do sin as we know it will be eliminated. I'm not sure how or what the result will be, but free choice is still existant to angels so thus its likely so for humans. Things like lust are not actually part of use anymore, because we will no longer need it. Lust is part of the reproduction cycle, and thus is needed, as angels do not marry, we will have no need of it.

We can ascertain several things:

1) Mankind exist and many do fleshy things that god does not like.

Its not flesh stuff that He does not like, its that we are so worried about it more than He deems it needs. He thinks we focus too much on our own pleasure and not worry enough about what's really important in life.

Sins are our selfish desires manifesting in wicked ways. You and I may both love the same woman, which is a flesh desire, but go about it in different ways. You try to compete fair and square, and thus you are correct in your approach to it. However, if I, being selfish decided that I should have her and you should not no matter what and I murder you, then I am in sin because I cared more about my own selfish desires that I ended your existence to appease them.

2) god already knows and knew prior to mans existence that these people would do these fleshy things that he doesn't like.

Supposedly.

3) Eventually he will take the good folk to heaven and the bad folk that did bad fleshy things will burn in a lake of fire.

Yes.

4) Why bother with earth and mankind in the first place? Why not just make this heavenly realm with beings that aren't fixated on bad fleshy desires?

Because He want's people to have a choice in making their life. The selfish and evil people shall burn in hell and the good people shall ascend to heaven.

5) You have said that 'people' in heaven will still have a choice, but wont be tempted by fleshy desires and can make choices with a clear mind. In saying, once again I ask what the point is in this human/earth existence?

I don't know, I'mm not sure that Yahweh ever specified on such an event. If we take the firs chapter of the bible, then man was created without sin and he made a stupid choice and screwed the rest of us over, but given how unlikely that is, its likely He made us and I guess decided that He wanted us to make a choice of being good or evil. Those who where evil would go to hell and be punished, and those who where good would ascend to heaven.

There's absolutely nothing to 'test' because you already have the results and thus it would seem more pertinent to avoid any being burning for eternity and just create a heavenly realm with folk not tempted by fleshy things.

I have no idea as to why.

The only plausible explanation is that god wants people to burn. He must actually enjoy seeing it happen.

Again, no. The CC's version of afterlife events are somewhat flawed. Hell had existed before Jesus came about and it wasn't forever, it was only until those who had commited horrible acts had learned their lesson. Jesus's purpose was to reunite those who lived in Limbo with the Father.

[Hellblade8]

Your name, "Hellblade8".

And?

[(Q)]

Sure.

Then, there was no argument, if it was known and was predestined. Your god must have been doing it for funsies.

They where not killed in front of him.

And that makes it ok. Your vicious god actually killed Job's wife in front of him.

If you can bring the dead back to life, then perhaps there might be a debate there. Not to mention that you didn't give them life, and really its not like God had destroyed their presence, their souls where just sent to Limbo until the coming of Christ.

Can I too kill someones family, for funsies, and not worry about it as long as their souls are sent to limbo and they're "presences" are intact?

Which is not what He said. And again, God rewarded Job when He didn't even have to. Unless of course you know of any payment that Job gave to God in return for His protection yes?

The payment, which Job had to make, was the realization that his god was petty, cruel and immoral. And, he learned it the hard way.

[Enmos]

And?

Just wondering why such a religious person like yourself would choose such a nickname :shrug:

[Hellblade8]

Then, there was no argument, if it was known and was predestined. Your god must have been doing it for funsies.

I suppose sarcasm is lost to you.



And that makes it ok. Your vicious god actually killed Job's wife in front of him.

Yahweh did not kill Job's wife.

Can I too kill someones family, for funsies, and not worry about it as long as their souls are sent to limbo and they're "presences" are intact?

Again:

1) You didn't give them life.

2) You didn't give them everything they ever had, including life.

3) You aren't able to bring them back to life

4) You don't control Limbo or Hell.

5) Yahweh never did any harm to them, He just withdrew His protections.

The payment, which Job had to make, was the realization that his god was petty, cruel and immoral. And, he learned it the hard way.

No. You claim that Yahweh has some sort of duty to protect others from other cosmic forces, and yet why is this? Does Job deserve Yahweh's protection? Did he pay Yahweh? Did he do something that placed Yahweh in his debt?

[Hellblade8]

Just wondering why such a religious person like yourself would choose such a nickname :shrug:

What? Oh, I play D&D and its one of the magical artifacts I created in my games.

[Enmos]

What? Oh, I play D&D and its one of the magical artifacts I created in my games.

Fair enough, was just wondering.

[(Q)]

I suppose sarcasm is lost to you.

Is reason lost to you?

5) Yahweh never did any harm to them, He just withdrew His protections.

Yahweh was every bit as guilty for his part in that heinous crime. Should I simply step aside as someone viciously kills my family?

No. You claim that Yahweh has some sort of duty to protect others from other cosmic forces, and yet why is this? Does Job deserve Yahweh's protection? Did he pay Yahweh? Did he do something that placed Yahweh in his debt?

You just don't seem to get it. Yahweh participated in the destruction of Job's family in order to make a point with Satan.

The moral of the story is that it's ok to kill, or participate willingly, in order to make a point.

[Enmos]

God permits "the Satan" to put the virtue of Job to the test, at first by giving him power over his property, but forbidding him to touch his person. Satan began by taking away all of Job's riches, his livestock, his house, his servants, and his children; a series of messengers informs him that they have perished in various disasters.

Job rends his clothes, shaves his head, and falls down upon the ground saying, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord."[1]

As Job endures these calamities without reproaching Divine Providence, Satan solicits permission to afflict his person as well, and God says, "Behold he is in your hand, but don’t touch his life." Satan, therefore, smites him with dreadful boils, and Job, seated in ashes, scrapes off the corruption with a pot shard. His wife wants him to "curse God, and die" but Job answers, "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?"

In the meantime, only three of Job's friends come to visit him in his misfortune — Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. A fourth, Elihu the Buzite, first begins talking in chapter 32 and bears a distinguished part in the dialogue; his arrival is not explained. The friends spend a week sitting on the ground with Job, without speaking, until Job at last breaks his silence and complains of his misery.


Seems to me God did just a bit more than just withdraw his protection.

[Hellblade8]

Is reason lost to you?

Perhaps.



Yahweh was every bit as guilty for his part in that heinous crime. Should I simply step aside as someone viciously kills my family?

No. But Yahweh's family wasn't on the chopping block, and again, you and Yahweh are two different people. Yahweh is a god, you are a mortal. What He can do and what you can do are very different.

You just don't seem to get it. Yahweh participated in the destruction of Job's family in order to make a point with Satan.

No He didn't. He just didn't get involved.

The moral of the story is that it's ok to kill, or participate willingly, in order to make a point.

Actually the moral of the story is just because someone is having a bad life it doesn't mean that God is the one doing it or pouring His divine justice upon said person.

That's the whole point of the story.

[Enmos]

After several rounds of debate between Job and his friends, in a divine voice, described as coming from a "cloud" or "whirlwind", God describes, in evocative and lyrical language, what the experience of being responsible for the world is like, and asks if Job has ever had the experiences that He (God) has had.

God's answer underscores that Job shares the world with numerous powerful and remarkable creatures, creatures with lives and needs of their own, whom God must provide for, and the young of some hunger in a way that can only be satisfied by taking the lives of others. Does Job even have any experience of the world he lives in? Does he understand what it means to be responsible for such a world? Job admits that he does not.

God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but also that God is King over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. He declines to answer any of Job's questions or challenges with anything except "I am the Lord." Job asks God for forgiveness.


Could you please tell me what God is doing here and why?

[Hellblade8]

Seems to me God did just a bit more than just withdraw his protection.

Um, again, Yahweh didn't do that, it was Satan. Though I am surprised I had mixed up not harming Job and taking his life. I should really double check on stuff like that in the future.:(

[Hellblade8]

Could you please tell me what God is doing here and why?

I thought it was very clear, tell me what you do not understand and I shall attempt to explain.

[Enmos]

I thought it was very clear, tell me what you do not understand and I shall attempt to explain.

Well God seems to be intimidating Job, but i dont know the full story.

[Enmos]

Um, again, Yahweh didn't do that, it was Satan. Though I am surprised I had mixed up not harming Job and taking his life. I should really double check on stuff like that in the future.:(

True, God didnt do it himself but didnt just revoke his protecting of Job.. he actively handed him over to Satan.

[Hellblade8]

True, God didnt do it himself but didnt just revoke his protecting of Job.. he actively handed him over to Satan.

Um, yeah He was handing Job over in the manner that He no longer gave Job protection.

[Enmos]

Um, yeah He was handing Job over in the manner that He no longer gave Job protection.

Handing over someone and refusing protection to someone are two different things in my book. But nevermind.

[(Q)]

No. But Yahweh's family wasn't on the chopping block, and again, you and Yahweh are two different people. Yahweh is a god, you are a mortal. What He can do and what you can do are very different.

That is irrelevant and utterly pointless. With stories such as Job, we are left with witnessing the cruelty of a god who cares more about making a point, which was predestined to begin with, than he does about his humans. In fact, he allows their death in the making.

No He didn't. He just didn't get involved.

Yes, he did. He was COMPLETELY involved.

Actually the moral of the story is just because someone is having a bad life it doesn't mean that God is the one doing it or pouring His divine justice upon said person.

That's the whole point of the story.

That's one interpretation, perhaps yours. But, the author, who is unknown, was more concerned about showing that god is present in people's lives. Unfortunately, the story comes out with a different conclusion, that of the just of a god, or lack thereof.

[Hellblade8]

Well God seems to be intimidating Job, but i dont know the full story.

First Yahweh appears and demands why Job (when he finally breaks) dares to question His wisdom with his own. He goes on to demanding answers from Job on where he was when the world was made, how the world works, and the like. Its a good point to note that issueing a challenge to Yahweh in OT times was typically a bad idea. Just ask the Egyptians.

[SnakeLord]

what I mean to say is that temptation to do sin as we know it will be eliminated. I'm not sure how or what the result will be, but free choice is still existant to angels so thus its likely so for humans. Things like lust are not actually part of use anymore, because we will no longer need it. Lust is part of the reproduction cycle, and thus is needed, as angels do not marry, we will have no need of it.

So, right now we 'need' lust? In saying I can only question the following:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Seemingly mankind now goes to hell because he does that which he cannot help but do, something you state is "needed". Kindly explain where the 'choice' is in such an instance. Thank you.

Furthermore, this doesn't actually answer the question of my post - which is why create that temptation in the first place when you could just create a heavenly realm with people that don't have that temptation?

its that we are so worried about it more than He deems it needs

All due respect, but who is the "we"? I do not personally worry about getting turned on by looking at a beautiful woman, eating shellfish, wearing clothes of two different materials or anything else god doesn't personally like.

He thinks we focus too much on our own pleasure and not worry enough about what's really important in life.

What's that then? Kindly explain what's really important in life.

You try to compete fair and square, and thus you are correct in your approach to it.

Not according to the biblical passage I quoted, where even looking at this woman with lust is equally sinful. The bible is wrong, is that what you're saying?

Because He want's people to have a choice in making their life. The selfish and evil people shall burn in hell and the good people shall ascend to heaven.

Not an answer to what I am asking. Why bother making earth and people in the first place when he knows that the majority of people he makes will burn? Why not, when devising creation, just create a heavenly realm and beings that aren't tempted, or need to sin?

You say choice here but have argued against it yourself. If lust is essential, which it is, what choice does one have in the matter other than none?

then man was created without sin and he made a stupid choice and screwed the rest of us over

That same part of the bible informs us that this man had no understanding of good or evil. Without those two essential things how could he ever have made an informed choice? Is god good or evil? Is the snake good or evil? Without knowledge of good or evil how would you know?

The CC's version of afterlife events are somewhat flawed. Hell had existed before Jesus came about and it wasn't forever, it was only until those who had commited horrible acts had learned their lesson. Jesus's purpose was to reunite those who lived in Limbo with the Father.

This doesn't detract from anything I said - namely that people will burn, (you agreed earlier), and that the only plausible explanation is that he wants them to because otherwise he could have just made a heavenly realm with people with no desire or temptation to sin and the ability to make a choice with a clear mind etc and so on. Instead he set up this existence knowing full well that the majority of beings in that existence would burn - a choice they don't have. I didn't ask to be born and I cannot help but lust after a beautiful woman. It is essential to genetic survival.. So I'm going to burn because my genes are the way they are?

[Enmos]

First Yahweh appears and demands why Job (when he finally breaks) dares to question His wisdom with his own. He goes on to demanding answers from Job on where he was when the world was made, how the world works, and the like. Its a good point to note that issueing a challenge to Yahweh in OT times was typically a bad idea. Just ask the Egyptians.

Ok i get it, but it seems so ungodly to state the questions as he did. Almost arrogant, if a God can be arrogant..

[Hellblade8]

That is irrelevant and utterly pointless. With stories such as Job, we are left with witnessing the cruelty of a god who cares more about making a point, which was predestined to begin with, than he does about his humans. In fact, he allows their death in the making.

Ah yes, and lets ignore the rest of the bible, because Lord knows He never did anything nice...



Yes, he did. He was COMPLETELY involved.

He did nothing to Job. Please tell me how you can pin it on Him when He did not do anything?

That's one interpretation, perhaps yours. But, the author, who is unknown, was more concerned about showing that god is present in people's lives. Unfortunately, the story comes out with a different conclusion, that of the just of a god, or lack thereof.

Really? Then I suppose that explains how Job was considered one of the most noble and good people in the land and was blessed beyond the dreams of most other men. And this might sound somewhat arrogant, but I'm sure my pastors and other bible experts understand the meaning of the story a little more than you do.

[Hellblade8]

Ok i get it, but it seems so ungodly to state the questions as he did. Almost arrogant, if a God can be arrogant..

Perhaps it sounded a bit arrogant, but Yahweh was angry and demanding how dare someone who understands so little challenge their creator, in which He then proceeded to siege him with questions on what he actually understands compared to Him. Needless to say, Job backed down and apologized for his harsh words.

[Enmos]

Perhaps it sounded a bit arrogant, but Yahweh was angry and demanding how dare someone who understands so little challenge their creator, in which He then proceeded to siege him with questions on what he actually understands compared to Him. Needless to say, Job backed down and apologized for his harsh words.

Temper, temper lol

[(Q)]

Ah yes, and lets ignore the rest of the bible, because Lord knows He never did anything nice...

If memory serves correct, the body count in the bible is:

God: 32.9 Million
Satan: 10

He did nothing to Job. Please tell me how you can pin it on Him when He did not do anything?

You said it yourself, he removed his protections. He allowed and condoned Satan to do whatever he wanted. That's known as participation. He was every bit as guilty as Satan.

Really? Then I suppose that explains how Job was considered one of the most noble and good people in the land and was blessed beyond the dreams of most other men.

What does that prove?

And this might sound somewhat arrogant, but I'm sure my pastors and other bible experts understand the meaning of the story a little more than you do.

Ah, an appeal to authority. Surely, since you have your interpretation, most likely based on your pastor, it couldn't possibly be wrong or open to other interpretations.

[Enmos]

I am however bothered by something Snakelord came up with.
Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?
The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.

Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.

[(Q)]

The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) He's doing somesort of experiment to see how many humans will burn in hell given they have free will.

Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.

Fifth - gods don't exist and men came up with those concepts. ;)

[Enmos]

Fifth - gods don't exist and men came up with those concepts. ;)

Yeah, thats my view too.. it implicitly falls under four in my list ;)

[S.A.M.]

I am however bothered by something Snakelord came up with.
Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?
The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.

Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.

I thought the forth was "Go forth and multiply"?:confused:

[Hellblade8]

So, right now we 'need' lust? In saying I can only question the following:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Seemingly mankind now goes to hell because he does that which he cannot help but do, something you state is "needed". Kindly explain where the 'choice' is in such an instance. Thank you.

Having lust is not bad, or should I say sexual desire? Yes, that's more accurate than per say lust. Also, Jesus was saying that looking upon a woman lustfully is a sin because it shows *only* sexual desire, something that Yahweh does not approve of. Yahweh demands that there be love in a relationship as well as one being commited to the children it creates, and thus marriage is a requirment.

I really need to learn to express myself better.:(

Furthermore, this doesn't actually answer the question of my post - which is why create that temptation in the first place when you could just create a heavenly realm with people that don't have that temptation?

*shrug*

I'm not really sure. Genesis was supposedely made to explain that, but I wouldn't trust that book at term of accurate explination as to the origion of man. Perhaps Earth was meant to be God's garden and when humans started to sin it pissed Yahweh off?

All due respect, but who is the "we"? I do not personally worry about getting turned on by looking at a beautiful woman, eating shellfish, wearing clothes of two different materials or anything else god doesn't personally like.

Um, aside from looking at women, those aren't sins, Jesus dispelled that when He stated that nothing from the outside can make you unholy, only that from the inside, from a man's heart can make him unholy.

What's that then? Kindly explain what's really important in life.

Leading a happy life and living in the light of God.

This would include being kind to others who do not deserve it, showing mercy and compassion and all that other wonderful stuff in NT.

Not according to the biblical passage I quoted, where even looking at this woman with lust is equally sinful. The bible is wrong, is that what you're saying?

Excuse me, I meant sexual desire is not wrong. Lust is an intense sexual desire, and taken with the quote, Jesus is saying it is wrong to look upon a woman with only sex in mind.

Not an answer to what I am asking. Why bother making earth and people in the first place when he knows that the majority of people he makes will burn? Why not, when devising creation, just create a heavenly realm and beings that aren't tempted, or need to sin?

Wait, why would the majority of the people burn in hell? And you do realise its not forever right?

You say choice here but have argued against it yourself. If lust is essential, which it is, what choice does one have in the matter other than none?

I corrected that mistake as above.

That same part of the bible informs us that this man had no understanding of good or evil. Without those two essential things how could he ever have made an informed choice? Is god good or evil? Is the snake good or evil? Without knowledge of good or evil how would you know?

Again, I don't really take Genesis as the true story of creation.

This doesn't detract from anything I said - namely that people will burn, (you agreed earlier), and that the only plausible explanation is that he wants them to because otherwise he could have just made a heavenly realm with people with no desire or temptation to sin and the ability to make a choice with a clear mind etc and so on. Instead he set up this existence knowing full well that the majority of beings in that existence would burn - a choice they don't have. I didn't ask to be born and I cannot help but lust after a beautiful woman. It is essential to genetic survival.. So I'm going to burn because my genes are the way they are?

1) Again, I have no idea, I am not Yahweh, and other than a few one liners, He never fully explained why He wanted to create us. Perhaps He just likes to create things?

2) You sorta got it, the mistakes have been corrected via my other answers above. Though in most part your mistakes are based off of my failure to explain myself.:(

[Enmos]

I edited point no. 3 because that was kind of nonsense on my part..

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, thats my view too.. it implicitly falls under four in my list ;)

So you're convinced in your implicit beliefs? Wow, what a surprise.:p

[Hellblade8]

Temper, temper lol

God wasn't big on the mercy thing until NT.

[Enmos]

I thought the forth was "Go forth and multiply"?:confused:

These arent the ten commandments, these are possible reasons why we are able to sin.

[Enmos]

So you're convinced in your implicit beliefs? Wow, what a surprise.:p

What!? What do you mean ?

[Benauld]

So I don't have a choice not to have eternal life?
Hmmm, good question, possibly, I just know you don't have a choice in being judged.

So, if I don't get the choice to not have eternal existence, what is the point in all of the decisions I make in my supposed free-will between now and then? They are negated by that one act - the denial of non-existence...

[Hellblade8]

If memory serves correct, the body count in the bible is:

God: 32.9 Million
Satan: 10

And?



You said it yourself, he removed his protections. He allowed and condoned Satan to do whatever he wanted. That's known as participation. He was every bit as guilty as Satan.

I disagree. Satan isn't some theif and Yahweh a guard. Yahweh offers protection from Satan while upholding everything that exists, one might think that you should be thankful for such protections and again, has Job ever paid Yahweh?

Really, how do you expect to pay a god anything? Yahweh offers His protections for free to every man and woman. How about you?

What does that prove?

That the story wasn't about Yahweh and a persons daily life.

Ah, an appeal to authority. Surely, since you have your interpretation, most likely based on your pastor, it couldn't possibly be wrong or open to other interpretations.

I never said that. I've read it myself and came to that same conclusion before I even met my current pastor and beforehand, I had never paid enough attention to religion when it was taught. There are many interpretations, and if you chose that as a way to interpet what the story is about then fine, but don't claim it to be what the author thought to write as there isn't much of a basis for that. In fact, the very fact that the story focuses on someone who is considered extradionary to most humans and the circumstance of the events makes it very unusual compared to what you claim to be a story about how God is present in people's lives. Related in a distant way, but not in the way you present. Its a story of how God doesn't just smite people here and there for doing something wrong. It means that just because someone is having a hard life, God does not hate you. If someone cheats on you, it's not God's fault. It also serves as a way for God to inform Job that He owes the world nothing for He has given them everything and He has every right to take it away, since He owns it.

[Hellblade8]

So, if I don't get the choice to not have eternal existence, what is the point in all of the decisions I make in my supposed free-will between now and then? They are negated by that one act - the denial of non-existence...

*shrug*

Again, I am not sure. Jesus stated that some people will die, and just die and its possible if you so wished to cease to be Yahweh might consider granting it, but He is under no obligation to do so.

[Hellblade8]

These arent the ten commandments, these are possible reasons why we are able to sin.

...that wasn't a commandment.

[Benauld]

It also serves as a way for God to inform Job that He owes the world nothing for He has given them everything and He has every right to take it away, since He owns it.
If God owns my big hairy butt, how is that any different from any other form of slavery?

[Enmos]

Really, how do you expect to pay a god anything? Yahweh offers His protections for free to every man and woman. How about you?

Pay hommage? Or his worship of God could also be considered pay.
Yahweh is a God no? Thats what Gods do.

[Enmos]

...that wasn't a commandment.

...i know? Please read back to the post.

[Benauld]

...but He is under no obligation to do so
If that is the case then I do not truly have free will.

[Enmos]

This is the post i made, and you and S.A.M. somehow mistook them for commandments !?

I am however bothered by something Snakelord came up with.
Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?
The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.

Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.

[Hellblade8]

If God owns my big hairy butt, how is that any different from any other form of slavery?

Try a justice system. You break the law, and you get punished. And do try to read the bible, the answer is in there.

[Hellblade8]

If that is the case then I do not truly have free will.

Eh?

[Hellblade8]

Pay hommage? Or his worship of God could also be considered pay.
Yahweh is a God no? Thats what Gods do.

No, worship is not pay.