Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

That doesn't make any sense though. People are people. If everybody could be removed from environmental factors and the totality of experiences, then there is no reason why one region should prefer puppy dogs and another region kitty cats. Or black/white, burgers/ramen, soccer/football. These are cultural contingencies. And if God is rejecting people because of culture, then that's a very shoddy line of reasoning.

The idea in the first option presented is that God CAN remove people from environmental factors, and consider how they would behave in any other environment, given any other encounters. If He determines that, given all the factors considered together, a person would never accept Christ, then that person is born somewhere where he or she will never hear the gospel. Note that the idea is the same temporally as geographically. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happens, just saying that the idea of a God who wants people to be saved and the existence of people who will never hear that gospel are not irreconcilable.

In other words, the idea is completely unaccountable. It could be true, it could be an excuse. Given probability, it is the latter.

It is a possibility. Again, I'm not positing these possibilities as a reason to believe in God. I'm presenting them to show that the existence of a God who wants people to be saved and the existence of people who will never hear the gospel are not irreconcilable. (To be a jerk, I just re-typed the exact same thing I said a moment ago. You're welcome.)

You're born with sin completely independent of any real choice you made

That's not so at all. Certainly we are born with a proclivity to sin, but it is the conscious choice to sin that condemns us, not the proclivity. Some Christians believe that children, for example, are excused for doing what is wrong because they can't yet comprehend its import; they are not culpable for their wrongdoing because they do not do so willfully. In any event, even if we were "born with sin completely independent of any real choice," and condemned on that basis alone, the later real choices we make to sin further justify such condemnation.

It's just so unbelievable that the Christian God who supposedly performed miracles and predicted the future can't actually be bothered to tell people about his master plan - the reason that we are all here - and instead leave it up to a total quirk of fate.

He can and does tell people about His master plan. He has provided not only the Bible for much of recorded history, but has commanded the church (by which I mean all Christians) to act as His agents in spreading that message. There are many ways that God could tell people about Himself, sure. And one of those ways is the way He has chosen. "Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:21). In other words, God can consider any number of factors in determining which means to choose to propagate His message. The fact that He chooses one way over another is not reason to believe He doesn't exist. If we do not fully understand why He chose one way over another, that only testifies to our ignorance.

No God would ever leave something so incredibly simple to chance and then actually make it look like chance.

How many gods do you know, blue? On what basis do you make such an assertion? And if God truly leaves something to chance, why shouldn't we expect it to look like chance?

It is no surprise at all that people who are born into a Christian culture by and large interpret events through that Christian lens. Most Christians are adament that God works continuously in their lives on a daily basis. Yet in another culture it's another God. Am I really supposed to believe that God would work in one area that is already predominently Christian yet do nothing for a bunch of people who believe in pagan Gods and need the truth most of all?

First, who is to say that God isn't working in those other regions? After all, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45). Second, what if people are overinclusive in saying that a god works in their life? If they are, then much of the overlap between cultures disappears. Finally, if God chooses as his means of reaching the world those already converted, and if those converted are going into other nations and trying to make disciples, then isn't God working there, too?

But chance has always been the better explanation. It even explains why on a macro scale some people believe one thing and other people believe something different. Religion ceases to make sense when it attempts to explain these chance events away.

You and I both believe that the sun "rises" and "sets" because of the rotation of the Earth. I believe, beyond that, though, that the universe is upheld by the power of God; that the laws of physics are not sufficient to sustain themselves outside of His will. ("[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Col. 1:17). So, when you say that "chance" explains why some people are born into one culture that never has heard the gospel (which is what we were discussing), I counter that that may not be accurate--there may be more at work that we can't detect just by observing the situation. Of course, it may be entirely accurate, if my first alternative is false. That, of course, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of religion. Not everything must happen for a purpose in order for God to exist. Thus, even if it is mere chance and nothing more, what's your point? What does that have to do with whether God exists, whether man is fallen and justly condemned, whether God sent His Son to die in our place for our sins, whether Christ was then resurrected, and whether through His sacrifice we can be saved? (I realize that this isn't what we were talking about, but you said it was evidence against God's existence. It's nothing of the sort. It is neutral as it relates to God's existence.)

How is this even conceptually possible?

I can know that "just" means "that which is morally merited" without knowing what, in any given situation, is morally merited. I don't know what exactly He considers, or what would mitigate against a harsh penalty--or what, under the circumstances, would be a harsh penalty, but I know that at the end, His decision will be just. To create an amusing and hopefully useful analogy: Imagine you're in a hot-dog factory, watching the machines. You don't know what those machines are putting into that which they are creating, but you know that, at the end of the line, it will be a hot-dog. That's how it is conceptually possible.

think about it, if this idea you present was true, it would literally mean that God created some people JUST so they could be punished with eternal torture. if it was predetermined, if God knew beforehand who he would throw into hell and who would get to heaven... that would effectively mean those people didn't have a choice. they exist merely to be punished and tortured in the most extreme way (Hell).

First, you've made a logical leap. It's understandable that you've made it, but it's unwarranted nonetheless. God is timeless. Saying that He knows something "before" it happens is a sloppy way of getting the point across, but it's the best way I know of. While, to us, time seems like a stream going from A to B to C, there's no reason to assume that God is limited by time in that way. It's as accurate to think of it as God having already experienced the entirety of that person's life, and therefore knowing what that person did choose in the past, as it is to think of it as God predicting how that person will choose in a future, yet-unlived life. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

But, for fun, let's assume that God DOES INDEED predestine some people to be saved and some to be condemned. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory . . . ?" (Rom. 9:20-23). "How can a mortal be righteous before God? Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him. If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, 'What are you doing?' . . . How then can I dispute with him? How can I find words to argue with him? Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy. . . . If it is a matter of strength, he is mighty! And if it is a matter of justice, who will summon him? Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty." (Job 9:2 - 12; 14 - 15; 19 - 20). Of course, the thing to keep in mind is that God would be fully justified in condemning all of humanity to Hell, so no one can complain that they get their just deserts.

As a side-note, Hell may not be all torture and extremes as you've implied. I won't go into it in this post, but you can see this link if you're interested (particularly the second half, though the first sets up the second).

 

[astroturfing]

First, you've made a logical leap. It's understandable that you've made it, but it's unwarranted nonetheless. God is timeless. Saying that He knows something "before" it happens is a sloppy way of getting the point across, but it's the best way I know of. While, to us, time seems like a stream going from A to B to C, there's no reason to assume that God is limited by time in that way. It's as accurate to think of it as God having already experienced the entirety of that person's life, and therefore knowing what that person did choose in the past, as it is to think of it as God predicting how that person will choose in a future, yet-unlived life. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

But, for fun, let's assume that God DOES INDEED predestine some people to be saved and some to be condemned. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory . . . ?" (Rom. 9:20-23). "How can a mortal be righteous before God? Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him. If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, 'What are you doing?' . . . How then can I dispute with him? How can I find words to argue with him? Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy. . . . If it is a matter of strength, he is mighty! And if it is a matter of justice, who will summon him? Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty." (Job 9:2 - 12; 14 - 15; 19 - 20). Of course, the thing to keep in mind is that God would be fully justified in condemning all of humanity to Hell, so no one can complain that they get their just deserts.

As a side-note, Hell may not be all torture and extremes as you've implied. I won't go into it in this post, but you can see this link if you're interested (particularly the second half, though the first sets up the second).

ok, yeah, i can see how you could argue that (the bolded part). but i mean come on.. we're just humans, we can't understand timelessness. so we can't talk about that, it's pointless. we have human understanding, it's all we got, and thats what we gotta use. and my understanding tells me that if a god knows EVERYTHING, he did know at that moment when he created humanity, what would happen to everyone. thats all i need to know about a potential god... so if he exists, he's an asshole and not worth worshipping, because he knew most people would end up in hell, but still went ahead with his plan. and for what?! people who believe in that kind of creator should rebel against the whole sadist plan, and not submit to it like cowards... but that's just how i feel. i wouldn't care about my personal salvation if most other people, like my friends and family, were condemned to hell.

the other bolded part... jesus man! you really think that? that's just so depressingly cynical... how can you view humanity in such an incredible negative way? makes me fucking depressed that people are so hopelessly anti-human... we DESERVE eternal punishment? really?! we're that evil? damnit man.. seriously i'm actually kind of frightened, to know that there are probably millions of people in Christianity/Islam who think that way... that humans are just garbage and we deserve the ultimate punishment even if we did nothing really wrong.. the most awful ideology imaginable really.

and oh yeah, about hell, where in the Bible does it say that hell isn't torture and punishment? i only know about the parts where it says that hell is eternal and really awful... gnashing of teeth and so on.

 

[Slightly Live]

That's not so at all. Certainly we are born with a proclivity to sin, but it is the conscious choice to sin that condemns us, not the proclivity. Some Christians believe that children, for example, are excused for doing what is wrong because they can't yet comprehend its import; they are not culpable for their wrongdoing because they do not do so willfully. In any event, even if we were "born with sin completely independent of any real choice," and condemned on that basis alone, the later real choices we make to sin further justify such condemnation.

What are you talking about? It's clearly put that Christians believe everyone is born into sin, Original sin, derived from the Original sin from the Garden of Eden. Christ's sacrifice absolves this original sin from all of mankind but only if you accept and believe in Christ.

Are you trying to say this isn't the case? Why then is this taught?

Again, the branching and dividing views and interpretations of various Christian denominations muddles the waters quite a bit.

 

[astroturfing]

Again, the branching and dividing views and interpretations of various Christian denominations muddles the waters quite a bit.

no kidding. it almost seems intentional... to make arguing against Christianity harder. maybe a defense mechanism of some sort?

 

[jdogmoney]

I can know that "just" means "that which is morally merited" without knowing what, in any given situation, is morally merited. I don't know what exactly He considers, or what would mitigate against a harsh penalty--or what, under the circumstances, would be a harsh penalty, but I know that at the end, His decision will be just. To create an amusing and hopefully useful analogy: Imagine you're in a hot-dog factory, watching the machines. You don't know what those machines are putting into that which they are creating, but you know that, at the end of the line, it will be a hot-dog. That's how it is conceptually possible.

No, see, it's impossible to know if someone or something is just without knowing what "just" entails.

 

[soul creator]

no kidding. it almost seems intentional... to make arguing against Christianity harder. maybe a defense mechanism of some sort?

A fun thing I like to do is look at religions through an evolutionary lens.

A large gene pool indicates extensive genetic diversity, which is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity (see inbreeding and population bottlenecks) can cause reduced biological fitness and an increased chance of extinction.

seem familiar?

 

[JGS]

according to Christianity the world ISN'T going to end? well that's news to me... i always thought the consensus among Christians is that the Bible teaches the whole world will end, all of existance will stop when Judgement Day comes. but i guess not? i dont understand at all.. if the world is created for us humans like the Bible says (dont tell me this is inaccurate too!?), why would only humans be erased in the end by Jesus/God, but the rest of the universe left just hanging there meaninglessly? makes no sense IMO. the Earth and humans aren't even a spec of dust in the whole cosmos, if God just erases us and the planet... that isn't exactly a very spectacular "Armageddon", heh.

That's not a consensus I'm aware of, but you question makes more sense now if that's what you thought.

I guess you could say the world as we know it ends. But why would you think humans would be wiped off the earth entirely? I also guess you could say the the Earth was made for humans since we adapt to pretty much anything, but I like to think of Earth just being where we live.

also, yes i know the Earth wouldnt be destroyed in the Milky Way/Andromeda merger... that wasnt my point, my point is that Earth WILL be destroyed before the merging is complete. because the Sun will scorch this place with no way to avoid it. so why would God create the galaxies so that it seems to us that they will merge? it's as if the universe will go on even without humanity... and that to me seems contrary to what the Bible teaches, and what most Christians believe. so either most Christians are wrong about their idea of how the world will end, OR their God is a prankster trying to fool scientists.

Sorry I misunderstood, but the universe was going along fine and dandy without people. If no people lived up to God's standards, that's not the fault of the universe. God could just start from scratch. The options I mentioned before would apply or at least two of them.

God could make sure the Sun doesn't supernova but could also move us somewhere else. The universe is a pretty big place. Now if you believe that everyone goes to heaven then the univese could simply be a large playground to observe too or God could start a new creation process on another planet and see if this one goes a little better.

and about the astronauts... what if one of them on Mars isn't "evil"? would Jesus fly there to pick the non-evil person up and leave the others there to rot? such a silly scenario lol.

I suppose that culd be one scenario.:lol

However, at this point I must say I am completely stumped. I do not know.

 

[Mgoblue201]

The idea in the first option presented is that God CAN remove people from environmental factors, and consider how they would behave in any other environment, given any other encounters. If He determines that, given all the factors considered together, a person would never accept Christ, then that person is born somewhere where he or she will never hear the gospel. Note that the idea is the same temporally as geographically. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happens, just saying that the idea of a God who wants people to be saved and the existence of people who will never hear that gospel are not irreconcilable.

It is a possibility. Again, I'm not positing these possibilities as a reason to believe in God. I'm presenting them to show that the existence of a God who wants people to be saved and the existence of people who will never hear the gospel are not irreconcilable. (To be a jerk, I just re-typed the exact same thing I said a moment ago. You're welcome.)

That's not so at all. Certainly we are born with a proclivity to sin, but it is the conscious choice to sin that condemns us, not the proclivity. Some Christians believe that children, for example, are excused for doing what is wrong because they can't yet comprehend its import; they are not culpable for their wrongdoing because they do not do so willfully. In any event, even if we were "born with sin completely independent of any real choice," and condemned on that basis alone, the later real choices we make to sin further justify such condemnation.

He can and does tell people about His master plan. He has provided not only the Bible for much of recorded history, but has commanded the church (by which I mean all Christians) to act as His agents in spreading that message. There are many ways that God could tell people about Himself, sure. And one of those ways is the way He has chosen. "Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:21). In other words, God can consider any number of factors in determining which means to choose to propagate His message. The fact that He chooses one way over another is not reason to believe He doesn't exist. If we do not fully understand why He chose one way over another, that only testifies to our ignorance.

How many gods do you know, blue? On what basis do you make such an assertion? And if God truly leaves something to chance, why shouldn't we expect it to look like chance?

First, who is to say that God isn't working in those other regions? After all, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45). Second, what if people are overinclusive in saying that a god works in their life? If they are, then much of the overlap between cultures disappears. Finally, if God chooses as his means of reaching the world those already converted, and if those converted are going into other nations and trying to make disciples, then isn't God working there, too?

You and I both believe that the sun "rises" and "sets" because of the rotation of the Earth. I believe, beyond that, though, that the universe is upheld by the power of God; that the laws of physics are not sufficient to sustain themselves outside of His will. ("[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Col. 1:17). So, when you say that "chance" explains why some people are born into one culture that never has heard the gospel (which is what we were discussing), I counter that that may not be accurate--there may be more at work that we can't detect just by observing the situation. Of course, it may be entirely accurate, if my first alternative is false. That, of course, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of religion. Not everything must happen for a purpose in order for God to exist. Thus, even if it is mere chance and nothing more, what's your point? What does that have to do with whether God exists, whether man is fallen and justly condemned, whether God sent His Son to die in our place for our sins, whether Christ was then resurrected, and whether through His sacrifice we can be saved? (I realize that this isn't what we were talking about, but you said it was evidence against God's existence. It's nothing of the sort. It is neutral as it relates to God's existence.)

The first point is pure apologetics. There is no theological basis for it, it's incomprehensible why any God would do that, and it's an excuse attempting to hide the fact that religion is nothing more than cultural. Worst of all, it's wrong. The fact that those people who are adopted into different cultures largely pick up the beliefs of that culture means that no one is destined for a particular belief. Furthermore, that argument would obviate the necessity of missionaries, who have attempted to convert millions throughout history. If an African tribe is converted by missionaries, then why those people and not the ones living centuries before? If an old man dies from malaria a week before the missionaries arrived, was he not destined for salvation? You're twisting your arguments in knots trying to assign chance circumstances to an all-powerful being of intent.

There is also no way that this argument can comport with the metaphysical implications of genetics. It is incoherent to say that I can be born to totally different parents in another time and place. The fusion of DNA that results wouldn't be me. I am simply the consciousness that results from my particular biological factors. There is no such thing as an mgoblue201 of Russia or China. That would be someone different. Therefore, God can't just insert people into situations.

I am really not making pressing demands here. I see that the Bible is filled with examples of individuals who are called on by God. Even today there are countless examples of people who claim that God is telling them to do something. Yet God is so silent in other geographical regions that those people don't know a single thing about Jesus. Clearly, God is not working in these areas if they have no conception of sin and salvation. Most cultural ideas of propitiation are closer to pagan beliefs. The Bible doesn't matter if no one has access to one. Missionaries don't matter if they don't have the means to get there. And there is nothing else that these people can do if God won't tell them something basic about himself. Why is it that the Christians are always underestimating the power of God and making excuses for his inaction?

Finally, no, we don't have a choice whether to sin. According to the Bible, we are all born with a sin nature. It's almost like being born with a fatal illness and then you are only offered a conditional cure.

 

[astroturfing]

thanks for replying to my somewhat stupid questions, JGS. those were just some things i've been wanting to ask Christians heh.

it's interesting how you say that God might stop the Sun from going supernova... so you believe in a god that interferes with the universe physically?

let's say a massive asteroid is about to hit earth in a week or two, and it's so massive that it could potentially destroy all life. should we trust God to stop it?

 

[JGS]

thanks for replying to my somewhat stupid questions, JGS. those were just some things i've been wanting to ask Christians heh.

it's interesting how you say that God might stop the Sun from going supernova... so you believe in a god that interferes with the universe physically?

let's say a massive asteroid is about to hit earth in a week or two, and it's so massive that it could potentially destroy all life. should we trust God to stop it?

I like these types of questions. It makes me think. Shanadeus is good at this too.

To answer, I guess you could say that I think God interferes in order to carry out his purposes.

I think God puts a priority on survival of his followers. Biblically speaking, God has routinely made a way for his followers to escape a calamity (This includes Armegeddon). Whether that means that he makes sure there are ways of escape or that their living arrangements (i.e. - Earth) will always be there I don't really know. The writers of the Bible would only be concerned with where they live and where God lives, so they never addressed it.

However, if God has the power to create the universe, he would certainly have the power to stop or skew some natural progression of it to protect his people.

 

[Parl]

Why is God given credit for the good and not the bad?

If someone feeds the poor, God works through them. If someone doesn't, they are a bad person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[astroturfing]

I like these types of questions. It makes me think. Shanadeus is good at this too.

To answer, I guess you could say that I think God interferes in order to carry out his purposes.

I think God puts a priority on survival of his followers. Biblically speaking, God has routinely made a way for his followers to escape a calamity (This includes Armegeddon). Whether that means that he makes sure there are ways of escape or that their living arrangements (i.e. - Earth) will always be there I don't really know. The writers of the Bible would only be concerned with where they live and where God lives, so they never addressed it.

However, if God has the power to create the universe, he would certainly have the power to stop or skew some natural progression of it to protect his people.

well lets put it this way... if scientists all around the world said that the asteroid is coming (in a month, a year, whatever), and will likely destroy humanity. they suggest we start using all our resources to come up with a plan..

there is a vote, use a trillion dollars on the plan to destroy the asteroid before it hits, or not. would you vote yes or no?

who would you place your trust with if we were faced with destruction, our human ingenuity and ability to solve problems, or God?

 

[JGS]

well lets put it this way... if scientists all around the world said that the asteroid is coming (in a month, a year, whatever), and will likely destroy humanity. they suggest we start using all our resources to come up with a plan..

there is a vote, use a trillion dollars on the plan to destroy the asteroid before it hits, or not. would you vote yes or no?

who would you place your trust with if we were faced with destruction, our human ingenuity and ability to solve problems, or God?

The scenario doesn't really involve trusting in God, so I would vote for it. I believe that God expects us to not put him to the test so I wouldn't start at that particular point in time.

I mentioned before that he routinely offered a way out for his worshippers. That did not mean that all of them survived (In a lot of cases it did, but not a guarentee), but as a group they did.

I want to be one of the group that survives!:lol

Now if the scientists said that I had to vote AND renounce God or that the vote would automatically mean I was doing so, I would not be able to do that but that wouldn't be a very scientific request either...

 

[astroturfing]

The scenario doesn't really involve trusting in God, so I would vote for it. I believe that God expects us to not put him to the test so I wouldn't start at that particular point in time.

I mentioned before that he routinely offered a way out for his worshippers. That did not mean that all of them survived (In a lot of cases it did, but not a guarentee), but as a group they did.

I want to be one of the group that survives!:lol

Now if the scientists said that I had to vote AND renounce God or that the vote would automatically mean I was doing so, I would not be able to do that but that wouldn't be a very scientific request either...

alright. i'm not entirely sure if i understand though.

but hey if you're in the group that survies, would you really be happy if many loved ones werent in that group? kind of like going to heaven... would you really enjoy your stay there if people you loved were in hell... IMO it would be kinda selfish..

 

[JGS]

alright. i'm not entirely sure if i understand though.

but hey if you're in the group that survies, would you really be happy if many loved ones werent in that group? kind of like going to heaven... would you really enjoy your stay there if people you loved were in hell... IMO it would be kinda selfish..

Are we still talking asteroids here? I wouldn't have much control over whether I survive or not, I would just want to.

In any event, why would it be selfish to want survival?

On any given day we lose loved ones to death, does that mean I'm not supposed to enjoy my life after they die?

Am I supposed to die with them? Believe me, I will save who I can and would even die for them, but not if they don't to be saved (Literally not spiritually).

I don't hold to an eternal torment belief since the Bible doesn't, but if they chose death over life, I would not end my life over that decision.

Let's say that the asteroid is more localized. They know it's going to hit my state (KY). I round up my stuff, warn all of my friends & family, take who I can and hightail it out of the Bluegrass. What if my stubborn grandma who has been living in the same holler for 70 years refuses to leave her home. Am I supposed to say "OK Grandma I'm staying with you!"?

Selfish or not, I would not.

 

[jdogmoney]

I miss this thread.

How does one reconcile the ideas of free will and original sin?

 

[Metaphoreus]

ok, yeah, i can see how you could argue that (the bolded part). but i mean come on.. we're just humans, we can't understand timelessness. so we can't talk about that, it's pointless.

We humans talk about all kinds of things we have no experience with. Black holes, for example. Or objects existing in more than three spatial dimensions. The limits of our comprehensions are not dictated by the limits of our experience. By way of analogy, consider a computer programmer who creates a virtual world full of A.I. characters. He runs a simulation, and at any point in the simulation can stop the simulation and modify variables or rewrite some of the code; he can also go back to any point during the simulation after the simulation has been completed, and do any of these alterations. During the course of the simulation, the A.I. will decide what to do within the virtual world. After the simulation, our programmer will know what each character did. He can then go back to a point earlier in the simulation, and at that point know what the A.I. will do. If he intervenes in the already-completed simulation after going back to some point during the simulation, the A.I. in the simulation will conceive of that intervention as being temporal. In other words, to the A.I., nothing will distinguish the moment of intervention from any other moment--they all form a logical sequence of events; the A.I. is not aware that the simulation has been completed once. Thus, to the A.I., the programmer may as well be bound by the "time" that is formed by the logical sequence of moments that binds the A.I. itself. Of course, the programmer isn't bound by such simulation-time, but by real-world time. (This analogy is flawed in this manner, of course: the programmer is still bound by time, whereas I said that God is timeless. As a practical matter, however, this is a distinction without a difference. Even if God is bound by a supernatural-time but not by our material-world time, we would perceive the result similarly.)

so if he exists, he's an asshole and not worth worshipping, because he knew most people would end up in hell, but still went ahead with his plan. and for what?!

"And for what?" is a good question. Your concern over what God knew and when He knew it is fair, but your conception of Hell as a place of torture feeds into your revulsion of the idea that God would go forward with a plan in light of how many would end up in Hell. Your final paragraph asked "where in the Bible does it say that hell isn't torture and punishment?" This isn't the correct question. The correct question is, "Where in the Bible does it say that Hell is torture and punishment?" Let's consider some verses:

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

This does not portray Hell as a place of torture, but of shame and contempt.

13:42: "They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
8:11-12: "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

What does "weeping and gnashing of teeth" refer to? First, it's clear that it doesn't refer to screaming in agony. Second, according to some commentators, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" "describes a reaction of persons who have been publicly shamed or dishonored." These are just a couple of examples of what minimal information the Bible provides about Hell. The article I linked you to concludes, "The data would indicate that the primary focus of eternal punishment is the denial of the honor accorded to those who reject God's offer of salvation, and who bear themselves the shame and disgrace Jesus took in their stead." It also links to this article, which goes into the question more in depth (and is part of a larger series addressing your question, beginning here. I haven't read the whole thing, so I don't expect you to. Unless you're interested.)

In brief, if Hell is not defined by torture and physical agony, but instead by mental shame and disgrace, then the threshold for the benefit from creating the universe becomes lower. Indeed, one of the sources in the first link in this post posits, "Those in hell may be almost happy, and this may explain why they insist on staying there. They do not, of course, experience even a shred of genuine happiness. But because they experience a certain perverse sense of satisfaction, a distorted sort of pleasure...Another way of making this point is by noting that something like happiness may be defined, at a very basic level, as getting what one wants. In view of this, it may be that those in hell approximate happiness in some sense because they get what they want. Lewis's character [Big Ghost, in The Great Divorce], for instance, wants to maintain his feeling of superiority over other persons. He wants to hold on to his feeling that he has been treated unfairly. This gives him a feeling of power and indignation which he relishes." If this is so, then the classic defense that people choose to go to Hell becomes all the more palatable. It is in that case an existence not very unlike that which they endured while physically alive, though one marred by a sense of shame and disgrace.

people who believe in that kind of creator should rebel against the whole sadist plan, and not submit to it like cowards... but that's just how i feel. i wouldn't care about my personal salvation if most other people, like my friends and family, were condemned to hell.

Returning to the programmer analogy, do you think it makes much of a difference to the programmer if the A.I. were to decide to "rebel" against him because the A.I. decided that it had a superior sense of morality than its creator? Do you think the A.I. would somehow make itself immune from deletion by doing so? Even assuming that the worst, most hateful god imaginable existed, but that he offered some way out of his torturous intentions, only a fool would think he had anything to gain by "rebelling." Fortunately, that isn't the case at all. Instead, God, after man has already rebelled against His authority, offers mankind a way out of the consequences of its choices. And, of course, you should care about the salvation of your friends and family--a recognition that they are condemned to eternal separation from God should motivate any Christian to try to convince them of the truth of the gospel.

the other bolded part... jesus man! you really think that? that's just so depressingly cynical... how can you view humanity in such an incredible negative way? makes me fucking depressed that people are so hopelessly anti-human... we DESERVE eternal punishment? really?! we're that evil? damnit man.. seriously i'm actually kind of frightened, to know that there are probably millions of people in Christianity/Islam who think that way... that humans are just garbage and we deserve the ultimate punishment even if we did nothing really wrong.. the most awful ideology imaginable really.

It depends on your frame of reference. If you were comparing yourself to, say, Hitler, then you would seem to be doing pretty well. Unfortunately, the bar for eternal life is not set at Hitler. It's set at perfection. By this standard, everyone fails, because no one is sinless. The beauty of the gospel is that God loves us enough to desire our salvation in spite of our insignificance and in spite of our rebellion. In spite of the fact that our righteousness is as "filthy rags" (Is. 64:6) (I leave to you to determine what kind of menstrual image is evoked by that phrase), God gave His Son so that His righteousness would be imputed to us. So, yes, from a universal perspective, humans are just "garbage." But for some reason, the God that created and upholds that massive universe loves us. That doesn't sound very cynical to me.

What are you talking about? It's clearly put that Christians believe everyone is born into sin, Original sin, derived from the Original sin from the Garden of Eden.

Yes, there is division over whether the doctrine of original sin means that Adam's guilt is imputed to all humans. One key verse in developing the doctrine is Romans 5:12: "Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. . . ." Some say that "because all sinned" refers to "all sinning" in Adam. Others reject that interpretation. Regardless, this is another distinction without a practical difference. Whether we are condemned for our personal sins and Adam's sins or merely for our personal sins, the punishment is the same. "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23). "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10). Thus, this isn't even an issue unless a person has led a sinless life. Only that person, who I suggest has never existed, could legitimately complain if Adam's guilt is indeed imputed to all humans.

No, see, it's impossible to know if someone or something is just without knowing what "just" entails.

First, I can know what "justice" means without knowing precisely how it operates in any given concrete case. This is especially so when I don't--because I can't--know all the details of a person's life or experience. Further, any concept of justice that I devise on my own will necessarily be limited by the fact that I, as a human, am incredibly limited in knowledge, morality, and experience. Thus, any conception of justice that I develop from scratch will inevitably be insufficient to judge God's actions. This means that even if God is untrustworthy, and so I should not believe Him when He says He is just, I can never say with certainty that some divine action was unjust. Only by basing my definition of justice in God's nature will I arrive at a concept of justice that could be used in measuring the justice of His actions. But by this standard, whatever God does will inevitably be just! I'm sorry if this answer doesn't satisfy you, but I have a difficult time accepting that a created, temporal being with limited knowledge and ability could ever even hope to develop a sense of morality superior to that of the omniscient, omnipotent, timeless Being that created him.

To summarize, I can't know what justice requires in a concrete case because of my limitations; I can't know what justice is apart from God's revelation of it; to the extent that I do have some notion of justice apart from God's revelation of it, I can only assume that it is flawed in some way.

The first point is pure apologetics. There is no theological basis for it, it's incomprehensible why any God would do that, and it's an excuse attempting to hide the fact that religion is nothing more than cultural.

This is the second time you've complained about a point by saying it's "pure apologetics." What's wrong with "pure apologetics"? Also, you keep forgetting that we aren't talking about religion, but people. As you said, "by random I didn't mean that belief is randomly distributed. I mean that a person being born into an area is random." I disagree that "religion is nothing more than cultural," but the possibility that God distributes people into a culture without contact with the gospel based on how they would respond if they had such contact has nothing to do with whether religion is nothing more than cultural. I disagree with the statement because it seems to preclude that a person can be converted by missionaries from other cultures--that is, it seems to preclude a change in cultural religion over time. I concede that religion is largely cultural, and, without any evidence, surmise that culture is the single most useful predictor of what religion a person will adopt. But that isn't what we're discussing, and proving it true or false would do nothing to advance the discussion.

Furthermore, that argument would obviate the necessity of missionaries

Not so. Missionaries, in Christianity at least, do what they do because they are commanded to. "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19) remains an express, direct command regardless of what God does behind the scenes, or whether He does anything at all. The command is not contingent on anything, but absolute.

If an African tribe is converted by missionaries, then why those people and not the ones living centuries before? If an old man dies from malaria a week before the missionaries arrived, was he not destined for salvation?

I imagine that if an African tribe was converted by missionaries, the reason that that tribe and not one centuries before was converted is because the missionaries had only recently arrived. Or perhaps they had only recently learned the local language. Or only recently gained the trust of the tribesmen. Or any of many other possible reasons. But this has abandoned the subset we were discussing: we aren't interested in tribes with contact with the gospel, but those without such contact.

There is also no way that this argument can comport with the metaphysical implications of genetics. It is incoherent to say that I can be born to totally different parents in another time and place. The fusion of DNA that results wouldn't be me. I am simply the consciousness that results from my particular biological factors.

This assumes that that which outlives the body is the result of biological aspects of the body. Even to the extent that your DNA results in a different consciousness than someone else's DNA, to speak of one's consciousness is not necessarily the same as to speak of his or her spirit.

Finally, no, we don't have a choice whether to sin. According to the Bible, we are all born with a sin nature. It's almost like being born with a fatal illness and then you are only offered a conditional cure.

Come on, at least give me a citation. What's more, your analogy doesn't seem all that terrible to me. At least there's a cure. At least you exist.

Why is God given credit for the good and not the bad?

If someone feeds the poor, God works through them. If someone doesn't, they are a bad person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

This is hardly an example of confirmation bias. Nothing is confirmed by concluding that someone acts for God when he or she feeds the poor, but not when they don't.

As for the question itself, let's say you tell your real estate agent to sell your house if someone offers $100,000. He does. It is appropriate to say you worked through him. If he doesn't, despite your command, have you still worked through him?

How does one reconcile the ideas of free will and original sin?

I don't see that there is a need to. Free will says that a person can choose what he or she will do in any given situation. What he or she does is not caused by an outside force or agent. Even assuming that original sin means that Adam's guilt is imputed to all humanity, this doesn't relate to the ability to choose what to do in a situation.

 

[jdogmoney]

Metaphoreus, I am going to, with one question, explain why the sort of explanations you've given me is scary.

If God told you to kill me, what would you do?

 

[Metaphoreus]

If God told you to kill me, what would you do?

Do you even need to ask?

Now that your heart is racing, let me clarify. As with all aspects of humanity, our ability to commune with God is imperfect. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror." (1 Cor. 13:12; the KJV has the more familiar rendition: "Now we see through a glass, darkly.") Given that this is the case, any Christian would immediately question a command purporting to be from God to kill someone. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." (I John 4:1). In testing a command to kill you, then, I would first determine whether it is in line with what I know God has said through the Bible:

"You shall not murder." (Ex. 20:13). "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matt. 26:52 - 53). "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35). "'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12:20 - 21). "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12). "'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'" (John 3:17). "'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (Matt. 5:44 - 45). "'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" (Matt. 22:36 - 40).

I could likely find more, but I think this is enough for now. To put it briefly, if I was commanded to kill you, I most likely would not, because such a command is against so much of what the Bible teaches that I could not believe that God was commanding it. You are not my enemy, and you are not necessarily God's enemy--His gift is for all who believe, not a select few. (John 3:16). Further, even if it truly was God's command to kill you, and I ignored it on the basis of the above, I would know that that sin--that decision to not do what God commanded--would nevertheless be forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice. (Rom. 8:1). Given these considerations, it seems only rational for a Christian to err on the side of caution should he or she ever receive the command to kill someone.

Now, let me ask you a question:

If an atheist were convinced that Christians and other theists were a threat to humanity, and used the power of the state to compel them to give up their belief on pain of death, on what basis could an individual in a godless universe legitimately criticize that action as immoral?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Apologetics is bad because you have absolutely no biblical basis for any of this, and worse, absolutely no proof. You have yet to answer in any logically cohesive way why god acts as if he really doesn't exist at all. The idea that religion is spread through culture is integral to that debate because the whole point of my argument is to prove that it makes no sense that, given that religion is true, religion is transmitted culturally. That is how we would expect the world to work if there was no god. It is not how we would expect the world to work if there was a god.

Your attempts to explain why a god would work that way just make it more incoherent because the culture that one ends up in is indeed a chance event. You can't admit that religion is cultural but then try to prove that there is some sort of purpose or fairness to that. There is nothing purposeful about cultural arrangement. Some people live to see great cultural shifts. Others don't. And once again, some people ultimately end up believing a religion that is different from the one that they were born into.

Furthermore, I know what the Bible says about missionaries, but the point isn't to prove what the Bible says. Instead, the point is to ask whether it logically makes sense. And you cannot on one hand say that people are deemed receptable enough to be born into a culture where they will hear the gospel, yet on the other hand say that we should desperately try to let others hear about the gospel who have not yet heard it. The former has justice baked in. The latter is about correcting an injustice. These are two diametrically opposed things.

I imagine that if an African tribe was converted by missionaries, the reason that that tribe and not one centuries before was converted is because the missionaries had only recently arrived. Or perhaps they had only recently learned the local language. Or only recently gained the trust of the tribesmen. Or any of many other possible reasons. But this has abandoned the subset we were discussing: we aren't interested in tribes with contact with the gospel, but those without such contact.

Then you are basically admitting that there is nothing fair about why people hear the gospel. It's all based on inherently purposeless and pointless factors such as the time and place of one's birth. If I'm an African tribal member who happened to be born at a time when some English attempted to spread the gospel to my tribe and had the means to do so, then I'm simply lucky. Nothing more.

This assumes that that which outlives the body is the result of biological aspects of the body. Even to the extent that your DNA results in a different consciousness than someone else's DNA, to speak of one's consciousness is not necessarily the same as to speak of his or her spirit.

And what is this spirit? Stripped of all biological aspects such as intelligence, personality, and emotions, what could anyone possibly be? Would a 5'10" Persian from the 4th century BC with a moody disposition and a predilection for alcohol really have the same spirit as a 6'4" American football player who is tough but has a heart of gold? Really? Define the word "being" apart from material contingency. Besides, who we are absolutely affects the decisions we'll make. How does it make any sense to say that I could be me or my brother or George Bush and yet still make the exact same decisions?

Come on, at least give me a citation. What's more, your analogy doesn't seem all that terrible to me. At least there's a cure. At least you exist.

There is Romans 5:18: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

But still, you're asking why it's a bad thing that some people who, without a sin nature, might not have sinned are now condemned simply because they are born into it? Really? It's almost unbelievable to call god just and yet accept this act of incredible injustice. I would rather not be alive than see one man condemned unfairly.

 

[jdogmoney]

If an atheist were convinced that Christians and other theists were a threat to humanity, and used the power of the state to compel them to give up their belief on pain of death, on what basis could an individual in a godless universe legitimately criticize that action as immoral?

Empathy, violation of the social contract, it's kind of a dick move...any number of answers.

I hope you don't plan to bring up the idea that God is necessary for morality. I recently watched a debate on the subject, and every argument the theist made toward that end just made me tired or annoyed. Occasionally both. God as you know him does not have a monopoly on morality.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Do you even need to ask?

Now that your heart is racing, let me clarify. As with all aspects of humanity, our ability to commune with God is imperfect. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror." (1 Cor. 13:12; the KJV has the more familiar rendition: "Now we see through a glass, darkly.") Given that this is the case, any Christian would immediately question a command purporting to be from God to kill someone. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God." (I John 4:1). In testing a command to kill you, then, I would first determine whether it is in line with what I know God has said through the Bible:

"You shall not murder." (Ex. 20:13). "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matt. 26:52 - 53). "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35). "'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12:20 - 21). "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12). "'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'" (John 3:17). "'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (Matt. 5:44 - 45). "'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" (Matt. 22:36 - 40).

I could likely find more, but I think this is enough for now. To put it briefly, if I was commanded to kill you, I most likely would not, because such a command is against so much of what the Bible teaches that I could not believe that God was commanding it. You are not my enemy, and you are not necessarily God's enemy--His gift is for all who believe, not a select few. (John 3:16). Further, even if it truly was God's command to kill you, and I ignored it on the basis of the above, I would know that that sin--that decision to not do what God commanded--would nevertheless be forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice. (Rom. 8:1). Given these considerations, it seems only rational for a Christian to err on the side of caution should he or she ever receive the command to kill someone.

Now, let me ask you a question:

If an atheist were convinced that Christians and other theists were a threat to humanity, and used the power of the state to compel them to give up their belief on pain of death, on what basis could an individual in a godless universe legitimately criticize that action as immoral?

At the risk of making an already lengthy discussion even more lengthy, the response to jdogmoney's question was an incredible copout. The first paragraph is inconsequential. The question isn't whether we know what god is commanding, but whether god would actually command it. The second paragraph is also inconsequential. The commandment was, "Do not murder." It does not say, "Do not kill." The corollary being that the Christian wouldn't define it as murder if God ordered it. And for every verse about peace, I can also find one about violence, including things said by Jesus himself. I did not come to bring peace but a sword, etc. I can point to the numerous killings in the OT by the Israelites. I can point to the grizzling stoning of Achan, his offspring, and his livestock as propitiation for some curse. I can offer a hundred more examples just like this.

The last question isn't analogous at all. jdogmoney's question was intended to show the total lack of any moral basis or orientation that religion has. God could order anyone's death, and it must be true because god is completely moral. There is no way to actually evaluate the morality of god's claim. Trying to turn that around on non-believers doesn't work because we already know that there isn't an objective basis for morality. That isn't an argument. That's simply a statement of fact. Too many Christians try to essentially make an emotional appeal. People want a basis for morality, but that doesn't make it true. What a Christian must show is that the entire existence of the concept of morality is contingent on god, but that's impossible to show, not least because religion offers the same moral haziness as atheism or agnosticism. It doesn't clarify anything. People justify bad actions through religion not because they are misguided, but because it's an inherent problem with religion that god's claims cannot be vetted or evaluated for their moral fortitude.

 

[Earthstrike]

Well, with age I've learned to stay out of these kinds of "debates" because in general most people don't really seem to have any kind of perspective about what they're talking about, or understand the origins of their own beliefs, but I did just think of something that I thought would be interesting to share.


Can god destroy information?

Information, is knowledge codified in the physical form (at least in the purpose of this question). In order for information to be destroyed, the knowledge it contains must also be gone. If god is omniscient, information can only be destroyed at a loss of the previous quality. If god is always omniscient, information cannot be destroyed.

And if you respond to this, please refrain from "stupid scenarios". e.g. "well, the knowledge can be in something else, so he can destroy the information and still have the knowledge". I also don't feel like listening to responses like "He can, but wouldn't".

Hopefully this is an interesting question.

 

[BocoDragon]

Well, with age I've learned to stay out of these kinds of "debates" because in general most people don't really seem to have any kind of perspective about what they're talking about, or understand the origins of their own beliefs, but I did just think of something that I thought would be interesting to share.


Can god destroy information?

Information, is knowledge codified in the physical form (at least in the purpose of this question). In order for information to be destroyed, the knowledge it contains must also be gone. If god is omniscient, information can only be destroyed at a loss of the previous quality. If god is always omniscient, information cannot be destroyed.

And if you respond to this, please refrain from "stupid scenarios". e.g. "well, the knowledge can be in something else, so he can destroy the information and still have the knowledge". I also don't feel like listening to responses like "He can, but wouldn't".

Hopefully this is an interesting question.

Is this like saying...

Assume Plato's "forms" really do exist.. Could God destroy them?

I doubt many people will have any agreement about what you mean by "information".

 

[Earthstrike]

Is this like saying...

Assume Plato's "forms" really do exist.. Could God destroy them?

I doubt many people will have any agreement about what you mean by "information".

Well, I defined information for the purpose of my question. I know people may think information has another definition and they are right, except I simply had to use that term to best express what I meant.

Really this question is a lot more about quantum mechanics than anything. One peculiar observation in this field is that what we observe is related to what we know. A great example is the double slit experiment where the diffraction pattern is affected by whether or not we are aware of which slit the wave/particle object is travelling through. The result of the experiment is contingent on the awareness of certain information. If god has given the universe "laws" then many events would require a lack of knowledge on god's behalf.

The only reason I didn't want to go into saying something like that, is that now, debate on such an issue will readily be halted by people saying things to the effect of "God can pick and choose where the laws of the universe are violated". Not because this is necessarily incorrect, but because its a trivial solution.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Can god destroy information?

Information, is knowledge codified in the physical form (at least in the purpose of this question). In order for information to be destroyed, the knowledge it contains must also be gone. If god is omniscient, information can only be destroyed at a loss of the previous quality. If god is always omniscient, information cannot be destroyed.

And if you respond to this, please refrain from "stupid scenarios". e.g. "well, the knowledge can be in something else, so he can destroy the information and still have the knowledge". I also don't feel like listening to responses like "He can, but wouldn't".

Hopefully this is an interesting question.

Its a rather classical paradox, non?

"Can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?"

Or we can imagine a box. In this box it says

"Everything in this box is false"

So everything in the box cannot be false. Which means everything in the box is false. Which means I'm developing a headache.

aka the Liar's Paradox

Strange Loops are strange.

But to attempt to answer your question, first I understand "physical forms" to be based on information. It is not information itself. The Physical is an 'arrangement' of information. Physical forms are entropic. Information is negatively entropic. Negentropy. Yes?

So "in order for information to be destroyed"... I suppose the hidden variables of Bohm, the implicit order that implies the information (that implies the universe where information cannot be destroyed)... would have to be destroyed. If we assume 'God' is related to the hidden variables, I assume it would no longer be um.. informative?

 

[Pandaman]

Now, let me ask you a question:

If an atheist were convinced that Christians and other theists were a threat to humanity, and used the power of the state to compel them to give up their belief on pain of death, on what basis could an individual in a godless universe legitimately criticize that action as immoral?

well, personal believe isn't a good basis to determine actions of the state.

if an atheist could demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that theists are a threat to humanity [religion is a magnet for worldshattering comets or something], would it still be a problem?

 

[jdogmoney]

Good explanation.

It's like you see my ideas before I express them stupidly.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

There was an individual thread on Buddhism some time ago but I can't find it... can anyone link me to it?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Apologetics is bad because you have absolutely no biblical basis for any of this, and worse, absolutely no proof.

That isn't a fault with the proposals I've made. In trying to reconcile Concept A and Concept B, all that need be shown is that Reconciling Concept C is possible. So long as it isn't false, it need not be affirmatively proven true. The point is that, given this possible reconciliation, the two concepts do not necessarily conflict with each other. Unless and until that reconciliation is proven false, it remains a possible explanation how two potentially conflicting concepts could coexist. To say that I must have a Biblical basis for the proposed reconciliation is to foreclose the use of logic without justification. At worst, the proposals are analogous to scientific hypotheses in which two apparently conflicting data are reconciled, but before the hypothesis has been tested.

You have yet to answer in any logically cohesive way why god acts as if he really doesn't exist at all. The idea that religion is spread through culture is integral to that debate because the whole point of my argument is to prove that it makes no sense that, given that religion is true, religion is transmitted culturally. That is how we would expect the world to work if there was no god. It is not how we would expect the world to work if there was a god.

If I understand you correctly, your argument amounts to: 1.) If religion is true, it would not be transmitted culturally. 2.) Religion is transmitted culturally. 3.) Therefore, religion is not true. The logic is sound, but your first premise is not. How does a non-cultural transmission of religion flow necessarily from the truth of religion? I'm at a loss as to how you know what we would expect regarding the transmission of religion "if there was a god" as opposed to if there was none.

You can't admit that religion is cultural but then try to prove that there is some sort of purpose or fairness to that. There is nothing purposeful about cultural arrangement. Some people live to see great cultural shifts. Others don't.

I never said that there was a purpose to religion being cultural. I also never said anything about the fairness of the cultural transmission of religion. Additionally, the fact that there are certain results does not disprove a purpose underlying those results. Thus, that "some people live to see great cultural shifts" while "others don't" doesn't indicate that "there is nothing purposeful about cultural arrangement." It only indicates that "some people live to see great cultural shifts" but "others don't."

And you cannot on one hand say that people are deemed receptable enough to be born into a culture where they will hear the gospel, yet on the other hand say that we should desperately try to let others hear about the gospel who have not yet heard it.

I won't argue for the sake of argument. The first proposal I suggested is an outgrowth of Molinism, and doesn't raise the same questions the proposal does taken out of that context. According to Molinism, God has three kinds of knowledge with regards to His creation, arranged in a logical sequence. First, His natural knowledge of all possible universes. Second, His middle knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (such as that "If X were in circumstance C, then he would freely do action A.") This knowledge is contingent on the actual choice of X; if X would actually freely do action B in Circumstance C, then God would know that he would freely do action B in Circumstance C, rather than A. God then actualizes a possible world by creating it, and on that basis has "free knowledge" of all other true propositions. (Ex., "God created the earth." This would not have been true had he not done so, and so is contingent on His having actualized that particular universe.) Based on this, God could choose to create a world in which only those who would not accept the gospel will never hear it. The difference between this understanding and that which I originally posited is that God does not "now" determine what X would do in all circumstances and therefore decide where and when to place X in the world. Instead, He knew what X would freely do given the available circumstances prior to the creation of the world, and therefore could have chosen not to create a world in which any individual who would believe the gospel if he or she heard it would not hear it. The significance of this difference for missionary work is that, while not going would not result in someone being condemned who would otherwise have believed (since that possibility is foreclosed under this theory), going could nevertheless result in more people being converted. If God knew that X would go to Country Q and spread the gospel there, then He could create people in Q who would (freely) respond positively to that message, whereas He would not create such people if X did not go to Q.

And what is this spirit? Define the word "being" apart from material contingency.

being: (1)(a) The quality or state of having existence. (b)(i) Something conceivable as existing. (b)(ii) Something that actually exists. (b)(iii) The totality of existing things. (c) Conscious existence: life. (2) The qualities that constitute an existing thing: essence, especially: personality. (3) A living thing, especially: person.

Material contingency is clearly not a necessary component of "being."

There is Romans 5:18: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

This verse might support the view of original sin that "condemnation"--punishment--passed to all men by Adam's trespass, but not that a sin nature did.

But still, you're asking why it's a bad thing that some people who, without a sin nature, might not have sinned are now condemned simply because they are born into it? Really? It's almost unbelievable to call god just and yet accept this act of incredible injustice. I would rather not be alive than see one man condemned unfairly.

What reason is there to believe such people would exist? If no such person would exist, then you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that no injustice has been done. Second, it's difficult to blame God for the result of Adam's sin, regardless of what that consequence is. Perhaps the better analogy is a disease manufactured by your ancestors that is transmitted from mother to child, and God offers a cure for that disease.

Empathy, violation of the social contract, it's kind of a dick move...any number of answers.

Those may be fine reasons to oppose the action, but why would those make it immoral?

I hope you don't plan to bring up the idea that God is necessary for morality.

I did. This guy agrees. I also planned on pointing out that you have more reason to fear such atheists with political power than the occasional person who believes God has ordered him or her to kill another. (2 points: first, the hypothetical I proposed targeted the religious specifically; this comparison does not distinguish between religious-motivated democide and non-religious-motivated democide. It still illustrates the extent to which these regimes were willing to go to create their ideal world, however. Second, these statistics are just interesting even outside of this context. Notably, the institution of the state is culpable in all these cases, by definition, which is also true of historic religious persecutions such as the Inquisition.)

if an atheist could demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that theists are a threat to humanity [religion is a magnet for worldshattering comets or something], would it still be a problem?

You tell me. Was there even a problem originally?

The question isn't whether we know what god is commanding, but whether god would actually command it.

The question was, "If God told you to kill me, what would you do?" Please don't accuse me of "copping out" if you don't even comprehend the question at issue.

including things said by Jesus himself. I did not come to bring peace but a sword, etc.

Context: "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. . . . Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. . . . Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:17 - 18; 21 -23; 34 - 39, emphasis added).

Now you tell me, is that a literal sword--meaning Christ is commanding His disciples to kill their families--or a figurative sword, indicating division? Consider especially the italicized verse. Do you think Christ is recommending violence there?

I can point to the numerous killings in the OT by the Israelites.

You could, but under either my construction of the question or your misconstruction of the question, that would be irrelevant. For me, the question is not, "What did God command the Israelites operating under the Old Covenant while He was trying to establish the nation of Israel in the face of a hostile enemy 3,000 years ago?", but "What does God command Christians under the New Covenant?" I then compare what God commands Christians against what I might otherwise believe to be a personal command to kill jdogmoney, and find that putative command wanting. The question you posed was "Would God command Metaphoreus to kill jdogmoney?", or, more broadly, "Would God command Person X to kill another?" Once again, there is a temporal element to consider, and that element makes bringing in the Old Testament inapposite.

jdogmoney's question was intended to show the total lack of any moral basis or orientation that religion has. God could order anyone's death, and it must be true because god is completely moral. There is no way to actually evaluate the morality of god's claim.

Yes, God could order anyone's death. He could even kill the person Himself. That doesn't mean that God's commands are not the foundation for human morality. Even assuming that God would command someone's death (today), the existence of an exception does not disprove the existence of a rule. The fear that God would tomorrow order that rape and murder are moral is absurd; God's commands flow from His nature. His nature is unchanging. (Mal. 3:6). The Christian therefore absolutely has a stronger claim to an objective morality than the atheist. (Incidentally, one of these guys would disagree with your matter-of-fact statement that there is no objective morality for atheists.) Further, Christians do not appeal to emotion when they discuss objective morality so much as common sense. It is a universal understanding that some things are right and some wrong. Again, what is right and wrong may vary on the margins, but that some things are right and some things are wrong is universally understood. To borrow from your playbook, this is exactly what we would expect in a world with objective morality. That is not what we would expect in a world without objective morality. By your own admission, the existence of objective morality implies the existence of God.

People justify bad actions through religion not because they are misguided, but because it's an inherent problem with religion that god's claims cannot be vetted or evaluated for their moral fortitude.

This is an awfully vague contention. Are we talking all religions here, or did you have specific evidentiary examples in mind?

 

[Slightly Live]

The Christian therefore absolutely has a stronger claim to an objective morality than the atheist.

:lol

No.

 

[jdogmoney]

Those may be fine reasons to oppose the action, but why would those make it immoral?

Because that's what morality is. How you act.

God's morality, such that it is, is not given special rights to the word moral or any derivation thereof.

My moral code is strong. It does not derive from God. I may have come to a few of the same conclusions as God's alleged moral code, but that doesn't mean my standards are inherently part of His.

I did. This guy agrees. I also planned on pointing out that you have more reason to fear such atheists with political power than the occasional person who believes God has ordered him or her to kill another. (2 points: first, the hypothetical I proposed targeted the religious specifically; this comparison does not distinguish between religious-motivated democide and non-religious-motivated democide. It still illustrates the extent to which these regimes were willing to go to create their ideal world, however. Second, these statistics are just interesting even outside of this context. Notably, the institution of the state is culpable in all these cases, by definition, which is also true of historic religious persecutions such as the Inquisition.)

Well, if we're going that route, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Osama bin Laden something something 9/11.

I cannot recollect a single war that was started in the name of atheism.

[I think that's rather a false comparison; surely you would fear that same "God said to kill you" guy a lot more if he had political power.]

The question was, "If God told you to kill me, what would you do?" Please don't accuse me of "copping out" if you don't even comprehend the question at issue.

[snip]

The question you posed was "Would God command Metaphoreus to kill jdogmoney?", or, more broadly, "Would God command Person X to kill another?"

HOLD IT!.jpg

I think this is stepping around the real issue, here, and it's certainly obscuring the point I wanted to make, way back.

The point is, if your God said "Go kill jdogmoney." and you knew for a fact he was God, which you do in this hypothetical, you would. You'd have to! The greatest sin is going against God's will. If you refused out of a fondness for my whimsical charms, you and all of your descendants for the rest of time would be cursed. You would have to kill me, for the sake of your children and your children's children. You see, this terrifies the fuck out of me.

His nature is unchanging. (Mal. 3:6). The Christian therefore absolutely has a stronger claim to an objective morality than the atheist. (Incidentally, one of these guys would disagree with your matter-of-fact statement that there is no objective morality for atheists.) Further, Christians do not appeal to emotion when they discuss objective morality so much as common sense. It is a universal understanding that some things are right and some wrong. Again, what is right and wrong may vary on the margins, but that some things are right and some things are wrong is universally understood. To borrow from your playbook, this is exactly what we would expect in a world with objective morality. That is not what we would expect in a world without objective morality. By your own admission, the existence of objective morality implies the existence of God.

Firstly, :lol . If it's an objective morality, everyone has the same claim.

Secondly, if God = Jesus, then his nature sure as hell (ha) does change. The same entity that encouraged slavery, complete eradication of peoples, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and every other terrible thing in the Old Testament is NOT the same personality that encouraged loving thy neighbor and judging not and stuff.

I mean, look at Leviticus 19:15

Spoiler

"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

and Matthew 7:1

Spoiler

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

 

[Mgoblue201]

Internal consistency does not make something logically coherent. It only means that you're observing proper form. Besides, I can't logically conclude that an idea lacking in thousands of years of theological basis isn't just an excuse by you to absolve a clear logical problem?

Furthermore, yes, I do expect that a god who meticulously details his plan in a book and sends out missionaries and makes prophecies and talks to people through divine intervention, the god detailed in the bible, would let people know about his plan and not work out this bizarre system in which people are playing stupid, pre-arranged roles on Earth. If it's the latter, then he might as well judge us all right now. Otherwise, if you're saying that this bizarre logic with no proof could be true, then you're almost saying that anything can be true. Theology, as it has been said many times, truly is the naked emperor. By potentially wearing any imaginary clothes, it's actually wearing nothing. I could put on a thousand different theologies, each one affecting who I am and how I act. God, then, is truly unknowable because even the most basic tenets of theology are guess work. Some people are creationists. Some people are theistic evolutionists. Some people believe in eternal hell. Some don't. Some believe in free will. Others don't. The truth is completely obfuscated.

The Molinism explanation is, safe to say, nothing more than philosophical masturbation. The idea that god creates people in certain places based on whether or not they would believe is pretty intellectually elastic, but this is just untenable. Why create non-believers amongst believers anyway? Why create the African tribesmen and then make the missionaries go where they could be killed, when he can just put them from birth in a position to believe? Why do children adopted from foreign lands convert, when they could have just been born in a Christian culture anyway? If people are going to believe or disbelieve based regardless of anything that happens, then why go through this bizarre setup? It goes back to the same fundamental problem. Purpose becomes absolutely indistinguishable from chance events, and god is either a very creepy guy who likes toying with people or doesn't exist. I have no reason to believe that he exists, therefore he is negligent in his desire to convince people to believe.

being: (1)(a) The quality or state of having existence. (b)(i) Something conceivable as existing. (b)(ii) Something that actually exists. (b)(iii) The totality of existing things. (c) Conscious existence: life. (2) The qualities that constitute an existing thing: essence, especially: personality. (3) A living thing, especially: person.

Material contingency is clearly not a necessary component of "being."

The definition is just a definition, and none of them touch upon who a person actually is. It obviously won't draw out its own metaphysical implications. Just existing isn't good enough because a rock can exist. Life doesn't work either. A bacteria has life. A personality, a person? No, there are six billion of those in the world. There has to be something more to define an individual in relationship to being. If everything that makes me who I am is altered, then how could I be the same being? If I'm someone else with totally different qualities, then how can I make similar choices?

This verse might support the view of original sin that "condemnation"--punishment--passed to all men by Adam's trespass, but not that a sin nature did.

One sin condemned all men. It's the same thing. I'm condemned regardless of what I did.

What reason is there to believe such people would exist? If no such person would exist, then you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that no injustice has been done. Second, it's difficult to blame God for the result of Adam's sin, regardless of what that consequence is. Perhaps the better analogy is a disease manufactured by your ancestors that is transmitted from mother to child, and God offers a cure for that disease.

If there is no one who would ever not sin, then I blame God, because it can't be a choice if everyone does the exact same thing. That would have to mean some quality that people are predisposed to. Furthermore, God would still be to blame for creating the system that transmitted the disease. According to classical theology, angels have individual choices whether or not to disobey, but not humans for whatever reason.

The question was, "If God told you to kill me, what would you do?" Please don't accuse me of "copping out" if you don't even comprehend the question at issue.

It's pretty clear that he was talking about a morals issue - would god command it? - not a communications issue. The latter could be pertinent, but it doesn't prove whether or not god would do the former.

In fact, the whole point that he was trying to make is that if there one example of god ordering someone to kill a person, then it could happen to anyone under the right circumstances because it proves that it is moral. As you said, god's morality is supposed to be unchanging. It doesn't matter whether there is an old or new covenant. God's rules still apply. God orders people to kill children or adults for heresy or bouts of immorality. It's right there in the bible. If god thinks that I'm a horrible person for my heresy and thinks that I deserve death, well then, who are you to argue? It doesn't matter if Jesus ordered the persecuted to flee in this one circumstance. We know that god ordered deaths. The fact that he said a non-existent deity should be placed above your own family is actually a pretty egregious thought.

Lastly, nothing else you said lends any proof that morality can actually be known. A mad man who thinks he's taking dictations from god such as Hitler is just as dangerous as any atheist. Any claims that other people are wrong in the eyes of god are just claims that you believe to be true, not what is actually true. Again, the bible won't help us here. It proves that god can order justified killings on even a war-like scale. Don't you just hate it when there's that possibility without any proof?

It's like you see my ideas before I express them stupidly.

I thought that your question was rather poignant and cut to the heart of the issue.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Human beings create meaning and morality from a universe that has neither. It just is.

 

[Mgoblue201]

There was an individual thread on Buddhism some time ago but I can't find it... can anyone link me to it?

By the way, I did a search and couldn't find the thread. Do you remember something about the title?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

By the way, I did a search and couldn't find the thread. Do you remember something about the title?

Not completely. I tried every variation on the title (and even remember some of the content) but it seems to have vanished...

 

[jdogmoney]

Again, what is right and wrong may vary on the margins, but that some things are right and some things are wrong is universally understood. To borrow from your playbook, this is exactly what we would expect in a world with objective morality. That is not what we would expect in a world without objective morality. By your own admission, the existence of objective morality implies the existence of God.

Thirdly, would you kindly explain the bolded bit? I don't understand how everybody agreeing with something equates to objective morality equates to God exists.

The universal understanding that some things are right and some things are wrong is because of the fundamental meaning of the words. It's only because we have the concepts of "right" and "wrong" that we can all agree on some things being right. (I tried to think of an example upon which everyone is in universal agreement, but I honestly couldn't think of one.)

[If there were things universally considered repugnant, or morally correct or whatever, I still don't see how that implies a creator. Why wouldn't...say...our evolutionary drive be considered the basis of morality? Or...Andre the Giant. Or Epicurus. Or some philosophy that everyone realizes is a good one to have.]

 

[Mgoblue201]

I should also clarify something, now that jdogmoney has brought it up. No, I don't think that objective morality implies the existence of god. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is an impossible concept. There are three major dilemmas when attempting to find a source for morality (I know that this is similar to the old Greek one, but I've added a third to silence modern objections). If god commands something, then it is merely good because god commands it. If there is an independent standard, then god is merely subservient to that.

But if morality flows from the very nature of god, as Christians say, then the problem is ostensibly the same as the first. Why should god's nature be the way it is? How do we independently test that? And even if we could test it, immorality would be nothing more than disobedience. Therefore, whatever god commands must be good, because god cannot command anything that is not moral. Morality, then, becomes a tautology. Good is whatever god does. It's impossible to independently confirm what is good. So if god really does want me dead, then there is no way to confirm whether that is good. One may be able to say that this simply requires faith, but the argument is not: god exists, therefore there is objective morality. The argument is: there is objective morality, therefore god exists. This also imperils the second problem because that too relies upon the notion that there is an independent standard for objective morality.

jdogmoney is also right. Morality is nothing more than trying to apply values to individual actions. That a concept exists simply means that it exists. To say that morality is "universally understood" actually means nothing when you unpack the phrasing. Because we have a concept like morality doesn't mean that it was divinely inspired. Meerkats have a moral structure. It's simply the product of social behavior. Nor does it make any sense to say that one true morality is universally understood. Murder, for instance, is an empty phrase. Everybody may be against murder. But if one person thinks that capital punishment is murder and another doesn't, then they're on two completely different sides. A pacifist won't say that he has anything in common on these grounds with a supporter of the Iraq war. Nor will a terrorist with someone being terrorized. None of these people think that they're wrong. Everybody is right in their own eyes. So attempting to find a standard amongst the actions of people is impossible. There is none.

 

[jdogmoney]

Man, why do folks always disappear right when it gets interesting?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry, jdogmoney. I'm pretty busy right now, and don't have a lot of time to type up long replies. I'll see if I can get something posted in the next couple of days.

EDIT:

There are three major dilemmas when attempting to find a source for morality (I know that this is similar to the old Greek one, but I've added a third to silence modern objections). If god commands something, then it is merely good because god commands it. If there is an independent standard, then god is merely subservient to that.

But if morality flows from the very nature of god, as Christians say, then the problem is ostensibly the same as the first. Why should god's nature be the way it is? How do we independently test that?

That isn't the problem. The question isn't, "Why should God's nature be as it is?" The point is merely that it is as it is. Your next question gets to the crux of the matter.

And even if we could test it, immorality would be nothing more than disobedience. Therefore, whatever god commands must be good, because god cannot command anything that is not moral. Morality, then, becomes a tautology. Good is whatever god does.

As I said before, sin is doing that which we are commanded not to, or not doing that which we are commanded to do. In other words, as you say, "immorality is disobedience." While it follows that whatever God commands must be good, it does not follow that morality is a tautology. Good is what God is by His nature. God's commands are consistent with His nature. Therefore, His commands are good not because He commanded them, but because they comport with His essential nature.

To say that morality is "universally understood" actually means nothing when you unpack the phrasing. Because we have a concept like morality doesn't mean that it was divinely inspired. Meerkats have a moral structure. It's simply the product of social behavior. Nor does it make any sense to say that one true morality is universally understood. Murder, for instance, is an empty phrase. Everybody may be against murder. But if one person thinks that capital punishment is murder and another doesn't, then they're on two completely different sides.

First, what makes you say meerkats have a moral structure? Is it merely by analogizing meerkat behavior with human behavior? Or do you mean to say "social structure"? Do the meerkats perceive that to do one action is right and not to do it would be wrong?

Second, if everyone is against murder, then it clearly isn't an empty word. Though they may vary about whether capital punishment is murder, that doesn't indicate that they disagree about what murder is. They just disagree about what capital punishment is. The same is true of your other arguments. For example, say that murder is defined as "unjustified killing." Everyone can be against an unjustified killing, showing that it is a universally understood moral value, yet disagree about whether a certain killing is unjustified. Thus, the terrorist may say, along with his victim, "I oppose unjustified killing," yet when the terrorist blows up his victim, the terrorist may think that killing is justified. So you have established nothing.

 

[Metaphoreus]

1.) Sorry for the double post. I wanted to make sure you guys knew I posted a response. Note that I've added in my response to Mgoblue201's second post in the post above this one.
2.) I won't be able to answer your responses for about three weeks, so don't fret when you don't hear from me.
And with that out of the way:

Because that's what morality is. How you act.

My moral code is strong. It does not derive from God. I may have come to a few of the same conclusions as God's alleged moral code, but that doesn't mean my standards are inherently part of His.

Morality is not how you act. Morality is how you ought to act. Why ought not a person violate the social contract? or why ought not a person do that which you consider a "dick move"?

As for God's morality, assume that God exists and that His commands concerning morality are purely arbitrary. Now assume that He created the entire universe, and that the universe would not be able to continue existing for even a moment without His continued will that it exist. Now imagine that you die and come face to face with that God, to be judged according to some standard of morality. Do you think He'll use His, or yours, or someone else's? This thought exercise should show that, assuming God exists, His morality is inherently more relevant than anyone else's. (Now, assume that He judges you using your moral code. How do you stack up? Have you, do you, and will you continue to always do only that which you think is right? If not, you fail even under the far lower standard of your own morality.)

Regarding your own moral code, I don't see what that has to do with the existence of an objective moral code that has God's commands as its basis. The existence of your independent moral code does not indicate the non-existence of an objective moral code that yours may be contrary to, any more than the color-blind individual's failure to distinguish between red and green indicates that the existence of such distinction is a fiction.

Well, if we're going that route, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Osama bin Laden something something 9/11.

I cannot recollect a single war that was started in the name of atheism.

[I think that's rather a false comparison; surely you would fear that same "God said to kill you" guy a lot more if he had political power.]

Was Hitler a Roman Catholic? This guy isn't so sure:

It is possible that Hitler had by 1941 experienced some kind of deconversion or disillusionment with Christianity. Or is the resolution of the contradictions simply that he was an opportunistic liar whose words cannot be trusted, in either direction?

Here's Wikipedia on Hitler's religion. I would place Bush in the same "opportunistic liar" category that Dawkins suggests for Hitler, as with most politicians. For obvious reasons the bin Laden reference is irrelevant.

I can't think of any wars started in the name of atheism, either, but this is hardly relevant. The historical evidence simply doesn’t support fearing religious rulers as much as atheist rulers. Religious rulers have ruled nations for thousands of years; Christian rulers for at least 1600, yet nowhere do we see the kind of consistent and mass killings such as we find perpetrated by state atheists. Let’s compare the death tolls from a few state atheist regimes (as listed by Wikipedia) and, say, the Spanish Inquisition, the latter of which we can almost certainly regard as having been perpetrated by people who believed they were doing God’s work:

U.S.S.R. (1917 – 1987): 28.3 million (404,286)
People’s Republic of China (1949 – 1987): 6 million (157,895)
North Korea (1948 – 1987): 710,000 (18,205)
Cambodia (1975 – 1979): 635,000 (158,750)
Pedalcyclists killed in traffic crashes (1932 – 2008): 53,000 (697)
Cuba (1959 – 1987): 35,000 (1,250)
Albania (1944 – 1987): 25,000 (581)
Mexico (1920 – 1929): 5,000 (556)
Spanish Inquisition (1540 – 1700): 5,000 (31)

A few notes about the above: I’ve selected the nations and time periods based on the Wikipedia articles. The death tolls are the low estimates for each of the state atheist nations. The numbers are remarkably low for a number of the nations. More recent estimates—and the ones relied on by Rummel on his main page—have the U.S.S.R. at 62 million for 1917 – 1987, China at 76 million for 1949 – 1987, and North Korea at 1.6 million for 1948 to 1987. The Spanish Inquisition statistic is the highest listed estimate provided by Wikipedia. Listed beside each of the above is the average annual death toll. I’ve inserted the number of pedalcyclists killed in the U.S. as a useful comparison. Those statistics are from here.

Given all of the above, your argument that one should more fear someone in power who believes God is telling him to kill someone rings pretty hollow. The fear of an atheist in power is clearly more justified by the historical data than the similar fear of a religious individual in power. (At least on the basis of the Spanish Inquisition, which is often cited as the worst of the Church's abuses.)

HOLD IT!.jpg

I think this is stepping around the real issue, here, and it's certainly obscuring the point I wanted to make, way back.

The point is, if your God said "Go kill jdogmoney." and you knew for a fact he was God, which you do in this hypothetical, you would. You'd have to! The greatest sin is going against God's will. If you refused out of a fondness for my whimsical charms, you and all of your descendants for the rest of time would be cursed. You would have to kill me, for the sake of your children and your children's children. You see, this terrifies the fuck out of me.

First of all, I know what point you were trying to make, and I know what question you asked. The only thing obscuring the former was the latter, and I can't be blamed for that.

Second, I can see where your terror comes from, but that is a misunderstanding of Christianity. "The greatest sin" is not "going against God's will." Going against God's will is the definition of sin. In fact, even if I knew that God told me to kill you, and I refused, neither I nor my descendants (for any of time) would therefor be cursed. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1). This was written by a man who is first introduced in the New Testament holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen for the crime of being a Christian (Acts 7:58). Paul (then Saul) was deeply involved the persecution of Christians (Acts 9:1 - 2), yet God was able to forgive his sins because of Christ's sacrifice. It's difficult to think of something that would more strongly go against God's will than the persecution of His chosen people. Paul wrote of himself, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life." (1 Tim. 1:15 - 16). In sum, even if God told me to kill you, and I was certain that it was God, and everyone in the world concurred that God had told me to kill you--even if you yourself agreed--but I didn't kill you, I wouldn't be condemned therefor. It would probably be a poor choice, since you would then likely turn out to be some kind of serial killer or something, but it wouldn't affect my salvation, because salvation is not earned, but given freely. (Eph. 2: 8 - 9)

Firstly, :lol .

I think you've misunderstood this discussion. The question is whether there can be an objective morality if there is no God. Assuming that Christianity is true, there is an objective morality--a morality that exists whether anyone believes in it or not. Assuming that atheism is true, can it be said that there is an objective morality? If not, then "the Christian therefore absolutely has a stronger claim to an objective morality than the atheist."

Secondly, if God = Jesus, then his nature sure as hell (ha) does change.

Keeping in mind that the following is in the context of the above statement:

encouraged slavery

Encouraged?

complete eradication of peoples

"The present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." 2 Pet. 3:7
"Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:18

the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

"'If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. . . . And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.'" (Matt. 10: 14 - 15; 11: 23 - 24)

I mean, look at Leviticus 19:15 ("In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.") and Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, that ye be not judged.")

Context: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." (Leviticus 19:15)
"'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.'" (Matt. 7:1 - 5)

It seems to me that these two verses, which you implied were contradictory, are in fact saying the exact same thing. Christ even states that once you have taken the "plank out of your own eye," you can successfully "remove the speck from your brother's eye"--i.e., judge him.

Internal consistency does not make something logically coherent. It only means that you're observing proper form. Besides, I can't logically conclude that an idea lacking in thousands of years of theological basis isn't just an excuse by you to absolve a clear logical problem?

Here is what an excuse would be: "I don't have to address that argument because it isn't thousands of years old." Here's another: "This argument is, safe to say, philosophical masturbation." Review my posts, and review your posts. Do you see anything like that somewhere?

If it's the latter, then he might as well judge us all right now.

Say that God did judge us all right now. What would be the effect? Assuming Christianity is true, the effect would be that those who have placed their faith in Christ as an atonement for their sins will be saved, and those who have not will be condemned. It only makes sense for God to judge us all right now if the present arrangement of Christians and non-Christians will not change in the future. To make this point more clearly, consider what would be the result if God had judged the world 100 years ago: all of the individuals who are saved today, and who were not alive 100 years ago, would not have been saved, because they would never have existed.

You seem to assume that God has predestined individuals, but like one guy said earlier in this thread:

Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

God's knowledge of what a person will choose is based on that person's actual choice. That knowledge is contingent. As I said earlier, "His middle knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (such as that 'If X were in circumstance C, then he would freely do action A.') This knowledge is contingent on the actual choice of X; if X would actually freely do action B in Circumstance C, then God would know that he would freely do action B in Circumstance C, rather than A." By cutting time short, and judging "us all" now, God would only judge those of us who are alive or have lived--He could not judge those who do not yet exist, because they don't exist and so couldn't have chosen anything.

Otherwise, if you're saying that this bizarre logic with no proof could be true, then you're almost saying that anything can be true.

There are only two times when "almost" matters, and this is neither of those times. I would also disagree with your assertion, given my prior comments to which you are referring.

Theology, as it has been said many times, truly is the naked emperor. By potentially wearing any imaginary clothes, it's actually wearing nothing. I could put on a thousand different theologies, each one affecting who I am and how I act. God, then, is truly unknowable because even the most basic tenets of theology are guess work. Some people are creationists. Some people are theistic evolutionists. Some people believe in eternal hell. Some don't. Some believe in free will. Others don't. The truth is completely obfuscated.

First, no one that isn't you said anything about "any." And when you said that, you were incorrect.

Second, given that X and not-X cannot both be true, the logical conclusion is that some of those views are incorrect, and others (perhaps) are correct, but that at the very least, not both are correct. The illogical conclusion, which you have modeled so effectively, is that because you don't know whether X or not-X is true, Q--a more important concept to which X/not-X is an incidental fact--cannot be known. You may as well say: "Some people believe thunder is the sound of angels bowling. Some people believe that thunder is the sound of air rushing to fill the vacuum left after a lightning strike. The truth is obfuscated." Or you could say: "Some people believe that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Some people believe that he was an opportunistic liar. Therefore, World War II will forever be a mystery."

The Molinism explanation is, safe to say, nothing more than philosophical masturbation. The idea that god creates people in certain places based on whether or not they would believe is pretty intellectually elastic, but this is just untenable. Why create non-believers amongst believers anyway? Why create the African tribesmen and then make the missionaries go where they could be killed, when he can just put them from birth in a position to believe?

I wrote that God’s middle knowledge is knowledge of all true counterfactuals, such as that “If X were in circumstance C, then he would freely do action A.” You are asking me why, if God knows that X would do A in circumstance C, God didn’t simply create X in circumstance D? But we aren’t talking about D, and X’s choice may well have been completely different in D than in C, meaning that God would gain nothing by creating a world where X is in D rather than in C.

It goes back to the same fundamental problem. Purpose becomes absolutely indistinguishable from chance events.

Purpose needn't be distinguishable from chance events. As I said at the outset, this idea is not meant as proof of God's existence. I'm not saying, "Molinism. Therefore God exists." You seem to be missing this because you apparently can't imagine a discussion where God's existence is assumed for the sake of the discussion. It's as if someone said, "How do you reconcile God's existence with donuts?", and you chimed in, "Donuts are made by bakers, therefore they do not prove God's existence." Nobody cares. We aren't talking about whether something proves God's existence, but how it is that some specific idea's truth doesn't necessitate the falsity of some other specific idea.

The definition is just a definition, and none of them touch upon who a person actually is. It obviously won't draw out its own metaphysical implications. Just existing isn't good enough because a rock can exist. Life doesn't work either. A bacteria has life. A personality, a person? No, there are six billion of those in the world. There has to be something more to define an individual in relationship to being. If everything that makes me who I am is altered, then how could I be the same being? If I'm someone else with totally different qualities, then how can I make similar choices?

You asked for a definition of "being" that was not contingent on material existence. I gave you seven. That they do not define "person" is irrelevant, since "person" is clearly narrower than "being." A rock is, under (b)(ii), a being, but is not a "person." In any event, I think that the word you're looking for is "person," not "being," when you say, "If everything that makes me who I am is altered, then how could I be the same being?" And, obviously, that's a silly counterfactual, since if everything that makes you who you are was altered, then you would not exist, since your existence is one thing that makes you who you are.

One sin condemned all men. It's the same thing. I'm condemned regardless of what I did.

It's hardly the same thing at all. On the one hand, a sinless person would be condemned; on the other, a sinless person would not be condemned. Only if a sinless person would be condemned could anyone even assert a claim of injustice, and even then only the sinless person would be justified in even asserting it.

If there is no one who would ever not sin, then I blame God, because it can't be a choice if everyone does the exact same thing.

To demonstrate how false this is, consider the following real-life example. I was discussing with some acquaintances whether or not God exists. We assumed on the one hand that He did, and on the other that He did not, and tried to figure out the consequences of each assumption. I made a statement that took as its premise God's existence, and one fellow responded thus:

:lol

No.

Another responded thus:

Firstly, :lol. If it's an objective morality, everyone has the same claim.

Finally, later in the discussion, yet a third individual said this: "He said a non-existent deity should be placed above your own family," clearly showing that he was like the other two in failing to delineate sufficiently between assumptions. Now, did those three fellows have a choice in making this fundamental error, or does the fact that they did the exact same thing preclude that possibility?

I never argued, and I doubt anyone else would argue, that Christians believe that all individuals do "the exact same thing." There are many ways to sin, so everyone could be condemned for a completely different act compared with every other person, and they would not have chosen to do the exact same thing as everyone--or anyone--else.

According to classical theology, angels have individual choices whether or not to disobey, but not humans for whatever reason.

Angels and humans do both have choices as to whether to disobey or not. The fact that there exist in Christianity fallen angels shows that that is the case. The difference is that angels are not descended from one couple that brought down the whole universe with their sin. ("At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Matt. 22:30). The other difference is that humans have the opportunity to choose again, after having chosen incorrectly. Angels do not. Even assuming that a human could not live a sinless life (or was condemned merely because of Adam's sin), I think I'd prefer the availability of forgiveness for my transgressions over an ability to not transgress with no hope of salvation if I ever did.

It's right there in the bible.

Right there! In Mgoblue 2:01! Right freaking there!

It doesn't matter if Jesus ordered the persecuted to flee in this one circumstance.

Let's not forget why that section of the Bible even showed up in my post: you quoted a verse out of context, mangling its meaning in the process. I showed that you had clearly misinterpreted it. I was not citing it to show that God would never order a killing.

Second, you are once again forgetting the temporal element. It matters very much that Christ ordered the persecuted to flee, since the persecuted to whom He was speaking were Christians, and you are wanting to bring in examples of God's orders to Jews living hundreds of years earlier. It's as if someone said, "Do you think God will condemn people to Hell long after the judgment of everyone, when people are already living in either eternal bliss or eternal damnation?", and you chimed in, "Of course He could! Look at what He did BEFORE that!"

It proves that god can order justified killings on even a war-like scale. Don't you just hate it when there's that possibility without any proof?

First, which is it? Does "it prove" something, or is it "without any proof"?

Second, the possibility of what?

I tried to think of an example upon which everyone is in universal agreement, but I honestly couldn't think of one.

First, I was speaking more of the concepts of right and wrong as a category of human thought, rather than of particular actions that everyone agrees on. As to the former, why should an individual who believes that some actions are right and some wrong be more likely to survive than one who has no such conception? It seems to me that a moral sense is an evolutionary liability rather than an asset. Morality functions to foreclose certain acts that the amoral individual could engage in. The apeman who is loathe to kill another apeman will not only be at a disadvantage in a conflict with an apeman who has no moral conception of killing, but in addition, and because of this, moral apemen are likely to be less successful at propagating their genes. It follows that you should expect amoral humans today to be the norm, rather than the exception.

As for specific actions that are universally regarded as wrong, I suggest murder and rape. I don't know that they are universally regarded as wrong, but I imagine that they are, or very close to being so. Evolution would seem to favor a moral sense that killing individuals of the opposite gender is wrong, but that killing individuals of the same gender is not wrong--or positively right. This is particularly true of males, who can reproduce virtually until death. As for rape, for obvious reasons it seems that the moral rightness of rape would be a byproduct of a morality developed by evolution. In sum, the existence of a conception of right and wrong as a category of human thought seems improbable given (mere) evolution, and the particular morality that predominates seems even more improbable.

 

[soul creator]

Second, given that X and not-X cannot both be true, the logical conclusion is that some of those views are incorrect, and others (perhaps) are correct, but that at the very least, not both are correct. The illogical conclusion, which you have modeled so effectively, is that because you don't know whether X or not-X is true, Q--a more important concept to which X/not-X is an incidental fact--cannot be known. You may as well say: "Some people believe thunder is the sound of angels bowling. Some people believe that thunder is the sound of air rushing to fill the vacuum left after a lightning strike. The truth is obfuscated." Or you could say: "Some people believe that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Some people believe that he was an opportunistic liar. Therefore, World War II will forever be a mystery."

so what standard do you use to determine that Supernatural Claim A is "correct" and Supernatural Claim B is "incorrect". In normal discussion, one uses evidence to determine if one claim is more likely to be true compared to another. But when it comes to supernatural claims, as believers love to mention, traditional standards of evidence no longer apply (you can't scientifically find god! god doesn't have to prove himself to you!) After all, if boring old natural evidence worked to determine that one claim is correct and the others are false, then it wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

In our normal day to day lives, we use, well, reality-based assumptions to determine what's "true" or not. In the religious world, "reality" bends to the whim of whatever the divine being feels like doing at any given time. Just when you think dead people stay dead, he goes and resurrects someone (himself?). Just when all the evidence points to the fact that human beings are animals like everyone else, he goes and puts an unobservable "soul" inside everyone. So, how do you resolve those supernatural conflicts and choose to believe one supernatural claim over another, if supernatural claims can't actually be evaluated by normal evidence?

 

[jdogmoney]

That isn't the problem. The question isn't, "Why should God's nature be as it is?" The point is merely that it is as it is.

See, here's where we differ. If God is the standard for objective morality, he should be able to explain himself beyond "because I say so". To use the "Heavenly Father" analogy, when a child is punished for, say, playing in the street, there's a reason. Playing in the street is dangerous, and the child shouldn't do it.

If a parent punishes a kid for disobeying an arbitrary order that has no justification, they aren't a very good parent.

[Also, children outgrow their parents. So there's that.]

Um. I don't want to continue this thread's tradition of lonq quotes and replies, so I'll just summarize:

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Even if Hitler weren't a true Scotsman--er, Catholic--he certainly used the rhetoric of Catholicism to achieve his goals, and a major part of the justification of the persecution of the Jews was that they "killed God". If it wasn't Hitler's motivation, it was certainly fuel for the fire.

And I assume you discount bin Laden because you think he's wrong. My point wasn't Christianity is responsible for deaths, my point was religion is a major factor in far too many deaths. Atheism isn't a motivating factor. No one kills because he is an atheist. Atheism is neutral. People do kill because they think it's God's work. This much is a fact. Think of those horrible people who starve children because God said so.

Besides, Lincoln was closer to an atheist than a Christian, and he was a better leader than most everyone else put together. Also he invented the chokeslam.

Or, to put it another way. You honestly prefer in a leader "God said I should kill these people" to "no...no, actually, I don't believe in God"?

Encouraged?

Encouraged.


Okay, your dismissal of my point brings something else to mind.

Assume you're right. God is morality, I'm going to hell, you aren't. God's morality is perfect, and all have fallen short of his standards, but you believe Jesus was God, so that doesn't matter.

From the point of view you and a lot of other people seem to have about atheist morality, wherein we only behave morally due to pragmaticism or whatever...why do believers behave morally? You can't possibly live up to the standard of God, and it doesn't matter anyway because Jesus gives you a blank slate, so why bother?

Is this double standard for the behavior of humanity just because you see yourself as better than the nonbeliever?

I would advise a visit to the ophthalmologist and/or the lumber yard.

First, I was speaking more of the concepts of right and wrong as a category of human thought, rather than of particular actions that everyone agrees on. As to the former, why should an individual who believes that some actions are right and some wrong be more likely to survive than one who has no such conception? It seems to me that a moral sense is an evolutionary liability rather than an asset. Morality functions to foreclose certain acts that the amoral individual could engage in. The apeman who is loathe to kill another apeman will not only be at a disadvantage in a conflict with an apeman who has no moral conception of killing, but in addition, and because of this, moral apemen are likely to be less successful at propagating their genes. It follows that you should expect amoral humans today to be the norm, rather than the exception.

No apeman is an island.

Humans are social creatures. What is "moral" is, in almost every case, what is good for the group. Murder is bad because people don't want to be murdered themselves. People don't want to be raped. The individuals in the group that do go around raping and murdering and tying everyone's shoelaces together are the ones that are ostracized. Left to wander the wilderness on their own, they have a much smaller chance of survival and close to no chance of finding a mate. Those that play nice stay in the group and get their propagation of the species on.

This gradually led to the development of what we call empathy, which is what I tend to base my moral code on.

[Does this paragraph mean that you don't think humans evolved? Because, um...we did.]

 

[ULTROS!]

Interesting there's a thread like this here.

Anyway, I'm a practicing Catholic-Christian but with different standards, namely:

- I don't approve of extremists deeming others as sinful, forcing religious upon others, etc.
- I question some laws provided by the Church, but not necessarily put them down instantly without giving a thought about it.
- I don't gloat or shove my faith and my belief to other people.
- I will defend my faith of course but if someone to question me about it (namely the laws, etc.), I'd just probably give my opinion on it.
- Being good and doing good = my point of view on what Christianity and religions should be all bout.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I see most are only posting sporadically in the thread now. I don't even remember where I last left off, to tell you the truth. I have no idea what page it might be on.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Passing the morality question off to god’s nature does not solve the problem. 1. Using terms like good and perfect are introducing value-based concepts. Why is it good? Because it’s god’s nature. Why is it god’s nature? Because it’s perfect. Why is it perfect? Because it’s good. Thus, we’re still going in circles, and we cannot tell if objective morality is a logically coherent position. 2. Even if we understood why god’s nature is what it is, that doesn’t help get any closer to an actualized concept of morality. For instance, saying that god is a just being doesn’t tell us what is just in any particular instance. If someone commits a horrible transgression, is it just to condemn them or forgive them? One Christian may say the former and another Christian says the latter, and we cannot possibly vet either claim.

Thus, the terrorist may say, along with his victim, "I oppose unjustified killing," yet when the terrorist blows up his victim, the terrorist may think that killing is justified. So you have established nothing.

Wait, what? This is the exact the same argument I’m trying to use to prove that the idea of objective morality is nonsense. The idea that we’re all against murder is obvious. To even value your own life or another life is to desire that one isn’t killed. That desire doesn’t speak to an objective moral structure. It simply means that we have value systems. As I was trying to say, even a meerkat has some kind of values, a product of a rich interior life. To ask whether they perceive something as right or wrong is once again a question of language and words. These words simply mean the way in which one perceives an infringement upon personal values. In that way the tribal warfare present in the Old Testament isn't based on some sophisticated morality. It's just brute tribal warfare. So we’re really back to the way one would define “just” and “unjust”. I think that a Christian is no better off in properly defining these words, especially given the brutality of the Bible, and without being able to define these words an assent to some sort of moral structure is impossible.

Here is what an excuse would be: "I don't have to address that argument because it isn't thousands of years old." Here's another: "This argument is, safe to say, philosophical masturbation." Review my posts, and review your posts. Do you see anything like that somewhere?

What is there to discuss? Usually a discussion proceeds when someone tries to present actual proof. Only in theologyland is it a virtue to posit something without any proof. As soul creator points out, that is the point I was trying to make, not that the truth cannot be known. Theology likes to make claims, yes, but it has never actually come up with a method that can vet its own claims. Theologians can literally make a claim that thunder is the sound of angels bowling. It could not be disproven.

Furthermore, if X’s choice is different in D than in C, then god by virtue of choosing C over D is simply choosing what people believe, which I thought was antithetical to your entire point anyway, that people will believe in the same thing regardless of C or D. But even if X does believe the same thing as D than in C, then what’s the point? It makes no difference to choose one over the other. God is simply putting on a charade.

You mistook my point when I said that god should judge us right now. I did not literally mean right now. I meant he should have judged us from the beginning.

As I said at the outset, this idea is not meant as proof of God's existence. I'm not saying, "Molinism. Therefore God exists." You seem to be missing this because you apparently can't imagine a discussion where God's existence is assumed for the sake of the discussion.

No, I get what you’re trying to do. It’s simply that if we assume god’s existence, then this discussion is pointless, because it would be impossible to argue against god. The opposite is also pointless, however, because we could simply jump straight to a discussion about how we prove god’s existence. But that is the inherent bind of religion. If one thinks that god is real, yet god’s actions make no sense, then one has to try to make bizarre excuses to reconcile the two. Fortunately, I think that other issues such as biblical prophecy do as much to disparage the existence of god. But my point is that, if we just look at this one issue, is it proof for or against god?

You asked for a definition of "being" that was not contingent on material existence. I gave you seven. That they do not define "person" is irrelevant, since "person" is clearly narrower than "being." A rock is, under (b)(ii), a being, but is not a "person." In any event, I think that the word you're looking for is "person," not "being," when you say, "If everything that makes me who I am is altered, then how could I be the same being?" And, obviously, that's a silly counterfactual, since if everything that makes you who you are was altered, then you would not exist, since your existence is one thing that makes you who you are.

You haven’t proven at all that any of those things are not contingent on material necessity. That you can imagine something to be true doesn’t make it possible. And the second point has nothing to do with what I said. We’re assuming existence, obviously, because I am talking about the difference between one existing being and another.

It's hardly the same thing at all. On the one hand, a sinless person would be condemned; on the other, a sinless person would not be condemned. Only if a sinless person would be condemned could anyone even assert a claim of injustice, and even then only the sinless person would be justified in even asserting it.

If condemnation passed to all men but sin doesn’t, then a sinless person could presumably be condemned.

Furthermore, by saying , “If there is no one who would ever not sin, then I blame God, because it can't be a choice if everyone does the exact same thing,” I clearly meant the fact that people sin, not the way in which they choose to sin. With that out of the way, the entire idea of “choice” is kind of a loaded phrase that is probably impossible to define. We cannot peer into our own minds and know why we do certain things. These reasons are hidden away from us, and I doubt that anyone will come up with a sufficient explanation, but I do know that we are bounded. An infant, for instance, cannot choose to understand certain things that are self-evident to others*. Even the most intelligent mind is prone to certain errors. The only pure kind of choice, I imagine, would be one in which all possible things could be considered and weighed equally. One would think, then, that a sober choice between sin and not sin would result in at least some making the latter choice. Otherwise, it is a predisposed error, one cooked in by the creator. But it is also hard to imagine a choice existing as some pure concept independent of our imperfect minds too; therefore, the idea of man choosing whether or not to sin is probably an incoherent thing.

*Thus infants aren’t any more culpable for their actions, at least as eternal beings, than any other non-human forms of life with equal intelligence. If infants or children sin, yet sin is an individual choice, then it is still unjust, because that person could not have the ability to properly make a choice as we understand it.

Let's not forget why that section of the Bible even showed up in my post: you quoted a verse out of context, mangling its meaning in the process. I showed that you had clearly misinterpreted it. I was not citing it to show that God would never order a killing.

Second, you are once again forgetting the temporal element. It matters very much that Christ ordered the persecuted to flee, since the persecuted to whom He was speaking were Christians, and you are wanting to bring in examples of God's orders to Jews living hundreds of years earlier. It's as if someone said, "Do you think God will condemn people to Hell long after the judgment of everyone, when people are already living in either eternal bliss or eternal damnation?", and you chimed in, "Of course He could! Look at what He did BEFORE that!"

That’s one hell of a charge considering that you mangled what I said. I did not say that Jesus was ordering anyone’s death, as you alluded to earlier. I said that the verse is about violence, and I would say that it’s true. It inspired division. You can say that this kind of division could be just, but I say that it does lead to violence, as people turn against their own families for archaic reasons. And one can easily argue that the command to flee is itself temporal.

First, which is it? Does "it prove" something, or is it "without any proof"?

Second, the possibility of what?

Maybe I’m just not making myself clear with any of my posts. The Bible itself gives people proof that god does order death. But the fact that one can think that god orders death in the present lacks any proof. One can claim it, but one can’t prove it.

Second, I was comparing the fact that anybody can claim that god is saying something without proof to the fact that you are claiming things without any proof.

Here's Wikipedia on Hitler's religion. I would place Bush in the same "opportunistic liar" category that Dawkins suggests for Hitler, as with most politicians. For obvious reasons the bin Laden reference is irrelevant.

Is this like the “no true Scotsman” argument? The common response would be to say that perversion of religion, exploitation, and “opportunistic liars”, rather than being antithetical to Christianity, are inevitable outcomes of Christianity because it can be used to justify anything. Hitler was actually a creationist. He definitely professed a belief in a direct creator. I would also point out that many deaths from the USSR and China were mostly the result of famines. Yes, some could be classified as genocides, but some were also the result of sheer political ineptness and communist economics. This list of death tolls puts things more into context (also, most religious wars came at a time when the population was much smaller). Anyway, arguing about death toll is stupid. Would things have changed if Stalin had attempted to use religion to control people? Would he have not still tried to justify his actions? All of the horrors of colonization, often done under the guise of religion and enlightenment, are done for entirely mundane and yet horrible reasons.

 

[JGS]

Secondly, if God = Jesus, then his nature sure as hell (ha) does change. The same entity that encouraged slavery, complete eradication of peoples, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and every other terrible thing in the Old Testament is NOT the same personality that encouraged loving thy neighbor and judging not and stuff.

I mean, look at Leviticus 19:15

Spoiler

"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

and Matthew 7:1

Spoiler

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Well, God is not Jesus & both God & Jesus said so, but the two verses compliment each other not contradict if one looks at the context.

Leviticus is discussing the Law Covenant which Jesus replaced with a new standard. However, even in the Christian Church, the older men in the congregation had a right to judge in order to keep the congregation clean. They did not judge matters of life and death- unlike Jewish law.

Slavery was as much a part of the 1st century as it was in Old testament and neither could be considered an "encouragement" by God. Slavery just was. How they were treated was where the issue of morality arose in ancient days with no labor laws or prisons. It was either slavery or death.

Bottom line:

War is Hell.
People die in them.
If the enemy doesn't die, they are slaves. I'll take slavery over death myself, especially if I'm a slave in Israel.
Sodom & Gomorrah had it coming. They were like Detroit x 10.

Back on point.

I've said this before in the thread, but The Bible as a whole is not meant to get everyone to follow along, but to explain the options that come with choice. There is very little in terms of a peaceful message except on the basis of ones who worship God. Anyone else, you might as well be a Phillistine.

Biblical morality is based on what God says is moral. If others want to follow a different moral code, then so what?
Do it but it'll be a cold day in Tuscon before I adopt a any other person's version of morality, which changes constantly, instead of keeping with a pretty solid one that been around for eons.

The big difference between the Old & New has nothing to do with God but with who worshipped him. God having a physical nation allowed him to have a physical army that other nations could fight, fear, &/or respect. During Christian times, there is no physical nation, thus no army and there was never a reference to there being one although there are all types of references to death and destruction in most of the New testament books.

So whether you like the message or not, it is very clear there was no difference or "change in nature" between the Old & New Testament God - especially since they were the same.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The vast majority of worshippers don't even debate the details or even necessarily discuss them. I would go as far as to say that they aren't relevant. Faith to them is merely a reflection of morals, spirituality and that proclamation of goodness in life and after death. Despite the differences of customs, a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian and Jew share similar fundamentals and that is the improvement of man. Most of them don't acknowledge issues or questions of evolution and that isn't by default out of fear that God doesn't exist but instead the pillars of those values being questioned or dismissed. Whenever e.g. science has challenged religion, worshippers have seen it as a challenge to virtuosity and morality. This is what I've come to seen in recent times anyway.

 

[Hydranockz]

The vast majority of worshippers don't even debate the details or even necessarily discuss them. I would go as far as to say that they aren't relevant. Faith to them is merely a reflection of morals, spirituality and that proclamation of goodness in life and after death. Despite the differences of customs, a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian and Jew share similar fundamentals and that is the improvement of man. Most of them don't acknowledge issues or questions of evolution and that isn't by default out of fear that God doesn't exist but instead the pillars of those values being questioned or dismissed. Whenever e.g. science has challenged religion, worshippers have seen it as a challenge to virtuosity and morality. This is what I've come to seen in recent times anyway.

Religion and science actually go really well together...

I always like to think that the major religions are all just different views of the same thing. If I was to paint every side of a house a different colour and have every religion on one side, I would ask them, "what do you see?", they would say, "a house". They just can't accept that it is the same house because one would argue "but it is a green house" and you see my point... hopefully

 

[Mumei]

I can't think of any wars started in the name of atheism, either, but this is hardly relevant. The historical evidence simply doesn’t support fearing religious rulers as much as atheist rulers. Religious rulers have ruled nations for thousands of years; Christian rulers for at least 1600, yet nowhere do we see the kind of consistent and mass killings such as we find perpetrated by state atheists. Let’s compare the death tolls from a few state atheist regimes (as listed by Wikipedia) and, say, the Spanish Inquisition, the latter of which we can almost certainly regard as having been perpetrated by people who believed they were doing God’s work:

U.S.S.R. (1917 – 1987): 28.3 million (404,286)
People’s Republic of China (1949 – 1987): 6 million (157,895)
North Korea (1948 – 1987): 710,000 (18,205)
Cambodia (1975 – 1979): 635,000 (158,750)
Pedalcyclists killed in traffic crashes (1932 – 2008): 53,000 (697)
Cuba (1959 – 1987): 35,000 (1,250)
Albania (1944 – 1987): 25,000 (581)
Mexico (1920 – 1929): 5,000 (556)
Spanish Inquisition (1540 – 1700): 5,000 (31)

A few notes about the above: I’ve selected the nations and time periods based on the Wikipedia articles. The death tolls are the low estimates for each of the state atheist nations. The numbers are remarkably low for a number of the nations. More recent estimates—and the ones relied on by Rummel on his main page—have the U.S.S.R. at 62 million for 1917 – 1987, China at 76 million for 1949 – 1987, and North Korea at 1.6 million for 1948 to 1987. The Spanish Inquisition statistic is the highest listed estimate provided by Wikipedia. Listed beside each of the above is the average annual death toll. I’ve inserted the number of pedalcyclists killed in the U.S. as a useful comparison. Those statistics are from here.

Given all of the above, your argument that one should more fear someone in power who believes God is telling him to kill someone rings pretty hollow. The fear of an atheist in power is clearly more justified by the historical data than the similar fear of a religious individual in power. (At least on the basis of the Spanish Inquisition, which is often cited as the worst of the Church's abuses.)

It seems perfectly relevant to me.

Did Stalin have people killed because he was an atheist? Did his atheism somehow inspire him to create gulags? Or did he have people killed because was paranoid? And what of the millions who died not because of malice, but of ineptitude (e.g. people who starved as a result of state-planning that didn't plan all that well)? What did atheism have to do with their deaths?

Which of those are actually attributable to the atheism of the state or of the individual leaders of those states, even in part?

I'm not really seeing it, which makes it seem very relevant to me.