Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

He could know that, but there would be know reason to exercise that ability

I guess it depends on how you view omniscience and whether or not God is so. God has the ability to know anything and everything, but that doesn't mean he can't turn it off or on. If omniscience means unable to foreknowldge off/on, then I would say he's not.

However, even if he were, that's not the same as destiny or a lack of free will which the Bible tells us specifically when that happens. He pretty much would still be allowing us to make the choices, just not intervening.

That's the crux though, he intervened when he either created the soul that ended up sinning (as he knowingly created a soul in a particular state with he foreknowledge that it would sin rather than creating it in a manner which would have lead to no sins) or by creating the universe as it is - leading to the various factors which have influenced millions of people into either belief or disbelief.

I find that the easiest way to reconcile all of this is to simply accept that God simply isn't omniscient, he is probably not omnipotent either since if one of his perfect traits can be incorrect then so can another. If there were such a thing as a God then I think it would most likely just be a very powerful and knowledgeable being - who's playing with this universe or just us on earth in a highly advanced simulator.
At least that sounds more believable than an paradoxical being which is non-essential to the existence of the universe, earth and humanity.

God and the bible make a lot of sense if one is of the opinion that they're man-made constructs.

 

[onipex]

Then God would have known, before he even created Adam and Eve, that they would have eaten the forbidden fruit and get cast out of paradise. And he would know all the resultant offspring from the first couple, every single one of them being born as an indirect result of his creation of man and woman.
Now as he is omniscient, wouldn't he also know all men and women that would sin?
Before their "soul", or conscious mind, had even been formed.
And wouldn't he thus had the opportunity to create the first man and woman in a manner which instead would have resulted in all future descendants and human beings never sinning?

I'm merely arguing that free will is an illusion, whether you take a biblical approach or a scientific one. God has always known which men and women will chose not to believe in him; and as he created the universe with all the factors influencing a individual into believing or disbelieving he is also the indirect cause and creator of nonbelievers - which could have been prevented by creating the universe in a different way with a different set of factors.

When Adam and Eve were hiding from God he asked them where they were. I believe he knew where they were and what they did, but he still asked. He could have went right to where they were, but they were given the choice to reveal their location and what they
had done.


Just because God knows does not mean we don't have a choice.

I think as long as we have a choice we have free will. Knowing what our actions are does not take away the choice of those actions.

 

[JGS]

That's the crux though, he intervened when he either created the soul that ended up sinning (as he knowingly created a soul in a particular state with he foreknowledge that it would sin rather than creating it in a manner which would have lead to no sins) or by creating the universe as it is - leading to the various factors which have influenced millions of people into either belief or disbelief.

I find that the easiest way to reconcile all of this is to simply accept that God simply isn't omniscient, he is probably not omnipotent either since if one of his perfect traits can be incorrect then so can another. If there were such a thing as a God then I think it would most likely just be a very powerful and knowledgeable being - who's playing with this universe or just us on earth in a highly advanced simulator.
At least that sounds more believable than an paradoxical being which is non-essential to the existence of the universe, earth and humanity.

God and the bible make a lot of sense if one is of the opinion that they're man-made constructs.

I may have missed this conversaton, but what perfect trait is incorrect?

Again, I don't agree with the thought he knew Adam would sin. However, if he created him any other way, he would have either been a robot or God would have required no law meaning man would turn out exactly the way they are here in the 21st century but without even a universal morality. Neither of those options would have been beneficial to man imo.

It really just boils down to God shouldn't have bothered. :lol

But this brings back up the idea of undeserved kindness since we didn't have to be created to begin with.

 

[Shanadeus]

When Adam and Eve were hiding from God he asked them where they were. I believe he knew where they were and what they did, but he still asked. He could have went right to where they were, but they were given the choice to reveal their location and what they
had done.

But God knew before he even created Adam and Eve, that they would not reveal their location when he asked them. And as he breathed life into adam, he gave him a soul and shaped his mind (as from what i gather, the consciousness mind=the soul, it's not an important point anyway)) he purposely create a creation that would lie to him.

Just because God knows does not mean we don't have a choice.

God knowing doesn't negate the choice, God specifically creating paradise in a particular manner, including the creation of Satan, is what negated their choice.

There simply isn't such a thing as free will, and especially not if God exist.

I think as long as we have a choice we have free will. Knowing what our actions are does not take away the choice of those actions.

When you are responsible for the mind either directly or indirectly (by creating the soul or in case the soul isn't created by God - by creating the environment shaping your choice), you do take away the choice of those actions. If you insist on God being both omniscient and omnipotent, you end up with the absurd scenario of God knowingly and intentionally creating beings which would no matter what end, up not believing him.

God has already made your choice for you.

 

[Shanadeus]

I may have missed this conversation, but what perfect trait is incorrect?

His omniscience, the knowledge of everything, as it has to be limited in order for him not to be an absurd paradox. It's a non-perfect trait as it is limited knowledge rather than the perfect trait of knowing all things.

Again, I don't agree with the thought he knew Adam would sin. However, if he created him any other way, he would have either been a robot or God would have required no law meaning man would turn out exactly the way they are here in the 21st century but without even a universal morality. Neither of those options would have been beneficial to man imo.

It doesn't matter which way he created Adam, the point is that he did create Adam.
And he created him in a particular way, with the foreknowledge that the way Adam was designed would lead to him telling a lie and subsequently be thrown out of paradise. But with his omniscience he could create an Adam which just as well wouldn't have lied.
And what strikes me as absurd is that God made a choice which led to more suffering.

Both Adams are robots if you wanna use that word to describe a person created by a creator fully aware of exactly what the results of his creating and the actions of his creation will be.

It really just boils down to God shouldn't have bothered. :lol

But this brings back up the idea of undeserved kindness since we didn't have to be created to begin with.

Which is why the very notion of a God strikes me as completely unnecessary. It makes a lot more sense if the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being, if it was simply just created because it is an inevitable event.

 

[onipex]

But God knew before he even created Adam and Eve, that they would not reveal their location when he asked them. And as he breathed life into adam, he gave him a soul and shaped his mind (as from what i gather, the consciousness mind=the soul, it's not an important point anyway)) he purposely create a creation that would lie to him.



God knowing doesn't negate the choice, God specifically creating paradise in a particular manner, including the creation of Satan, is what negated their choice.

There simply isn't such a thing as free will, and especially not if God exist.



When you are responsible for the mind either directly or indirectly (by creating the soul or in case the soul isn't created by God - by creating the environment shaping your choice), you do take away the choice of those actions. If you insist on God being both omniscient and omnipotent, you end up with the absurd scenario of God knowingly and intentionally creating beings which would no matter what end up not believing him - God has already made your choice.

God has not made the choice for you.

He knew that Adam could sin. What I mean is that I think god sees the result of every choice we could make, but there is no set path. He knows our hearts and minds and I can't think of a time when I only had one thought or one choice in my mind.

I can usually see clearly what the right and wrong choices are to a situation and the likely outcomes to those choices . If I have no choice then what is the point of having a mind that decide what path to take?

Adam was tempted to eat the fruit the same way Jesus was tempted. If they had no will to choose than there really is was no temptation. Also if there is no free will then there is no sin. You can can't disobey god if he is the one choosing your actions.

 

[Shanadeus]

God has not made the choice for you.

He pretty much has, if I start believing in God tomorrow it is 100% due to him. As all of creation come from him.

He knew that Adam could sin. What I mean is that I think god sees the result of every choice we could make, but there is no set path. He knows our hearts and minds and I can't think of a time when I only had one thought or one choice in my mind.

And what created Adam? God did.
He took an active part of the construction of Adams soul, of his very mind and consciousness. He also created the angel that tempted Adam, he created the tree bearing the fruit of temptation, and everything else that made Adam sin. It doesn't matter how many times God would replay that moment, if all the factors were the same every rewind - Adam was, with the conditions God had set, destined to sin.
And it was a deliberate cause of action dictated by God, unless you believe him to lack omniscience.

In which case this whole dilemma goes poof.

I can usually see clearly what the right and wrong choices are to a situation and the likely outcomes to those choices . If I have no choice then what is the point of having a mind that decide what path to take?

I'm not denying you choice, or a sense of moral, I'm just saying that ultimately, every action you take is pre-destined and decided by God - and set in rock from the very beginning of creation. No matter what "path" you pick, it's the path God created by just creating the Universe as it has been and is. He could have easily created the Universe in a different manner, and made you take a completely other path

Adam was tempted to eat the fruit the same way Jesus was tempted. If they had no will to choose than there really is was no temptation. Also if there is no free will then there is no sin. You can can't disobey god if he is the one choosing your actions.

Sure you can, if God wanted you to disobey. He can make you sin, and as God's word is law - you cannot really argue that it isn't a sin since he made your choice. That would be doubting his ineffability, which he could make you do though if he so wanted to.

 

[JGS]

His omniscience, the knowledge of everything, as it has to be limited in order for him not to be an absurd paradox. It's a non-perfect trait as it is limited knowledge rather than the perfect trait of knowing all things.

It not limited knowledge. It wopuld be a flaw if he weren't able to control it which is what te implication is - He MUST know all at ALL times which is not the case.

It doesn't matter which way he created Adam, the point is that he did create Adam.
And he created him in a particular way, with the foreknowledge that the way Adam was designed would lead to him telling a lie and subsequently be thrown out of paradise. But with his omniscience he could create an Adam which just as well wouldn't have lied.
And what strikes me as absurd is that God made a choice which led to more suffering.

You keep saying that without it being true. There is no basis for thinking that God created Adam to sin. There is basis for thinking Adam was capable of sin. Satan exploited that.

Both Adams are robots if you wanna use that word to describe a person created by a creator fully aware of exactly what the results of his creating and the actions of his creation will be.

He is not a robot if he does contrary to the will of his creator, something clearly brought out in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Ditto for Satan.

Which is why the very notion of a God strikes me as completely unnecessary. It makes a lot more sense if the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being, if it was simply just created because it is an inevitable event.

We look at it differently. Just because God would have been better off without us as his little headaches does not mean he doesn't exist or doesn't help those who want to be helped. Adam was a bad egg, but his son Abel wasn't. Satan was a bad egg, but Jesus wasn't. It still is about the choices we make in relation to his Sovreignty.

The universe's creation without a creator was not inevitable. If something is impossible to do in the first place, it remains so regardless of the timeframe.

 

[Shanadeus]

It not limited knowledge. It wopuld be a flaw if he weren't able to control it which is what te implication is - He MUST know all at ALL times which is not the case.

I agree, an omniscience which isn't limited would be even worse.

You keep saying that without it being true. There is no basis for thinking that God created Adam to sin. There is basis for thinking Adam was capable of sin. Satan exploited that.

And what is Satan?
Satan is if I'm not wrong, an angel created by God.
God created satan knowing he would inevitably fall, and become the tempter.
No choice made by Adam, or you and me, exist in a vacuum. Thus God, the creator of everything (including environments, conditions and influencing states), created a being which would due to exploitation of another creation (which he specifically created to fall from grace and turn "evil") and myriads of other factors (all created by God) inevitably sin - when he could have created an being and other set of conditions and influencing factors which would have led to an Adam that didn't sin.

He is not a robot if he does contrary to the will of his creator, something clearly brought out in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Ditto for Satan.

Well, I don't precisely take the word of the Bible as true because it itself isn't supported by evidence. For all we know, it could be the will of God that Adam would sin, yet still in the bible write that it was contrary to his will. Hell, it could be against his will while simultaneously be his will.

We look at it differently. Just because God would have been better off without us as his little headaches does not mean he doesn't exist or doesn't help those who want to be helped. Adam was a bad egg, but his sone Abel wasn't. Satan was a bad egg, but Jesus wasn't. It still is about the choices we make in relation to his Sovreignty.

I doubt that we are his headaches, it sounds more like we are a perfectly tuned clock, the whole of creation that is, which from the very beginning will tick on forever just like he wanted it to.
Which strikes me as absurd and is why I honestly prefer a universe where such an being doesn't exist, it's quite a relief there is no evidence for a God - just belief and faith.

EDIT: And now I'll take a temporary break from the discussion as I have business in real life to attend to.

But I'll be back.

 

[Kinitari]

First I want to say, thanks Shanadeus, I was trying to make this point earlier, but you seem to really be driving it home.

Also, supposing God is actually omnipotent and omniscient, he would not only know everything everywhere, he would also not be constrained by time, so he would know everything everywhere that ever had - ever will or ever could happen - and he would know the results of his actions before he even took them.

edit: The idea that God could, or would turn off his omniscience is an interesting one, but it immediately makes God flawed. He no longer knows everything, thus his actions are capable of being flawed.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I don't have to post, but this has been fun to read. Good job, all. JGS, use Kierkegaard!

 

[JGS]

First I want to say, thanks Shanadeus, I was trying to make this point earlier, but you seem to really be driving it home.

Also, supposing God is actually omnipotent and omniscient, he would not only know everything everywhere, he would also not be constrained by time, so he would know everything everywhere that ever had - ever will or ever could happen - and he would know the results of his actions before he even took them.

You were making the argument just as good but it's too closed ended. The assumptions are wrong. If omniscience requires all knowledge at all times, then the Bible itself indicates God is not omniscient since he can choose what to know and allows us choice in absence of him.

With that evidence in hand we can deduce that

God does not fit your interpretation
He is not responsible for our mistakes
Therefore, we are responsible for them

Now by thinking too hard on the matter, some have deduced that:

God is omniscient in that he knows everything all the time,
He knew Adam was going to sin because he created the temptation - Satan
Thus God is responsible for the sins against him thus,
We have no control of our sinfulness thus,
Party like it's 1999! Woohoo!!!

 

[JGS]

I agree, an omniscience which isn't limited would be even worse.



And what is Satan?
Satan is if I'm not wrong, an angel created by God.
God created satan knowing he would inevitably fall, and become the tempter.
No choice made by Adam, or you and me, exist in a vacuum. Thus God, the creator of everything (including environments, conditions and influencing states), created a being which would due to exploitation of another creation (which he specifically created to fall from grace and turn "evil") and myriads of other factors (all created by God) inevitably sin - when he could have created an being and other set of conditions and influencing factors which would have led to an Adam that didn't sin.




Well, I don't precisely take the word of the Bible as true because it itself isn't supported by evidence. For all we know, it could be the will of God that Adam would sin, yet still in the bible write that it was contrary to his will. Hell, it could be against his will while simultaneously be his will.



I doubt that we are his headaches, it sounds more like we are a perfectly tuned clock, the whole of creation that is, which from the very beginning will tick on forever just like he wanted it to.
Which strikes me as absurd and is why I honestly prefer a universe where such an being doesn't exist, it's quite a relief there is no evidence for a God - just belief and faith.

EDIT: And now I'll take a temporary break from the discussion as I have business in real life to attend to.

But I'll be back.

This is a common atheist argument

God is evil
God knew we were doomed
God is worse than Satan since he created him

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Therefore, an impossible event had to happen to replace him who does not exist that I'm unhappy with.

This boils down to blaming God for our screw-ups which is far from the truth considering all the examples that prove otherwise.

If we simply blame ourselves for our mistakes everyone would be better off. We get it honest. At the first opportunity, Adam blamed Eve for his screw up and it's been that way ever since.

 

[JGS]

I don't have to post, but this has been fun to read. Good job, all. JGS, use Kierkegaard!

I'm going to assume that's some kind of spell check since my last posts have been pretty bad in the spelling dept.:lol

 

[Kinitari]

It has nothing to do with trying to justify my 'sinning'! At least not in my case, and I don't think in Shan's case either. In essence we were trying to point out the flawed perception of God in the religions of Abraham - Omniscient and Omnipotent. The combination would imply he knows everything.

Anyway, I just looked it up and apparently this is a pretty heated concept called Theological Fatalism.

Excuse me while I read it to death!

 

[Shanadeus]

You were making the argument just as good but it's too closed ended. The assumptions are wrong. If omniscience requires all knowledge at all times, then the Bible itself indicates God is not omniscient since he can choose what to know and allows us choice in absence of him.

With that evidence in hand we can deduce that

God does not fit your interpretation
He is not responsible for our mistakes
Therefore, we are responsible for them

Now by thinking too hard on the matter, some have deduced that:

God is omniscient in that he knows everything all the time,
He knew Adam was going to sin because he created the temptation - Satan
Thus God is responsible for the sins against him thus,
We have no control of our sinfulness thus,
Party like it's 1999! Woohoo!!!

God isn't responsible for any sins against him, he merely is the cause of them and purposely created sinners whom he knew would not believe in him. And while he is evil he is also good. We have control of our sinfulness, we have control of our actions - they're just ultimately made by God from the very beginning of the Universe.

If I'm not wrong, I believe that in Islam one is fully aware of this and accept it as God is ineffable.

The universe's creation without a creator was not inevitable. If something is impossible to do in the first place, it remains so regardless of the timeframe.

Well it's not really something impossible, as it has already happened once.
And nothing is impossible, with an infinite amount of time all things will happen.
Energy and particles are randomly created in space, and over the course of a very, very, very long time - several particles will spring into reality from nowhere.
And with enough time, entire worlds and universe could possibly be created as well.

This is a common atheist argument

God is evil
God knew we were doomed
God is worse than Satan since he created him

God is evil, good and slightly absurd.
God know that we were doomed, he also knew that you would make this post the before he even created your soul - because ultimately, he made you write this.
I also don't feel it's right to call God neither evil nor good, I merely pity such a being as it is bound by it's own nature. It is aware of it's own actions before it even make them, and with ultimate knowledge of self and everything it is also utterly incapable of growing and experiencing new things - as everything is already known.

Such an static and stagnant existence sounds like hell.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

He is as absurd as a flying pink elephant, and I tend to not believe in absurdities.
If he exist... then God help us all.

Therefore, an impossible event had to happen to replace him who does not exist that I'm unhappy with.

A perfectly possible event happened, one which we simply cannot understand. And to even say it happened is a bit of a stretch, for things to happen you need a flow of time - which started with the big bang.
From our viewpoint, there has always been something there - the matter and energy was merely compressed into another shape.

This boils down to blaming God for our screw-ups which is far from the truth considering all the examples that prove otherwise.

I don't blame my screw-ups on anyone, but they and all screw-ups in the entire world are directly made by God. He set up the conditions for each and every single one, in addition to possibly creating each and every soul so that they would commit those screw-ups.

If we simply blame ourselves for our mistakes everyone would be better off. We get it honest. At the first opportunity, Adam blamed Eve for his screw up and it's been that way ever since.

Hell yes, I agree with you fully.
That's also why I'm merely discussing God's controll over all our actions, including mine right now as I'm writing this post defaming him, for fun and only hypothetically.

Because at the end of the day, a universe without God feels a whole lot more natural to me.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Your complaint (observation?) about the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions of science makes no sense; the only way that science works is if it is methodologically materialistic. Science cannot study anything beyond the natural world that we exist in, so obviously they need to do things from that perspective.

It makes sense because materialism and naturalism are presuppositions. So, of course you and scientists are going to say that science is methodologically materialistic--if you already presupposed a materialistic worldview, your methodology would follow accordingly. It's not the materialistic methodology I oppose; rather, it is the materialistic presupposition itself. Science (since the 18th century) makes no room for any supernatural or spiritual phenomena. When something happens that science cannot explain, the default position is: "Oh, well, we don't have enough technology, data, etc. yet to ascertain the precise scientific cause for said phenomena. But it cannot be supernatural because there's no such thing."

That, to me, is the most arrogant position imaginable. Science can ridicule faith all it wants, but the bottom line is: believing that supernatural phenomena cannot happen just because you cannot explain them scientifically? Now THAT takes faith.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

That, to me, is the most arrogant position imaginable. Science can ridicule faith all it wants, but the bottom line is: believing that supernatural phenomena cannot happen just because you cannot explain them scientifically? Now THAT takes faith.

Very nicely put. Many people fail to see both sides of the coin regarding the concept of faith, and that many people have it without even being aware, regardless of their religious beliefs or the connotations involved.

 

[JGS]

It has nothing to do with trying to justify my 'sinning'! At least not in my case, and I don't think in Shan's case either. In essence we were trying to point out the flawed perception of God in the religions of Abraham - Omniscient and Omnipotent. The combination would imply he knows everything.

Anyway, I just looked it up and apparently this is a pretty heated concept called Theological Fatalism.

Excuse me while I read it to death!

Then would have to show me where it says he omniscient.

Being ominpotent would just mean he's powerful to create someone capable of sin - i.e. human.

 

[Kinitari]

It makes sense because materialism and naturalism are presuppositions. So, of course you and scientists are going to say that science is methodologically materialistic--if you already presupposed a materialistic worldview, your methodology would follow accordingly. It's not the materialistic methodology I oppose; rather, it is the materialistic presupposition itself. Science (since the 18th century) makes no room for any supernatural or spiritual phenomena. When something happens that science cannot explain, the default position is: "Oh, well, we don't have enough technology, data, etc. yet to ascertain the precise scientific cause for said phenomena. But it cannot be supernatural because there's no such thing."

That, to me, is the most arrogant position imaginable. Science can ridicule faith all it wants, but the bottom line is: believing that supernatural phenomena cannot happen just because you cannot explain them scientifically? Now THAT takes faith.

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean it is supernatural. Making the assumption that it is supernatural because it cannot be immediately explained by science is an absolutely silly position to hold.

And how would anyone even come to a supernatural conclusion anyway? Let's take the Big Bang Theory for example, Science does not have a concrete answer for the beginning of everything - it can't figure out what happened before the Big Bang - so what... does that immediately make what happened before super natural?

No, such a mindset, such a lazy thought process goes directly against the scientific method, the same method that has given us so much today in our modern society.

 

[Pandaman]

Then would have to show me where it says he omniscient.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 147:5&version=KJV

 

[Zaptruder]

Then would have to show me where it says he omniscient.

Being ominpotent would just mean he's powerful to create someone capable of sin - i.e. human.

The fuck man? You're trying to redefine words now?

Sure, the problems of god decrease once you redefine him as something other than all powerful, all knowing, all good.

But that weakens god's position, not strengthens it.

Plus if you take that tact, you might as well just make up more shit until the idea of god can accurately fit inside the limits of our knowledge.

At that point, what exactly are you worshipping? God, or an idol construct?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean it is supernatural. Making the assumption that it is supernatural because it cannot be immediately explained by science is an absolutely silly position to hold.

And how would anyone even come to a supernatural conclusion anyway? Let's take the Big Bang Theory for example, Science does not have a concrete answer for the beginning of everything - it can't figure out what happened before the Big Bang - so what... does that immediately make what happened before super natural?

No, such a mindset, such a lazy thought process goes directly against the scientific method, the same method that has given us so much today in our modern society.

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean there must be an unknown scientific explanation for it. Making the assumption that there must be an unknown scientific explanation because supernatural phenomena cannot exist is an absolutely silly position to hold.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean there must be an unknown scientific explanation for it. Making the assumption that there must be an unknown scientific explanation because supernatural phenomena cannot exist is an absolutely silly position to hold.

Who says that there is an unknown scientific explanation? It is only that the explanation is unknown. But by even -considering- the explanation to be supernatural, it is immediately outside the realm of science. Your problem is that for hundreds of years science has been divorced from the supernatural - well it pretty much has to be for it to still be science.

 

[Slightly Live]

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean there must be an unknown scientific explanation for it. Making the assumption that there must be an unknown scientific explanation because supernatural phenomena cannot exist is an absolutely silly position to hold.

So, taking an example from our current knowledge pool of things we cannot currently fully explain, say quantum physics, are you seriously saying we should include the notion that god or some kind of supernatural force is at play because we cannot currently explain things?

Seriously? :lol

Science is science, the very goal of science is to attempt to explain everything we can see around us, if we can't explain it, then the science in that area isn't up to scratch quite yet. No way should anyone ever hold out for some godly force.

Such a backward way of thinking.

 

[Poimandres]

Science (since the 18th century) makes no room for any supernatural or spiritual phenomena. When something happens that science cannot explain, the default position is: "Oh, well, we don't have enough technology, data, etc. yet to ascertain the precise scientific cause for said phenomena. But it cannot be supernatural because there's no such thing."

That, to me, is the most arrogant position imaginable. Science can ridicule faith all it wants, but the bottom line is: believing that supernatural phenomena cannot happen just because you cannot explain them scientifically? Now THAT takes faith.

This is kind of getting caught up in wording I feel. Does "supernatural" imply that something is fundamentally unexplainable? If so, I can see why science would reject the notion (for better or worse).

Yesterdays magic is todays science. If enough evidence surfaces of, say, consciousness not being contained in the brain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7621608.stm) then science would need to adapt. But the official line wouldn't be "supernatural forces at work" it would be "forces at work we don't yet understand." Does a universe in which everything can be scientifically understood with the right tools invalidate God? Not really. It just means we're able to read the language of God.

Maybe things do exist that humans will never be able to adequately understand/explain. The "realm of God" if you will. Maybe... I guess we'll find out eventually :lol

 

[soul creator]

Simple question then:

Where do souls come from?

me

 

[Kinitari]

me

We're all fucked.

 

[Pandaman]

me

do you also handle distribution?

 

[jdogmoney]

So, in this discussion, I've managed to suss out the following as some of what this guy (not necessarily all Christians, mind) believes:

1. Humanity is responsible for its own choices.
2. Humanity is inherently evil. (Due to inherited sin.)
3. God punishes humanity for choosing evil.

If man is inherently evil, how can we be blamed for fulfilling our "programming"?

Spoiler

He hasn't answered this question yet.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

"Oh, well, we don't have enough technology, data, etc. yet to ascertain the precise scientific cause for said phenomena. But it cannot be supernatural because there's no such thing."

Well, yeah, if we don't understand something yet, then... we don't understand something yet. Sort of a tautology. Saying "MAGIC!" doesn't serve as an explanation.

 

[Pandaman]

So, in this discussion, I've managed to suss out the following as some of what this guy (not necessarily all Christians, mind) believes:

1. Humanity is responsible for its own choices.
2. Humanity is inherently evil. (Due to inherited sin.)
3. God punishes humanity for choosing evil.

If man is inherently evil, how can we be blamed for fulfilling our "programming"?

Spoiler

He hasn't answered this question yet.

you could probably save yourself a page by establishing now that free will is not an excuse for inherited sin.

 

[soul creator]

do you also handle distribution?

I have soul creating and distribution factories worldwide. I can usually provide enough souls for everyone...though China can be a bit stressful at times.

 

[Mumei]

It makes sense because materialism and naturalism are presuppositions. So, of course you and scientists are going to say that science is methodologically materialistic--if you already presupposed a materialistic worldview, your methodology would follow accordingly. It's not the materialistic methodology I oppose; rather, it is the materialistic presupposition itself. Science (since the 18th century) makes no room for any supernatural or spiritual phenomena. When something happens that science cannot explain, the default position is: "Oh, well, we don't have enough technology, data, etc. yet to ascertain the precise scientific cause for said phenomena. But it cannot be supernatural because there's no such thing."

That, to me, is the most arrogant position imaginable. Science can ridicule faith all it wants, but the bottom line is: believing that supernatural phenomena cannot happen just because you cannot explain them scientifically? Now THAT takes faith.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it would seem that if something happens in the natural world, there is probably a natural cause for it. I suppose it might be hypothetically true that there might be some supernatural cause that preceded the observable, natural cause (e.g. God caused the lightning to strike the house, and he did so by putting the natural events into motion) that we are unable to detect (being that it exists outside of nature / reality) - but even if that hypothetical is true, it is something that scientists cannot study or measure, so it is essentially irrelevant to them.

There's nothing wrong with the presupposition that there is nothing supernatural; science wouldn't work with a Get-Out-Of-Explanations Card like "It was [Insert Deity Here]!"

me

Good enough for me.

*prostrates*

 

[JGS]

The fuck man? You're trying to redefine words now?

Sure, the problems of god decrease once you redefine him as something other than all powerful, all knowing, all good.

But that weakens god's position, not strengthens it.

Plus if you take that tact, you might as well just make up more shit until the idea of god can accurately fit inside the limits of our knowledge.

At that point, what exactly are you worshipping? God, or an idol construct?

Some clarification:

God in the Bible is all knowing
God in the Bible is all powerful
God in the Bible is all good

I don't believe I said anything different than that.

That doesn't change the fact that you keep saying the same incorrect statement. You are adding a stipulation that REQUIRES God to know all things at all times (Talk about a weakness/flaw, he can't even stop seeing the future if he chooses), something that the Bible distinctly says he does not do from the second chapter of the first book to the last chapter of the last book, the Bible is about people making making choices to obey him or disobey him UNLESS he interferes.

It is not a weakness for him to want to see how people decide whether to worship him voluntarily.
It's not a weakness to make humans...human.
It's not a weakness of his that you don't understand he gives humans the capacity to obey or disobey him.

It's a strange position to take that God created man, caused man to sin, created Satan, formed a nation with laws to follow, had his son come to earth, die for our sins, and (eventually) destroy a large chunk of people who refuse to worship him. How does that make sense even to someone who thinks the Bible makes no sense? I know some think the lord works in mysterious ways, but that's just ridiculous.

The Bible itself disproves your "evidence" which is simply your opinion. You can have it if you want to, but don't think for a second anyone other than a skeptic backs you up on it. You may say that you're smarter than a bunch of writers who were somehow smart enough to delude billions of people simply because you changed what it means to be God, that doesn't make it so.

The weakest part of the argument is to use a wrong fallacy and then dismiss God as if trying to be smarter than a Book somehow magically (oops scientifically) changes the odds that the universe and all life in it were whipped up out of thin air.The odds are exactly the same - zilch.

What would be nice is if people tried to devote a portion of brain power looking for the one cell that defied cell theory to form all life as we know it rather than over-over-analyze verses they don't understand from the get go apparently.

 

[Peronthious]

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean there must be an unknown scientific explanation for it. Making the assumption that there must be an unknown scientific explanation because supernatural phenomena cannot exist is an absolutely silly position to hold.

What offends me about this is I often come across people who, when I bring up a scientific explanation for something that is well established, immediately disregard anything I say because it somehow tosses God out of the picture. I'm not saying this is you, I'm not saying anyone on this board harbors those views, but the point you're making in this post is one I've heard many times from people who seem so dense that if I explain to them how combustion actually occurs they'd ignore the evidence and still attribute it solely to some supernatural act.

 

[Big-ass Ramp]

The Official Atheism Thread

 

[FunkyMunkey]

The Official Atheism Thread

Or: The Official Defend Your Beliefs Against Others Who Have Different Ones Regarding Things No One Knows the Answer To And Wont Until We're Dead Thread.

Spoiler

some of the discussion here is fascinating

 

[Zaptruder]

Some clarification:

God in the Bible is all knowing
God in the Bible is all powerful
God in the Bible is all good

I don't believe I said anything different than that.

That doesn't change the fact that you keep saying the same incorrect statement. You are adding a stipulation that REQUIRES God to know all things at all times (Talk about a weakness/flaw, he can't even stop seeing the future if he chooses), something that the Bible distinctly says he does not do from the second chapter of the first book to the last chapter of the last book, the Bible is about people making making choices to obey him or disobey him UNLESS he interferes.

You persist in arbitarily redefining these concepts such that they work.

Here's the big catch; they're not functions/abilities that can work together. In practice, they contradict the shit out of each other, and no amount of mental gymnastics provides a concrete and absolute rebuttal against it otherwise.


The context in which I replied to you in is that you're saying: Been omnipotent (i.e. all powerful), just means that he's...

No man, it means he's all powerful and capable of doing anything and everything he damn well wishes.

Trying to define it anyway else is just an attempt to assuage the cognitive dissonance that the concept of god creates.


Similarly, trying to rationalize what an all powerful, all knowing being would do with his all power and all knowing is just you attempting to reconcile the seeming contradictions on this issue.

 

[Drastic]

I'll try to keep this simple so I'll break it down into three questions.

1. What is the version of hell you are discussing consist of? Eternal pain and anguish, fire and brimstone, all those things we hate in life and suffering? Or something else?

Not a "version," just what I have come to understand as the Christian biblical belief.

2. When do we have the opportunity to accept God? During our lives and the afterlife? Or just during our lives?

I don't know. But if one were ask the question, I believe the opportunity would have been afforded during life for that individual.

3. Why would the removal of hell remove our free will? It would remove the 'punishment' of not believing in God is all.

You're missing my point. There is no "removal" of hell. If there were no free will, god's subjects would of course naturally believe in him, so hell (separation from god) would simply not exist or at least would not be occupied.

To me, it sounds like this argument is worded to prevent God from seeming like a cruel creature, he isn't actually sending you to hell, you're sending yourself to hell - all you need to do is accept him and you wont have to suffer (assuming your version of hell includes suffering).

Again, my understanding is you don't get "sent" to hell, you basically choose it by rejecting God. And of course in this belief system, no, it's supposedly not pleasant.

Why does God even require one to believe in him, what is it to him?
I think the basis is in the relationship. If you reject (disbelieve) him, of course there is no relationship.


He is a perfect all knowing all powerful being, if the creatures he has created to have 'free will' - something which seems very very essential to the Christian doctrine you mention - exercise their free will and cannot be brought to believe in God, when they die regardless of their goods or bads, is it not cruel that they are denied heaven?

I don't know, a lot of it I don't understand. But I bet the argument would be that its not that the person "cannot be brought to believe" but rather "refuses to believe."

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm sorry, but if something unexplainable happens, it does not immediately mean there must be an unknown scientific explanation for it. Making the assumption that there must be an unknown scientific explanation because supernatural phenomena cannot exist is an absolutely silly position to hold.

The easiest explanation is that there is absolutely no way possible to examine from our incomplete knowledge what is and isn't supernatural. Scientists don't vitiate supernatural claims because they don't believe in the supernatural (although many don't). They do it because the supernatural cannot be examined by their methods. And if science attempts to contravene something like Intelligent Design, it is not because the supernatural can never exist under any circumstances. It is because ID just isn't a good explanation, and the IDers can't admit that, which is its own separate argument.

Scientists don't usually try to explain the unknown based on a total presupposition of naturalism. They do it because we know the problem, we know that matter behaves by a steady set of rules, and we have explanations that just need to be tested. At one point, the idea that there was something before the Big Bang just wasn't possible to investigate. Perhaps if there was a supernatural explanation, then it forever would have remained impossible to investigate. But there are some major clues about what happened before the Big Bang, and there are a couple of competing explanations that are at this point hypothetically possible but very difficult to test. Those major clues make that investigation possible. Before the Big Bang Theory, general relativity predicted such a singularity. These things that are open to investigations can hardly be called completely unknowns.

 

[Drastic]

Again, you can't choose to believe. You form an opinion based on the evidence you see. A real choice would be God descending in a pillar of heavenly glory and saying unto all the nations, "Yea, I am real! ...Lookit."

Of course one can choose to believe in any religion. That's actually the definition of faith, believing in something that is unproven.

If Hell is defined as merely a separation from God, pretty sure that's not that big a deal. I've lived on Earth for a while without God. If there is an afterlife (which I hope is not the case. Who wants to live forever?), I can be content without God for longer.

Fair enough.

Also, if you define right as what God does, does that make it right for you to go out and sic a she-bear on children for making fun of someone's bald head? That's what God does, after all, and we should all want to be like God, right?

Sorry, but you lost me here.

 

[jdogmoney]

I don't know, a lot of it I don't understand. But I bet the argument would be that its not that the person "cannot be brought to believe" but rather "refuses to believe."

Wow, that...that's one of the more offensive things I've read in this thread.

Yeah, I "refuse" to believe. I love being separated from every single person I know except for two or three guys. I particularly enjoy the patronizing, dismissive attitude I get for questioning dogma. The alienation is great. My favorite part, though, was when I couldn't be with the girl I love because I didn't believe.

I'm not saying this is your argument, Drastic.

But a hearty "Fuck you" to anyone who says it.

I tried.

For years, I tried.

Don't dare tell me I wasn't believing hard enough.


[Again, not towards you in particular, Drastic.]

Wow, that's the first emotion I've put into this thread. Well done, me.

Um. Sorry about that.

Back on track.

Why is it the only expression of free will is an either/or choice pertaining to God's existence?

God talked to a few folks in the Bible. Was their free will taken away because they knew for a fact God exists?

 

[jdogmoney]

Sorry, but you lost me here.

2 Kings, Chapter 2, verses 23-24, concerning Elisha:

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them

God sicced a bear on some kids making fun of a bald guy. This is a good thing, if God is always good. Should we emulate the goodness of God and set a bear on any kid who makes fun of baldness?

 

[Mumei]

2 Kings, Chapter 2, verses 23-24, concerning Elisha:

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them

God sicced a bear on some kids making fun of a bald guy. This is a good thing, if God is always good. Should we emulate the goodness of God and set a bear on any kid who makes fun of baldness?

I really need to get this book.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Of course one can choose to believe in any religion. That's actually the definition of faith, believing in something that is unproven.

If you tried as hard as you could, would you be able to believe that you have two heads? Or that the sun is purple? The idea of choosing to believe in something is insane -- all the more so when it's a fundamental philosophical question. That's not belief. Call it self-delusion, or "faith", or just faking it, but it's not belief. At least not in the way we use that word in every other context.

 

[Drastic]

I tried.

For years, I tried.

Don't dare tell me I wasn't believing hard enough.

Interesting. I've not heard someone say this before, though I've not often been in this type of discussion.

You had trouble believing in a creator, or a specific doctrine or? (if you don't mind my asking)

2 Kings, Chapter 2, verses 23-24, concerning Elisha:...

Interesting story, but I think it could be argued that Elisha cursed these kids and caused this to happen.

A better story for me to question is the guy who put his hand on the box that contained God, as it was possibly going to fall into the river they were crossing. Poof, dead.

 

[Drastic]

If you tried as hard as you could, would you be able to believe that you have two heads? Or that the sun is purple? The idea of choosing to believe in something is insane -- all the more so when it's a fundamental philosophical question. That's not belief. Call it self-delusion, or "faith", or just faking it, but it's not belief. At least not in the way we use that word in every other context.

Well those things that can easily be proven false are not believable. I can look in the mirror, I see the sun on most days, etc.

So, you think all people who follow a religion are insane?

 

[Pandaman]

Interesting story, but I think it could be argued that Elisha cursed these kids and caused this to happen.

How?

 

[Mumei]

Interesting. I've not heard someone say this before, though I've not often been in this type of discussion.

You had trouble believing in a creator, or a specific doctrine or? (if you don't mind my asking)

You haven't heard an atheist say that they felt unable to believe?

I have had trouble with belief from as early as I can remember - as a child, I didn't understand the fairness of eternal punishment for finite evil (disbelief), the justice in being creating human beings flawed and with full knowledge of what that would lead to while still blaming humans, and I didn't understand the idea that God could have always existed. I've always felt that the whole thing seemed a bit... dubious. It wasn't until I was 12 or 13 that I realized I didn't believe and started thinking of myself as agnostic and wasn't until 18 or 19 that I told anyone else, but I've always had trouble believing.

And Rich Uncle Skeleton hit the nail on the head. I believe the things that I believe with sincerity. I can't just will myself to believe that a God exists, let alone a specific, personal God with an interest in me.

Edit:

So, you think all people who follow a religion are insane?

... This seems like a non sequitur from what he said.

I think that there are reasons other than evidence or insanity that would cause a person to follow a religion - social pressures, personal experiences, comfort provided by religious institutions, etc.